Performing radiation tests on animals is not a new concept, but this will be the first time that NASA performs such tests on animals as evolved as monkeys. The key to the tests is to understand what the effects of deep space radiation -- at the levels astronauts would be exposed to while traveling to and from Mars -- will have on a human. NASA argues that the closer the test subject is to a human the better.

Over the last couple weeks I have read a breadth of articles sounding off from both sides on the various animal rights issues, with most of the commentary being decidedly against the testing. I don't have a problem with individuals voicing their opinion, in fact I agree with them on some points. What I do have an issue with is when individuals misrepresent the facts to make a political statement, or just get the facts wrong all together. So, in that spirit, let's take a look at what we do know (or at least the facts as best we know them).

First of all, the monkeys will be exposed to very low levels of radiation. The monkeys have been previously trained to perform tasks, and the researchers want to see how the radiation effects their ability to perform these tasks. This is to simulate what the astronauts would actually be exposed to. How much radiation is this? Honestly, I don't have exact numbers to give you at this time. But NASA tends to report radiation levels in terms of cancer risk. And as far as traveling to Mars, NASA has stated that they believe that the amount of radiation the astronauts would absorb during their 500 or so days outside Earth's protection would increase their cancer risk anywhere from 1% - 19% (with the most likely increase around 3%). Clearly, this is a large range. A healthy 40 year-old male can expect about a 20% chance of dying from cancer here on Earth. So, effectively an astronaut returning from mars would be at a 21% - 39% risk of diagnosis.

All of this is of course assuming that NASA used current designs standards on the Orion Crew Module. However, there are other technologies being proposed and tested that would further reduce the radiation exposure to the astronauts. So the previous estimates are likely on the high end.

Another common theme that I observed from other writings was the feeling that if NASA wants to do these tests that they should "run the tests on themselves". With the purpose of making such a statement, of course, is to illustrate that since NASA would never do such tests on humans, they therefore should not do the tests on monkeys either.

The problem with this argument is that the purpose of these tests is to see what effects we can expect to see when astronauts do travel to Mars so that we can prepare to deal with them. So, in a way we will expose humans to these levels of radiation. Only they will be in deep space, a long way from medical personal and tests that could evaluate their condition. That is why it is important to know what to anticipate. And why aren't we looking at human test subjects here on Earth? In some ways we are, data is being collected from volunteers that have received radiation doses from cancer treatments or worked around radiation labs. But, those are not "controlled" tests, hence the tests being conducted on monkey test subjects.

Clearly, it serves no purpose to cause great harm or death to these monkeys. The goal is to create an environment similar to that experienced by astronauts in space, that way we can anticipate symptoms and create treatments before the astronauts ever leave for space. NASA has also said that once the tests are completed that the monkeys will be well cared for the rest of their lives by teams on veterinarians and clinicians, and that no further tests are planned for the animals.

This is definitely a complex issue. Personally I am somewhat conflicted on the matter; on the one hand it serves a great benefit for future space exploration and enhances the safety of the human astronauts, while on the other hand all the ethics and morality of animal testing comes into play. At this point, given the facts that I have been able to obtain, I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. The monkeys appear to be well taken care of and the long term effects aren't necessarily any worse than before. In fact, they will have the availability of much greater health care than had they been free in the wild. But this is a complex topic, and I am sure that others will come up with angles that I have not considered.

So now that you have the facts, what are your thoughts? Feel free to express your opinion in the comments section below. Just remember to be civil and courteous, what may seem clear and obvious to you, may not be for someone else.

Image Credit: Luc Viatour

Supernova remnants are beautiful to behold, but they are also the result of extremely violent explosions and leave behind one of the most dynamic objects in the Universe. One such object, the pulsar at the center of the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (Cas A), has been the source of much study ever since data from the Chandra X-ray observatory were published over 10 years ago.

Based on the observational data, the size of the pulsar -- a rapidly rotating neutron star -- was estimated to be about 6 miles across, which is theoretically impossible. Theories abounded, that this must not be a pulsar, but rather an object called a quark star. Such an object has never directly been observed, but has been predicted to exist under just the right circumstances.

If a pulsar's gravity is sufficiently high, all the neutrons in the star would no longer be distinct from one another, and the result would be that the star would simply become a massive ball of quarks -- one of the fundamental particles of nature. Specifically, there would exist an abundance of strange quarks (one of the six types of quarks) within the star.

Since this would be the first star of its type ever observed, scientists have been working very hard to either confirm or eliminate this possibility for Cas A. A few weeks ago scientists Wynn Ho and Craig Heinke reported in the Journal Nature that they have discovered the reason that the pulsar at the center of Cas A appears so small. It is not a quark star, but rather is a normal pulsar surrounded by a carbon atmosphere.

While unusual, it is possible that a young, hot pulsar -- like Cas A -- can fuse its hydrogen atmosphere and eventually create a carbon rich atmosphere instead. Because of this the pulsar would appear much smaller than it really is. While this may disappoint some scientists -- I have to say I was really hoping for the quark star theory to be correct -- it does give us insight into a phenomenon never observed in pulsars before. But there are still lots of supernova remnants out there, so who knows, maybe we'll find one of these quark stars yet.

Image Credit: Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI/CXC/SAO

Back in October many of you were following the events of the LCROSS mission as the probe slamed into the Moon (on purpose), to look for traces of water. Well, after weeks of pouring over mountains of data, NASA has released their initial findings. And it turns out that the Moon contains more water than we once thought.

NASA determined that the only way they could make sense of the data was if water was present on the Moon -- and a rather significant amount of water at that.

This was not completely surprising however; several months ago, NASA determined that deep in the Moon's shadowed craters near the poles, the temperature is a frigid -397 degrees Fehenheight, which is the coldest temperature ever recorded in our Solar System. In order to achieve those kinds of temperatures, a complex mixture of molecules need to be present, including water.

So what does all this mean? Well, water is a key element to life. And if we, as humans, ever hope to spend an extended amount of time on the Moon we will need a continuous source of water. These results lay the foundation for future long term missions to the Moon, and then to Mars.

Image Credit: NASA

Every year the Earth passes through the trail of the comet Tempel-Tuttle, creating a pretty good meteor shower visible in the night sky. NASA reports that about about 20 - 30 meteors per hour should visible during the Leonid shower in North America. While this pales in comparison to the nearly 300 per hour being predicted in Asia, it should be a great sight nontheless.

The Moon will be in a new phase, creating the kind of dark conditions desired for seeing the events. The best time to see the events will be after 4:00 a.m. So those of you who are early risers, get out there with your morning joe and check it out.