Dragon capsule hurtles to Earth

BBC News: Dragon capsule hurtles to Earth

The American SpaceX company's Dragon cargo capsule has fired its thrusters to bring itself back to Earth.

The burn will put the unmanned vehicle on a path to an ocean splashdown off the coast of California.
Dragon is projected to hit the water about 08:44 Pacific Daylight Time (15:44 GMT; 16:44 BST).

The craft made history last Friday by becoming the first privately operated ship to visit the International Space Station (ISS).

It delivered half a tonne of food and other supplies to the outpost's astronauts.
The encounter was intended as a demonstration of the freight service that SpaceX plans to run to the platform.
The firm has a $1.6bn (£1bn; 1.3bn-euro) contract with US space agency Nasa, pending the successful recovery of the capsule from the ocean.

Dragon's trip home began early on Thursday when it was unberthed from the ISS by the station's 17.5m (58ft) robotic arm.

Astronaut Don Petit, at the controls of the Canadarm2, then released the cargo ship to fly free at 09:49 GMT, just as the station was moving over the Southern Ocean.

Dragon fired its thrusters three times to take itself down and away from the platform, and spent the next five hours preparing for the fiery re-entry.

A final 10-minute de-orbit burn by Dragon's thrusters was initiated at 14:51 GMT.
The capsule has a heatshield that should protect it from the extreme temperatures it will experience during the fall through the atmosphere.

A range of ships, planes and ground stations has been organised to track the return, which will be slowed in the final minutes by three parachutes.

The planned splashdown zone is about 760km (470 miles) west of the Baja California Peninsula.
Once recovered, Dragon will be returned to port, and then transferred to Texas for inspection and for its cargo to be unloaded. Astronauts put 660kg (1,400lb) of experiments and redundant equipment inside Dragon before it left the station.

SpaceX - Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - has been engaged by Nasa to fulfil a logistics role at the ISS.

The current mission was designed to see the company complete a last set of performance milestones.
Nasa has another such arrangement with Orbital Sciences Corporation of Virginia, although its freighter, known as Cygnus, is still several months from making its maiden flight.

The agency hopes that by contracting out the carriage of freight it will save money which can then be re-invested in more daring activities beyond the station, at destinations such as asteroids and Mars.

The commercial cargo approach will be followed later this decade by crew transport services.

SpaceX wants this business as well, and is developing the safety and life-support equipment that would allow Dragon to double up as an astronaut taxi.

Commercial space race gets crowded behind SpaceX

From The Post and Courier: Commercial space race gets crowded behind SpaceX

WASHINGTON — A privately built space capsule that zipped its way to the International Space Station last week has also launched something else: a new for-profit space race.

The capsule called Dragon approached the space station Thursday and completed its historic hookup Friday with a load of supplies. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — run by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk — was hired by NASA to deliver cargo and eventually astronauts to the orbital outpost.

And the space agency is hiring others, too.

Several firms think they can make money in space and are close enough to Musk’s company to practically surf in his spaceship’s rocket-fueled wake. There are now more companies looking to make money in orbit — at least eight — than major U.S. airlines still flying.

Private space companies have talked for years about ferrying goods and astronauts for NASA, but this is the first time one is actually in orbit and about to make a delivery for the space agency.

“Dragon is not the only entrant in commercial cargo,” said Jeff Greason, president of XCOR Aerospace, which specializes in the also busy suborbital marketplace. “They have competitors nipping at their heels.”

Still, Dragon’s launch is “the spark that will ignite a flourishing commercial spaceflight marketplace,” said Michael Lopez-Alegria, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation and a former astronaut.

Next stop: asteroids?

Hiring Musk’s SpaceX and other private companies is a key part of NASA’s plan to shift focus. Instead of routine flights to the space station with the now retired space shuttles, NASA is aiming farther out to places like asteroids and Mars. After this test flight, SpaceX has a contract with NASA for a dozen delivery runs.

The idea is to “let private industry do what it does best and let NASA tackle the challenging task of pushing the boundary further,” NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said last week.

NASA has given seed money and contracts to several companies to push them on their way. But eventually, space missions could launch, dock to a private space station or hotel and return to Earth and not have anything to do with NASA or any other country’s space agency.

Earlier this month, the Hawthorne, Calif.-based SpaceX signed an agreement with Bigelow Aerospace of Nevada, which is designing inflatable space stations for research and maybe even tourists. SpaceX and other companies will provide the transportation — like airlines — and Bigelow the place to stay. There are already eight different licensed spaceports in the U.S. where companies can launch from and most of them have no connection to NASA.

Another space launch-and-tourism company, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, is working separately from NASA and the space station.

If NASA isn’t involved, there is one federal agency that is. The Federal Aviation Administration has a commercial space office that licenses private space missions and works with NASA to set safety standards.

Crowded space

Five ventures are considered the closest competitors to SpaceX:

Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., is in the cargo-only business, but it is closest to launch. It has a NASA contract for $1.9 billion for eight cargo flights to the space station once its rockets succeed.

The early versions of its Antares rocket and Cygnus spaceship are already built, but the company is waiting for its launch pad to be finished at NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. A stay-on-the-ground test is aimed for late July, a launch test in the fall and trial run to the space station around November, said spokesman Barron Beneski.

Alliant Techsystems, headquartered in Arlington, Va., isn’t funded by NASA’s commercial space program, but has developed the Liberty rocket and passenger spacecraft system. Most of the rocketry and capsule systems have been tested.

A key structural test of the rocket’s second stage is scheduled for early July, with the first unmanned test flight in 2014. Tests with a private crew aboard would be in 2015 and it would be ready to ferry NASA material and astronauts in 2016, according to Kent Rominger, a former astronaut and Liberty’s program manager.

Boeing Co. of Chicago has nearly $113 million in NASA commercial crew funding and just finished its second parachute drop test in the Nevada desert. It has completed 46 of 52 milestones needed before flights, spokeswoman Susan Wells said.

A landing airbag test is targeted for the fall. The Boeing space capsule, called a CST-100, will carry astronauts and cargo with three test launches aimed for 2015 and 2016, the last one with a crew on board.

The Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nev., with nearly $106 million from NASA, is building a mini-shuttle crew vehicle called Dream Chaser with a first flight targeted for 2016 or possibly 2017. The company this year finished landing gear tests and has a full-scale ship for flight testing attached to a helicopter this fall in California.

Blue Origin of Kent, Wash., is he most secretive of the companies, It is run by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and has received $22 million from NASA. Its crew and cargo vehicle, called New Shepard, would also take tourists to suborbit. Blue Origin’s shell passed wind tunnel tests and its engines are now being test fired at NASA’s Stennis Space Center.

Back to our regularly scheduled blogging.

Visiting relative  has left, traveling has done, and I'm ready to devote myself to this blog again.

So thanks for  your patience!

I crave your indulgence

My mother's sister is visiting for three days.


My mom's deaf as a post, my dad can't be bothered to get out of his chair, so I will be doing the entertaining - the chauffeuring and the talking and the communicating - for the next three days.


So I'll be posting back here Thursday.


Thanks for your patience.

A new frontier for space travel

From Los Angeles Times: A new frontier for space travel
For the last half-century, space flight has been the domain of the world's superpowers.

All that is set to change as soon as Saturday when SpaceX, the private rocket company in Hawthorne, will attempt to launch a spaceship with cargo into orbit and three days later dock it with the International Space Station.

If successful, the mission could mean a major shift in the way the U.S. government handles space exploration. Instead of keeping space travel a closely guarded government function, NASA has already begun hiring privately funded start-up companies for spacecraft development and is moving toward eventually outsourcing NASA space missions.

The upcoming launch is "the first step in the handoff" to private industry, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Everybody realizes the importance of this mission," he said. "Nobody will be rooting against SpaceX."

But if the mission fails, it could trigger serious doubts about NASA's decision to hand these responsibilities to a fledgling private space industry. Doubters have already begun to raise questions. Some former astronauts, members of Congress and space experts say the current plan to subcontract space missions is foolhardy. They say the plan is risky and that outer space is no place to roll the dice on unproven companies.

On launch day, it falls to SpaceX and its 40-year-old billionaire founder, Elon Musk, to prove they're prepared.

With SpaceX engineers at the controls in Hawthorne, a towering rocket will blast off from a launch pad about 2,600 miles away in Cape Canaveral, Fla., and lift a gumdrop-shaped space capsule with a half-ton of food, water and other supplies up to the crew aboard the orbiting space station.

But delivering cargo isn't the key mission — the space station is well-provisioned. The main purpose is to demonstrate that the space capsule can rendezvous with the $100-billion orbiting outpost and link up with the space station's onboard computers. If all goes well, the crew aboard the space station will snag the spacecraft with a robotic arm and lead it in for docking. Weeks later it will be released and sent back to Earth.

"We're ready to take that next step," Musk said. "It's been a long road to this point."

Musk is a straight-talking modern-day industrialist cut in the mold of a young Howard Hughes. He's led numerous start-up companies in a wide-range of industries, dating Hollywood starlets along the way.

The sandy-haired South African emigrant first made millions when he co-founded and sold online payment business PayPal Inc. to EBay Inc. in 2002 for $1.5 billion. Armed with his personal fortune and a Rolodex full of Silicon Valley venture capitalist contacts, Musk started SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies Corp., and co-founded electric car company Tesla Motors Inc. in Palo Alto.

In starting SpaceX in 2002, his goal was to make money by developing and launching rockets that could carry satellites into space at a fraction of the cost of the current generation of spacecraft.

The sales pitch as a low-cost alternative has resonated with NASA. With federal money in short supply and the space shuttle fleet retired, the space agency has experienced thousands of job cuts across the country at places such as Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Johnson Space Center in Houston and Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge.

The U.S. government now has no way to space other than doling out $63 million for a seat on a Russian Soyuz rocket.

After years of study and approval from Congress, the space agency is moving to turn the job of carrying cargo and crews over to private industry at a lower cost. Meanwhile, NASA will focus on deep space missions to land on asteroids and Mars.

Still, some in Congress aren't sold on the privatization plan.

"I believe NASA would better serve the American taxpayer by continuing to push the frontiers of human space travel in its own right," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) "There are no 'private' space companies; only taxpayer-funded ones that NASA has arbitrarily decided to call 'commercial' and hold to reduced standards of performance and accountability."

Eugene Cernan, who was the last astronaut to walk on the moon in 1972, and Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon in 1969, testified before Congress in September about NASA's decision to outsource space missions to private business. Cernan described NASA's future plans as a "slide to mediocrity," "third-rate stature" and "devastating."

Earlier this month, the pair, along with Jim Lovell, commander of the Apollo 13 mission, wrote a letter to Congress saying they want safe spacecraft.

"We all agree that our country has painted itself into a corner and does not now, nor will for many years, have a U.S. government craft suitable for carrying cargo or crew to the International Space Station," the astronauts wrote. "The reputation of our country … dictates that we do everything possible to ensure that any commercial crew service meets standards equal to those that we would enforce would the craft be government owned and operated."

NASA says it is working with SpaceX to ensure safe flights and also has signed development contracts with lesser-known names in aerospace such as Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nev. and Blue Origin of Kent, Wash.

Inside SpaceX's Hawthorne complex, the company has a vast mission control center where engineers can keep real-time tabs on rocket launches at Cape Canaveral and on the mission itself. They monitor incoming data for anomalies, and if there are any, they can order the launch to be scrubbed or address the mission issues.

Musk recently sat at a workstation and discussed the coming launch date. A boyish smile spread across his face as he talked about the beehive of activity that will fill the room, which resembles NASA's mission control center in Houston.

Then he grew cautious.

"There's a real chance this mission doesn't succeed — a lot can go wrong," Musk said. "I mean, there's a reason they call it rocket science."

Musk started the company after investing $100 million of his own fortune with limited knowledge of the rocket business. He came to find that the industry was difficult to enter and littered with failed projects.

The company's first rocket, the single-engine Falcon 1, failed three times before it successfully carried a satellite into space in 2008. That same year, NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6-billion contract to transport cargo in 12 flights to the space station.

In addition to the NASA contract, SpaceX has commercial contracts worth more than $4 billion to launch satellites aboard its new, larger Falcon 9 rocket for various countries and telecommunications companies. The privately held company is not required to disclose its financial details, including the dollar amounts involving commercial deals.

The company has a workforce of about 1,800, mostly in Hawthorne and Cape Canaveral. And much like the early days of NASA, the company has a cadre of young engineers — the average age is in the early 30s — who have turned down jobs at larger aerospace companies. Many say they work for SpaceX because it's new and operates more like a Silicon Valley start-up than an entrenched aerospace company.

SpaceX has been planning this mission for more than 17 months. In December 2010, SpaceX became the first private company to blast an unmanned spacecraft — a capsule called Dragon — into outer space, have it circle Earth and return intact.

The company initially hoped to visit the space station with the Dragon less than a year later, but has faced repeated delays.

Now, if everything goes according to plan, success will come sometime in June, when the Dragon carries out the mission and splashes down in the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles west of Southern California. The craft will deploy parachutes to slow its descent after entering Earth's atmosphere.

"I'm starting to get nervous just thinking about it," Musk said. "Last launch, I couldn't even sit down. It's pretty nerve-racking."

How Space-Age Nostalgia Hobbles Our Future

From Slate Magazine: How Space-Age Nostalgia Hobbles Our Future
This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration of Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. On May 21, Future Tense will host an event in Washington, D.C., called “How To Save America’s Knowledge Enterprise.” We’ll discuss how the United States approaches science and technology research, the role government should play in funding, and more. For more information and to RSVP, visit the New America Foundation’s website.

The future used to be so much better. At least that’s what everyone under the age of 65 keeps telling me. In the 1950s and ‘60s, people dreamed of—nay, expected—jetpacks and flying cars and colonies on Mars. On Mars!

Legend has it that after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first human-made satellite to ever orbit the Earth, in 1957, Americans rallied behind the idea of a better, more technologically advanced future for all. This nationwide enthusiasm buoyed NASA’s Apollo program and, as much as rocket fuel, propelled us to the moon. During his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama invoked the popular idea of the “Sputnik moment” as he implored Congress to invest more in scientific research and education.

So what percentage of Americans in the 1960s do you suppose believed that the Apollo program was worth the time and resources devoted to it? Seventy percent? Eighty percent?

In reality, it was less than 50 percent.

Erik Conway, historian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., explains: “The Apollo program only had a majority public support—over 51 percent—for the few months around the 1969 moon landing. That’s it. Otherwise, it was less than 50 percent.” In a 1969 opinion poll taken after the lunar landing, just 53 percent of American adults believed that the moon excursion was worth the expense. In fact, during the nine years of the Apollo program, American support pretty much fluctuated between 35 percent and 45 percent. In a 2005 paper, Roger Launius, chief historian at NASA, wrote, “While there may be many myths about Apollo and spaceflight, the principal one is the story of a resolute nation moving outward into the unknown beyond Earth.” Nostalgia for the Space Age is rooted more in The Jetsons than in reality.

But try telling that to the baby boomers, who insist that they grew up in the most wondrous period of scientific adventure in U.S. history—a time when Americans supposedly united behind a single goal and achieved it. Raised by parents who spoke wistfully of watching the moon landing, Generation X and the Millennials have bought into the narrative, too. This romanticization of the past has real-world consequences because it breeds a certain kind of futility, a belief that we’re simply not able to accomplish things without every American behind the idea. The myth of the “Sputnik moment” means that we spend time hand-wringing over a lack of shared ambition, rather than actually working toward game-changing goals. Time is wasted as we act like petulant children, whining that no one wants to go to Mars anymore, rather than making the case for a manned Red Planet mission.

So where did this myth of national unity around the space race come from? There are two explanations. 1) The people currently telling the story of the Space Age were young in the 1960s. The world is a much simpler (and often much rosier) place through the eyes of a child. 2) Just as history is written by the victors, space history is written by space enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, we don’t have public opinion polls of children from this time. What we do have are toy sales figures.

Immediately post-WWII, cowboys were all the rage. Stanley Breslow of the Carnell Manufacturing Co. explained to The New Yorker in 1950: “Last year there were enough [cowboy gun] holster sets manufactured to supply every male child in the United States three times over. I don’t know where they all go.”

By 1958, the year following the Soviet launch of Sputnik, a full 50 percent of the $1.3 billion U.S. toy market was sci-fi-related. Kids traded in their six-shooters for ray guns. That’s significant to the narrative we see today about Americans’ shared Space Age ambitions. Conway explains:

There’s a tendency to assume that everyone knew all along that [the Apollo program] would be successful and that everybody enjoyed it and so forth and so on. And of course it’s looked back on fondly by the generation who grew up then, not necessarily their parents. And who is it now that are the main spokesmen of … well, everything in the United States, right? It’s folks … who were kids during the Apollo program and who loved it even if their parents didn’t.

In 1989 Howard Schuman and Jacqueline Scott at the University of Michigan published a paper on generations and collective memories. They quantified what seems like common sense: The events that happen around us when we’re children create the strongest memories. Or, to put it in academic speak: “[T]he events and changes that have maximum impact in terms of memorableness occur during a cohort’s adolescence and young adulthood, often referred to as ‘youth.’ ” 120510_FUTURE_ATripThroughSpace

The study asked people in 1985 about the past 50 years, a period that included the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Kennedy assassination, the threat of nuclear war, the civil rights movement—the list goes on. The third most-mentioned important “event” from 1935-85 was space exploration, just behind World War II and the Vietnam War.

The study only measured attitudes toward the space program for those who mentioned it as a momentous achievement, but it still found a distinct difference between generations. While those of the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation simply expressed awe at the achievement, often using words like “amazing” and “fantastic,” the baby boomers were the ones who talked about national pride and the inevitability of space in their future.

A 24-year-old woman in the study said, “Our world will change in the next 50 years because of what’s going on the space industry. We may make moves to live elsewhere.” That woman was 8 when humans first set foot on the moon and, if she’s still alive, is now about 51. Similarly, a 27-year-old woman remarked, “Well, we might even have space stations and so if we destroy our world, we will have a place to go.” She was 11 during the lunar landing of 1969 and would be 54 today.

You almost have to feel bad for the baby boomers for not getting the future they were promised. When they were kids, there was a deliberate effort to get children excited about, and emotionally invested in, scientific and technological progress. Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, the dean of the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Technology, started one of at least two Sunday newspaper comic strips borne out of concern that American kids were falling behind the Russians intellectually and weren’t sufficiently interested in science and technology. The comic explained scientific principles, often with a futuristic flair, and by 1959, Dr. Spilhaus’ “Our New Age” appeared in more than 100 U.S. newspapers.

Dr. Spilhaus sat down with Louise O’Connor, who recorded oral histories over three years with him in the late 1980s. Spilhaus recalled, “I decided to [start writing Our New Age] right after Sputnik, when I was disturbed about kids knowing very little about science. Rather than fight my own kids reading the funnies, which is a stupid thing to do, I decided to put something good into the comics, something that was more fun and that might give a little subliminal education.”

But even as parents were buying up space toys for their kids and encouraging them to read the more educational Sunday funnies, they were skeptical, even surly, about the funds spent on Apollo and NASA. Those people with reservations about the space program seemed to be primarily concerned that the money spent on space could be better invested in more earthly problems.

Shortly after the Apollo 11 crew was launched, destined for the historic first landing on the moon, a reporter from the Delaware County Daily Times in Pennsylvania went to the local mall to ask how people felt about the imminent moon landing. Many thought that the money should be spent elsewhere.

Sheila Larkin of Brookhaven told the reporter that there were “better uses for much of the money that goes into the space program. It’s great that they can do it, but there is so much poverty in the country that the money could go other places.” George Conaway, a retired machinist, said that the trip was “foolish and a waste of money—money that should be spent on the poor people in this country.” Giles Jones said that it was important the U.S. would land there first, but offered reservations: “We’re supposed to be the greatest country and we can show that this way. But there are other good uses for much of the space program money.”

The day after the moon landing, a number of Associated Press articles reflected the mixed public opinion about the historic event. One of the articles focused on the feelings of New Englanders and was generally positive, quoting people who called the achievement “amazing” and “unbelievable” but the piece also quoted people like Barbara C. Sauer from Portland, Maine, who said, “It’s really a good accomplishment, but the money should be spent here on earth.” The article also quotes Frederick W. Varney, a 50-year-old service station operator from Bangor, Maine, who said that he hope it does some good but, “I think it’s a waste of money.”

That widespread ambivalence plays into another part of the “Sputnik moment” myth: that NASA’s coffers were bursting during the ‘60s. Erik Conway, the historian at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told me, “The basic facts are that every year after 1964 Congress cut the NASA budget. Why did they do that? Well, the reality simply was that the public support wasn’t there.”

Personally, I’d like to see NASA well-funded. Space exploration is an important part of our future, and I firmly believe that we can push the boundaries of science while still addressing important domestic issues of poverty, racism, and health care—just as we did to certain degrees of success in the 1960s and ‘70s. But if we continue to perpetuate the inaccurate myth, we’re essentially declaring that America’s best days are behind us, instilling a certain futility. How might we live up to the greatness of an era when everyone got along and the nation stood united in a single goal? By approaching the future and the challenges ahead with a better understanding of history—stripping away the fictions of our retro-futures—our greatest obstacles may start to seem surmountable. With any luck, our children’s children might romanticize the 2010s as a time when people used to get things done.

Meteorites From Big Fireball Spark Space Age 'Gold Rush'

From Yahoo News: Meteorites From Big Fireball Spark Space Age 'Gold Rush'

Scientists are on an epic treasure hunt for meteorite fragments from a spectacular fireball that lit up the daytime sky over California last month.

The space rocks came from a minivan-size asteroid that plunged through Earth's atmosphere and exploded into a dazzling daytime fireball over California and parts of Nevada on April 22. Meteorite fragments were scattered around Sutter's Mill, an old sawmill in Coloma, Calif. —  the same region where the first gold nugget was found, triggering the Gold Rush of 1848.

Now, NASA has a meteorite rush on its hands, one just as exciting as the California's Gold Rush, the agency said.

Scientists and meteorite hunters have descended on the area in hopes of finding precious space rocks that may contain clues about the solar system's history, as well as the origins of molecules that support life.
Fragments from the so-called Sutter's Mill Meteorite fell to Earth on April 22 at 7:51 a.m. PDT (10:51 a.m. EDT). At least one space rock landed in a horse pasture outside of Lotus, Calif., in the Sierra Nevada mountains, according to NASA officials. Merv de Hass, who owns the farm, found the meteorite, but has since donated it to NASA.
"If I could contribute to science in some small way, then that would be great," de Hass said in a statement. "I'm looking forward to the results." [Photos: Fireball Drops Meteorites on California]
The de Hass family has let NASA researchers comb the land for more fragments.
"I feel like I have done a service to my country," said Eugena de Haas, who lives on the land where the meteorite was found.
The meteorite found by de Hass is very rare, and scientists are interested in studying it because it could contain molecules that explain how the building blocks of life on Earth may have been delivered from space, agency officials said.
Piecing together clues about the meteor could also help astronomers understand the early solar system and how the planets formed.

"This is among the most chemically primitive meteorites," Greg Schmidt, deputy director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI), said in a statement. "It's like asking 'how did life on Earth begin?' and then having a fossil fall right in your back yard. This is exciting stuff — who knows what's inside? The Sutter's Mill Meteorite could be the most profound sample collected in over 40 years."

Peter Jenniskens, a meteor astronomer with the SETI Institute, is working with the NLSI and is leading the search. As he finds the meteorites, Jenniskens is making note of their exact location, so that the science team will be able to better track how the meteorites fell to Earth.

But the space rock is a rare carbonaceous chrondrite, which decomposes quickly in damp conditions, so the scientists are hoping to locate any other specimens before they are ruined.
"I am grateful this meteorite was found quickly," Jenniskens said. "We need to recover as much material as possible from the damp environment before weather affects the rocks too badly."
To help with the search, a helium-filled zeppelin flew slowly over the area with a trained group of observers to relay potential coordinates for ground teams to investigate. The zeppelin, which is owned and operated by Airship Ventures, carried a high definition camera, and observers used binoculars and cameras to spot possible impact sites.
"I suspect this is the first time in history that anyone has searched for meteorites with an airship," Schmidt said.

So far, the meteorite found by the de Haas family is one of the largest fragment found, but the meteorite search is expected to continue for the next few months, NASA officials said.

"The de Haas family has welcomed NASA's involvement with open arms," NLSI director Yvonne Pendleton said in a statement. "I want to express my personal gratitude to them. They should be commended for their contribution to scientific discovery."