Reality Can Trump Fiction...

And nowhere I know of is that more true than in biology. Folks, there's some freakish stuff out there.

Some years ago, early in my blogging days, a fellow blogging nerd (that was the name of her blog: Observations of a Nerd) posted a series called "This Week's Sci-Fi Worthy Parasite." She was/is a marine biologist and moved on, but the blog is still in place with all it's glories intact.

Yeah, sure, you can get nightmares watching zombie movies or reading about real serial killers (I can recommend a good book but I know I can't read but a few pages at a time: Hunting Humans: An Encyclopedia of Modern Serial Killers), but, if you REALLY want to never sleep again and curl up with your eyelids held open with toothpicks and a can of Raid in either hand, check out her blog.

Included in her honest-to-God real world of actual nasties are:

• flies that turn ants into zombies before decapitating them (Phorid Flies) - these are actually under consideration for fire ant control.
• Parasitic wasps which not only eat catapillars and maggots from the inside out, but coat their eggs with a virus to disable the host's immune system and castrate it. Before the caterpillar finishes up, he'll spin a cocoon to protect his invaders and even defend them 'til they finally take him down. There's a spider killer that makes the spider build it a nice platform for the cocoon. (she really likes the parasitic wasps)
• Lice (not talking about it or I'll start to itch)
• Human botfly where mosquitoes deliver a human flesh-eating parasite (there are videos)
• Schistosomiasis where bunches of burrowing parasites travel through our blood systems and infest our liver, copulating and generally having a blood bender at our expense.

• The brain-eating amoeba Naegleria Fowleri (shown up in a couple of medical shows but the transmission method and survivability was whacked) - this is ameobic meningitis and it takes no prisoners because it tells your brain it belongs there and your brain goes, "never mind then" until it's too late. I wanted to infect a character with this and let him survive, but my husband absolutely put his foot down. No amoebas were going to eat his favorite character's brain. They are bad to the bone, though.
• The loa loa worm, aka the African eye worm. Do I have to explain?
• Cookie cutter sharks that literally take a divot of flesh from the unsuspecting
• Hairworm - using zombie control again, this time on grasshoppers its eaten from the inside
• The Mountain Acon Blue Butterfly which convinces red ants to drop everything and feed it like a queen using her forms of chemical and aural communication.
• Pearlfish that literally make their homes in the anuses of sea cucumbers and starfish (and, some of them chow down on their hosts while they're there. No need to go out for dinner. We'll eat in.)
• A parasite that "kills" a fish's tongue and then takes it's place, acting like a normal tongue and keeping the fish alive for further feeding.

• The human (and other flesh) eating screwworm, basically maggots that favor living flesh, or at least until they're through with it. (Yuck)
• The toothpick fish which is attracted to ammonia products and attach itself via spines to dig it's way in until it reaches a blood vessel. That's some pretty painful digging whether your its intended prey (fish) or a human. 

Really, you could read for hours. I'm having to stop myself .

Now, I've mentioned them before, but, here's the good part, trying to find them again allowed me to stumble over another collection of biological oddities: Absurd Creature of the Week on Wired. Jackpot! Not just parasites (though those, too) but all kinds of odd critters. You don't even have to be a writer to have a good time.

Actually, both the blog and the column on Wired are very entertaining reading in addition to being educational. And, on that note, I'll leave you with this video.

You're welcome.

Read more...

Just for grins, here's some poop on science and why some of it doesn't matter.

Joel Klebenoff has an amusing little blog called Stuff and Nonsense I never miss when I'm actually paying attention to blogging. His last post was right up my alley, discussing some of his favorite imponderables and the headaches he got as a result when he tried to wrap his mind around them. I really enjoyed it (I usually do).

I also liked my comment on it so much I'm reproducing much of it here because, although I think science is important and used every day, that doesn't mean every aspect is really useful or even necessary to waste brain cells on every day. (Note, comment will likely make more sense if you read the post linked previously first - Just sayin')

So, here's something on your imponderables.

The key element to wrapping your mind around infinities is, well, you can't because there's nothing we can compare in our lives that is infinite. Even air and water have boundaries. In addition to that, infinities, while endless, come in different sizes. There are an infinite number of even positive whole numbers There are twice as many positive whole numbers (since we're including the infinite set of odd numbers). There are twice as many whole numbers (positive and negative) than just the positive numbers. Since there are an infinite number of REAL numbers between 0 and 1, that argues that are an infinity squared number of real numbers since there's an infinity between each whole number.

If your head exploded, here's a towel. You might want to mop that up.

The thing is it doesn't matter. The infinity of numbers is only of interest to theoretic math geeks who like to ponder that stuff for entertainment - it doesn't serve much practical purpose except screwing up the occasional computer program (as in asking a computer to calculate something infinite and locking out all other functions while it tries - there are ways around it but it used to be fairly common).

Pondering the size of the universe - that, too, isn't really important except to astronomers and astrophysicists who live for crap like that and have bets going on who can find the coolest shit the furthest out. No one REALLY knows if it's infinite. If there were nothing beyond the limits that we can see, how would we know? And, given that we haven't even been back to the moon in thirty years, I don't think we'll be setting forth for the bounds of the universe any time soon. Would it be cool to know what the extents of the universe are, to know how all this began, what other planets and sun and celestial bodies are out there? Sure, but it isn't likely to make much dent in most people's lives, not likely to change how they go about life or even the electronic toys they play with.

As for the multiverse hypotheses, well, there are certainly reputable scientists that espouse the multiverse concept, but plenty of others that think it's nonsense. The problem isn't lack of intelligence but lack of data and a whole field of physics (quantum physics) that doesn't follow our understanding of classical physics in behavior. Given the tiny masses and speeds and whatnot of quantum particles, getting a bead on what they're actually doing and why is a Sisyphusian task (yes, I made that word up). Heisenberg even codified the limits of how much we could know about a particle (and what we lost by knowing it). We've done enough quantum work to make some practical use of it (bombs, reactors, X-rays, etc), but why it does what it does differently than regular mass is still a head-scratcher.

String theory, the multiverse theory, a few others, are all intended to bring quantum physics back into the fold of crap we understand, usually by way of math that no one, possibly the  people writing it, understand. And none of it is going to be remotely practical until such time as we have some data we can use to determine which theory, if any, is correct and some practical purpose to use it for. Because, right now, we don't. It's important to realize that science was and is not just limited by intellect, but, more importantly, by the data available. Great minds came up with flawed theories based on misleading or inaccurate data (Aristotle). As our observation and measurement methods improved, we could refine, refute and build new theories and science progressed. Quantum physics is severely limited right now because we are trying to understand particles we can't directly observe going at speeds we didn't think were possible. And we don't know what that means. We have guesses, but they're speculation more than theories.

 And that brings us to special relativity, some of which we've been able to verify and some not so much, but it's also based on the notion that nothing goes faster than the speed of light, which we take as a given because we've never seen anything go faster than the speed of light. But then, you wouldn't, would you? It's an interesting theory with some aspects demonstrably true but I'm skeptical of any aspect you can't back with hard data. And some aspects of the theory we can't back with hard data but just the lack of contradictory data, which ain't the same thing.

But, again, none of that matters in the practical day to day. We have no practical method for going anywhere near the speed of light and it doesn't have much use for most of us in our daily lives.

(If you want to see a demonstration by use in fiction that might help you wrap your mind around the theory, I suggest "Double Star" by Robert Heinlein.)


Note that, just because some science is quite esoteric doesn't mean science has no use. Most of us take advantage of several centuries of science and advancements every day. And science continues to help, from warning of unusual weather patterns (that can either be taken with deadly seriousness or scoffed at by politicos) to providing health benefits unheard of even a hundred years ago.

As for going off to find imponderables to trouble my sleep, don't need it. I have children and, believe me, they're imponderable enough.

Read more...

Flummoxed

I consider myself a fairly tolerant person and try to keep judging to a minimum. I try not sweat whatever beliefs and political positions people take, though I prefer you think about it before you spout them around me, because I challenge nonsense reflexively. But one thing I don't get is how otherwise decent reasonable human beings can become downright callous and irresponsible when their OWN actions threaten the well-being of others.

It's one thing (if not particularly admirable) to deliberately misuse people for your own benefit. It's something else to continue to do things against your own best interest that also actively threaten the safety and even lives of total strangers (who ironically have done next to nothing to contribute to the problem). To regard it of no consequence, a joke, literally makes me sick. I just don't get it.

Sadly, I could be talking about a number of subjects including universal healthcare, but I'm not. I'm talking about global climate change and the delight people have in spreading misinformation that refutes those nasty greedy scientists, (95% of which don't stand to make an individual dime from this issue) and just underscores how little they get the concept. Case in point, a friend noted (gleefully) on facebook that water vapor was the most prevalent and worst greenhouse gas we have. Since we can't control it, it just "proves" that global climate change is hooey.

Do I have to explain how fallacious that argument is? Or that, her lack of understanding makes her impervious to the implications of what she's saying (i.e., since water vapor is a natural phenomenon, we have little impact except by upping the temperature and air to carry more water vapor, thereby magnifying the effects of any greenhouse gases we produce that make the system, um, warmer). When challenged, it was all about tossing sources at me that showed water vapor was a greenhouse gas (duh, wasn't refuting that) - didn't I trust NASA and NOAA and peer reviewed journals - and then, when I noted those sources universally agreed that we were having an adverse affect on the global climate, changing her position to that we produce only a small amount of the total natural CO2 environment created (and giving me a source, mind you, that noted that, though that's true, the amount we added is small, it is tipping the scales and sending the balance out of whack). Then it was all about getting China and India and Russia to curb their ways first.

Pardon my language, but bullshit.

Even if China and India (with their higher populations) were using energy like we were, we use far more per capita, more than twice. And China I know is actively pursuing alternative energy (they have like a dozen solar cell factories being built there, ironically by a US company who can't get anyone to build one in his own country). But that doesn't matter either because we don't have control over them and are hardly going to look credible if we tell them to cut back while still burning up more than twice the fuel per capita (fuel we have to import while they don't). But we can, no really, make a difference in the energy we use and expend. And what the source of that energy is. It's a drop, but, drop by drop, people in this country have far more impact than almost everyone else in the world.

Truth is, I can't understand how anyone of good conscience can't care about this, can't care that people in third world nations, who depend on shrinking glaciers for survival or live within inches of sea level but contributed next to nothing to the problem are threatened. So many blameless people and could be decimated if rivers that provide water for millions of people dry up or islands are swallowed whole because we couldn't cut back even a little of our energy usage. I can't see how this is made a joke (in the end, my "friend" likened our disagreement to two women fighting over a large lollipop). How can people be so callous? [Note, these are the same people who get out their torches and pitchforks if you bring up prayer in school or offer to wish them a happy holiday rather than Merry Christmas. We should never forget that Christians stole that pagan holiday, fair and square.]

I've talked before about the science, recommended doing homework, but even that seems inconsequent. If there was even a slight possibility (instead of overwhelming evidence - there are people suffering in the Andes from the recession of glaciers right now) that the concerns are justified, why wouldn't you do what you could? Aside from the financial advantages of using less energy or renewable sources. Just because you made it home safely after driving drunk in the past doesn't mean you'll always be so lucky. I totally don't get why people still do it. Who would want someone else's death on their conscience?

Still, though we'll be among the last to feel the effects of our excess, we will not go unpunished. Our refusal to embrace alternative energy and efficiency is fairly singular (like our adherence to "standard" units of measure). While we're congratulating ourselves on our higher and higher electrical bills and not "falling for" the "hype", China and many oil producing companies are investing heavily in alternative energy so that, when the cost of oil gets so high even we can't pay it (or the results from burning fuels force us to change our ways), those same folks will have us over a barrel again because we didn't come up with alternatives or curb our wasteful ways.

And we'll have deserved it.

Read more...

Engineering and Women

So, someone I know on facebook posted a link to an ad by GoldieBlox, touting the notion that girls don't have to be stuck with "girl toys" that don't do anything and doom them to particular life roles/preclude them from certain professions. It's a cute ad, but I'm afraid I feel they still don't get the concept.

Here's a quote from their "about" page: "By tapping into girls' strong verbal skills, our story + construction set bolsters confidence in spatial skills while giving young inventors the tools they need to build and create amazing things." So, by tapping into a stereotypical quality girls are supposed to have, you think you can help them overcome a stereotypical deficiency.

But stereotypes are the problem. Oh, not the whole problem. It is certainly possible, even probable that, overall, more girls are genetically predisposed to verbal skills over spatial reckoning, etc.  So what? First of all, since neither motor skills or spatial reckoning is my strength, I can say that the lack thereof hardly precludes becoming an engineer, excelling at math, excelling at physics, and making a career in that field, because, hey, I did it.

More importantly, what is "generally" true doesn't mean diddly to an individual. There are any number of dead-eye female pilots who have spatial reckoning (and generally other aspects of science and or engineering like Eileen Collins, the first female Space Shuttle commander) or engineering intuition, or math skills out the wazoo. Each girl, like every boy out there, is an individual, who might be dead on the money on some stereotypical feature and blowing the curve on the next.

The problem isn't the toys. It's what you hear and what you see and what you're shown growing up. It's the level and tenor of the expectations your parents and teachers and mentors and even peers have that discourage girls from pursuing engineering and science and math. If you don't change that, nothing changes.

Because, here's the thing. If you find "girl" toys too limiting for your little princess, there isn't a thing in the world that keeps you from getting her building blocks (they come in pink, too)  or robots or tinkertoys or trains or remote control cars or science kits. Getting her those things won't stop her from being your princess any more than Barbies and babydolls and Hello Kitty stuff will make her a princess if that's not what she wants to be. Not only can you do it now, you could ALWAYS do it.

I'm a parent. I buy the things my kids show an interest in. My son likes wooden puzzles and Legos and cars and blankets. He likes stuffed animals, too, but his sister steals them (he steals her blankets so it's all good). His sister loves dolls and tea sets and cars and figurines of any kind and stuffed animals. I've bought her puzzles, but she's not interested in them though she completely conquered a set of latches in seconds. They both inherited 9000 books and I keep buying them more though neither will let me read to them.

I will continue to buy my children things they show an interest in, not worried about gender or stigmas because, in this house, there's no stigma if my son plays with a doll or wants to get his toenails painted (he does, if I'm painting nails). There's no stigma if my daughter plays with cars or Legos - why would there be? And that is how I'll raise my children, how I raised my eldest daughter. I will tell them, and absolutely believe it and show it in word and deed, that nothing is automatically beyond them, that the only limits on them are in their talent and the limits they set themselves.

I won't make a big deal out of it because I don't have to. I just have to keep from getting in their way. No one had to tell me I could do complex math as well or better than anyone else because it never occurred to me that I couldn't. No one had ever told me I couldn't so why would I think so? No one had ever imposed any restrictions on my abilities or told me I had no business learning X subject or Y subject so I grew up figuring out what I was good at and wasn't good at by myself, through exposure. I never had teacher say, "I don't think a girl like you belongs in physics" any more than I had a parent who said, "Girls should stick to home ec or typing." Actually, I think my mother wanted me to take both subjects, but I stunk at them. But no one stopped me from taking science or math or engineering or anything else I wanted. I do know women, many of them engineers now, who DID have that happen, with parents or college professors or boyfriends, etc.

I was able to find my own limits because no one imposed their own limits, or their perceptions of my limits, on me. And that, boys and girls, is the key, I think. You can't make a boy good at math because he's supposed to be any more than making him play football and learn kung fu will keep him from being a drag queen if that's what he's got a hankering to do (as many a homophobic parent has discovered). People set their own limits and gravitate to the things they excel at or enjoy. If you haven't set any limits, they may still aim small. Or a direction you never saw. But there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a kindergarten teacher or a nurse or an oral hygienist. Nothing wrong with being a drag queen either if it makes you and others happy.

It's when we set preconceived limits upon our children that we limit their potential. If we tell our girls over and over that girls just can't do math, chances are, when they take algebra, they'll be convinced it's beyond them, whether it really was or not. If we tell our children that they can't ever go to college because they're too poor and will have no choice but to work, those children might very well never even try for opportunities intended for kids just like them because they've decided it's hopeless. If we treat children who are Latino (and may struggle with English especially at first) or black as if one couldn't expect much from them, they will likely fulfill our expectations, even if those expectations are unvoiced.

There are many who believe children from the far east are inherently smarter. I don't think so. Their culture values education and parents routinely make sacrifices and have huge (perhaps too huge) expectations of their children. That has its own issues but instilling unnecessary limitations isn't one of them (though there is notably a difference, even now, in what's expected from boys and girls in those cultures). I think this difference in emphasis and expectations is the key to their relative success.

You want your child to fulfill their potential? Buy them toys and games and books and encourage activities that excite, interest, and challenge them. Not you, not other people's children, but them, your children, the individuals. Their imagination might take off with building sets or action sets. It might be dolls and doll houses. It might be puzzles and physical toys. Talk to them, get to know them, encourage their interests and strengths. Find what each individual child responds well to and what encourages those children in subjects or fields that might have not interested them before.

But, whatever you do, don't get in their way. Don't ever let your own limitations or perceptions of their limitation get in the way of their succeeding where you never expected it. Kids can do that, more often than you think.

If we'd just let them.

At least, that's how I see it.

Read more...

Party Pooper: Gravity Part 2

So we touched on the EVA things that drove me nuts on the last post, but that wasn't all that made me a little bit crazy with Gravity. And I'll be describing them, so they'll be spoilers, so STOP HERE if you don't want details on what happened in Gravity.

The premise behind the catastrophe at the center of Gravity is that the Russians shot and destroyed one of their own satellites for some reason. This is not outside the realm of possibility. Both Soviet Union/Russia shot down several of their satellites as did we in the 80's. As we now understand the debris concern better and hopefully got less paranoid, we stopped doing those sorts of experiments until the Chinese tried for the first time in 2007, to quite a bit of furor from everyone else. The furor caused, not only because no one likes the notion that someone else could shot down one's own satellites, but because it was at 500 miles altitude, a wonderful spot to rain down debris on a sizeable portion of our most expensive Low Earth Orbit (LEO) assets (and other countries' assets) such as HST, ISS, etc. The U.S. shot down one of our own soon after, ostensibly to prevent a tank of hydrazine from reentering, but it was at a much lower orbit so the impact on the orbital debris was pretty minimal.

(Lower orbits get cleaned up naturally by the friction of the atmosphere which slows them down and encourages them to reenter. Higher orbits have less friction so it takes much longer, sometimes decades, to fall out of the sky.)

Is orbital debris a big deal, a real and significant hazard for our space assets? Oh, absolutely. No doubt about it. Not just because of the junk we send up there and stunts like deliberately blowing up some of it (or inadvertently doing so, as has happened with leftover fuel in various discarded stages), but also because each time debris is left or created from an impact, it can go on to hit more hardware which creates more debris and so on until, even if we never send any more up there, the debris environment will get uglier on its own (something called the Kessler Effect).

So, if orbital debris is a legitimate problem and shooting down a satellite is within the realm of possibility, what's my beef? I don't have a problem with the notion of orbital debris causing cataclysm - that's a legitimate concern - but how this cataclysm is portrayed doesn't work for me, for several reasons.

• One of the reasons orbital debris is so very dangerous are the extremely high speeds with which it moves, and, if it's going to opposite direction in orbit, that relative speed is doubled  so that, instead of objects moving at 8 km/s (which is what orbital velocity of everything in low earth orbit is, more or less), the impact speed could be as high as 16 km/s for a head-on collision. Why is that important? Well, for one thing, one needs perspective. The muzzle velocity of an M16 rifle is ~1 km/s, so orbital velocity is 8-16X faster. That also means that, for the same size impactor (say 4 g like a bullet that impacts with ~1800 J of energy), the amount of energy imparted by impact is 64-256x greater (115,200-460,800 J=1/2 stick of dynamite for a 4g impactor) since impact energy is 1/2mv^2. That high energy/speed has two major implications.

1. The big chunks of debris depicted in movies, like Gravity and many other films, aren't necessary to do catastrophic damage. Tiny objects far too small to track, like a nut or a screw, can punch through heat shields or pressure vessels. Although we track the big stuff because we can track dead satellites and expended stages, and large chunks (say the size of a wrench or larger), in many ways they are less of a concern because we can track them and move out of the way. But the smaller items, which are 10s, 100s if not 1000s of times more prevalent, we can't track and can't avoid. That's one reason orbital debris is such a big threat - because the stuff we can't see can still kill us. It seems unimportant - after all the big chunk thing is way cooler in the movie, and that's quite true - but by reinforcing the stereotypical concern, there's a very real risk to expend efforts to battle a section of the orbital debris problem that is a tiny fraction of the whole. Sadly, this perception is not limited to laymen.
2. The other aspect is that, when stuff is coming toward you at a relative speed large enough to do real damage, that can easily mean several times faster than a speeding bullet. Which means dodging, even seeing the debris, is virtually impossible. Ironically, if you can see it approach, the relative velocity is a tiny fraction of what it could be and it is therefore far less destructive. It's important to note that, though I mentioned relative velocities of 16 km/s (head-on collision) and 8 km/s (effectively hit dead on from the side), one can also be hit from a similar close by orbit at velocities from close to 8 km/s to a fraction of a m/s. Its because of this relative velocity thing that ships can match velocities and dock in space without damaging each other.

• As part of the film, all our communications, notably with the Shuttle, are knocked out. Um, no, not possible while still being an immediate threat to the Space Shuttle etc. The primary mode for communication with the Shuttle is the TDRSS Satellite system, which whirls around the equator (along with almost all communication satellites of the world) in geosynchronous orbit, some 35,800 km above the surface of the earth as opposed to the altitude of HST (559 km), ISS (~417 km) and Tiangong (~370 km). Although it's not impossible that an impact would could send a few chunks high enough to intersect (not match) geosynchronous, they would be unlikely to be a big threat since they'd either be tossed out of orbit (if they obtain escape velocity) or are in a highly elliptical orbit where the bulk of its time is spent at other altitudes. To match geosynchronous orbit, it would need another influx of force to circularize the orbit. The volume of space in  geosynchronous is also much larger than LOE. True, most of the satellites are clustered around the equator, but any debris originating from LOE are likely to be at another higher inclination such that they would only intersect the equator twice an orbit, reducing the potential for impact in geosynchronous orbit.
• And all this discussion on why communication would not be wiped out brings up something else very important about debris: there is a great deal of it, but the volume of space is really vast, which is why debris tends to be a threat over time. Not that one can't be hit by debris in a limited window of time, but that the smaller the window is, the less likely there is to be a significant impact. That's one reason why the risk to ISS is so great over its entire lifespan, but the risk is small on a per year or per month basis.
• Now there are several possibilities for Russian satellites to shoot down, but most of them are of high inclination since their launch sites tend to be further north than the U.S. and China, but the different orbits, at different altitudes and inclinations argues that there would be minimum interaction with all three space assets (HST/Shuttle, ISS and Tiangong) which are all at different inclinations and altitudes. Now, eventually, over time, the debris cloud will expand and affect all orbits below it to some extent, but this would be a process that occurs over months and years, not hours. And would pretty much negate the 45 minute window of time that they described as the time to expect debris.  Remember (or discover), two orbits that have different inclinations will only intersect twice an orbit (assuming they are comparable altitudes) but there's no saying that the object of that inclination will be at exactly the same spot unless they have identical periods (which is unlikely for debris which is likely to be in a more elliptical orbit, especially if it threatens objects at different altitudes). Please note that discussing the intricacies and complexities of orbital mechanics with words is bound to be confusing.
• One other key thing to note about debris is that the most important risks for human spaceflight are pressure vessel damage (as they showed for Shuttle) and damage to the heat shields of reentry vehicles where even small damage can cause catastrophic damage (as evidenced by Columbia, unfortunately). Yet, most of the damage shown was more in keeping with damage inflicted by large (relatively) slow moving impactors.

 So, why is this important? True, we're taking liberties and amplifying the threat and time table of orbital debris, but the threat of orbital debris is real, if not as represented. Well, because the perception of the threat and the cause of the threat is important and determines what we do to address that threat. And even science minded folks can be misled. Space Safety Magazine, for instance, a magazine I admire greatly (I am a charter member of one of it's publishing organizations: the International Association for Advancement of Space Safety [IAASS]) recently published an editorial that talks about the plausibility of Gravity, saying "The film, however, has a stronger basis in fact than you might imagine," and then noting the real dangers of orbital debris. But by not clearly pointing out the impossibilities in the movie (as opposed to the unlikeliness of the various scenarios), the position, in my opinion, is misleading. 

And, yes, that bothers me. Given the length of this post, I'll have to hold off until next time why traipsing from HST to ISS to Tiangong (among many other impossibilities) is just not going to happen. And why it's important to understand that. 

Read more...

Party-pooper: Gravity Part 1

As promised, here's some rocket science for ya.

Now, although it's not true of all rocket scientists, in my particular career, I've made something of a specialty out of telling people stuff they didn't want to know, because, well, that's really what safety engineers do. If someone's excited about their work and progress, and it's all hunky dory, safety people don't have to say anything. But, if it's not, safety engineers get the (not surprisingly) thankless task of telling engineers that their baby is ugly and needs some sort of makeover.

That mindset, looking for flaws, either becomes engrained in some of us, or, as I suspect is true with myself, we gravitate to positions like that because we're natural pick-aparters, devil's advocates, skeptics. And, if we have a thick enough skin (I'm nearly a solid), and stick to our guns, we can actually do good things because many a design has been passed over by enthusiastic supporters (aka reviewers) only to fail cataclysmally in reality. Safety folks, if they have a vestige of a spine, help keep that from happening.

But I digress. What I'm here to do is rain on the parade regarding the science of the movie Gravity. Yes, there will be spoilers, so, if you don't want to read them, stop HERE. Now, of course, the first thing people will tell me is to let it go: it's just a movie. After all, I had a great time watching Iron Man III (and the first two Iron Man movies) and the science is quite thoroughly whacked, though just as pretty (I love watching him don/doff suits). I understand what you're saying, I really do, but there's a reason I don't just let it go for Gravity and actually enjoy the Iron Man nonsense, and I'll explain why at the end (which will probably be in a later post).

Gravity is a very pretty movie, with excellent effects, notably the space scenes, and some fairly effective acting. The zero-g footage was particularly spectacular and well-done. When the ISS broke up, the movements involved, including the way the oscillation caused bending moment effects was pretty cool and likely based on some fairly correct physics. Orbital debris is also a significant risk for space vehicles, particularly those in low earth orbit as all the space stations, Hubble Space Telescope and the Shuttle (when it flew) were tied to. In principle....more on that later.

Aside from that, there was almost nothing that was right.

First, I think the movie owes astronauts and the people who train them an apology. The main character, whose name I forgot, is a strong female protagonist and scrappy, etc., which is great, in theory. However, she is also far more ignorant of basic EVA protocol, space information, science, training, etc. than any astronaut I've ever met, including those who were never planning to go EVA. EVA, in particular, is my baby, so let me point out a few things.

• First of all, you DON'T go out spacewalking while nauseous because puking in the suit=dead astronaut. That's why they don't do spacewalks the first few days after launch so they can get acclimatized to the zero g (which sets many a tummy a-flutter), which means, if they were late in the flight, as they were supposed to be, if she were still so nauseous they would not LET her go out and would probably be worried she had something else wrong with her. 
• Secondly, one doesn't send out three astronauts at the same time without desperate need. Sending three astronauts out would have to be for a heckuva a reason (only once, in the entire history of spacewalking, has anyone (US, Russia or China) sent out three spacewalkers at once [STS-49 to try to retrieve IntelSat IV F-3 - which they managed to do]). We don't send out three at once for the very good reason that everything is designed for a pair. There are connections for two suits in the airlock (which has to hold a suit tech and two suited crewmembers and is probably smaller than your shower stall). We don't send out just one person any more either, but pairs have managed to get the job done over and over again.
• If one were desperate enough to have to send out three EVA crewmembers, it certainly would not be to piddle-poo around with a jet pack that looks amazingly like the Manned Manuevering Unit, that stopped flying before I started working in the space industry in 1989 - (flew in 1984 only). And certainly not on a Hubble Servicing Mission, given that those are always wall-to-wall back-to-back EVAs (where, interestingly enough, no one has enough free time to go bouncing up and down on his safety harness - shudder). They do those missions with a staff of four EVA astronauts that go out in pairs on alternating days (because doing EVAs on successive days is tremendously tiring - EVAs are hard physical labor working against the pressurized suit, mean usually 16 hour days [at least], and are taxing to hands in particular). And, on HST, much like they do on ISS, EVA crewmembers work their tails off each EVA and have half a dozen other tasks to do if they miraculously get finished early. 
• EVA crewmembers are drilled continuously and at great length, both on safety requirements, contingencies and actual tasks in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab. Preferably 10 hours in the water for every one on orbit. This is particularly true on something like HST where they EVAs are packed, challenging, gruelling and frequently run into snags.  The crews that perform EVAs (and I know it from personal experience with HST) are smart as hell, driven, capable, knowledgeable and professional. I personally was a little offended on their behalf at the behavior of the crewmembers in the movie.
• And, no, crewmembers do not bounce back and forth on their tethers for entertainment, because (a) that's stupid, (b) they don't have time, and (c) most importantly, it's not safe. Crews count on the tethers to save them if they get separated, but bouncing on that puts forces on them, adds to the risk of them rubbing on something (and failing when you need it) and also imparts forces on the ship you're attached to, which is trying to hold the arm and HST still at the same time. 
• You don't manipulate computer boards on EVA for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that pressurized gloves don't have that kind of dexterity. The gloves are ballooned out and you have to work against them without being able to really feel what you're manipulating. But, far more importantly, circuit boards are covered with sharp edges, those little solder-tipped spots where ICs poke through. In a suit where glove material can be torn open with anything even vaguely sharp, no way you'd handle a circuit card or slide it into a card cage with all those resultant pinch points. I might add the HST folks that design those challenging EVAs are very cognizant and work very hard to make all the unusual equipment they send up EVA friendly and safe. But, if they had managed to send this contraption, it would never have gotten past the crewmembers or me or any other EVA Safety Engineer.
• When they tell you to come in because there's danger, you do it. No one is more cognizant of how close to death they are than an EVA astronaut. Space is completely unforgiving and there's no second chance if your suit fails catastrophically.
• Even if the airlock wasn't sound (and with the catastrophic damage to the shuttle, I wouldn't trust it either), the system to provide power and oxygen to the suit via umbilical in the airlock might still have worked. Given how low her oxygen was, I would have tried that before setting forth for the station (if that were viable, which it isn't - more on that later). Still, there is an emergency oxygen supply, intended to provide oxygen in case of a "hole in the suit" scenario. Not saying you want to use it, but this is probably sufficient emergency to justify it. It's not unnexpected, with the hyperventilating, that her oxygen went low first, but the CO2 would also also likely gone up since CO2 scrubbing capability and oxygen supply are generally about the same capability.
• As has been noted by others, crewmembers do not don the suit in just their skivvies. They have socks and diapers, and, most importantly, a liquid cooling garment, necessary to keep from dumping a liter of sweat out when they doff the suit (as happened on EVAs before we had the liquid cooling garment). No argument, though, that the skivvies look better on the big screen.
• Orlans, the Russian spacesuit presumably stored in the Soyuz capsule, would be plenty heavy to sink like  stone in water (120 kg), but doffing it, since you slide out the rear swifter than most spacesuits, rather than peeling them off like long johns, still would take five minutes, even if you could get it open in the pressure of underwater.

There's more, of course. I haven't even touched on the orbital mechanics involved, the orbital debris scenario and the issues with communications satellites. Sigh. Still, this should be enough for one post. Several of you are already having your eyes roll into your heads at the stuff I tossed at you. So, next time, how far can you go with an MMU? Not nearly as far as they showed, seriously. 

Read more...

Basic Primer on Science and the Scientific Process

I've already run into some pretty screwed up notions about science. I'm not saying Christians are the only ones who have them - there might be any number of people out there who don't understand the basics of the scientific process and science in general - but, so far, the ones I've found least likely to even listen to what the situation really is happen to be religious "nuts." Note that "nuts" doesn't describe all religious people, not by even a large margin. I think most church-goers are perfectly reasonable people who understand what's important in their lives, use their various religious teachings to help themselves be better people and manage to do so without forgoing independent thought.

But I get very frustrated trying to speak with people for whom facts, data and logic mean nothing. And they are the ones most vociferous that scientists want to be gods and the ones with the very least understanding of what science is.

What is science and the scientific process? Explaining observed conditions in a systematic way.

What that means is that first and last, there's data. No data, no science. Data could be observed conditions (weather, climate, astronomy, living things in the wild). Data could be the results experimentation, like noting what happens when something is fertilized or dropped from a height and dragged along a rough surface.

Why data first? Because the first step in science is trying to formulate explanations for what data you have. Each potential explanation (called hypothesis) must fit the available data. That does not mean that every data point is explained by the hypothesis, but it does mean that none of the data negates or makes the hypothesis impossible. Data that doesn't fit is not ignored but set aside to either look for other explanations (hopefully ones that mesh with the other working hypotheses) or more data that might link it all together.

The next step is to take a working hypotheses and try to validate it, show that it's the right explanation. Again, this is done through data, either more observed information or experimentation. If increasing amounts of data stop supporting the hypothesis (i.e. the data that doesn't fit starts to be significant) or if a single hard fact negates it, the hypothesis is discounted and other hypotheses are pursued.

When a sufficient quantity and quality of verifiable data supports a hypothesis, it becomes a theory. Some theories have such an overwhelming preponderance of data (and no other competing theory) that scientists stop looking for alternate explanations but seek to refine the existing theory, treating it as effectively fact, even if every aspect of it isn't yet understood. Examples of this include plate tectonics and evolution. Yet, even the strongest theories can conceivably be derailed by a single incontrovertible fact. Usually, however, well regarded and broadly accepted theories are not derailed because, to become that way, they have been picked apart, and experimented with and challenged with exceeding rigor.

What's a fact? It's an observation or an experimental result that is (a) verifiable and (b) repeatable. If Dr. Strangelove says he had a huge scientific breakthrough but no one else saw or measured it and/or no one else (preferably outside his lab) can reproduce the result, it's not a fact. Anything Dr. Strangelove postulates based on this spurious result is going to be treated very skeptically by scientists until other independently verified data is found that supports it.

A fact is not something someone wrote down in history, per se, unless there is objective evidence to support that assertion. For example, if someone in some period of time claimed there was an eclipse and astronomy calculation indicated an eclipse would have indeed happened about that time, it would be considered factual. If someone said there was huge volcanic eruption at some point in time and some particular location, but there is no evidence of it in the archaeology or geology of the area, other explanations (including an error on the part of the recorder) would be looked for. That doesn't mean it would be considered nonsense unless there were strong counterindications, but without corroborative evidence, it would be considered speculative rather than factual.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the recorder was lying. They could be describing a previously unknown phenomena in terms they understand, like Aristotle assuming previously dried up ponds could spontaneously create life when refilled with water or that heavier objects were subject to greater gravitational acceleration than lighter ones. His measurement and observational tools were insufficient to allow him to get the full story. As tools become more precise or complete and more data is gathered, science moves forward, sometimes adapting original theories to the new data, sometimes discarding it when it fails to live up to the new data.

What is NOT science?

Starting with a premise and trying to prove it's so, discarding anything that doesn't agree with the beginning premise or negates it. This is not science and scientists don't do it. Even if some scientists along the way fall into the trap of ignoring data that doesn't agree, other scientists will find out and correct the situation. That is bad science and scientists are well aware of the trust they have been given and won't knowingly condone such actions.

I have to add the irony (or more accurately the hypocrisy) that the folks mostly likely to level this accusation are usually the same ones trying to promote a "scientific theory" based on an assertion made in some religious text or another that either has no scientific basis (other than the text) or is directly negated by facts. Science comes from facts, not despite them. As soon as you've decided the answer before you've looked at the data, you are no longer doing science. Period.

Which doesn't mean you can't believe whatever you want, just think of it as miraculous or magical or whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to warp science to make it fit.

Science is not secret. There are some scientific breakthroughs and technological advances that take place behind closed doors, either for patent protection or national security (i.e. military developers), but that is far and away a small portion of science. Science is one of those places where nothing is accepted by the scientific community until you show you work (in this case your data) and survive that data and your conclusions being challenged. There are two reasons for this: one is that science often leads to the greater good for people - understanding weather patterns or geological indications. The other is that something that can't take the rigor of scientific review is probably not true.

Note that that very openness is often a significant source of stress for scientists who, if they have a controversial finding, spend all of their time defending what are often trivial aspects or odd data points by people who have no real understanding of the science behind it.

Disproved vs. Unexplained. I spoke briefly about data that may not fit a theory not being discounted, but also not precluding a theory's veracity. In general, that data would be unexplained, like the platypus, for example, which doesn't fit neatly into the usual patterns when discussing evolution. To the best of my knowledge, no one has a definitive explanation for that, so it's unexplained, but doesn't negate the patterns of natural selection and adaptation directly observed and evaluated via genetic review.

Disproving a notion/hypothesis/theory is a completely different beast. The hard ones is when an assertion is made that is not readily proved nor disproved. Even if it seems unlikely (as the original assertion that vaccines caused autism, for example), in order to disprove the notion, a great deal of testing and observation had to take place, showing that the use of the accused element in the vaccine did not have the effect suggested as well as considerable data showing the same level of autism when using no vaccines or vaccines without it. Unfortunately, before the baseless accusation (which was part of the problem) was thoroughly disproved, so many people had already bought into it that the notion is still prevalent. And, as data was gathered, a large number of children were put at risk, were unnecessarily ill and even died as a results.

The other much easier way to disprove a theory is hard data already in hand that negates it absolutely. For example, if one's "theory" was that the earth was ten thousand years old, this could be immediately disproved since there are hard paleontological and geological and archeological data from far far before that. There are, in fact, human records that go back much further than that. Hence, disproved.

Scientists are not gods (Lord knows I don't want to be one) or all knowing. You don't have to tell us, we know that. That's WHY we insist on the rigor we do, why we check each others' work, why the data takes precedence over the most impressive reputation. We know mistakes on our part can affect many other people. We don't like being wrong, but good scientists would rather be wrong and caught than think they are right when they're not.

I can't speak for all scientists, but I don't want to take anyone's belief system away. Have at. Enjoy. Just don't call it science and don't teach it like it is in schools.

Cross posted on Gather.

Read more...

News and commentary on science

So, this is mostly a life update thing but I'm going to add some philosophical and stuff at the end for those interested enough to read all the way through.

I passed losing 100 pounds last week which puts me well over halfway to my goal. Going slower than I like, but, still, as long as I'm still moving in the right direction, it's all good. By the way, for the dieters out there, Kroger's "Slow Churned" [Light] Death By Chocolate ice cream could be the eighth deadly sin and, at only 140 calories a scoop, it's a happy indulgence. And no one's paying me to say it. It's just that damn good.

Had to replace one of my AC units, the one that we've been babying since I moved in in 2004 that goes out repeatedly and takes care of upstairs which is not only much hotter than downstairs but it's where we all are most of the time. Well it died, but at least it happened now, when we had a nice cool week and not in July. I'm hoping the much higher efficiency unit (w/ten years parts AND labor warranty) will also help with cooling bills this summer.

I was taken aback when changing my W-4 from married to single (but otherwise identical) resulted in more than an extra $120 coming out of my paycheck every week (which is why I paid into the IRS last year for the first time in decades). Ouch. Sucks to be a single parent. My hats off to any of you out there doing it on far less than I'm making. I literally have no idea how you manage it. 

Was discussing the topic of gay marriage on Gather.com (I rarely go there any more, but I have a bud who knows how to write articles that get discussions going to a frightening degree). Not going to discuss it here because I already have and, really, I didn't have many people arguing with me, not even Relax Max.

But several folks there were up in arms at the notion and after some extended hair rending and teeth gnashing over the increased moral turpitude that's crept into our society now that we can't beat blacks and our wives any more with impunity (ah, the good old days, when children had a 50% chance of living to adulthood and hygiene meant a monthly soak in a metal basin), one of them got into a long drawn-out rant against science, the kind I see once in a while among the creationist or global climate change naysayers. As I am myself, I noted that there was a level of irony in someone dissing science while using it to communicate, in this case, on the internet.

Here is his carefully quoted response to that [Note that the previous was paraphrased with almost undoubtedly some bias on my part]:

So, now science means anything that involved any sort of scientific or technological discovery to make? I am "using science" if I drive a car? Turn on a light? Flick my bic? 

 I still can't think about it without wiping tears of laughter from my eyes.

Uh, duh? Did he think that stuff grew on trees? Spontaneously fell from the sky like manna?

Now, I'm not equating religious folks with this kind of thinking - most religious people I know personally are perfectly rational reasonable thoughtful people who use religion as a guide to be better people. Can't fault that. But some of the crazies that pop up on talk radio and the internet are freaky out there.

This same guy, later on, said, "Science itself as we know it, was begun by "religious people" . . ." [guffaw, chortle]. While it was true that Christianity, at one point, was "in charge" of science, they were (a) largely basing it on Aristotle (who was not Christian but might have been a very devout pagan for all I know) and (b) did so up through the time called the Dark Ages, largely because science was stagnant in their hands. The name "Dark Ages" was not coincidental. And, while a number of scientists have been and are now devout in their respective religions, I don't think I'm really speaking out of turn when I say several of the organized religions have been basically obstructing science since the Dark Ages.

Note also, that that's just Western science. I know that, in many early civilizations like the Mayans and Babylonians, science, particularly astronomy, was closely linked with their religion. I haven't looked at the link between science and religion in the Far East Asian cultures, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar. (And for those who might thing Western culture dominated science in ancient times, I beg to differ).

But I have seriously digressed.

My point is that people can be awfully harsh with scientists and those implementers of science, engineers, and tend to focus on the evils that have resulted. I don't want to dismiss those, of course. We're not absolved of guilt for our part in that, for what our work facilitated. But I also think that just as religion today shouldn't really be held responsible for some of the more heinous things done in the past in the name of religion (and there are ample examples), scientists might be given a little slack on the less than savory results of our work done in generations past. Not that ills done in the name of religion and murderous/unhealthy science don't go on now as well. They do.

Similarly, just as religion deserves credit for good things that are done, including a significant portion of the relief efforts in some of the more tortured parts of the globe, science deserves note for those activities on the plus side of the scale. And I think that that is often taken for granted.

Some of it is, obviously, medical, things that have transformed the health of humankind in ways that would have amazed people a couple of centuries ago (though it should be noted, again, that various cultures already appreciated some aspects of that, like hygiene, again in certain Asian cultures): vaccines (much maligned but a huge factor in reducing infant mortality and child survival rates), antibiotics, hygiene and pasteurization, analgesics, safe and sterile surgical techniques (now with anesthesia!), clean water supplies and plumbing (which doesn't get enough credit for making changes in our world). When my grandfather was a child, half his siblings didn't make it to adulthood. That wasn't unusual in his day. I can't even imagine it. Two centuries and more back, childbirth was one of the biggest killers of women; now it's far less so (in countries where women can get pre and post natal care).  Thank you, biology and medicine.

Manufacturing break-throughs, assembly lines, automation, irrigation and farm machinery have allowed drops in prices and increased affordability in a number of things that used to be in short supply and/or only available for the very rich, like clothing and various (even rare) foods, vehicles and electronics and computers. Thank you engineering.

Material sciences and organic chemistry (particularly plastics) have meant huge breakthroughs in alloys and semiconductors  and ceramics/composites and plastics from cookware to bullet-proof vests to surgical implants and fiber optics to nano technology and, again, electronics. They've enabled solar panels and computer supersystems as well as computers that fit neatly on a wrist. Are you glad you can listen to music without having to go the concern hall every time? Thank you material sciences and chemistry.

Like riding in a car rather than horse and buggy? Like having electric lights rather than relying strictly on candles? Like flying in planes? Air conditioning and central heating? Like having access to instant information (cell and internet), weather information, location information? Much of the latter relies on a huge phalanx of satellites made possible by the space programs of many different nations. Thank you, physics and, yes, rocket science and combustive chemistry.

I'm just scratching the surface here, but I don't think it would go amiss, when we start thinking nostalgically about how simple life used to be, we might want to also remember how dangerous it was, how inconvenient, how dirty (even the wealthy), how exhaustive it was for most people, how little time and money was available for luxuries of any kind.

Science and scientists are certainly not free from fault, but there's a sizable debt we all owe to their efforts. Perhaps it wouldn't be amiss to remember it once in a while.

Read more...

You Can't Teach English via Scantron

Let me apologize for the apparent hiatus (which I failed to warn y'all about) over the last week and a half, both in new posts and in reading/responding to other blogs. I was working under a day-job push that resulted in overtime, a hurry-up revision of a draft novel and considerable forward work on an unfinished manuscript (that went quite well: 20K words over the last four days). So the neglect was not in vain. Thanks for the patience.

Now, moving on. Here, I have a couple of posts in a row inspired by dealing with my teenaged daughter. One of them is touching on something I've noted before: my brain doesn't work like other people's brains. In general. Apparently, my daughter has a similar (if not the same) problem as manifested in just the first week of English class.

Now, in general, my daughter kicks literary butt in English. She likes reading. She writes very well. She interacts in class and finds the topics appealing. However, summer reading was evaluated via scantron test the first week and her grades were, well, abysmal, despite the fact she read all but one. Part of it stemmed from the fact that she read them at the beginning of the summer and some of the questions were nitpicky details on page X questions (or so she told me). But, part of it was that her interpretation of the book, the characters and what it all means often falls outside the multiple choice answers provided. So, what to pick?


Man, that took me back. Although I've always seriously ruled in English class, my scores in English matched my math score on SAT (which surprised the snot out of me) and brought my cumulative score down on my ACT (which didn't mean it was bad, just not as stellar as science and math). Why? Same damn reason.

"Read this selection and choose the answer that best describes the main idea." Except my understanding in no way matched with any of the choices. I could defend my opinion, but there is generally no comment section on a scantron sheet.

Now, don't get me wrong. There are areas where multiple choice is appropriate. Math and science tend toward black/white answers*, repeatable and verifiable in real life. And the answer should be the same even if the problem is attacked in different ways. Similarly, historic facts can be addressed via multiple choice. However, once you moved to interpretation of those historic facts, once you start looking for perspective and evaluation of things that are subjective, this one-size-fits-all thinking falls apart. True/false history tests were the bane of my existence. "True/false: X often happened in the Y era." How frequently before it counts as often? Twice if they were notable? A hundred obscure times? Aaaaaaaah!

It's particularly ironic that many teachers and/or educational institutions push for black/white answers when artists and writers, particularly the great ones studied in schools, were great because they challenged black and white thinking. I think part of this is driven by students (and, to some extent, teachers for the convenience of grading). When I was growing up, nothing got the class to groaning like the prospect of an "essay" test. An essay test answer shows you really understand things, that you thought about it, felt it, accepted it. If you don't understand it, don't get it, you'll fail. Unless your teacher was none to bright, you couldn't fake it.

But that's real learning. Many students don't want to learn by the time they get to high school. They just want to get through school. Just tell them what they need to know for the test so they can move on without it changing their lives. Thinking and feeling is too personal and, as my daughter found out, no guarantee you'll do well on the test.

This reminds me of a lesson I learned in college. Doing poorly in my electrical engineering class, I was disheartened and my English major roommate suggested going with her to her English class as a cure. Now, I'd tested out of all my required English, so I didn't have any of the standard classes. I protested that going to a class I didn't have to go to was unlikely to make me feel better. Well, my roommate was right, as she frequently was.

They were discussing a Wordsworth poem I had not read before. I read it during the class and the discussion came to what was meant by a particular passage. Different students from the actual class were raising their hands and giving answers. Truth was, I could see how they thought so in that section, but the teacher was adamant those answers were "wrong." Despite the fact I had no business being there anyway, I raised my hand and answered - "the" answer the teacher wanted. By the end of the class, that I did feel better about my intelligence. But I also learned that many (not all) people teaching subjective subjects can be seduced into thinking there's only one answer to complex questions and passing that thinking on to their students.

I am convinced that Wordsworth himself, if he had been teaching that class, would not have the right to tell a reader their interpretation was "wrong." I'm proud to say that my sister, the English professor, does not teach English that way, as attested by the endless hours she spends grading essays, exercises and essay tests.

As schools are squeezed for funding, more and more, the schools are going to be stressing what can be objectively measured, leaving many of us non-standard thinkers behind. Which is a very very sad thing given that almost every improvement, advance, invention and artistic success ever has been direct result of thinking outside the norm.

*I mentioned that math and science is black and white and I stand by that in the realm of public education. There we are teaching laws and science, math skills and formulas that have been demonstrated countless times. However, in the real world where, for every problem, there might be any number of solutions, none of them optimum, that isn't true. Not only can you get there many different ways, but the answers aren't identical. And, in fact, my non-standard thinking and unusual perspective when looking at different solutions is one of the reasons I'm so good at my job.

Read more...

RS Classic: Why Star Wars Doesn't Impress Me

Not ready for anything serious and I've been busy with work and rewriting the novel I'm writing right now, so keeping it light and reusing. I'd noted before that I'm a character person, but also a pick-a-parter. Here's an example of my pick-a-parting talent.

I was surprised at my reaction when I saw a discussion where Star Wars was described as “pure science fiction.” Hard science fiction is fiction that is firmly grounded in science, where the science is as much a part of the story as the characters. Despite my science background, I don’t write hard science fiction because I’m much more into characters than science.

However, Star Wars does not count as pure or hard science fiction. Why do you say that? Haven’t you seen the “Science of Star Wars” type shows? Yep. Not impressed. In reality, what did they do in Star Wars that made scientific sense?

They shot out of open portholes and landed crafts in bays open to space. They wander about on asteroids wearing only gas masks as opposed to full pressure suits. The ships are cool-looking, but impractical. Center of gravity on most are so out of whack as to make them challenging to fly realistically with or without atmosphere.

Actually, I guess I’m not a huge Star Wars fan. The story, of course, is old and proven, the kind of feel good story that’s been used over and over because it’s successful. Some of the characters are appealing (more so after the “first” one when someone besides Lucas did the dialog). Above, all, though, it had tons of glitz in a movie industry that had never seen anything like it.

But, even without the science, did the stories and details make sense? The weapons are highly impractical (explain, for instance, the advantage to being able to destroy a planet into dust - what have you really accomplished? Space dust is somewhat less than useful.). Hand to hand skills under such circumstances are, uh, superfluous. Why the stress on that? Exactly how many droids wander the deserts of Tatooine for the Jawas to be able to make a living off stealing them? And how come it took 13 minutes to fly at “full throttle” down the trench on the Death Star, but the whole Death Star is kilometers in the background seconds later.

What does the Empire achieve by “taking over” that they didn’t have working behind the Republic? Given the success of the robot fighters, what was the benefit of the clones? It’s not like they were encouraged to think independently since disobedience was punished by death. Why clone a bounty hunter for a flood of soldiers? Why would a space port, like that on Tatooine, not take off-world money or have a way of converting it? Why have a port then? Why in the world would anyone of conscience buy the freedom of a boy and leave the mother he adored?

Star Wars is an excellent example what happens when I’m not in love with the characters enough: everything that doesn’t make much sense leaps out and grabs me by the throat (including why Luke could be all but unaffected by the brutal and probably torturous death of the people that raised him, but devastated for three movies about the death of a man he’d known three days or so). I like Hans Solo and Leia else I might have a list for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but I guess you get the idea.

Read more...

Baby With the Bath Water

I love my readers. Both The Mother and Rocketscienist (not me, a different one) gave me the perfect opportunity to expand my last post in the direction I wanted. The Mother by providing an example of what can go wrong by overreacting to a poorly thought out regulation and Rocketscienist by noting that we don't live in a binary world, even if we treat it like it is.

See, this was all triggered by a frustrating discussion I had with some tin whisker experts who began bemoaning the repercussions of RoHS ("Why won't they listen to the scientists?") and then turn and say all environmentalists are stupid and short-sighted, all regulation is wrong and then segway into the fact that global warming is "disproved." Global warming, you know, that environmental issue brought forward by scientists.

/slaps head

First off, there's nothing that makes an expert look stupid like bemoaning the fact he's not given credence and then dismissing other experts as hacks based on the same popular media they were just condemning. As I expostulated here. Hypocrisy only makes the hypocrite look bad (well, and gives all scientists, including themselves, a bad name. Sigh.)

But secondly, there's a logical fallacy in the attitude if there's one "bad" regulation, they must all be bad. Not that the notion that "all bad things" can be eliminated with legislation is more logical. Too often, people respond to something wrong as a condemnation of everything similar.

For instance, the regulation The Mother mentioned is a case in point. The CFC regulations have been working. Although the ozone will be affected for a long time, the CFC concentrations that led to the anomaly have been noticeably reduced. That's a good thing for the world as a whole and a significant population of people. Not excluding inhalers from this regulation (inhalers likely had minimal impact on the overall CFC release) was short-sighted. I have to mention, though, that there IS an exception made for medical inhalers and some other uses and even a stock of CFCs for that particular purpose. I'll also add that that was likely an afterthought.

The problem isn't that something should have been done (or not). The key is doing the job smartly (and I can't disagree that politics often drives regulations far more than data or anything resembling sense). But that doesn't mean regulation is a bad thing - that's implementation, not the concept.

What's more, the right thing to do on one topic doesn't dictate the right thing to do on another topic. I'm of the opinion that a ban on lead for all electrical components is, indeed, a bad idea. However, there are likely components where lead removal would have little or no consequences. And, if I did think the whole thing was whacked, it doesn't follow that ALL environmental regulation is garbage.

I'm not objective. My father died of asbestosis. My father worked for EPA, whose efforts have gone a long way to improving water quality, reducing pollution, and, yes, reducing the likelihood that the next generation will have to worry about dying of asbestosis. Ironically, he also died from environmental causes after wading, hip-deep, through every toxic muck from one end of this country to another trying to figure out how to clean it up. So I get irked when someone tells me all environmental regulation is nonsense. They died to help the rest of us. I know an awful lot about how bad it used to be that we, who haven't lived with rivers that can be lit on fire, can't appreciate.

I also know that anything can be taken too far (like, say, some of the folks at PETA).

The answer isn't one extreme or the other. It's not all in the middle or slanting to one side. There isn't one answer or one solution. It's not no government or too much government. It's not all or nothing. It's not yes or no. There is no one answer for all our problems.

There are, however, potential solutions for each problem (or linked problems collectively). It's making the right rules, not just blanket rules. It's listening to the experts, doing one's homework and doing one's best to do the right thing - even if you have to change gears or backtrack later as, as rocketscienist pointed out, you discover what you did had unforeseen repercussions.

But, as long as people are willing to make kneejerk judgments based on what political party they are or what they're told they should think, as long as they characterize any group of people with extreme names instead of addressing the specific issues (eco-terrorist, for example, or hmm, I can't think of a conservative one - maybe someone can help me out) instead of looking at the data and working toward a smart solution, the pendulum will keep swinging back and forth.

And crashing into us coming and going.

Not that I'm opinionated or anything. :)

Read more...

Venus

Have I ever mentioned that Venus was my favorite planet? I mean, aside from the one I live on? Pretty. Jewel-like, in many ways, our earth's twin. Venus.

Venus is beautiful, only a fraction smaller than our planet and the closest one to us, a just a step nearer the sun. There are volcanoes on Venus but no moon (though one was repeatedly observed early on - read about it here) and it can generally be seen with the naked eye (often called "The Evening Star"). It is, in fact, the brightest object in the night besides the sun and moon.

But it's isn't friendly. The temperature is over 450 degrees C and the pressure is 90 times our own. Carbon dioxide predominates in that atmosphere leading to a runaway greenhouse effect that makes the surface, hidden shyly beneath thick sulfurous clouds, an inferno.

Unlike our planet, cloaked with a strong magnetic field second only to Jupiter's, Venus has no magnetic field. It also rotates backwards and very very slowly. It takes 243 days for it to rotate once about its axis. In fact, it rotates so slowly, the day is more than 18 days longer than a Venusian year. (The orbit, itself, is not retrograde, though it is the most circular of all the planets' orbits.) Venus approaches closer than any other planet to Earth and, for reasons we're not entirely sure of, always shows us the same face.

The real question, I think, for many of us science, space and science fiction geeks is, was it always like that? Did it once have water, perhaps life before either its position, its atmosphere or some cataclysm changed the dynamic?

I don't know when, if ever, we'll know about life or if it changed for some specific reason, but we're figuring out the answer to if it ever had water today, thanks to ESA's Venus Express (and here), we are gathering data that tells us that Venus did once have considerably more water than it has now.

Fascinating stuff, Venus. By the way, in 2012 we'll have another transit of Venus, where Venus travels right between the Earth and the Sun. Although it happened in 2004, it's a rare occurance, once we won't see again until 2117. Check it out!

Read more...

RS Classic: Dissing Science

Another blast from the past.

Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers.
–William Penn

Recently, I found myself hot under the collar. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have a temper. But this was all about science and I work very hard to keep my cool and professionalism when it comes to science – passion and science = bad science.

But I was beginning to understand why so many scientists and naysayers are getting into arguments just short of fistfights. It’s hard for even the best scientist to keep his or her temper down when they are being accused of lying and laziness.

This discussion is not going to be about religion. I truly believe in freedom of religion including anyone’s belief in Thor or the monster that hides under the bed. I have not been granted omniscience (aside from believing in fairies myself) and have no right to tell you what to believe in as long as (a) you don’t try to force it down my throat and (b) don’t try to pretend it’s science.

Science is a fascinating beastie. It’s all about finding out what and how reality is and, if possible, figuring out how to manipulate it for the betterment of mankind. Fortunately and unfortunately, reality is pretty slippery. It provides some facts pretty easily, some with a lot of work and some, well, it still hasn’t provided a clear answer. Fortunately, it’s what we don’t know that makes it fun. Unfortunately, what we don’t know (or, worse, think we know) can be very dangerous. For instance, long ago they tried blood transfusions under the correct assumption that blood can help when blood’s been lost. Unfortunately, their lack of knowledge about blood factors meant that some transfusions didn’t go too well so that it was an act of desperation until blood typing was discovered early in the 20th century.

It is because of this, the thrill and excitement (and the risk) of what we know and don’t know that scientists voluntarily subject themselves to strict rules and processes of rigor. Rules include repeatability (preferably independently), adequate controls, and theories that can be disabled with a single immutable fact (which is not the same as a single data point). All the data must be accounted for or explained; one cannot pick and choose the data. And, to be really recognized, it needs to withstand something called peer review.

Peer review? You expect them to police themselves? Yes, for two reasons. First, one cannot evaluate the science of a proposal, conclusion or bit of research without an in depth understanding of science and scientific processes. Generally, this effectively limits you to scientists or “former” scientists (if such things exist). Secondly, scientists want to be right. Being wrong, spectacularly, is not how any scientist wants to be remembered.

Yeah, but don’t we look after our own? Actually, not so much and there’s good reason. There is no benefit for a scientist to give a free pass on the work of another scientist. If the work is bogus or sloppy, the reviewers would be impugned (rightly) along with the researcher by their failure to look at it critically. Wherein politicians (and some other, but not all, professions) can generally make mistake after mistake and survive, in the scientific world, a single instance of dishonesty and/or sloppy work can ruin a career.

If someone does research and writes conclusions, a reviewer is obligated to try to shoot holes in it, find the problems, look for errors, whether the reviewer agrees with it or not, or we do a disservice not only to the rest of the world, but to the researcher. If it’s wrong, we don’t want to hang our hats on it (and we save the researcher some embarrassment). If it’s right, we want it to be as bulletproof as possible.

And people in the same field do not all agree (HAHAHAHAHA!) - far from it. It is, in fact, the hemming and hawing on details that have let so many less familiar with the process think that so many scientists disagree on global warming, when what they are really doing is trying to understand not IF there will be changes, but how much, how fast and what we can do to minimize it. On that, I feel comfortable saying consensus has not been reached. But it doesn’t mean the science is invalid.

Don’t get me wrong. Scientists get excited by findings, breakthroughs, new possibilities, verifications, etc. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. And, yeah, anyone who does work they’re proud of likes recognition. That’s why we peer review and take our time accepting new ideas. If an idea can take being tested independently and repeatedly, if it can stand the test of time and many different people trying to poke holes in it, it stands a much better chance of being valid that if it came from one excited individual.

That’s one reason I get so hot under the collar at being accused of laxity or dishonesty. I’m part of those very checks and balances. Does nothing get by us? Sadly, yes, mistakes are made here and there. But they usually get caught eventually and the numbers (percentage-wise), I feel, are low. Truth told, I don’t know of any other profession that examines itself so critically, puts in so many impediments and challenges to ensure that integrity, that objectivity that makes science what it is. Because people do use that information in a life and death way, we have to be responsible with what we say.

Your doctor doesn’t have the same review process when he gives a prescription (though the basis for the treatments he'll suggest should have gone through the same rigorous process). Your mechanic doesn't even have that. Your lawyer can do all kinds of stupid things (at hundreds of dollars an hour). And there’s not much you can do to preclude mistakes being made by those you trust.

In most cases, there is little you can do except fire someone (after the fact, mostly likely) or in cases of egregious error, sue. In most cases, you just have to live with it. Think of how much better government might be if positions and arguments in government were vetted with the same rigor as science. (I find it ironic that people are more likely to be believe others who have a vested interest in persuading you to a point of view - bankers, big business, politicians – than those that have none.)

Believe me, folks, we don’t want to tell you bad news. There’s no glory or riches in telling people what they don’t want to hear. If we tell you, it’s because that’s what the evidence is telling us and we don’t want our unwillingness to put it on the line to cause anyone to be hurt unnecessarily. At the least, we have no interest in looking stupid.

In science, we really try to weed out the mistakes before you ever see our results. We’re human, but we want the truth out there more than we want our name on it. We’re not perfect, but we’re trying to do the right thing.

Cut us a little slack, k?

You know, some things never change.

Read more...

Scientists Make Rotten Salesmen

I was explaining to my husband how I just can't sell squat to anyone, even when I believe in the product. We were discussing good books and what people wanted to buy, and musing that epic type fantasy and science fiction were considered less than hot commodities despite clear examples of their popularity at the movie theater, how it seemed that what was hot just now, the trappings, seemed more important that the caliber of the story. When, in my opinion, movies/stories like Avatar and the Ring Series were great stories with the setting/genre almost immaterial.

Now, that's plenty of fodder for the peanut gallery, so feel free to have at, but we moved on because my husband understood exactly what I meant. His reaction: "Marketing is about selling crap, no offense to anyone. The product might be good or not, but it makes no difference to marketing."

Now, Lee could sell anything to anyone, up close and personal. Me, I never could sell anything, even though I never tried to sell anything that I didn't believe in 100%.

Then it hit me. And I said it. "Scientists make lousy salesmen." See, things are black and white for scientists. Things aren't this or that. They're likely this and data indicates that. We use words like theoretically to describe our best explanation of things. A doctor knows even the best treatments have side effects or don't work on everyone. A scientists knows that long term effects may not be clearly indicated by any single data point (in fact, quite the opposite). A good scientist is ready and willing (or should be) to throw away his most precious pet theories if the data comes in to say something different.

But conviction requires ignorance. To say something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong requires, well, either a lack of understanding on subtleties or a lack of morals. Possibly both. Unfortunately, the public wants conviction; they take it as a sign of honesty (and if they didn't televangelists would be out of business in seconds). They figure the guy who's most convincing must be the one that's right.

But is it true? The oil companies have told us that anything that distracts us from drilling no matter how dangerous or expensive that drilling might be (or who owns the land) hurts us all. The big bankers told us to trust that they knew what they were doing. After all, they were the brightest of the bright and we just wouldn't understand what they doing. It's complicated and takes experts. Surely, the clear recent examples of all the slick talkers that took investors for millions (and their stockholders and their employees) should be reason enough not to equate conviction with actual sincerity.

*Sigh* But we don't.

I love the stuff I write. I do. I believe in it and think it's good stuff. But I can't tell someone it's like X's book, because it isn't. I can't tell anyone that it's a given best seller. Who knows? I can't even say it's the "best" novel ever written. I don't even think so, but, if I did, I know there are too many different definitions of "best" for me to be able to speak for everyone else. Heck, I have more than one myself.

I believe in the book, but I'm not ignorant enough to be a good salesman.

Stinks, don't it?

Read more...

Remembering a Needless Tragedy

I wrote this for a different blog a year ago today. I can't improve on it, not because I don't have more to say, but because I don't want to go on forever. It is deeply personal to me.

This is the hardest anniversary for me. Not that the others weren’t just as tragic, just as painful, that those lost weren’t just as brave and their deaths just as untimely. But I wasn’t even born when Apollo 1 burned so horribly. And I was just a kid in college when Challenger was torn to pieces. I wasn’t responsible.

But STS-107 was my flight. I was the EVA Safety Flight Lead for this flight. I knew the crew personally. I knew the team supporting them. I’d watched them practice in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab. I was there as the flight went through delay after delay. I went in the Mission Evaluation Room (one of the back rooms at Mission Control that supports “the Front Room”) and spoke to the folks manning the safety console every day. There were no scheduled EVAs so I wasn’t working shift. In fact, unless a contingency EVA was needed, neither was I. But I checked in physically at least once a day.

And I never saw this coming. I never heard any of the feverish concerns going on in different areas. And, sadly, I wasn’t even watching the landing. After all, nothing had gone wrong.

I was actually sleeping in, that morning of February 1, 2003. My husband of only a few months had (and this never happens) gotten up early that Saturday morning to watch cartoons. I was barely pregnant at the time - I don’t think I even knew it yet - and was feeling lazy. My daughter was at her father’s house that weekend. And Lee called out to me from the living room. “Uh, hon, I think the Shuttle just disintegrated.”

“Don’t even joke about that,” I snapped.

“I’m not joking.”

I may have mispoken when I said I never saw it coming. I had dreamed of it and it was one of those extremely rare dreams of mine that I remembered: a Shuttle coming in and breaking into fiery pieces. Whatever dreams I might have generally, I have no remembrance of them when I wake up. But this one, I remembered.

I had been worried about a potential risk. The program and my management had become comfortable with what they knew. I had not. But I had moved on to a different area and only kept track of what was going on sporadically. And I had dreamed of just such a disaster.

Of course, there is considerable evidence that the culprit that damaged the sensitive RCC panels was foam, rather than what had worried me, but that didn’t make it better. We’d been hit by foam repeatedly over the years and had talked ourselves out of worrying about it. We saw the hit before we landed, and we didn’t do more. All of this is well documented in the CAIB report . We fell into the same trap and the same causes culture-wise were cited in the CAIB report that we had heard in the Rogers Commission report from Challenger.

When Columbia reentered, the plasma began burning through the wing, first tearing off the protective RCC panel, then tearing through the structure, hydraulics and wiring, even the tire, behind it. In minutes, the Orbiter began to break up and rain debris over Texas and Louisiana.

To be honest, I’m not sure that we could have saved this crew if we had recognized the danger before they came down. I know we would have tried, would have pulled out all the stops, killed ourselves to save them if we had known what was to happen. I believe that absolutely. But, and this is the lesson we need to take forward into our future endeavors, the best way to have saved them was to keep this from happening.

We learned a great deal in the years that followed this tragedy, more about the materials we use to protect the Shuttle and the limitations and capabilities we have of bringing the Shuttle down safely if something like this ever happens again. And we know more about the risks that scared me and about the foam and ice on the ET and we have steps to address that, too.

Seven Astronauts paid for that lesson: Rick D. Husband, William C. McCool, Michael P. Anderson, Ilan Ramon, Kalpana Chawla, David M. Brown, and Laurel Clark. I must also note two others who died during recovery efforts: Jules F. Mier Jr. and Charles Krenek

Have we learned enough to preclude a recurrence? I don’t know. I hope so. I hope we tuck the lessons like Apollo, Challenger and Columbia in the corner of our minds whatever else we do and we resolved “Never again!” I don’t want us to grow complacent that such tragedies are inevitable, the price of going where no man has gone before. I want us to kick and fight and claw our way forward, unwilling to give an inch to fate, unwilling to accept defeat and any more deaths.

In the end, time will be the true judge on how well we have learned from these tragedies. Here’s hoping this is truly the last for human spaceflight. According to our previous Space Shuttle Program Manager , we still have work to do.

More resources

Wikipedia
CAIB Report
CAIB Hearing transcripts
Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report
Stifling Dissent

1. # Monica on 01 Feb 2009 at 4:41 pm

   I still remember - as just a normal citizen who felt a loss as well.

   ~M

   Thank you for writing on this.

2. # Roy Hilbinger on 01 Feb 2009 at 6:49 pm

   I followed your link to Wayne Hale’s blog and watched the video he linked to. Yeah, that’s not good. And the scary thing is, NASA isn’t the only institution/company that runs that way. I’ve worked in retail for 30 years, and I’ve run into the scenario depicted in the video twice - with FW Woolworth’s and with The Home Depot, two of the worst-run companies I’ve ever had the misfortune to work for and observe. And of course, these days Woolworth’s is defunct and THD massively downsizes every couple of months (and I’ll be willing to bet - you heard it here first - that THD files for Chapter 11 within the next 6 months).

   I’m really hoping the scenario in the video isn’t widespread in NASA. If it is, that’s scary! I’ve been through that “proper channels” and “that’s really not how we do things here” BS too many times, that pressure to conform, conform, conform, don’t make waves, don’t stick your head up above the herd. If that’s how NASA’s being run, it needs an overhaul, now. A space program has to, by its very nature, be open to innovation and the open sharing of ideas. If it regularly squashes that, it’s doomed.

   What scares me even more is that you’ve run into that pushing safety. Safety should be hard-wired into every consideration NASA makes. If safety concerns are getting the “yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, we’ll deal with it” treatment, something is dreadfully wrong, and something needs to be done to address it. I sincerely hope that the scenario in the video isn’t widespread in NASA. And if it is, I hope Wayne sent a copy of that video to every director in NASA.

   And finally, big hugs to you on a day that I know is a bad, bad anniversary for you.

3. # stephanieebarr on 01 Feb 2009 at 7:59 pm
   

   These we were losses for all of us, M. This is our program; it belongs to all of us. This wasn’t my personal loss. It was a loss for all of us.

   Thank you for your kind words.

4. # stephanieebarr on 01 Feb 2009 at 8:18 pm

   I think this kind of thinking is more widespread than NASA, assuredly. If other agencies and government offices (or even the public as a whole) were willing to question authority more seriously, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the wars we’re in or the financial nightmare we’re in.

   Truth is, I think this kind of thinking is widespread in many places, many avenues.

   I don’t want you to think I spent eight years in safety and was always obstructed - far from it. There are good reasons for pushback as well, but, one thing I discovered was that, if I could convince the program that what I wanted WAS the right thing to do, I never had to fight that battle again. In many organizations, that isn’t the case. And they didn’t have to be told again. They made that change part and parcel of their existing workload.

   There are some great people working for NASA, some of the most remarkable minds and people, most with superlative ethics. But, no, there are still problems. I hope we learn from videos like this.

   And thanks for the hugs. I’ll take ‘em.

5. # Brian on 02 Feb 2009 at 12:57 am

   “I know we would have tried, would have pulled out all the stops, killed ourselves to save them if we had known what was to happen. I believe that absolutely.”

   Stephanie, I believe this absolutely too. I have tremendous admiration for people in NASA and don’t question their dedication. The problem is that it is a human organization, that has inherent human problems. Yet the amazing part for me is is not the flaws, but seeing people rise above their short-comings to do incredible things on behalf of others. I have the same respect for firefighters, policemen, and soldiers who risk their lives for the sake of others. Each of these organizations, like NASA, has flaws, sometimes deep flaws. But despite the flaws, there are individuals and teams who perform astonishing feats that make me ever grateful. Not complacent. But grateful.

   Peace to you on this terrible day.

6. # stephanieebarron 02 Feb 2009 at 1:05 am

   Thanks, Brian.

7. # flit on 02 Feb 2009 at 1:12 am

   Definitely a harsh way to make the point that safety has to come first

   I had no connection to any of it and it sickened me…. can’t imagine how people that worked anywhere near any of it managed… the horrible sense of loss

8. # ravyn on 02 Feb 2009 at 1:18 am

   I’m not sure what I can say that hasn’t already been said.

   I hope in the future you have a chance to change things and see your impact on them–to know that what you’ve learned, that what you’re willing to share now, prevents something much worse from unfolding. That you can see the fruits of the changes you’ve made already, and that you find peace from it.

   Thank you for writing this. My thoughts are with you.

9. # attygnorris on 02 Feb 2009 at 2:22 am

   Oh, wow, Stephanie. Such a personal recount of the events of this tragedy. Since it was your flight and you knew the crew personally, I know this had to be really hard to write about… I’m so sorry. I hope, as you do, that enough was learned to prevent a recurrence. Thanks for sharing this.

   Davida

10. # stephanieebarr on 02 Feb 2009 at 8:12 am
    

    Learning by attrition is always painful, flit. Thanks

    My thanks also to you, Davida and ravyn. I’m not alone in being torn by this. Every year at the memorial, tears are shed. Nor am I alone in wanting this to be the last tragedy NASA ever has, to honor those who died and to reward the trust placed in us by the people who fund this: the citizens of the United States. This is their space program. I appreciate your sympathy.

11. # mpaulin on 02 Feb 2009 at 7:02 pm

    It was a sad day for all. I love the space flight program and I was at work when this happened. Thanks for sharing this post.

12. # Cambios on 02 Feb 2009 at 10:01 pm

    This was as truly horrible tragedy. Our astronauts are some of the best, brightest, and bravest people of our nation. To lose any of them is just unrecoverable.

    Thanks for writing this point to remind us all of the anniversary.

    -Michael
    Muckbeast - Game Design and Online Worlds
    http://www.muckbeast.com

13. # TLE on 03 Feb 2009 at 6:22 am

    I wasn’t expecting to read a personal account of what happened. I thought it was just about the tragedy, not such a close take on it. It does make a huge difference for with time, these things become numbers and then we forget the lessons again.

    Thanks for taking the time to write about this. May we all remember.

14. # stephanieebarr on 03 Feb 2009 at 9:40 am

    It is a hard thing for me to write about and I still get weepy when I do. Heck, I still get weepy when a Shuttle lands safely on the runway.

    I mentioned, on a previous post, that we had a sacred trust to do everything in our power to keep these brave and talented people alive. I sincerely hope I never have to add another sad anniversary to my list.

    Thank you for the kind words, mpaulin, Cambios and TLE.

15. # Adrian on 03 Feb 2009 at 10:24 pm
    

    I’m going to say something totally obvious here that is in no way intended to diminish the feelings everyone must have remembering incredibly brave people losing their lives in such a “spectacular” way. The fatality rate per astronaut has obviously been way higher than the fatality rate per traveller on the highways. But if we only cared about numbers of fatalities, we would put even more effort into reducing the more than 40,000 fatalities that occur each year on USA roads alone. And I don’t remember the details of the helicopter crash that killed the last two you mention, Stephanie, but somehow that makes me feel even more sick than the immediate Columbia tragedy itself, because it should surely have been easier to avoid. Ultimately I find it completely astonishing that anyone makes it out into space and back again, ever.

16. # stephanieebarr on 03 Feb 2009 at 10:57 pm

    There are thousands of preventable deaths each year for any number of causes, Adrian, and I don’t think your comment diminishes anything. I try to do my part there, too, but driving sensibly and when necessary only and I never EVER drive while impaired. But your point is not lost.

    There are people dying all over the world who don’t have to. Their causes and their deaths are not less tragic and I think you were right to remind us of that.

17. # Bob on 04 Feb 2009 at 6:29 pm

    I remember it well, I was stunned wen I saw it on tv. The report you linked to was very interesting. There will be more loss of life no matter how vigilant everybody is,when you are talking about space there are just to many unknowns. In Gus Grissom’s own words,

    “The conquest of space is worth the risk of life, our God given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves, because in the final analysis only man can fully evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men.” you can replace moon with whatever term you want, thing is there is a risk and the astronauts now about it and accept it, we can only minimize it, not remove it by being ever vigilant.

18. # stephanieebarr on 04 Feb 2009 at 9:26 pm

    I agree with that. All the more reason, since we can’t remove risk, not to let our own actions add to it.

Read more...