News Feeds

Building upon recent findings showing the promise of coating the inner surface of the vessel containing a fusion plasma in liquid lithium, researchers have determined the maximum density of uncharged particles at the edge of a plasma before certain instabilities become unpredictable. The research includes observations, numerical simulations and analysis from their experiments inside a fusion plasma vessel called the Lithium Tokamak Experiment-Beta (LTX- ). This is the first time such a level has been established for LTX- , and knowing it is a big step in their mission to prove lithium is the ideal choice for an inner-wall coating in a tokamak because it guides them toward the best practices for fueling their plasmas.

A research team has addressed the long-standing challenge of creating artificial olfactory sensors with arrays of diverse high-performance gas sensors. Their newly developed biomimetic olfactory chips (BOC) are able to integrate nanotube sensor arrays on nanoporous substrates with up to 10,000 individually addressable gas sensors per chip, a configuration that is similar to how olfaction works for humans and other animals.

A research team has addressed the long-standing challenge of creating artificial olfactory sensors with arrays of diverse high-performance gas sensors. Their newly developed biomimetic olfactory chips (BOC) are able to integrate nanotube sensor arrays on nanoporous substrates with up to 10,000 individually addressable gas sensors per chip, a configuration that is similar to how olfaction works for humans and other animals.

The mainstream view is that Alzheimer's starts in the brain, but researchers were able to transfer the condition in mice by injections of bone marrow

There’s more DNA-dissing is going on, this time in a piece in Aeon arguing that it is bad for society and for biology to think of the cell as an assembly line of molecules controlled by a “boss” in the nucleus. The cell, after all, is more socialistic!

Author Charudatta Navare, whose short bio is given below after his name, advances his thesis that the cell is NOT an entity “controlled” from the top down by the capitalistic nucleus, as if the cell were a “factory” with its sweating workers—the contents of the cell—lashed by the whip of the nuclear DNA.  To Navare, that’s simply an invidious capitalistic/patriarchal/classist metaphor. Instead, the “workers”, including everything in the cytoplasm like the ribosomes, mitochondria, vacuoles, vesicles, endoplasmic reticulum, and ribosomes, are independent entities with their own heredity, all cooperating in a genial manner to make the cell function smoothly. As Navare asserts, “the nucleus is only a tiny subset of the hereditary material.” The cell, it seems, is more like a collective farm than a car factory.

The message, which Navare repeats at length, is THE CELL IS NOT A HIERARCHY.  The motivation for the misguided view that the Big Boss Nucleus controls the workers is, consciously or not, to read into nature the  hierarchy of modern patriarchal society. To Navare, the hierarchical view of the cell not only buttresses a maladaptively structured society, but, most of all damages biology by distorting our understanding.

Navare’s big mistake is this: the nucleus, which contains the genes, really is the boss. Even the mitochondria, which replicate themselves and contain their own genes, interact intimately with the nucleus to perform a number of functions. (The mitochondria, as you may know, are derived from original endosymbiotic bacteria that have, though evolution, been integrated into the cell as an essential organelle. Chloroplasts, essential for photosynthesis, have a similar origin and interact with the nuclear in the same way.) But both of these organelles can function only with the help of nuclear genes. And they’re the sole exception to the notion that prganismal DNA is the recipe for the cell and the organism.

The rest of the organelles in the cytoplasm, then, ultimately derive from genes, as does the spatial organization of the egg that helps set off development. This is not to say that random factors, like chemical concentration in different parts of the egg, can influence development, but at bottom, yes, everything in the cell save the mitochondria and chloroplasts ultimately come from the DNA in the nucleus. Without the Nuclear Boss, the workers lose their jobs and the factory goes kaput.  Figuring out how this all evolved, of course, is a difficult issue. But evolve it did, via changes in the DNA.

Click below to read the article in Aeon:

Here’s the thesis (Navare’s words are indenteed):

In short, the textbooks paint a picture of a cellular ‘assembly line’ where genes issue instructions for the manufacture of proteins that do the work of the body from day to day. This textbook description of the cell matches, almost word for word, a social institution. The picture of the cytoplasm and its organelles performing the work of ‘manufacturing’, ‘packaging’ and ‘shipping’ molecules according to ‘instructions’ from the genes eerily evokes the social hierarchy of executives ordering the manual labour of toiling masses. The only problem is that the cell is not a ‘factory’. It does not have a ‘control centre’. As the feminist scholar Emily Martin observes, the assumption of centralised control distorts our understanding of the cell.

A wealth of research in biology suggests that ‘control’ and ‘information’ are not restricted at the ‘top’ bu

t present throughout the cell. The cellular organelles do not just form a linear ‘assembly line’ but interact with each other in complex ways. Nor is the cell obsessed with the economically significant work of ‘manufacturing’ that the metaphor of ‘factory’ would have us believe. Instead, much of the work that the cell does can be thought of as maintaining itself and taking ‘care’ of other cells.

Why, then, do the standard textbooks continue to portray the cell as a hierarchy? Why do they invoke a centralised authority to explain how each cell functions? And why is the imagery so industrially loaded?

It’s capitalism and the patriarchy, Jack! But in fact, the textbooks make DNA the boss because it is the boss. But wait, I’m getting ahead of myself:

All of this coded information in the cytoplasm leads us to ask: why do modern textbooks, which are supposed to present the standard, well-accepted knowledge of the day, continue to portray the cell as hierarchical in structure? Why do science journalists continue to refer to the codes and programs of genes in the nucleus when discussing how life develops and evolves?

I believe that the hold of the centralised view comes from how it resonates with the human social order. The nucleus providing instructions and the cytoplasm performing the labour of ‘nurturing’ sounds ‘natural’ and even ‘obvious’ in a patriarchal society. The central nucleus ordering its ‘underling’ cytoplasm to actually carry out tasks sounds obvious in a class-stratified society.

. . .The reason we find centralised functioning everywhere is not necessarily because it is everywhere. It just appears to be everywhere because of the lens through which we view the world. When scientific narratives, using all the authority of science, project the social hierarchy onto nature, they can reinforce the same hierarchy as ‘natural’. The centralised model from cells to animal social groups suggests that everything in nature is centralised, and that centralisation works. The ‘truth’ about nature is influenced by our values, and this ‘truth’ can then play a role in doubling down and reinforcing the same social values in the world.

. . . I believe that the hold of the centralised view comes from how it resonates with the human social order. The nucleus providing instructions and the cytoplasm performing the labour of ‘nurturing’ sounds ‘natural’ and even ‘obvious’ in a patriarchal society. The central nucleus ordering its ‘underling’ cytoplasm to actually carry out tasks sounds obvious in a class-stratified society.

And this metaphor, says Navare, damages our understanding of biology. I can’t think of how, since scientists have been beavering away at understanding the cell, and I haven’t sees them impeded by a bad metaphor. Perhaps they have, but I can’t think of one example.  Navare keeps saying that the view is an impediment, but gives no examples of how.  Here are more of his lucubrations:

How science conceptualises the cell also gives us insight into how we think of scientific objectivity. We often think that, when values interfere with science, the quest for truth and accuracy is put at risk. Scientists are supposed to leave their values and beliefs outside their labs. However, research in feminist science studies suggests otherwise. One does not necessarily need to be free of values to do good science, but denying their influence undermines the quality of scientific work. Instead of denial, reflecting on values and biases would help researchers steer clear of the pitfalls. Self-reflection can help scientists identify how their values are shaping their science, and think of better experimental designs that could ‘catch’ their assumptions before they compromise results.

. . .But the trouble with doubling down on this kind of metaphor as a stand-in for science is that assumptions about how a cell ought to function prevent us from understanding how the cell really functions. What is more, when science projects social hierarchies onto the cell, it also reinforces the notion that social hierarchies are ‘natural’.

In fact, Navare says that there are other metaphors that could serve equally well:

. . .Unfortunately, the centralised and hierarchical metaphor, so pervasive in textbooks, is often the only one for the internal workings of the cell.

One alternative metaphor for the cell nucleus, I tentatively suggest, could be a ‘collaborative notebook’. The cell keeps this notebook, and all the cell’s components use it to keep track of their activities and help maintain the cell. The cell ‘writes’ in the notebook, writes in the ‘margins’ and ‘refers’ to its own notes. Cellular organelles sense each other’s needs and take ‘care’ of each other. While the ‘factory’ metaphor attributes control and information to the nucleus, the ‘nucleus as a collaborative notebook’ shows agency on the part of the cell. While the factory metaphor makes the cell seem obsessed with ‘production’, alternative metaphors can highlight the mutual aid among the cellular components and the labour of maintaining the cell.

Try as I might, I fail to see how the Notebook Metaphor is more helpful than the “factory”metaphor, but of course it fits right into the Kropotkin-esque tendency to see mutual helpfulness (one could also see it reflectiong socialism). But truth be told, I’m not that enamored of the factory metaphor, either. All I care about is how the cell works, and you can’t do that without appreciating the overweening effects of genes whose action produces almost everything in the cell, influences how the organism develops, and is, in the end, the result of the selection among genes. Every adaptive aspect of development, including cell structure and function, depends on adaptive changes in the DNA put in place by natural selection (this holds also for how the mitochondria and cytoplasm interact with nuclear DNA).

Here’s how Navare minimizes the effects of genes.

The nucleus, of course, does make some hereditary contribution, and we understand it in great detail. But the nucleus is only a tiny subset of the hereditary material. If we don’t even search for hereditary information in the egg cell – if we never describe that information as hereditary – we will keep propagating the idea that biological inheritance is restricted to the nucleus alone. Now I’m not sure what he means by “hereditary material.” Yes, the mitochondria and cytoplasm do replicate themselves by fission (and duplication of their DNAz0, but none of the other organelles are self-replicating, or “hereditary” in that sense. The organelles and cytoplasmic constituents, like vacuoles and ribosomes, are made by recipes written in the DNA (ribosomes, for example, the site of protein synthesis,m are largely made of RNA sent out from the nucleus). Without the DNA coding for proteins, we have no enzymatic pathways, no means of constructing organelles, and no way of building up the constituents of a cell.

Now this is not to say that the construction of a cell or an embryo doesn’t require anything other DNA, but it does require the products of DNA. For example, how does a fertilized egg know which end is going to be the head end and which the tail? And given that, what about the back from front? (Once these are determined, of course, left versus right has already been specified.) It is because the mother’s DNA makes RNAs that are distributed asymmetrically in the egg, and those differential distributions of RNA, via the proteins they make, are what starts the anterior-posterior and dorso-ventral axes from forming. Now these RNAs are moved through the egg cell by microtubules, part of the “cytoskeleton”, so the microtubules must also be there in the egg. But ultimately, it’s the DNA that contains the recipe for these microtubules—and of course the axis-forming RNA.

And all of this has evolved by natural selection causing the differential proliferation—of genes.  In the end, everything save some parts of the mitochondria and chloroplasts, is the product of evolution, and that means of changes in DNA.  In both evolution and development, it’s DNA all the way down. Even the response of an organism to its environment, like cats growing longer hair in the winter, is an evolved response based on changes in genes in the DNA. The environment is the cue, but the response lies in the genome.

One more example of gene-dissing:

We are told that the genes contain blueprints to make proteins. However, genes do not contain all the information needed to make proteins. They only specify a one-dimensional protein chain; the three-dimensional structure that the proteins take, which is vital for their function, is determined by the cellular environment as well. Further, the way proteins behave also varies with where they are in the cytoplasm. The genetic ‘information’, on its own, is nowhere near enough for the cell to function.

No the proteins largely fold on their own once they are made. But does Navare not realize that the information that makes the linear structure of a protein into a three-dimensional structure rests largely already in the linear arrangement of amino acids, which creates the linear structure of a protein? Once that’s made, the proteins largely fold spontaneously into the appropriate three-dimensional structure, which is of course crucial for enzymes to work and proteins like hemoglobin to function. But without the correct linear structure, specified by the DNA, the right spontaneous folding won’t happen. So again the DNA is largely the boss, and has evolved to produce proteins that fold up the right way. The DNA is even more bossy because sometimes proteins are helped in their folding, or retain their folding, through their interaction with enzymes. What are enzymes? Proteins made by DNA.  Again, it’s DNA all the way down.

That aside, Navare manages to get in a timely word for how DEI can help our understanding as well:

Science is undoubtedly a human endeavour. The feminist philosopher Donna Haraway describes science as a conversation between partial perspectives that each individual gets from the vantage point of their position. As Just’s science shows, people with different life experiences might have different perspectives and may ask different questions. [JAC: E. E. Just, one of the only well known black scientists working in the early 20th century, made notable contributions to understanding the cell.] Admittedly, the connections between scientists’ backgrounds and their work are not always so direct. But the social position of scientists can still serve as one of the factors that influence their work. We often say science is self-correcting. We think that science changes its views when new information comes to light. But this new information doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It doesn’t emerge only from new techniques. It is also generated when diversity and representation are important in their own right from the perspective of equity, diverse perspectives would benefit science most of all. Objectivity is not an individual burden but a collective one. While diversity and representation are important in their own right from the perspective of equity, diverse perspectives would benefit science most of all. Objectivity is not an individual burden but a collective one.

And clearly class has conditioned our view of the cell as well:

Historically, the majority of scientists have been male, upper class, and belonging to the dominant castes and races. It is possible that the social position of scientists helped them relate to the notion of a nucleus that continues discharging instructions while taking for granted the knowledge and skills required in actually doing the work. The Nobel laureate David Baltimore described genes as the ‘executive suite’ and the cytoplasm as the ‘factory floor’. The executive suite appears more valuable and deserving of more remuneration, while the toiling masses on the factory floor are thought to be merely executing the instructions, undervaluing the wealth of explicit and tacit knowledge and skill.

Poor Baltimore, bamboozled by a view of the cell. I guess it was all the dosh that comes with a Nobel Prize that has warped his viewpoint.

There’s a feminist point of view, too, one that presumably sees the cell as more cooperative than a patriarchy would make us think:

Science is often described as objective and value-free, but philosophers of science have pointed out that values can guide the questions that scientists ask, the hypotheses they make, and the way they interpret their results. The field of feminist science studies, in particular, has called into question the sole role of the nucleus where heredity is concerned.

. . . . How science conceptualises the cell also gives us insight into how we think of scientific objectivity. We often think that, when values interfere with science, the quest for truth and accuracy is put at risk. Scientists are supposed to leave their values and beliefs outside their labs. However, research in feminist science studies suggests otherwise.

There are no references for either of these statements.  My own view is that we need to draw scientists from throughout society (giving everyone equal opportunities to suceed), but concentrating on merit, which also includes the ability to “think outside the box”. That said, with one exception I haven’t seen fruitful sex-, class- or race-specific ways of approaching biology. The one exception my feeling that women evolutionists helped us concentrate more on female preference as opposed to male traits in sexual selection.

Finally, Navare issues a dire warning of the dangers inherent in a metaphor that, in the end, is only a metaphor. (Bolding is mine.)

If we are unable to conceive of the cell, the basic unit of organisms like ours, without coercive hierarchies, we will never fully appreciate the complexity of nature. If we fail to imagine society without a centralised authority, we will find it difficult to understand or empower the oppressed. Unless we reflect on our assumptions, our science will be loaded with so many landmines it may never unravel all the mysteries of life.

In the end, Navare manages to connect the “factory” view of the cell with oppression in society.  We can only free workers from their chains if we free our view of the cell as having a DNA Boss. This, of course, is music to the ears of “progressives”.

Sorry, I can’t agree. If you can find one example of how our understanding of life has been impeded by the “factory” metaphor—which after all isn’t something that biologists hold in their heads as a controlling mantra while they do research—do let me know.

An attempt to settle a decade-long argument over a controversial proof by mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki has seen a war of words on both sides, with Mochizuki dubbing the latest effort as akin to a "hallucination" produced by ChatGPT

ChatGPT may not replace a health care professional's assessment yet, but its capabilities are growing.

The post AI for prescription drug information: Not yet useful for health care – but it’s coming first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Gamers seemed to be more comfortable after playing in a specialist gaming chair compared with a standard office chair

How the Red Planet acquired its two moons, Phobos and Deimos, is unknown – they could have formed after something collided with the planet, or started out as asteroids – but now there is a hint of a cometary origin

The light signature from GLASS-z12, one of the most distant galaxies we have ever seen, suggests some of its stars have already exploded as supernovae

On September 26th, 2022, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) collided with the asteroid Dimorphos, a moonlet that orbits the larger asteroid Didymos. The purpose of this test was to evaluate a potential strategy for planetary defense. The demonstration showed that a kinetic impactor could alter the orbit of an asteroid that could potentially impact Earth someday – aka. Potentially Hazardous Asteroid (PHA). According to a new NASA-led study, the DART mission’s impact not only altered the orbit of the asteroid but also its shape!

The study was led by Shantanu P. Naidu, a navigation engineer with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at Caltech. He was joined by researchers from the Lowell Observatory, Northern Arizona University (NAU), the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB), the Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, and Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Their paper, “Orbital and Physical Characterization of Asteroid Dimorphos Following the DART Impact,” appeared on March 19th in the Planetary Science Journal.

The Didymos double asteroid system consists of an 851-meter-wide (2792 ft) primary orbited by the comparatively small Dimorphos. The latter was selected as the target for DART because any changes in its orbit caused by the impact would be comparatively easy to measure using ground-based telescopes. Before DART impacted with the moonlet, it was an oblate spheroid measuring 170 meters (560 feet) in diameter with virtually no craters. Before impact, the moonlet orbited Didymos with a period of 11 hours and 55 minutes.

Artist’s impression of the DART mission impacting the moonlet Dimorphos. Credit: ESA

Before the encounter, NASA indicated that a 73-second change in Dimorphos’ orbital period was the minimum requirement for success. Early data showed DART surpassed this minimum benchmark by more than 25 times. As Naidu said in a NASA press release, the impact also altered the moonlet’s shape:

“When DART made impact, things got very interesting. Dimorphos’ orbit is no longer circular: Its orbital period is now 33 minutes and 15 seconds shorter. And the entire shape of the asteroid has changed, from a relatively symmetrical object to a ‘triaxial ellipsoid’ – something more like an oblong watermelon.”

Naidu and his team combined three data sources with their computer models to determine what happened to the asteroid after impact. The first was the images DART took of Dimorphos right before impact, which were sent back to Earth via NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN). These images allowed the team to gauge the dimensions of Didymos and Dimorphos and measure the distance between them. The second source was the Goldstone Solar System Radar (GSSR), part of the DNS network located in California responsible for investigating Solar System objects.

The GSSR was one of several ground-based instruments that precisely measured the position and velocity of Dimorphos relative to Didymos after impact – which indicated how the mission greatly exceeded expectations. The third source was provided by ground-based telescopes worldwide that measured changes in the amount of life reflected (aka. light curves) of both asteroids. Much like how astronomers monitor stars for periodic dips (which could indicate a transiting planet), dips in Didymos’ luminosity are attributable to Dimorphos passing in front of it.

Artist’s impression of the ESA’s Hera mission rendezvousing with Dimorphos. Credit: NASA

By comparing these light curves from before and after impact, the team learned how DART altered Dimorphos’ motion. Based on these data sources and their models, the team calculated how its orbital period evolved and found that it was now slightly eccentric. Said Steve Chesley, a senior research scientist at JPL and a co-author on the study:

“We used the timing of this precise series of light-curve dips to deduce the shape of the orbit, and because our models were so sensitive, we could also figure out the shape of the asteroid. Before impact, the times of the events occurred regularly, showing a circular orbit. After impact, there were very slight timing differences, showing something was askew. We never expected to get this kind of accuracy.”

According to their results, DART’s impact reduced the average distance between the two asteroids to roughly 1,152 meters (3,780 feet) – closer by about 37 meters (120 feet). It also shortened Dimorphos’ orbital period to 11 hours, 22 minutes, and 3 seconds – a change of 33 minutes and 15 seconds. These results are consistent with other independent studies based on the same data. They will be further tested by the ESA’s Hera mission, scheduled to launch in October 2024, when it makes a flyby of the double-asteroid and conducts a detailed survey.

Further Reading: NASA

The post DART Changed the Shape of Asteroid Dimorphos, not Just its Orbit appeared first on Universe Today.

Universe Today has had some fantastic discussions with researchers on the importance of studying impact craters, planetary surfaces, exoplanets, astrobiology, solar physics, comets, planetary atmospheres, and planetary geophysics, and how these diverse scientific fields can help researchers and the public better understand the search for life beyond Earth. Here, we will investigate the unique field of cosmochemistry and how it provides researchers with the knowledge pertaining to both our solar system and beyond, including the benefits and challenges, finding life beyond Earth, and suggestive paths for upcoming students who wish to pursue studying cosmochemistry. But what is cosmochemistry and why is it so important to study it?

“Cosmochemistry is the study of space stuff, the actual materials that make up planets, stars, satellites, comets, and asteroids,” Dr. Ryan Ogliore, who is an associate professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis, tells Universe Today. “This stuff can take all the forms of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Cosmochemistry is different from astronomy which is primarily concerned with the study of light that interacts with this stuff. There are two main benefits of studying actual astromaterials: 1) the materials record the conditions at the time and place where they formed, allowing us to look into the deep past; and 2) laboratory measurements of materials are extraordinarily precise and sensitive, and continue to improve as technology improves.”

In a nutshell, the field of cosmochemistry, also known as chemical cosmology, perfectly sums up Carl Sagan’s famous quote, “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” To understand cosmochemistry is to understand how the Earth got here, how we got here, and possibly how life got wherever we’re (hopefully) going to find it, someday.

Like all scientific fields, cosmochemistry incorporates a myriad of methods and strategies with the goal of answering some of the universe’s most difficult questions, specifically pertaining to how the countless stellar and planetary objects throughout the universe came to be. These methods and strategies primarily include laboratory analyses of meteorites and other physical samples brought back from space, including from the Moon, asteroids, and comets. But what are some of the benefits and challenges of studying cosmochemistry?

“One of the primary benefits of cosmochemistry is the ability to reproduce measurements,” Dr. Ogliore tells Universe Today. “I can measure something in my lab, and somebody else can measure either the same object, or a very similar object, in another lab to confirm my measurements. Only after repeated measurements, by different labs and different techniques, will a given claim be universally accepted by the community. This is difficult to do in astronomy, and also difficult using remote-sensing measurements on spacecraft studying other bodies in the Solar System.”

Apart from the crewed Apollo missions to the Moon, all other samples from space have been returned via robotic spacecraft. While this might seem like an easy process from an outside perspective, collecting samples from space and returning them to Earth is a very daunting and time-consuming series of countless tests, procedures, precise calculations, and hundreds to thousands of scientists and engineers ensuring every little detail is covered to ensure complete mission success, often to only collect a few ounces of material. This massive effort is tasked with not only ensuring successful sample collection, but also ensuring successful storage of the samples to avoid contamination during their journey home, and then retrieving the samples once they land in a capsule back on Earth, where they are properly unpacked, cataloged, and stored for laboratory analysis.

To demonstrate the difficulty in conducting a sample return mission, only four nations have successfully used robotic explorers to collect samples from another planetary body and returned them to Earth: the former Soviet Union, United States, Japan, and China. The former Soviet Union successfully returned lunar samples to Earth throughout the 1970s; the United States has returned samples from a comet, asteroid, and even solar particles; Japan has successfully returned samples from two asteroids; and most recently, China succeeded in returning 61.1 ounces from the Moon, which is the current record for robotic sample return missions. But even with the difficulty of conducting a successful sample return mission, what can cosmochemistry teach us about finding life beyond Earth?

“Cosmochemistry can tell us about the delivery of the ingredients necessary for life to planets or moons via asteroids or comets,” Dr. Ogliore tells Universe Today. “Since we have both asteroid and comet material in the lab, we can tell if primitive pre-biotic organic compounds may have been delivered by these bodies. Of course, this doesn’t mean life on Earth (or elsewhere) started this way, only that it is one pathway. Detection of life on another world would be one of the biggest discoveries in the history of science. So of course we’d want to be absolutely sure! This requires repeated measurements by different labs using different techniques, which requires a sample on Earth. I think the only way we’d know for sure if there was life on Europa, Enceladus, or Mars is if we bring a sample back to Earth from these places.”

As it turns out, NASA is actively working on the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission, for which Dr. Ogliore is a member of the MSR Measurement Definition Team. The goal of MSR will be to travel to the Red Planet to collect and return samples of Martian regolith to Earth for the first time in history. The first step of this mission is currently being accomplished by NASA’s Perseverance rover in Jezero Crater, as it is slowly collecting samples and dropping them in tubes across the Martian surface for future retrieval by MSR.

For Europa, while there have been several discussions regarding a sample return mission, including a 2002 study discussing a sample return mission from Europa’s ocean and a 2015 study discussing a potential plume sample return mission, no definitive sample return missions from Europa are currently in the works, possibly due to the enormous distance. Despite this, and while not a life-finding mission, Dr. Ogliore has been tasked to lead a robotic mission to Jupiter’s volcanic moon, Io, to explore its plethora of volcanoes. For Enceladus, the Life Investigation for Enceladus (LIFE) mission has had a number of mission proposals submitted to return samples from Enceladus’ plumes, though it has yet to be accepted. But what is the most exciting aspect about cosmochemistry that Dr. Ogliore has studied during his career?

Image from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft of the water vapor plumes emanating from the south pole of Saturn’s moon Enceladus. (Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute)

“In my opinion the most important single measurement in the history of cosmochemistry was the measurements of the oxygen isotopic composition of the Sun,” Dr. Ogliore tells Universe Today. “To do this, we needed to return samples of the solar wind to Earth, which we did with NASA’s Genesis mission. However, the sample return capsule crashed on Earth. But did that stop the cosmochemists?! Hell no! Kevin McKeegan and colleagues at UCLA had built a specialized, enormous, complicated instrument to study these samples. Despite the crash, McKeegan and colleagues analyzed oxygen in the solar wind and found that it was 6% lighter than oxygen found on Earth, and it matched the composition of the oldest known objects in the Solar System: millimeter-sized calcium-aluminum inclusions (CAIs) found in meteorites.”

Dr. Ogliore continues by telling Universe Today about how this result was predicted by Bob Clayton at the University of Chicago, along with crediting his own postdoc, Lionel Vacher, for conducting a research project that built off the Genesis results, noting, “This was a really fun project because it was technically very challenging, and the results put the Solar System in its astrophysical context.”

Like the myriad of scientific disciplines that Universe Today has examined during this series, cosmochemistry is successful due to its multidisciplinary nature that contributes to the goal of answering some of the universe’s most difficult questions. Dr. Ogliore emphasizes that analysis of laboratory samples involves a multitude of scientific backgrounds to understand what the researchers are observing within each sample and the processes responsible for creating them. Additionally, this also includes the aforementioned sample return missions and hundreds to thousands of scientists and engineers who partake in each mission. Therefore, what advice can Dr. Ogliore offer to upcoming students who wish to pursue cosmochemistry?

“Biology, chemistry, geology, physics, math, electronics — you need it all!” Dr. Ogliore tells Universe Today. “If you like learning new things constantly, then planetary science is for you. It is good to get a very broad education. This will serve you well in a number of careers, but it is especially true for planetary science and cosmochemistry. I get to work with people who study volcanoes, and mathematicians working on chaotic motion. How cool is that?!”

All things considered, cosmochemistry is both an enormously challenging and rewarding field of study to try and answer some of the most difficult and longstanding questions regarding the processes responsible for the existence of celestial bodies in the Solar System and beyond, including stars, planets, moons, meteorites, and comets, along with how life emerged on our small, blue world. As noted, cosmochemistry perfectly sums up Carl Sagan’s famous quote, “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” It is through cosmochemistry and the analysis of meteorites and other returned samples that enable researchers to slowly inch our way to answering what makes life and where we can find it.

“Meteorites are the most spectacular record of nature known to mankind,” Dr. Ogliore tells Universe Today. “We have rocks from Mars, the Moon, volcanic worlds, asteroid Vesta, and dozens of other worlds. Iron meteorites are the cores of broken apart planets. These rocks record processes that occurred four and a half billion years ago and fall to Earth in a blazing fireball traveling at miles per second. You can follow various blogs that track fireballs, and even calculate areas where meteorites might have fallen. If you ever have the opportunity, go try to find one of these freshly fallen meteorites. The odds are long, but it is worth a try. I have not found a meteorite myself yet, but it is a life goal of mine.”

How will cosmochemistry help us better understand our place in the universe in the coming years and decades? Only time will tell, and this is why we science!

As always, keep doing science & keep looking up!

The post Cosmochemistry: Why study it? What can it teach us about finding life beyond Earth? appeared first on Universe Today.

Since its launch in 2021, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has made some amazing discoveries. Recent observations have found a number of key ingredients required for life in young proto-stars where planetary formation is imminent. Chemicals like methane, acetic acid and ethanol have been detected in interstellar ice. Previous telescopic observations have only hinted at their presence as a warm gas. Not only have they been detected but a team of scientists have synthesised some of them in a lab.

These molecules found in the solid stage phase in young protostars are an indicator that the processes leading to formation of life may be more common than first thought. The complex organic molecules (COMs) were first predicted decades ago before space telescopes observations inconclusively identified them. A team of astronomers using the Mid-InfraRed Instrument (MIRI) on the JWST as part of the James Webb Observations of Young ProtoStars programme have identified the COMs individually. 

MIRI, ( Mid InfraRed Instrument ), flight instrument for the James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, during ambient temperature alignment testing in RAL Space’s clean rooms at STFC’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 8th November 2010.

One of the target objects observed as part of this study was IRAS 2A, a low mass protostar. The science team are particularly interested because the system has similar characteristics as our own star, the Sun. It gives us a great test bed to explore the processes of the Solar System and Earth’s development.

The presence in the solid phase and earlier detections in the gas phase suggests the process behind their existence is sublimation of ice. The process of sublimation is the transition straight from solid to gas without going through the liquid phase. The detection of COMs in ice suggests this is the origin of the COMs in gas. 

The scientific community are now looking at the liklihood of transportation of the COMs to early planets as they form around the young stars. It is believed that their transportation as an ice are far more efficient to the protoplanetary disks than as a gas. It is quite likely that the icy COMs can be transported and inherited by comets and asteroids  as the planets form. These new icy objects that develop can then, through their impacts, carry the complex molecules to planets, seeding them with the ingredients for life.

A closeup of the inner region of the Orion Nebula as seen by JWST. There’s a protoplanetary disk there that is recycling an Earth’s ocean-full of water each month. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, PDRs4All ERS Team; Salomé Fuenmayor image

The team not only detected complex molecules, they also detected formic acid (the stuff that makes some insect bites sting), sulphur dioxide and formaldehyde. The sulphur dioxide was particularly useful since it allowed the team to calculate the deposits of oxidised sulphur as a function of emissions of the same. This is particularly of interest since it was pivotal in the development of metabolic reactions and processes in the young Earth. 

A team from the University of Hawaii’s Department of Chemistry led by Professor Ralf I. Kaiser managed to synthesise a complex molecule known as Glyceric Acid. Understanding its formation process helps us to understand how life evolved on Earth. The experiments used interstellar model ices and estimates of Galactic Cosmic Ray levels to form Glyceric Acid with a photo ionisation laser. This may have been similar to the role of lightning in the evolution of our own atmosphere.

Source : Cheers! Webb finds ethanol and other icy ingredients for worlds and Unraveling the origins of life: Scientists discover ‘cool’ sugar acid formation in space

The post Webb Finds Deep Space Alcohol and Chemicals in Newly Forming Planetary  appeared first on Universe Today.

Solar sails rely upon pressure exerted by sunlight on large surfaces. Get the sail closer to the Sun and not surprisingly efficiency increases. A proposed new mission called Mercury Scout aims to take advantage of this to explore Mercury. The mission will map the Mercurian surface down to a resolution of 1 meter and, using the highly reflective sail surface to illuminate shadowed craters, could hunt for water deposits. 

Unlike conventional rocket engines that require fuel which itself adds weight and subsequently requires more fuel, solar sails are far more efficient. Light falling upon the sail can propel a prob across space. It’s a fascinating concept that goes back to the 1600’s when Johannes Kepler suggested the idea to Galileo Galilei. It wasn’t until the beginning of the 21st Century that the Planetary Society created the Cosmos 1 solar sail spacecraft. It launched in June 2005 but a failure meant it never reached orbit. The first successfully launched solar sail was Ikaros, launched by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency it superbly demonstrated the feasibility of the technology. 

Artist’s illustration of IKAROS. Credit: JAXA

It has been known since 1905 that light is made up of tiny little particles known as photons. They don’t have any mass but while travelling through space, they do have momentum. When a tennis ball hits a racket, it bounces off the strings and some of the ball’s momentum is transferred to the racket. In a very similar way, photons of light hitting a solar sail transfer some of their momentum to the sail giving it a small push. More photons hitting the sail give another small push and as they slowly build up, the spacecraft slowly accelerates. 

Mercury Scout will take advantage of the solar sail idea as its main propulsion once it has reached Earth orbit. The main objectives for the mission are to map out the mineral distribution on the surface, high resolution imaging down to 1 meter resolution and identification of ice deposits in permanently shadowed craters. The solar sail was chosen because it offers significant technical and financial benefits lowering overall cost and reducing transit time to Mercury. 

To propel the Mercury Scout module, the sail will be around 2500 square meters and 2.5 microns thick. The material is aluminised CP1 which is similar to that used in the heat shield of the James Webb Space Telescope. The sails four separate quadrants unfurl along carbon fibre supports and will get to Mercury in an expected 3.8 years. On arrival it will transfer into a polar orbit and then spend another 176 days mapping the entire surface. 

To enable the entire planet to be mapped the the orbit will have to be maintained by adjusting the angle of the sail. In the same way the captain of a sailing ship can sail against, or sometimes into wind by adjusting sail angle and position so the solar sail can be used to generate thrust in the required direction. 

Data from the Mercury Atmosphere and Surface Composition Spectrometer, or MASCS, instrument is overlain on the mosaic from the Mercury Dual Imaging System, or MDIS. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

Unlike other more traditional rocket engines whose life is usually limited to fuel availability, the solar sail is limited by degradation in sail material. Its life expectancy is around 10 years. Additional coatings are being explored to see if the life of the sail can be extended further. 

Source : MERCURY SCOUT: A SOLAR SAIL MISSION TO THE INNERMOST PLANET

The post Mercury is the Perfect Destination for a Solar Sail appeared first on Universe Today.

We already have evidence that rock dust can remove carbon dioxide from the air – now there are signs that spreading the dust on farm fields also enhances crop growth

The interior of the Sun does not rotate at the same rate at all latitudes. The physical origin of this differential rotation is not fully understood. It turns out, long-period solar oscillations discovered in 2021 play a crucial role in controlling the Sun's rotational pattern. The long-period oscillations are analogous to the baroclinically unstable waves in Earth's atmosphere that shape the weather. In the Sun, these oscillations carry heat from the slightly hotter poles to the slightly cooler equator.

Artificial intelligence (AI) may serve as a future tool for neurologists to help locate where in the brain a stroke occurred. In a new study, AI processed text from health histories and neurologic examinations to locate lesions in the brain. The study looked specifically at the large language model called generative pre-trained transformer 4 (GPT-4).

From its vantage point at the Sun-Earth L2 point, the ESA’s Euclid spacecraft is measuring the redshift of galaxies with its sensitive instruments. Its first science images showed us what we can expect from the spacecraft. But the ESA noticed a problem.

Over time, less light was reaching the spacecraft’s instruments.

Euclid launched on July 1st, 2023 and made its way to the Sun-Earth Lagrange 2 point, the same spot where the JWST resides. Euclid is basically a wide-angle telescope with a 600 MB camera. Using its suite of scientific instruments, it measures the redshift of galaxies in an effort to understand the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Its measurements support the mission’s main science goals: to understand dark matter and dark energy.

Euclid released its first images in November 2023. To describe them as dazzling was not an exaggeration. Those images whetted our appetite for more and built anticipation for the science results to come.

The first test images from the Euclid spacecraft. Credit: ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, image processing by J.-C. Cuillandre (CEA Paris-Saclay), G. Anselmi. CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO or ESA Standard Licence

But as time went on, a problem common to spacecraft cropped up. Water vapour from Earth had accumulated on the spacecraft during construction. Over time, the water was released from different parts of the spacecraft by the vacuum of space. The water attached to and froze to the first object it came into contact with. Some of it froze into a thin layer of water ice on VIS, the telescope’s visible wavelength camera. The layer was no thicker than a strand of DNA, but the sensitive instrument was nonetheless impaired.

Euclid personnel couldn’t see the ice. Instead, they observed a growing decrease in the amount of light reaching VIS. VIS is extremely sensitive and is designed to deliver the best low-light sensitivity ever achieved over a broad range of wavelengths. But that sensitivity to light also makes it very sensitive to even a small drop in starlight caused by the thin film of ice.

ESA personnel spent months trying to devise a method of removing the ice, and on March 19th, they started implementing their plan.

This image shows Euclid’s interior, VIS and NISP, and the path light will take as it reflects off of the spacecraft’s mirrors. Image Credit: ESA

Euclid has six different mirrors that collect light and deliver it to VIS and NISP, the Near-Infrared Spectrometer and Photometer. The team in charge of dealing with the ice problem devised a way to heat the spacecraft without compromising the instruments’ sensitivity. They planned to heat the mirrors one by one, and after the first mirror was warmed by 34 degrees F, the ice melted away.

“It was midnight at ESOC mission control when we de-iced the first two mirrors in the procedure. We were very careful with our timings, ensuring we had constant contact between the spacecraft and our ground station in Malargüe, Argentina, so we could be ready to react in real-time if there were any anomalies,” explained Micha Schmidt, Euclid Spacecraft Operations Manager.

“Thankfully, it all went as planned. When we saw the first analysis provided by the science experts, we knew that they would be very happy – the result was significantly better than expected,” Schmidt said.

“It was an enormous team effort over the last months to plan, execute and analyze the heating of selected mirrors onboard Euclid, resulting in the fantastic result we see now,” explained Ralf Kohley, Euclid Instrument Scientist and in charge of the anomaly review board.

This figure shows the results of the effort to warm up Euclid’s mirrors and remove the ice. At about the 90-minute mark, the temperature reached the point where ice sublimes into water vapour. After that point, the amount of light the spacecraft collected rose dramatically. Image Credit: ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium. ESA Standard Licence

Since the light collection improved on the first attempt, the success also showed mission personnel exactly where the ice was and where it’s likely to collect in the future if the problem crops up again.

“The mirrors and the amount of light coming in through VIS will continue being monitored, and the results from this first test will continue to be analyzed as we turn this experiment into a core part of flying and operating Euclid,” Kohley said.

With this problem behind it, Euclid can now get back to work. Its goal is to measure galaxies out to redshift 2. This corresponds to looking back in time by 10 billion years. The spacecraft will do it gradually, measuring the shapes of galaxies and their corresponding redshifts. The spacecraft will also measure how their light is distorted by dark matter. Eventually, the telescope will measure the amount of dark matter and compare its statistical properties to those of the galaxies. Critically, it will measure them over long periods of time, leading to an understanding of how both change over time and a better understanding of dark matter, dark energy, and the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, the spacecraft’s main scientific goal.

But none of that work can continue if the telescope can’t see properly. Even the thin film of ice impaired Euclid’s observations enough that it was a serious obstacle to progress.

Now that the ice is gone, Euclid can get back to work. And if the problem reappears, the Euclid team is ready to deal with it.

“We expect ice to cloud the VIS instrument’s vision again in the future,” explained Reiko Nakajima, VIS instrument scientist. “But it will be simple to repeat this selective decontamination procedure every six to twelve months and with very little cost to science observations or the rest of the mission.”

The post Phew, De-Icing Euclid’s Instruments Worked. It’s Seeing Better Now appeared first on Universe Today.

Fresh imagery from the Event Horizon Telescope traces the lines of powerful magnetic fields spiraling out from the edge of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, and suggests that strong magnetism may be common to all supermassive black holes.

The newly released image showing the surroundings of the black hole known as Sagittarius A* — which is about 27,000 light-years from Earth — is the subject of two studies published today in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. This picture follows up on an initial picture issued in 2022. Both pictures rely on radio-wave observations from the Event Horizon Telescope’s network of observatories around the world.

Sagittarius A* wasn’t the first black hole whose shadow was imaged by the EHT. Back in 2019, astronomers showed off a similar picture of the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy M87, which is more than a thousand times bigger and farther away than the Milky Way’s black hole.

In 2021, the EHT team charted the magnetic field lines around M87’s black hole by taking a close look at the black hole in polarized light, which reflects the patterns of particles whirling around magnetic field lines. Researchers used the same technique to determine the magnetic signature of Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A* for short.

Getting the image wasn’t easy, largely due to the fact that Sgr A* was harder to pin down than M87. The EHT team had to combine multiple views to produce a composite image.

“Making a polarized image is like opening the book after you have only seen the cover,” EHT project scientist Geoffrey Bower, an astronomer at Academia Sinica in Taiwan, explained in today’s news release. “Because Sgr A* moves around while we try to take its picture, it was difficult to construct even the unpolarized image. … We were relieved that polarized imaging was even possible. Some models were far too scrambled and turbulent to construct a polarized image, but nature was not so cruel.”

The resulting picture met the research team’s expectations, and then some.

“What we’re seeing now is that there are strong, twisted and organized magnetic fields near the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy,” said project co-leader Sara Issaoun, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “Along with Sgr A* having a strikingly similar polarization structure to that seen in the much larger and more powerful M87* black hole, we’ve learned that strong and ordered magnetic fields are critical to how black holes interact with the gas and matter around them.”

The structure of the magnetic fields around Sgr A* suggests that the black hole is launching a jet of material into the surrounding environment. Previous research has shown that to be the case for M87’s black hole.

A computer simulation of the disk of plasma around M87’s supermassive black hole shows how magnetic fields help launch jets of matter at near the speed of light. Scientists say the Milky Way’s black hole appears to be doing something similar. (Credit: George Wong/ EHT)

“The fact that the magnetic field structure of M87* is so similar to that of Sgr A* is significant because it suggests that the physical processes that govern how a black hole feeds and launches a jet might be universal among supermassive black holes, despite differences in mass, size and surrounding environment,” said EHT deputy project scientist Mariafelicia De Laurentis, a professor at the University of Naples Federico II in Italy.

In the seven years since the EHT began gathering observations, the collaboration has been adding to its array of radio telescopes, which is resulting in the production of higher-quality imagery. The EHT team plans to observe Sgr A* again next month — and in the years ahead, the researchers aim to produce high-fidelity movies of Sgr A* that may reveal a hidden jet. They’ll also look for evidence of similar polarization features around other supermassive black holes.

More than 300 researchers are part of the EHT collaboration that produced the two studies published today in The Astrophysical Journal Letters:

• “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring”
• “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Physical Interpretation of the Polarized Ring”

More explanatory videos from the Event Horizon Telescope:

• An Introduction to the EHT
• What Is Polarization?
• The Power of Polarized Imaging

The post New View Reveals Magnetic Fields Around Our Galaxy’s Giant Black Hole appeared first on Universe Today.

Engineers designed an 'architected' reef that can mimic the wave-buffering effects of natural reefs while providing pockets for marine life. The sustainable and cost-saving structure could dissipate more than 95 percent of incoming wave energy using a small fraction of the material normally needed.