News Feeds

One of my gripes with ‘The Martian’ movie was the depiction of the winds on Mars. The lower air density means that the sort of high speed winds we might experience on Earth carry far less of an impact on Mars. During its 72 flights in the Martian air, NASA’s ingenuity helicopter took meticulous records of the conditions. A new paper has been released and reports upon the wind speeds on the red planet at various altitudes. Previous models suggested wind speeds would not exceed 15 m/s but Ingeniuty saw speeds as high as 25 m/s.

Of all the planets in our Solar System, Mars is perhaps the most similar to Earth, similar but with stark differences. The weather on Mars is harsh and extreme, characterised by cold temperatures, a rarefied atmosphere and dust storms. The average temperature is around -60°C but it can reach a toasty 20°C in summer near the equator. It’s atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide and is about 100 times thinner than Earth’s so it offers little insulation or protection from solar radiation. On occasion, the winds on Mars whip up global dust storms that obscures the planet’s surface from view. 

Mars seen before, left, and during, right, a global dust storm in 2001. Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS

Our model of the Martian atmosphere was believed to be fairly accurate, that is until Ingenuity arrived and completed more than 70 successful flights. As part of the Mars 2020 mission and the first aerial vehicle to successfully complete powered flight on another world, Ingenuity revealed some surprising conditions. Surprisingly too perhaps, the first attempt at powered flight was supposed to be a technology demonstration but instead, it provided high resolution images to help direct the ground based rover and collected data from the atmosphere and became a key part of Mars 2020. 

The Ingenuity helicopter photographed by the Perseverance rover. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

One of the outcomes from Ingenuity’s flights was a better understanding of Martian winds. In a paper written by Brian Jackson and team in the Planetary Society Journal, the team explained their rather ingenious approach. Knowing that the payload was severely limited on board, the decision was taken to use Ingenuity itself to confirm windspeeds. Previous studies had shown that the tilt of a stably hovering drone can be used to calculate speeds. Drones produce forward thrust by tilting in the direction they need to move, if they are stable and in a hover yet the wind is blowing, the drone will drift. Instead and to counteract the drift, the drone tilts flying into wind to maintain position relative to the ground, tilting more in a stronger headwind. 

Measuring the tilt is relatively straightforward thanks to a collection of engineering sensors, cameras and accelerometers. With all of the information gathered by these onboard pieces of equipment and returned to Earth, the analysis and calculation of the drone at different altitudes has enabled the wind speeds to be accurately calculated.

Part of the Ingenuity rotorcraft

The results were a surprise, showing that the winds on Mars were generally higher than anticipated. Speeds were measured at altitudes from 3 to 24 metres and were found to be blowing at anything up to 25 m/s. This perhaps is a result of Ingenuity’s unique capability of being able to measure speeds at different altitudes over a period of time. Previous measurements have been achieved from probes as they have descent through the atmosphere or from probes on the ground. Taking the success of Ingenuity forward, mission specialists working upon the Dragonfly rotorcraft that will be visiting Titan hope to be able to replicate the results and gain a better understanding of its wind profile too. 

Source : Profiling Near-surface Winds on Mars Using Attitude Data from Mars 2020 Ingenuity

The post Ingenuity Measured Windspeeds on Mars During its Flights appeared first on Universe Today.

Despite widespread studies revealing the prevalence of racism, its impact is often overlooked. But there are ways to tackle hidden biases and systemic discrimination, says Keon West

In Europe as a whole, the increase in deaths from hot weather over the next century will outweigh the decline in deaths from cold weather, but in colder countries such as the UK, temperature-related deaths will decline overall

I haven’t been accumulating these much, probably because I stopped reading the main source, The Huffington Post.  Ergo some of these may be repeats from days of yore, but so be it, as we have new readers. I’ll give just three:

1.)  “Advancements” used instead of “advances”.   The longer version, which as far as I can see is identical to the older but shorter one, seems to be taking over (I’ll give one example below).  Why is this happening? Only, as far as I can see, because “advancesments” sounds fancier and more intellectual than the simpler “advances.” Let’s go back to the shorter word!

Here’s a Huffpost example from 2011 (click to read if you must):

2.) “Stakeholder” used as “someone with a material interest in a (usually) political or ideological discussion”. This word is not per se offensive, but is inevitably associated with wokeness, like “problematize” or “intersectional.” Particularly in science, it is used to argue (often without reasons) that some people have a say over how science is done. Example: cases in which animal bones or Native American found on government property automatically become controlled by Native American “stakeholders” from a given tribe, even if it cannot be shown that stakeholders from the tribe ever had any stake in the objects at issue (see Elizabeth Weiss’s book).  I consider the word is a canary in the coalmine of woke prose.

HOWEVER, although one sees this word frequently, I notice that those who police language now consider it offensive, as in the articles below (click to read):

From Research Impact Canada:

The second site reports why the word is bad and some suggested replacements (which nobody seems to be using):

The word stakeholder is becoming increasingly contested due to its colonial connotations. Has this hit your radar and are you trying out other words?

In November, Mark Reed posted a thought piece on the use of the word stakeholder concluding “ultimately that means re-thinking our use of the word “stakeholder”.”

The issue with the word stakeholder is that in a colonial context, a stakeholder was the person who drove a stake into the land to demarcate the land s/he was occupying/stealing from Indigenous territories. Continued use of the term can be construed as disrespectful of Indigenous people as well as perpetuating colonization and re-traumatization.

Mark’s post was followed up by a fairly lively LinkedIn discussion. The only conclusion was that everyone respected the discussion. Some options to replace stakeholder were rights holder, KMb constituents, actant and potential beneficiaries.

On November 25, Research Impact Canada (RIC) held a discussion on the use of the word stakeholder in a Dr RIC session – a monthly member driven call where RIC members craft the agenda. About 25 RIC member participants were present. In advance, I sent around Mark’s first post and the subsequent LinkedIn discussion to get everyone on the same page. Some interesting points arose in the discussion:

• Stakeholder isn’t used by some who have a community-based research practice. It comes across as corporate.
• It has a “man vibe”
• I checked with co-chair of Indigenous Council at York University, and he was not aware of the issue. It doesn’t mean it isn’t, just that it is not a discussion that has permeated all Indigenous settings.

One take away is that this is an issue beyond Indigenous contexts so an important discussion whether or not you are approaching this as decolonization.

Some options to stakeholder were

• Those in the circle

• Those who do/should care

• Partners – although that was acknowledged as having a legal definition

3.) “Dudebros”.    This is often used as a general disparagement of men in general, not just a certain type of man. If people want to disparage, say, pretentious college frat guys as “dudebros”, then say whom you’re disparaging. The term should be as offensive to men as the word “chicks” is for women.

*********

The object here is for readers to add their own phrases they don’t like (one I considered here was “it is what it is”, though it can have a real meaning, like “accept things that can’t be changed.)

Do not bother to correct me as to what you see as the “real” meanings of these words, as I am simply giving my own personal reasons to dislike them.

Reader Robert Lang and his wife lost two homes and a studio in the Los Angeles Fires.  That’s horrible news, but if there’s any silver lining, it’s that Robert has time now to put together and describe a large collection of photographs from the Pantanal of Brazil for this site: a set of 13, no less. I will be putting them up over the next weeks and months, and thanks to Robert for using his free time this way.  Here is the first set with Robert’s captions and IDs indented. You can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Note that the next-to-last photo is a “spot the jaguar” quiz:

Readers’ Wildlife Photos: The Pantanal, Part I: Jaguars

In mid-2025, my wife, Diane, and I visited the Pantanal, which is the most incredible wildlife area that no one seems to have heard of. It is an enormous flat basin in Brazil, smack-dab in the middle of South America (where Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay come together). Like the better-known Okavanga Delta in Africa, it annually floods from runoff from surrounding highlands, then slowly dries out over the dry season, creating an always-varying patchwork of wetlands, grasslands, and forests, and supports an amazing diversity of wildlife that are far more accessible and visible than those in the much more famous Amazon rainforest to its north.

Most of the Pantanal is privately owned and used for open-range cattle ranching, but because of the annual flooding, the cattle density is quite low, leaving plenty of room for the wildlife to get about. In recent years, eco-tourism has grown, particularly due to the charismatic jaguars, leading to a virtuous cycle: the ranchers have learned that the jaguars bring tourist dollars, so they no longer shoot the animals (which do take the occasional cow); the reduced hunting pressure makes the jaguars less shy and wary, leading to more sightings by the tourists, leading to more tourist dollars. (Fortunately, the tourism numbers are still low enough that their deleterious impact remains low.) During our 10-day trip, we experienced 10 different jaguar sightings, as well as over 100 different species of birds and numerous other mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. I’ll show some of all of these over the next several RWP installments.

Climate change is affecting wildlands throughout the world, and the Pantanal is no exception; just a few weeks before our visit, they had experienced their worst wildfires ever recorded, and in some parts we visited smoke still hung thickly in the air. Even so, in many places, only the understory had burned, leaving taller trees intact, and in just a few weeks new greenery was re-sprouting through the charred landscape. (In retrospect, it was an omen of things to come closer to home, as the Eaton Fire tore through my town of Altadena just a few months later).

And with that, let’s dive into the animals, with the stars of the show, the jaguar (Panthera onca)! It’s the largest big cat in the Americas, more robust than the similar-appearing leopard (Panthera pardus) of Africa. (Easy way to distinguish them in photos: leopard spots form empty rings; jaguar spot rings often have smaller spots in the middle.) Unlike the other big cats, which usually kill by biting their prey’s neck and suffocating it, the jaguar typically bites directly through the skull of its prey with one of the most powerful bites in the animal kingdom. Jaguars can kill and eat caimans larger than themselves. We saw most of our jaguars along riverbanks (we were in boats) and a few at watering holes (we were in safari vehicles); while they certainly knew we were there, they pretty much ignored us, allowing plenty of time for observation and photos.

This first one was on a riverbank. A female, if I recall correctly, with an injury on her face that was likely from a fight with another jaguar.

Another on a riverbank. This one hung out here for quite a while, and ignored us and the several other boats that eventually showed up. (As we’ve also seen in Africa, the local guides all share sighting locations with each by walkie-talkie.)

This one, too, was on a riverbank, about 15 feet up. Also had an owie on her face.

After a while, she moved a few feet into some foliage, which made a nice frame and allowed me to take what was my favorite photo of the entire trip:

And then she yawned. Pretty impressive choppers, those.

Another riverbank photo. This one was sitting in a natural cave formed by the overhanging riverbank and a curtain of roots.

This one was in dense foliage, and while we knew it was there, for the longest time, we could only see the stirrings of the leaves that concealed it as it moved back and forth (shades of the velociraptors in Jurassic Park!). Eventally, though, it moved into a clearing, and we got our shots.

This one was on a sandbar in the riverbank and gave us a lovely concert of roaring (which is a forbidding sound—I’ll post a movie, with sound, in a later installment from this trip).

And the last one was on the far side of a watering hole that we drove by in one of our safari jeep drives.

We saw a few other jaguars, but these were the ones I got decent pictures of. Except for the incredible spotting talents of our guides, we’d have missed some of them entirely, like this one. Spot the jaguar!

I’d rate this one as somewhere between easy and medium.

The jaguars alone were worth the journey, but we saw many more animals of other species; those will be the subject of the next several installments from this trip.

JAC: Try your hand at the above, and then go below the fold to see the answer. (Click “continue reading”)

Here’s a close-up photo of the jaguar in the last photo above the fold:

 

 

 

In a barrage of executive orders, President Donald Trump has set the US on course to derail climate goals, biomedical research and pandemic readiness

Worlds with liquid water could have formed just 200 million years after the big bang from the remains of the earliest supernovae

Donald Trump has been sworn in, and his new administration has immediately turned its sites on the NIH. The danger to US biomedical research has never been more acute.

The post The attack on the NIH has begun first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Just three nasal injections of blood cells called platelets helped people whose smell was affected by covid-19 identify new odours

Using syrup and baking soda, research has demonstrated the formation mechanism of rootless cones, small volcanic landforms commonly found on Earth and Mars. The study clarified, through an experimental approach, that a self-organization process determines the spatial distribution and size of these landforms. This research will enhance our understanding of explosive eruption phenomena caused by the interaction of lava and water and provide new insights into geological phenomena on the red planet.

Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are one of the greater mysteries facing astronomers today, rivaled only by Gravitational Waves (GWs) and Gamma-ray Bursts (GRBs). Originally discovered in 2007 by American astronomer Duncan Lorimer (for whom the “Lorimer Burst“ is named), these shot, intense blasts of radio energy produce more power in a millisecond than the Sun generates in a month. In most cases, FRBs are one-off events that brightly flash and are never heard from again. But in some cases, astronomers have detected FRBs that were repeating in nature, raising more questions about what causes them.

Prior to the discovery of FRBs, the most powerful bursts observed in the Milky Way were produced by neutron stars, which are visible from up to 100,000 light-years away. However, according to new research led by the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (ASTRON), a newly detected FRB was a billion times more radiant than anything produced by a neutron star. What’s more, this burst was so bright that astronomers could see it from a galaxy one billion light-years from Earth! This finding raises innumerable questions about the kinds of energetic phenomena in the Universe.

The research was led by Inés Pastor-Marazuela, a Rubicon Research Fellow at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics and a researcher with ASTRON and the Anton Pannekoek Institute, University of Amsterdam. She was joined by multiple colleagues from ASTRON, the Cahill Center for Astronomy, the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, the Netherlands eScience Center, the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Department of Space, Earth and Environment at Chalmers University of Technology. The paper detailing their findings recently appeared in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The discovery was made using the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) – part of the European VLBI network (EVN) – a powerful radio telescope consisting of 14 steerable 25 m (ft) dish antennas. This observatory relies on a technique called “aperture synthesis” to generate radio images of the sky, enabling astronomers to study a wide range of astrophysical phenomena. After more than two years of observation, the WSRT’s sophisticated instruments and techniques led to the discovery of 24 new FRBs.

These discoveries were made with the help of an experimental supercomputer, the Apertif Radio Transient System (ARTS), specifically designed to study FRBs. This supercomputer analyzed all the radio signals coming from the sky during the observation period, which helped the team deduce where future FRBs would appear. As Pastor-Marazuela said in an ASTRON press release:

“We were able to study these bursts in an incredible level of detail. We find that their shape is very similar to what we see in young neutron stars. The way the radio flashes were produced, and then modified as they traveled through space over billions of years, also agrees with a neutron star origin, making the conclusion even stronger”.

Essentially, the team taught ARTS to look specifically for bursts that are very short, very bright, and from very distant sources. Radio sources that meet all three criteria will likely be the most powerful and fascinating. When ARTS finds such bursts in the data, it autonomously zooms in on the phenomena and informs the astronomers. Said research leader Joeri van Leeuwen from ASTRON:

“We generally do not know when or where the next FRB will appear, so we have a vast computer constantly crunch through all radio signals from the sky. After a while, the resemblance with the flashes we know from highly magnetic neutron stars started to emerge, and we were very excited that we lifted part of the veil around these perplexing bursts. We were just starting to think we were getting close to understanding how regular neutron stars can shine so exceedingly bright in radio. But then the Universe comes along and makes the puzzle one billion times harder. That’s just great”.

While this new mystery is intriguing, the team is also excited that they have been able to link FRBs to young neutron stars for the first time. “It is amazing to work on these distant FRBs, [you] really feel you are studying them up close from a single burst, and find they appear to be neutron stars,” said Pastor-Marazuela.

Further Reading: ASTRON, Astronomy & Astrophysics

The post Fast Radio Bursts Appear to Be Caused by Young Neutron Stars appeared first on Universe Today.

When searching for alien life, it’s not unusual to use Earth as a test bed for theories and even practice runs. Perhaps one of the most tantalising places in the Solar System to look for life is Saturn’s moon Enceladus. It has a liquid water interior and it is here that life may just be possible. A team of researchers want to test techniques for searching for life on Enceledaus by exploring the oceans of Earth. They have collected  water and ice samples and hope to find chemicals like methane and hydrogen. 

The search for alien life is one of that has fascinated humanity for decades. Scientists explore this vast question through various avenues, including the study of exoplanets within the habitable zones of distant stars but there is still hope that maybe, just maybe we will find life elsewhere in our own Solar System. Some of the moon’s of the outer planets offer tantalising possibilities such as Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. It’s an icy moon where, beneath the icy crust, there is the possibility of the global ocean of liquid water teeming with life.

Saturn’s moon Enceladus isn’t just bright and beautiful. It has an ocean under all that ice that could have hydrothermal vents that create organic chemicals. Image Credit: NASA, ESA, JPL, SSI, Cassini Imaging Team

When the Cassini-Huygens probe visited Saturn in 2004 it sampled the cryogenic plumes that had been ejected over the southern pole, Using its Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer and Cosmic Dust Analyser, research teams identified the presence of water ice, methane and other carbon based molecules. Molecular hydrogen, molecular nitrogen and other elements all of which suggest the sub-surface ocean was a salty composition with the necessary elements for primative life. However to date, no evidence has been found. 

Artist impression of Cassini Space Probe

It’s thought that the ice crust of Enceladus is anything form a few kilometres to up to 40 km thick. Beneath, and in the depths of the ocean are thought to be hydrothermal vents  which, just like oceans on Earth, are a source of energy that could drive entire ecosystems. With all the ingredients for life, missions have been discussed to explore the astrobiological aspects of Enceladus. Mission with mass spectrometers have been proposed to identify biosignatures within the ocean. 

In the paper published in Planetary and Space Science and written by a team led by F. French from the Università degli Studi di Bari in Italy, the team look at the technical possibility of detecting methane cycling on Enceladus. If it can be observed, then it would give a strong indication that the sub-surface ocean is currently, or has been habitable in the past. The conclusion can be quite reliably drawn since the methane cycle on Earth is often the result of biological and abiotic processes but is generally considered a byproduct of microbial activity. 

NASA and ESA have been discussing possible missions to Enceladus but ahead of that, one way of practicing the ability to detect geochemical signatures of life is to see if it can be detected on Earth using the same technology. The Arctic Ocean is a great analogy to the conditions on Enceladus with vents on the sea floor in an ocean covered with ice for the majority of the year. The team conducted experiments to simulate the processes and techniques future missions are likely to employ on Enceladus and other outer moons. 

The team found that they were able to detect and measure emitted concentrations of carbon dioxide, other carbon isotopies and other oxygen isotopes within the water. Their results suggest it will be possible to detect the necessary elements using a mass spectrometer at Enceladus. Further studies are appropriate to refine the processes ahead of a future mission. 

Source : An Arctic Analogue for the Future Exploration of Possible Biosignatures on Enceladus

The post Researchers Practice Searching for Life on Enceladus, in the Arctic Ocean appeared first on Universe Today.

In April 2026, NASA will launch a crew of four as part of the Artemis II mission, a circumlunar flight that will last 10 days. This mission will set the stage for Artemis III, the long-awaited return to the Moon, currently scheduled for mid-2027. With the deployment of the Lunar Gateway (also scheduled for 2027), NASA intends to conduct regular missions to the Moon (once a year). With the help of international and commercial partners, NASA then hopes to build a lunar base and the related infrastructure that will allow for a “sustained program of lunar exploration and development.”

However, the current schedule is the result of multiple delays, budget restrictions, and issues with the various mission elements. Given the uncertain nature of politics in the U.S. right now, there are concerns that further delays may be inevitable. Meanwhile, China and its partners continue to push ahead with their plans to create a base in the South Pole-Aitken Basin – the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) – that will rival NASA’s Artemis Program. Understandably, this situation has raised concerns about who will send crewed missions to the Moon and establish a base there first.

Back to the Moon to Stay!

For NASA, the long-awaited return to the Moon began two decades ago with the passage of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. In addition to allocating funds for robotic space exploration and Earth Observation programs, the Act also instructed the agency to “establish a program to develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, including a robust precursor program, to promote exploration, science, commerce, and United States preeminence in space, and as a stepping-stone to future exploration of Mars and other destinations.”

Artist’s impression of the Ares I and V rockets. Credit: NASA/MSFC

This led to the creation of the Constellation Program, which would see astronauts return to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. Since then, NASA’s plans have evolved due to unforeseen circumstances like the Great Recession (2007-2009) and budget shortfalls. By 2010, NASA came back with a new plan known as the Moon to Mars mission architecture, which called for the development of the next-generation Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion spacecraft.

By 2017, the Artemis Program was inaugurated with the long-term goal of creating a “sustained program of lunar exploration and development.” This plan currently includes returning astronauts to the lunar surface by 2028, followed by the creation of a permanent base around the lunar south pole. Since then, they have enlisted the help of several space agencies and national governments through the Artemis Accords and multiple commercial partners through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) and Human Landing System (HLS) programs to realize this goal.

However, in 2021, China and Roscosmos declared a joint plan to establish their own permanent base in the Moon’s south pole region, the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS). The program’s timetable calls for Russian cosmonauts and Chinese taikonauts to land on the Moon for the first time by 2030. In 2023, China announced this would consist of two Long March 10 rockets launching the Mengzhou spacecraft and the Lanyue lunar lander, the former carrying two taikonauts and the latter ferrying them to the surface and back.

The Gateway & Base Camp

In 2012, NASA proposed a cislunar station to facilitate its “Moon to Mars” mission architecture, dubbed the Deep Space Habitat. By 2018, the design and the program had matured considerably and was renamed Lunar Gateway. This station is now a multinational collaborative project between NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and the UAE’s Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre (MBRSC).

According to the current design, this station will consist of the “core elements”: the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), which will launch no sooner than 2027. Further modules will include the European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT), the Lunar International Habitation Module (Lunar I-HAB Module), the Canadarm3 robotic manipulator arms, and the Crew and Science Airlock Module.

By 2020, the surface elements of the Artemis Program, known as the Artemis Base Camp, were announced. This camp was described in detail as part of NASA’s Lunar Surface Sustainability Concept. The plan includes three core elements that would enable a sustained lunar presence, emphasizing mobility and the ability to conduct extensive science operations.

• A Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) that will transport crewmembers around the landing zone
• A pressurized Habitable Mobility Platform (HMP) that will allow crews to take trips across the lunar surface for up to 45 days
• A lunar Foundation Surface Habitat (FSH) that will house as many as four crew members on shorter surface stays

The Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion spacecraft are vital to this program, which NASA has been developing since 2011. In 2018, then-Administrator Jim Bridenstine and VP Mike Pence directed NASA to expedite the timetable so astronauts would land on the Moon by 2024. This created a problem since the Lunar Gateway would not be ready in time, leading to the Human Landing Systems (HLS) contract. The resulting concepts include the Starship HLS developed by SpaceX and the Blue Moon Mk. 2 developed by Blue Origin.

The ILRS

In June 2021, the China National Space Agency (CNSA) announced they had partnered with the Russian State Space Corporation (Roscosmos). The detailed plan was made public with the release of the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) Guide for Partnership, which explained how international partners could join. According to the design, five facilities will make up the ILRS. They include:

• Cislunar Transportation Facility (CLF): An orbital station that mirrors the purpose of the Lunar Gateway.
• Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C): An energy supply network, a thermal management system, and support modules.
• Lunar Transportation and Operation Facility (LTOF): A storage facility where lunar vehicles will be stowed and maintained when not in use.
• Lunar Scientific Facility: A support lunar science operations on the surface, in-orbit, or in deep space.
• Ground Support and Application Facility (GSAF): An operational support facility for communications and missions and a data center for lunar and deep-space missions.

The timeline for the base’s construction is divided into three phases. Phase I—Reconnaissance, which began in 2021 and will last until the end of 2025, consists of exploring the South Pole-Aitken Basin and sample return missions by the Chang’e missions to scout for potential ILRS sites and verify technologies that will allow for soft landings in the southern polar region. This phase has involved multiple launches using China’s Long March 3B (CZ-3B) and Long March 5 (CZ-5), and the Russian Soyuz-2 rocket.

Visualization of the ILRS from the CNSA Guide to Partnership (June 2021). Credit: CNSA

Phase II—Construction is planned to last from 2025 to 2030. The goals of this phase include verifying technologies related to the ILRS command center, analyzing the Chang’e samples to narrow the selection of potential sites, and delivering cargo to build the base. Other objectives will include technologies related to ISRU, 3D printing, and others necessary for the construction of the ILRS. For Phase II and III, China and Russia would begin relying on the Long March 9, Long March 10, and the Angara 5M heavy launch vehicles.

Phase III – Utilization, which will run from 2030 to 2035, will involve the completion of all in-orbit and surface facilities that provide energy, communication, research, exploration, and transport services. This phase will consist of five IRLS missions to establish the base architecture:

• IRLS-1 – establishment of the command center, basic energy, and telecommunications facilities.
• IRLS-2 – establishment of lunar research exploration facilities (sample collection, lunar physics, geology, lava tubes).
• IRLS-3 – establishment of lunar ISRU technology verification facilities.
• IRLS-4 – verification of general technologies like biomedical experiments, sample collection, and return.
• IRLS-5 – establishment of lunar-based astronomy and Earth observation facilities.

Issues and Delays

Long before the Artemis Program was first announced, NASA was experiencing significant delays with the development of mission-critical elements. This includes the SLS, which began development in 2011 with a government-mandated launch set for late 2016. However, cost overruns, management issues, and other challenges delayed this for nearly six years. This also caused delays in the development of the Orion spacecraft, which performed its first successful test flight on December 5th, 2014. The next flight, Artemis I, did not occur until almost eight years later.

On November 16th, 2022, the SLS launched for the first time, sending the Artemis I spacecraft (without crew) on a circumlunar flight. This was to be followed by Artemis II, a crewed circumlunar flight, in 2023 and Artemis III in 2024. In November 2021, due to legal challenges over the HLS contract, NASA declared that Artemis III‘s launch date would be pushed until 2025. On January 2024, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced that Artemis II and III would launch no sooner than September 2025 and 2026.

However, by the end of the year, Nelson announced that these missions would be delayed due to the months of engineering investigations into issues with the life support system and heat shield, but should occur no later than April 2026 and mid-2027. There have also been delays on SpaceX’s end. While the company has made several impressive strides with the launch and recovery of the Starship, the first successful orbital test flight took place on June 6th, 2024 – a year after its first crewed launch was scheduled to take place (the dearMoon project) and the same year it was to assist the Artemis III mission.

The complex architecture for that mission also involves orbital refueling, which SpaceX anticipates hopes to test sometime this year. However, concerns have been raised about the number of refuelings needed to allow the Starship to make a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) maneuver. At present, the Artemis III and IV missions will involve a Starship HLS docking with a refueling facility in orbit before making a TLI. This facility will be serviced by multiple Starship propellant tankers, but estimates vary on how many launches will be needed to refuel the HLS fully.

Whereas Musk has previously stated that it could be between 4 and 8, others estimate that 16 launches will be needed to fuel a single Starship HLS. SpaceX also hopes to conduct 25 launches with the Starship in 2025, including an orbital refueling followed by an uncrewed TLI and lunar landing in preparation for Artemis III. However, due to the recent loss of a Starship during the most recent flight (January 16th, 2025) and the resulting FAA penalties, these missions may not occur before the year’s end.

Keith Cowing, an astrobiologist and former rocket scientist, is currently the editor of the publications NASA Watch and Astrobiology. As he summarized to Universe Today via messenger:

“The main problem with Artemis as a whole has been poor cost projections, inadequate cost monitoring, bad contract oversight, and over-optimistic schedules that are driven by the need to look like you are making good progress. Any one of these can cause cost overruns and schedule delays. When you have all of them happening, you can have substantial problems.

“The main problems have had to do with the ground infrastructure for launch, issues with the Orion spacecraft, and the impact of earlier cost saving attempts. The most unusual of which was a decision to re-use the avionics from Artemis II Orion in the Artemis III Orion instead of simply building one set of avionics for each. It takes a lot of time to remove things, re-install them, and re-certify them for flight.”

Orion is NASA’s deep space exploration spaceship that will carry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and bring them safely home. Credit: Lockheed Martin Is Roscomos Out?

However, Roscosmos has also suffered serious setbacks due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This includes Roscosmos terminating its involvement in the International Space Station (ISS) and the European Space Agency (ESA) suspending cooperation with Roscosmos for the ExoMars rover mission. Roscosmos has also seen a significant drop in revenue since 2022, reporting financial losses of 180 billion rubles ($2.1 billion) in February 2024 due to canceled contracts.

In addition, Roscosmos has experienced a significant drop in launches per year, a trend that began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. This includes missions related to the ILRS, like the Luna-25 mission. After a two-year delay, the mission was lost when it crashed on the lunar surface in August 2023. This mission and the subsequent launch of Luna-26 and Luna-27, originally scheduled for 2024 and August 2025 (respectively), were a key part of Phase I of the IRLS’ development.

Since the loss of Luna-25, these missions have been delayed until 2027 and 2028. The Luna-28 mission, meant to play an important role in Phase II of the ILRS’ development, has also been pushed back to 2030. In addition, these three missions, and several payload deliveries in Phase II and III are dependent on Russia’s Angara A5 rocket. The design of this heavy-lift rocket was formalized in 2004, and the first test flight occurred in December 2014, but the next flight did not occur for another six years (December 2020).

The third followed in December 2021, which failed to deliver its payload to the intended orbit. The Angara 5M, unveiled in 2017 to address problems with earlier models, made its maiden flight in April 2024. While multiple launches are scheduled between 2025 and 2030s, none are associated with the Luna program or the ILRS. Said Cowing:

“Russia is cash-strapped and is still isolated from most of the world’s economic systems. In addition, their space sector was already suffering from draconian budget cuts, over-promising things that never happened, and increasingly shoddy workmanship from their contractors. The manufacturing problems with a Soyuz capsule and the malfunction of thrusters in the Nauka module, plus the aging of their part of the ISS, simply serve to exacerbate these challenges further.

The first Long March 5 rocket being rolled out for launch at Wenchang in late October 2016. Credit: Su Dong/China Daily

Despite these setbacks, China continues to pursue the ILRS and there is little doubt that China will be able to continue without Russian involvement. The success of the Chang’e program to date and their progress with the Long March 9 (CZ-9) is certainly an indication of that.

“China, on the other hand, has a rather robust human spaceflight program of its own, including a large space station,” added Cowing. “They also have an ambitious lunar program that has chalked off one success after another. And their robotic and space station programs are all focused on methodically developing the ability to send their astronauts to the Moon. They really do not need the Russians, and the Russians cannot afford to do much anyway.”

Conclusions?

As it stands, China plans to send the first taikonauts to the Moon in 2030, and they appear to be on track to achieve that. This includes the first launch of the Long March 10, slated for 2026, and the successful test of the Mengzhou spacecraft in 2020. In April 2024, the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA) announced that the initial development of the Lanyue lander was complete. This was followed by an announcement in October that a separation test for the lander and its propulsion stage had been carried out. However, unforeseen delays may occur that could cause the target date to be pushed.

Meanwhile, NASA has experienced multiple delays and there are still logistical questions that need to be worked out with the Starship HLS. However, NASA and its commercial partners still have the lead regarding the major mission elements. For instance, they have already built and validated the SLS and Orion spacecraft, while SpaceX has successfully completed multiple orbital flights with the Starship. While the target date of mid-2027 may slip further, they could still make their original (pre-Artemis) target date of 2028.

What’s more, NASA has the benefit of experience, having already sent six missions and 12 astronauts to the Moon. In addition, NASA has launched over 1,000 uncrewed and 250 crewed missions into Earth orbit or beyond since its inception in 1958, plus thousands more through its commercial programs. As of January 23rd, 2025, China has conducted 558 launches using the Long March family of rockets and trails the U.S. significantly in terms of annual launches. As the saying goes, “There’s no substitute for experience.”

So… will China send its first taikonauts to the Moon before NASA can make its long-awaited return? In Cowing’s estimation, the chance of that happening is “doubtful.” However, there is little doubt that their robust space program will be a force to be reckoned with in the coming decades, be it in orbit, on the Moon, and (in all likelihood) on Mars!

The post Who Will Build an Outpost on the Moon First? appeared first on Universe Today.

The latest monologue from Maher’s show is called “Eat the rich,” taking off from the murder of the United Healthcare CEO and arguing that it’s AI more than people like the CEO who makes healthcare decisions, as well as players hospitals and pharmacies who rip people off in a system full of different parties all dedicated to enriching themselves.  In the end, he indicts hospitals as the main venal actors, but notes that Americans, obese and sugar-hungry as we are, bring a lot of illness on ourselves.

He moves on to “GenZers, calling many of them “fucking stupid,” dividing the world up to oppressed and oppressors: a Manichean view of the universe that led to Brian Thompson‘s assassination.  He adds, “It wasn’t that long ago when liberals thought shooting people who don’t share your politics was bad – or at least a micro-aggression.”

It’s not one of Maher’s best bits, but has some good parts, and conveys the lesson that urging violence on your political opponents is stupid and nonproductive.

My favorite zinger: “You don’t hate the rich; you hate that you ain’t the rich.”  That reminds me of a certain blogger. . .

h/t: Divy

I’ve read Robert Sapolsky’s book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, and it’s pretty good, making a material—in his view, neurological—case for determinism, though the book is a bit long and can be tedious in parts if you don’t want to plow through a lot of neurobiology. But I think that in the end he makes his case (of course, I’m a hardcore determinist so I’d agree!). If you don’t want to read 528 pages, there’s also Sam Harris’s Free Will or Gregg Caruso’s books on free will (he’s a determinist).

But Sapolsky’s book has gotten some negative reviews, and I should have realized that writing about determinism will immediately get people’s hackles up, because their feeling of having free will (and I’ll be talking here about libertarian “you-could-have-chosen-otherwise” free will) is so strong that they can brook no determinism. I’ve already recounted how I was menaced by a a jazz musician for intimating that is “extemporaneous” solos were determined before he ever played them, and was also kicked out of a friend’s house simply for calmly espousing and explaining determinism. As I always say, it’s harder for me to convince a creationist that evolution is true than to convince a “free willer” that determinism is true. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former!

But of all the reviews I’ve read of Sapolsky’s book, by far the worst just appeared in what was once a great venue, the New York Review of Books. (It went downhill fast when its wonderful editor Robert B. Silvers died in 2017.)  The review is free to access (also archived here), and you can read by clicking on the headline below.  It shows no understanding of the free-will controversy, or of science itself, and offers no alternative to determinism (it has to be some magical nonphysical agent that can affect material objects), though I suspect the author, because of her frequent references to God and theology, might believe that free will has a goddy supernatural origin. (Even if it doesn’t, libertarian free will has to rely on something supernatural.) Here’s the description of the author from the NYRB:

Jessica Riskin is the Frances and Charles Field Professor of History at Stanford. She is currently writing a book about the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the history of evolutionary theory. (February 2025)

Although I’m usually loath to dwell on credentials, a historian, even of biology, is not the person to review Sapolsky’s book. Perhaps a philosopher or a neurologist, but I can explain the pervasive awfulness of Riskin’s review only by appealing to massive ignorance of the topic.

I really don’t want to go through this long review bit by bit, but I’ll highlight a few weird things.

Ignorance of science.  Riskin doesn’t realize that getting evidence for phenomena (e.g., evolution) is very often a step-by step-process: you have an initial hypothesis, and then you either reinforce or reduce the likelihood of its being true with new data. This is a Bayesian approach, though often it’s implicit rather than specified using Bayes’s theorem.  You don’t “prove” determinism or free will, you simply gather evidence that makes one of them more likely. I would note that determinism should have high priors simply because our brains and bodies and environments, the source of our behaviors, affect our behaviors materially–usually through neuronal wiring.  (That’s why Sapolsky concentrates so much on neurons.) And material objects universally obey the laws of physics.

Riskin WANTS determinism to be proved, and says that Sapolsky doesn’t do it. But I say she’s put the bar too high, that Sapolsky makes a good case and that, combined with the presupposition that true libertarian free will must involve forces that we don’t know about—while the laws of physics appear to apply universally—should put Riskin on the defensive (which she is).

Not only are we “not captains of our ships,” he writes, “our ships never had captains. Fuck. That really blows.” (This gives a taste of Sapolsky’s late-night-dorm-room literary style.) [JAC: it’s not ALL like that, so her comment is inaccurate.]

How does he know? Because of science. Sapolsky tells us that “the science of human behavior shows” it to be deterministic. But none of the scientific evidence he offers turns out to demonstrate this. He describes psychological studies revealing changes in people’s electroencephalograms (EEGs) taking place milliseconds before they were aware of making a decision, but he dismisses these—reasonably enough—as “irrelevant.” He presents other studies demonstrating that people can be subconsciously manipulated; that hormones, cultural beliefs, and moral values influence behavior; and that maturation, aging, and experience induce alterations in people’s brains and bodies with corresponding behavioral changes. After each discussion he asks, “Does this disprove free will?” and responds—again reasonably—with “nah,” “nope,” “certainly not,” and “obviously not.” Readers might wonder, equally reasonably, why they’ve slogged through all this irrelevant nonevidence.

That might be a fair criticism of Sapolsky’s style, but I don’t remember him saying that this evidence is irrelevant (it’s been a while since I read the book). But I do think that predicting behaviors before one is conscious of performing them raises the priors of determinism, as do the many, many ways that you can trick people into thinking they have agency when they don’t (brain stimulation, effects of drugs, computer experiments) or thinking they are not doing something consciously when they are (Ouija boards). Sean Carroll’s essay “On Determinism” (with extensive quotes by Massimo Pigliucci) makes a good case that the universality of the laws of physics leaves no room for libertarian free will. (Sean is a compatibilist and, although a determinist, says we have “free will” in a different sense. Dan Dennett used to say the same thing.)

More waving away of the notion of  proof:

Science can’t prove there’s no free will because the question of free will is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. To misrepresent it as a scientific question is a prime example of scientism—extending the claims of science beyond its bounds. Here’s another from Sapolsky’s final chapter: “What the science in this book ultimately teaches is that there is no meaning.” This might sound like the opposite of saying that science shows there’s a divine intelligence behind the world-machine, but it’s the direct descendant of that earlier claim, and comes to the same evacuation of meaning and agency from the mortal world. This isn’t a scientific proposition. It remains what it has been from the beginning: a theology.

This is wrong. One can gather data for and against determinism. If, for example, we found out that people could move objects by thinking about them, that would suggest that there is some nonmaterial brain force that can actually influence events, buttressing (but not “proving”) the case for free will. And saying that determinism is “a theology” is also wrong, for theology in the West is involved in exegesis of the Bible and beliefs in a supernatural being.

What’s the alternative to determinism?  Here Riskin is silent, though it looks from her frequent references to God and theology that she sees divine action as a possible counter to determinism and a buttressing of free will. (I can’t be sure of this, though, as Riskin doesn’t lay out what she sees as a viable alternative to determinism.) Riskin has described herself as a “Jewish atheist”, and given that she herself doesn’t see divine provenance out there, the onus on her is to admit that she is invoking some kind of supernatural but non-Goddy action.

Her only argument seem to be that because people look like they have “agency” (and they do in the trivial sense of being able to do things), this is evidence for free will. For example, this part seems deeply confused:

It’s because the many factors influencing behavior, Sapolsky thinks, place the burden of proof on defenders of human agency. It’s they who need to show that neurons are “completely uninfluenced” by any external factors and that “some behavior just happened out of thin air.” But why must human behavior be either deterministic or impervious to any influence? Sapolsky doesn’t explain; he takes as given that to show any influence at all is to show a determining influence. Similarly, he writes that we have “no control” over our biology, culture, or environment. Sure, we don’t control these things, but there’s an important difference between not controlling something and having no effect on it, or at least so anyone with teenagers is inclined to hope. Biology isn’t insulated from behavior any more than behavior is from biology. As Sapolsky himself points out, virtually everything a person does has an effect on their physiology. And a wealth of empirical evidence from Aristotle to Oprah suggests that people can indeed have cultural influence.

What is the sweating reviewer trying to say here? That there is some free will? I cannot tell. In fact, her own confusion and incoherent arguments seem to be imputed to Sapolsky, as if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’ve read the book, and I disagree. And “cultural influence” my tuchas! What does that have to do with refuting determinism?

Is there a god in this argument? The author makes the old “why is there something instead of nothing” argument:

Sapolsky’s turtles are of course metaphorical; they stand for deterministic causes, and by “a turtle floating in the air” he means a magical event. We must accept a strictly causal chain extending back to the beginning of time or acknowledge that we believe in miracles. But why are these our only choices? And are they really so different? Wouldn’t a chain of deterministic causes imply a miracle of some sort at the beginning—the old infinite regress problem rearing its domed shell again?

Yes, and we don’t know why there is something instead of nothing, though there have been some scientific suggestions that do NOT involve miracles. And obviously since Riskin is an atheist, she doesn’t believe in miracles. So what is her answer. She doesn’t tell us.

More touting of “agency:

Sapolsky tells the story of Phineas Gage, who suffered a metal rod through the brain while working on a construction site in Vermont in 1848 and was never quite the same afterward. He offers Gage as evidence that people’s personalities depend on their “material brains,” which he thinks poses a challenge to anyone who wants to defend the idea of free will. But why should the fact that humans and their brains are made of material parts mean there’s no such thing as human agency? There’s a good answer, but it’s historical rather than scientific: because determinism retains crucial elements of the theology from which it arose, according to which the material world was a passive artifact lacking any agency of its own.

It would be nice if Riskin would tell us what she means by “agency”.  Real “I could have made either choice” agency or simply the appearance of agency? The intimation that determinism is a form of theology again arises, but denial of free will in the world is simply not theology. It’s analogous to denial of a supernatural being, which Riskin presumably does in her atheism. Is this atheism theological?

I won’t go on here, as I don’t want to waste my time. I will simply say that Riskin sounds like she’s trying to be clever, but in so doing fails to confect a consistent argument against determinism. Her sniping at Sapolsky may occasionally hit home, but she comes nowhere close to dispelling determinism, simply because she doesn’t engage in the necessarily arguments. Read for yourself how she throws in lots of historical figures like Darwin and Paley and Laplace to show her erudition, but doesn’t deal with what libertarian free will would really entail. 

This egregious review also goes to show how far the mighty New York Review of Books has fallen. Yes, it likes cleverness and erudition, but in the old days it also liked substantive arguments in its reviews. Riskin doesn’t provide any. But don’t take my word for it; if you’re interested in the topic, read the review and see if you can find any structure or coherence in it.

 

h/t: Barry

While perusing the Bad Gray Lady this morning, I saw two headlines that, in light of what I knew about events in Gaza and Lebanon, looked dubious. Sure enough, the headlines and the news below them gave a distorted view of the situation. Here’s the first one (click to read, or find article archived here):

Note first the order of events: Israel blacks Gazans from north while accusing Hamas of a cease-fire breach.  The order of events should have been reversed, with the headline saying “Israel accuses Hamas of Cease-Fire Breach, blocks Gazans from North.” That may seem a trivial difference , but I’ve seen too many headlines with Israel identified first as the perp, with the stated reasons for their actions given second.

But the lack of explanation for what’s happening is much more important. The real situation is that Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire in which all civilian hostages were to be released first, and, yesterday at noon Israeli time, Hamas was also to provide Israel with a complete list of the hostages they had or knew about, specifying whether they were living or dead.  Hamas did neither; they are still not releasing one civilian woman (she was held by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is a partner organization and could easily have arranged for the woman’s release). The four women released yesterday were in the IDF. The NYT notes this further down:

The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said that it would not allow Gazans to head north “until the release of the civilian Arbel Yehud has been arranged,” leaving the timing of the troop withdrawal and the residents’ return unclear.

And here’s another violation described by the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas has not yet provided Israel with the list revealing the status of the hostages held in Gaza captivity, which it was obligated to provide by Saturday under the ceasefire agreement.

According to a Walla report citing Israeli officials, the list was expected to include details on how many of the hostages remaining in Hamas captivity are still alive and how many are deceased.

An Israeli official reportedly said that failure to provide the list by the end of the day would be another violation of the agreement by Hamas.

Hamas could not explain either of these violations of the agreement. It’s clear that they are toying with Israel and playing psychological games that of course are deeply injurious to the hostages’ friends and families. This is why Israel did not withdraw from northern Gaza or allow residents to return home. (Note that Israel still has not fired on bullet.) The “blocking” is Israel’s nonviolent response to the actions of Hamas, the party that first violated the cease-fire.

I don’t think this bodes well for a continuing peace in the region, which, at any rate, I don’t think will be permanent so long as Hamas runs Gaza.

Here is the second headline about doings further north. Click to read, or find it archived here:

And an excerpt (bolding is mine)

At least 15 people were killed and more than 80 injured by Israeli forces on Sunday in southern Lebanon, Lebanese officials said, as the 60-day deadline for both Hezbollah and Israel to withdraw from the south expired and thousands of Lebanese displaced by the war poured onto roads leading south back to their homes.

The agreement, which was signed in November and halted the deadliest war in decades between the two sides, stipulated that both Hezbollah and Israel withdraw, while the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers would be deployed in force to secure the area. Negotiators had hoped the cease-fire deal would become permanent, returning a measure of calm to a turbulent region.

But as the deadline passed on Sunday, a very different scenario was taking shape.

Israeli forces remained in parts of southern Lebanon in violation of the cease-fire agreement, stoking fears of a sustained Israeli occupation and renewed hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli officials warned Lebanese not to return to their homes in many towns and villages in the south.

“In the near future, we will continue to inform you about the places to which you can return,” Avichai Adraee, the Arabic spokesman of the Israeli military, posted on social media on Sunday morning. “Until further notice, all previously published instructions remain in effect.”

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said that those killed and injured on Sunday morning had been trying to enter their villages along the border when they were attacked by Israeli forces. Residents of some southern towns had called for their neighbors to gather early Sunday morning and head to their homes in a convoy, despite the warnings from Israel. The Lebanese military said it was accompanying civilians returning to several border towns to try to ensure their safety. The military said in a statement that a Lebanese soldier was among those killed by Israeli fire.

What is not explained: What Israel and Lebanon agreed to was that Israel would occupy the region between their northern border with Lebanon and the Litani River, and then would withdraw back into Israel after the Lebanese Army (note: there is one, and it’s not Hezbollah), in concert with the UN army forces of UNIFIL, would destroy all of Hezbollah’s weapons and facilities between the border with Israel and the Litani River. Until then, villages in that area would be evacuated (Israeli villages south of the border with Lebanon have also been evacuated, displacing 80,000 people).

Of course UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army have done little or nothing, and Hezbollah, despite the agreement, will not withdraw north of the Litani River; armed Hezbollah fighters remain in the forbidden region while UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army does bupkes.  The Israelis fired on a group of people marching back to their homes in violation of the agreement, accompanied by armed people; this was perceived as a threat [see below].

At any rate the bolded text above implies that Israel was violating the cease-fire agreement while Lebanon adhered to it. That is a falsehood. Lebanon first violated the cease-fire agreement big-time, and in response Israel did not withdraw.

From the Times of Israel:

The Lebanese health ministry said 15 people had been killed, including a Lebanese soldier, and some 83 had been wounded by IDF fire in southern Lebanon since the morning.

The crowds appeared to be largely made up of Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah’s al-Manar television, broadcasting from several locations in the south, showed footage of residents moving toward villages in defiance of Israeli orders, some holding the terror group’s flag and images of Hezbollah fighters killed in the war, as well as slain Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.

An Israeli military official told reporters that hundreds of Lebanese, among them Hezbollah operatives, tried to reach villages in southern Lebanon while carrying out “provocations.”

The official said the military had prepared for civilians attempting to reach the border villages at the end of the 60-day truce, despite its warnings.

The IDF said it opened fire on suspects who approached troops still deployed in southern Lebanon and who posed an “imminent threat.” Troops also detained several suspects, according to the military.

Here, from Wikimedia, is a map showing the Litani River and the area south of it before one gets to the Israeli border (dark grey line). That is the region that was subject to the truce agreement.

******

In both cases above, Gaza and then Lebanon violated a cease-fire agreement with Israel, and Israel did not violate that agreement–until the terrorists (and the UN and Lebanon) violated the agreement.  Yet somehow the NYT makes Israel look responsible here rather than terrorists violating a cease-fire agreement. Such is mainstream journalism. In Gaza, for instance, if Hamas would just let the Israelis go as agreed, the cease-fire would be obeyed by Israel, which already has released the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails per the agreement.

Biologist John Avise has sent us another batch of butterfly photos. They are below: John’s IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 7 

This week continues my many-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.  The intent of this series is to introduce (or remind) WEIT readers about the diversity and beauty of this continent’s Lepidopterans.

Funereal Duskywing (Erynnis funeralis):

Gabb’s Checkerspot (Chlosyne gabbii):

Eastern Giant Swallowtail (Papilio cresphontes), topwing:

Eastern Giant Swallowtail, underwing:

Golden Hairstreak (Habrodais grunus):

Gray Comma (Polygonia progne), topwing:

Gray Comma, underwing:

Gray Hairstreak (Strymon melinus) male topwing [JAC note: the three hairstreak photos seem to show that a “false head”, complete with antennae, has evolved at the rear end of the wings, surely to attract predators to the “wrong” part of the body. Note how inconspicuous the vulnerable head is!]

Gray Hairstreak, female topwing:

Gray Hairstreak, female underwing:

Great Southern White (Ascia monuste), topwing:

Great Southern White, underwing:

Ever since Isaac Newton famously talked about gravity, its dominance as a force in our Solar System has been well known. It’s responsible for the orbits of the planets and their satellites but there are other forces that have shaped our planetary neighbourhood. A new paper has been released where an astronomer discusses how recoiling ice from comets can push them around and how the radiation pressure from the Sun drives material outwards. There are also relativistic effects too that can cause particles to spiral inward toward the Sun. 

Gravity is the force that governs the structure and motion of the solar system, keeping celestial bodies together in a cosmic dance. The Sun, with its immense mass, generates the strongest gravitational pull, anchoring planets, asteroids, comets, and other objects in orbit around it. Each planet’s orbit results from the balance between its velocity and the Sun’s gravitational force, creating elliptical paths described by Kepler’s laws of motion. Similarly, moons remain in orbit around their host planets due to the gravitational forces exerted by their parent planet. Gravity not only maintains the stability of these orbits but also influences phenomena like tides on Earth, caused by the Moon’s gravitational pull.

View of Moon limb with Earth on the horizon,Mare Smythii Region. Earth rise. This image was taken before separation of the LM and the Command Module during Apollo 11 Mission. Original film magazine was labeled V. Film Type: S0-368 Color taken with a 250mm lens. Approximate photo scale 1:1,300,000. Principal Point Latitude was 3 North by Longitude 85 East. Foward overlap is 90%. Sun angle is High. Approximate Tilt minimum is 65 degrees,maximum is 69. Tilt direction is West (W).

In the paper authored by David Jewitt from the University of California he explores other forces that shape our Solar System. Gravity certainly describes the motion of planetary mass bodies but there are other forces that impart forces upon smaller bodies that are susceptible to their effects. These forces include, but are not limited to recoil (as per Newton’s third law of motion that every action has an equal and opposite reaction,) torque from mass loss, radiation pressure and more. 

The aim of the paper is to offer a simple yet informative overview of the various non-gravitational forces at play in the Solar System. There are references to relevant applications from existing papers and publications, presenting them in a way that is accessible to non-specialists. An important point to note is that the paper assumes that all orbits are circular, whereas real bodies are not perfectly spherical and orbits are not perfectly circular. The author asserts that these approximations ensure that rough estimates of the magnitudes of forces can still be achieved. 

Among the non-gravitational forces considered in the paper, the largest by far is the recoil produced by the sublimation of ice on comets and asteroids. The heat from the Sun causes the ice to immediately turn into a gas rather than melt to a liquid, this is the sublimation process. Like a bullet leaving a gun however, and in accordance with Newton’s laws, when the ice sublimates, the escaping volatile gasses will carry momentum and exert a recoil force on the body. The process of sublimation depends largely on temperature and acts in the anti-solar direction. 

Comet image from Hubble

Related to the appearance of comets is another force, radiation pressure, that shapes their distinctive tails. It’s the force exerted by light when photons transfer momentum to an object such as cometary dust and gas pushing them away. The pressure depends on the intensity of the radiation and the object’s reflectivity, with more reflective objects experiencing greater force. Though small, radiation pressure can shape comet tails and gradually alter the orbits of small bodies in the solar system.

The Sun releases a steady stream of charged particles called the Solar Wind. When it strikes unprotected surfaces like asteroids or the Moon, it can change the chemistry and even create water molecules. Image Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith

Source : Non-gravitational Forces in Planetary Systems

The post There’s More Than Just Gravity at Work in the Solar System appeared first on Universe Today.

Don’t know about you but when I think of Earth my mind is filled with the diversity of life and the rich flora and fauna. In reality, about 99% of Earth is uninhabitable; deep underground places with high pressure and temperature where even the toughest bacteria cannot survive. There are places though where life thrives from tiniest toughest bacteria to the largest elephant. Then there are places that are habitable but devoid of life; lava flows are a great example and the space between microbes. A paper recently released looks at these uninhabited, habitable areas and wonders what we may learn as we search for life in the Universe.

Life on Earth has taken millions of years to evolve to the state we see today and has invaded nearly every corner of the planet. That is, except those places where the environment is so extreme that even the toughest extremophile cannot survive. These regions include places like the Atacama Desert in Chile, one of the driest places on Earth, where rainfall is so rare that even microbial life struggles to survive. Similarly, parts of Antarctica’s dry valleys feature subzero temperatures, minimal liquid water, and high salinity in some soils, creating an environment hostile to most life forms. It raises interesting questions and perhaps pose limitations on life’s ability to survive. 

The rocks seen here along the shoreline of Lake Salda in Turkey were formed over time by microbes that trap minerals and sediments in the water. These so-called microbialites were once a major form of life on Earth and provide some of the oldest known fossilized records of life on our planet. NASA’s Mars 2020 Perseverance mission will search for signs of ancient life on the Martian surface. Studying these microbial fossils on Earth has helped scientists prepare for the mission. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

We can learn a lot from life on Earth as we hunt for live elsewhere in the Universe. At the moment, there is just one place in the cosmos where we know life has evolved, that’s on Earth. A paper recently authored by Charles S Cockell from the University of Edinburgh explores what we might learn from the inhospitable places on Earth and how that might inform our search for extraterrestrial life. The paper discusses places where active microorganisms cannot be found in particular those places where the physical and chemical conditions are not far from areas that support life. 

The physical spaces where microbes cannot sustain the essential metabolic activity or even reproduce can be categorised into two groups: those with uninhabitable conditions and those with habitable but uninhabited spaces, also known as uninhabited habitats. You might need to read that a few times but it does make sense! Uninhabitable conditions occur in environments where life cannot exist due to extreme factors like intense heat, cold, salinity, or acidity. In contrast, uninhabited habitats are environments that are theoretically capable of supporting life but remain unoccupied, often due to barriers to colonisation or the absence of necessary organisms. The paper draws a strong differentiation between these ‘vacant niches.’

Lava cooling after an eruption. This rock has an entrained magnetic field fingerprint from the time it formed. Credit: kalapanaculturaltours.com

These uninhabited habitats, which form on both macroscopic and microscopic scales through diverse processes, offer opportunities for scientific investigation. They can act as negative control environments, helping to reveal how living organisms influence geochemical processes, and how they can provide a framework for studying processes like microbial succession and community development. Despite their potential significance, the occurrence of these habitats in environments at the physical and chemical extremes of life remain poorly understood.

As we continue our search for life across the universe, we may find many more locations like these. Doing so will help to expand our understanding of the distribution of habitable conditions and the potential for life across the universe. They may offer insights into the processes that make a location suitable for life, as well as the factors that have prevented life from arising or persisting there.

Source : Where the microbes aren’t

The post There are Places on Earth Which Could Have Life, but Don’t. What Can We Learn? appeared first on Universe Today.

The Einstein Probe was launched in January 2024 to look at X-ray transients, among other things. Its power comes from its Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT), which can capture 3600 square degrees of the sky in a single go. That’s an area 18,000 times the apparent area of the Moon. That is a huge patch of astronomical sky, so it’s not surprising that just two months later the probe saw a 17-minute burst of soft X-rays. Given the name EP240315a, it is an example of a fast X-ray transient (FXRT).

Because the WXT can pinpoint transients so quickly, other telescopes could make follow-up observations in real time. Within an hour after its first detection, the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) captured the event in visible light. Other observations from the Gemini-North telescope in Hawaii and the Very Large Telescope in Chile were able to measure the redshift of the event. They found that the light of EP240315a traveled for 12.5 billion years to reach us. Radio light from the event was captured from the Australian Telescope Compact Array (ATCA). A global team of observatories allowed astronomers to discover something interesting.

To begin with, radio observations of EP240315a were consistent with a gamma-ray burst (GRB). We often see a burst of X-rays before a GRB, but the X-rays usually appear just a few dozen seconds before the gamma rays. But in this case, the X-rays appeared six minutes before the GRB. This suggests that these GRBs occur through a process we don’t understand. The only way to be sure is to gather more data, which is where the Einstein Probe will come in.

One of the reasons we haven’t seen these kinds of early soft X-rays before a GRB is that they are rather faint. The X-ray light dims and fades as it travels billions of light-years, so it takes a sensitive detector such as the Einstein Probe to see them well. Given the rate at which gamma-ray bursts occur and the wide-field observations of the WXT, we should be able to see many more of them in the near future. Combined with the global team of other observatories, our understanding of GRBs may be set to change in the near future.

Reference: Ricci, Roberto, et al. “Long-term Radio Monitoring of the Fast X-Ray Transient EP 240315a: Evidence for a Relativistic Jet.” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 979.2 (2025): L28.

The post A New Space Telescope is Giving Us New Insights Into Gamma Ray Bursts appeared first on Universe Today.