Science

Robert Zemeckis's would-be epic film Here relies on real-time de-ageing technology. But do its ambitions conceal a more mundane project?

Feedback is delighted by a YouTuber's sterling efforts to make Michael Crichton's velociraptors more accurate – but points out that they're still far too big

Smell is often dismissed as a less important sense, but it makes our lives much more vivid, says Jonas Olofsson

Kurt Gray's new book Outraged is a clear and insightful look at our society's deep divides, with valuable tips on building bridges

We often obsess about nighttime routines for good sleep, but mounting evidence shows that what we do during our waking hours is also important – a more holistic view that could ease the modern pressure to create a perfect environment for when our heads hit the pillow

Researchers have created a new ultra-broadband electro-optic comb that packs 450 nm of light precision into a chip smaller than a coin, paving the way for smarter, more efficient photonic devices.

Researchers have created a new ultra-broadband electro-optic comb that packs 450 nm of light precision into a chip smaller than a coin, paving the way for smarter, more efficient photonic devices.

Thanks to a new technology called Moscot ('Multi-Omics Single-Cell Optimal Transport'), researchers can now observe millions of cells simultaneously as they develop into a new organ -- for example, a pancreas.

As you surely know, the U.S. Supreme Court banned race-based college admissions in the highly publicized Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case in 2023, (Military academies were an exception.) The vote, along the usual lines, was 6-2 (Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting) when Harvard was the defendant (Justice Jackson recused herself), and 6-3 for the University of North Carolina case.  As Wikipedia notes, the majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts, said this:

Justice Roberts wrote that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies “without regard to any difference of race, of color, or of nationality” and thus must apply to every person. As such, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”, adding that “For ‘[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color.‘ ” Roberts wrote that the affirmative action programs “lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today”.

There was vocal opposition by many colleges and universities, who said they were committed to promoting (racial) diversity, though they grudgingly admitted they’d follow the law.  But, as Jonathan Turley points out, they really didn’t. All of us at universities have seen how schools have tried to do an end run the law, including adding admissions essays in which students could tout their race by relating how they overcame difficulties in their past. Turley:

We have previously discussed how universities and colleges openly planned for the final rejection of race-based admissions criteria. Many universities denounced the Supreme Court and pledged to “reimagine” admissions. Medical schools are being encouraged to “pivot” to continue reaching diversity goals for entering classes. More schools are moving to dump objective standardized tests (or make them optional) in favor of more subjective scoring to shield racial criteria for admissions. Others are tweaking essay prompts to shift enhancements based on race.

Roberts himself anticipated some of those efforts in referencing how students could still self-identify as minorities in discussing their views or struggle with racial discrimination.

The use of federal authority to investigate such circumvention could be a major change for higher education. Most schools have resisted transparency or disclosures on such practices and private litigants often find it difficult to get courts to order discovery. This could expose schools to greater public scrutiny.

The question is how the government will address circumventions, such as using essay prompts to reintroduce racial identification. In my view, this would raise serious free speech issues for both schools and students.

The outcomes of this decision were not exactly what you’d expect: according to the NYT, black and Hispanic enrollment declined, but white and Asian enrollment didn’t increase, more students did not disclose their race, there was a HUGE variation in outcomes among colleges, and we have only one year of data to see what shook out.

The free speech issue is one that just arose when Trump issued his new executive order (below the fold) on DEI. I’ve already addressed the elimination of DEI in government, but this order extends it to institutes of higher education. Here’s the relevant part taken from Turley’s column, which reproduces it all:

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  Scope.  (a)  This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.

(b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

That looks pretty straightforward but, as Turley says, litigation is in store:

However, the greatest contribution could be the exposure of circumvention systems or practices. In his order, Trump wrote that “Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” His order directs all federal agencies to each identify up to nine corporations, large non-profit groups, or institutions of higher education with endowments exceeding $1 billion which are violating civil rights laws.

The agencies are to develop an action plan against “illegal discrimination or preferences.” Those preferences are described as not only violating “the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws,” but “also undermine our national unity.” The plan is to consider federal litigation and regulatory actions.

The order also instructs incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Education Linda M. McMahon to issue guidance within 120 days to all state and local educational agencies on how to abide by the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down race-based affirmative action policies. That could prove a major new element for higher education in setting out criteria for evaluating compliance by schools.

This is clearly going to generate intense litigation. The definition of DEI is vague and is likely to draw challenges. For example, organizations will argue that the following line could become dangerously subjective in its application or enforcement:

“Terminate all ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.”

Such vague terms are likely to draw judicial scrutiny and could sweep too broadly for figures like Chief Justice Roberts. Agencies will need to narrow and add greater clarity on these terms as they move forward with this mandate.

Moreover, while the EO expressly states that it is not to be construed as limiting free speech, these policies and programs could easily contravene that right. Federal contacts will now have an affirmative statement of compliance by organizations, including universities and colleges, that they do not have DEI components.

An affirmative statement of compliance could, I suppose, also be construed as compelled speech.  “Equity” is not defined, and so on. It seems to me that there are better ways to monitor compliance with the Supreme Court’s order.  After all, the Harvard case rested on statistical analysis, interviews, and the like, and showed, at least to the Court’s satisfaction, that Harvard was not complying with standing law (presumably the Bakke case).

Click “read more” to see the order

01/21/25 EXECUTIVE ORDER ENDING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND RESTORING MERIT-BASED OPPORTUNITY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans.  As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.

Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.

Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.  Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.

These illegal DEI and DEIA policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the Nation by diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government, and the medical, aviation, and law-enforcement communities.  Yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed first-hand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they were capable of doing.

The Federal Government is charged with enforcing our civil-rights laws.  The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.  I therefore order all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.  I further order all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.

Sec. 3.  Terminating Illegal Discrimination in the Federal Government.

(a)  The following executive actions are hereby revoked:

(i)    Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);

(ii)   Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);

(iii)  Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity); and

(iv)   The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).

(b)  The Federal contracting process shall be streamlined to enhance speed and efficiency, reduce costs, and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to comply with our civil-rights laws.  Accordingly:

(i)    Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity), is hereby revoked.  For 90 days from the date of this order, Federal contractors may continue to comply with the regulatory scheme in effect on January 20, 2025.

(ii)   The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor shall immediately cease: (A)  Promoting “diversity”; (B)  Holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action”; and (C)  Allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.

(iii)  In accordance with Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002 (Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations), the employment, procurement, and contracting practices of Federal contractors and subcontractors shall not consider race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in ways that violate the Nation’s civil rights laws.

(iv)   The head of each agency shall include in every contract or grant award:

(A)  A term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code; and

(B)  A term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.

(c)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall:

(i)    Review and revise, as appropriate, all Government-wide processes, directives, and guidance;

(ii)   Excise references to DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear, from Federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures to streamline those procedures, improve speed and efficiency, lower costs, and comply with civil-rights laws; and

(iii)  Terminate all “diversity,” “equity,” “equitable decision-making,” “equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,” “advancing equity,” and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate.

Sec. 4.  Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences.

(a)  The heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policy of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work identified in section 2 of this order.

(b)  To further inform and advise me so that my Administration may formulate appropriate and effective civil-rights policy, the Attorney General, within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.  The report shall contain a proposed strategic enforcement plan identifying:

(i)    Key sectors of concern within each agency’s jurisdiction;

(ii)   The most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern;

(iii)  A plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.  As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars;

(iv)   Other strategies to encourage the private sector to end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all Federal civil-rights laws;

(v)    Litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest; and

(vi)   Potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.

Sec. 5.  Other Actions.  Within 120 days of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall jointly issue guidance to all State and local educational agencies that receive Federal funds, as well as all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq., regarding the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  Scope.  (a)  This order does not apply to lawful Federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.

(b)  This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

(c)  This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,     January 21, 2025.

 

The exoplanet WASP-127b is an unusual world. It is about 30% larger than Jupiter but has just a fifth of Jupiter’s mass. It is an example of a super-puff planet because of its extremely low density. These puffy worlds are so unusual that we don’t know if they would resemble the gas giants of our solar system, or something more exotic, such as a large super-Earth. But a recent study of WASP-127b shows that super-puff worlds can have tremendous winds.

The team used the CRyogenic high-resolution InfraRed Echelle Spectrograph (CRIRES+) on ESO’s Very Large Telescope to watch the world as it passed in front of its star. Since some of the starlight passes through the planet’s atmosphere with each transit, the team could capture the absorption spectra of the atmosphere. From this, they identified some molecules in the atmosphere that we would expect, such as carbon monoxide and water vapor, which are present in the atmospheres of our gas planets.

But the team also found a surprise. As the planet began a transit, the spectra of the atmosphere were red shifted, and as it ended the transit, the spectra were blue shifted. By itself, this isn’t unusual, as it simply indicates that the atmosphere is moving through some kind of wind. But when the team calculated the speed of the wind, they found it was nearly 9 km/s, or about 33,000 km/hr (more than 20,000 mph for those in the states). That’s ten times faster than the peak winds of Neptune, which are the fastest winds in the solar system.

This rapid motion isn’t due to a fast rotation of the planet itself. WASP-127b orbits its star very closely, so it is almost certainly tidally locked. This means it rotates on its axis once for every orbital period, which is a bit more than four hours. The winds are six times faster than that. They are, in fact, the fastest wind speeds ever observed in the Universe.

The planet’s locked rotation and low density may explain the world’s intense winds. Since one side of the planet is forever in light and the other is always in darkness, there would likely be a large temperature difference between the two sides. Just as cold and warm regions of Earth’s atmosphere can generate strong winds, so would winds arise on WASP-127b. But with a constant temperature differential and a diffuse atmosphere, the winds on this puffy planet are like nothing we’ve ever experienced.

Reference: Nortmann, L., et al. “CRIRES+ transmission spectroscopy of WASP-127b. Detection of the resolved signatures of a supersonic equatorial jet and cool poles in a hot planet.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12363 (2024).

The post Supersonic Winds Blowing on an Extreme Exoplanet appeared first on Universe Today.

When their quantum properties are precisely controlled, some ultracold atoms can resist the laws of physics that suggest everything tends towards disorder

We all know the tired old advice about how to get the best night's rest, but it can be hard to follow in the real world. A more personalised and holistic approach could help

A double layer of tungsten diselenide behaves as a superconductor at very low temperatures, which could suggest a new route to developing materials that do so at room temperature

New measurements suggest mysterious continent-sized masses in our planet’s lower mantle may be extremely stable features

The hormonal changes of puberty, the menstrual cycle and menopause can all affect our sleep, but there are also subtler ways that hormones and sleep interact

I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you wouldn’t expect to see of a regular columnist save established “house conservatives” like Ross Douthat. But Paul wasn’t a designated “conservative writer.” She was a liber and was, for nine years, the editor of the NYT Book Review. I presume she was recruited to the op-ed section for both her writing ability and her depth of analysis. And she chose to take on controversial topics—apparently with a slant not to the paper’s liking.

And I bet they got someone whose work they didn’t expect.  Here are some of her columns, shown just as screenshots. And these are just within the last year!

Of course she got pushback, though what came from inside the paper we don’t know (I bet it was of the nature that Bari Weiss got). Below we see a piece from The Hub arguing that Paul had no right to write about “scholasticide” or to point out that Gaza’s universities were assaulted by the IDF because they sat atop Hamas tunnels, had plenty of weapons inside, and because students were even taught to manufacture weapons. How dare she point that out? Look at the patronizing title by this misguided defender of terrorism who decries Israel’s “US-sponsored genocide.” “Do better,” my tuchas!

The columns above show her defending Israel, going after religion, criticizing the iconic Ta-Nehisi Coates, and, above all, criticizing gender-affirming care, writing about “desisters,” and—the ultimate blasphemy—defending J. K. Rowling! Heresy!

Is it any surprise that an elite white writer, with no protection of minority status, was given the pink slip? Although the NYT gives an unconvincing denial below, I don’t believe it for a minute. Paul wrote with passion, panache, and, above all, sensibility (read the Rowling column).  And the NYT can’t have its “progressive” leftism criticized, not by a white liberal writer.  So they parted ways.  I predicted they’d deep-six her, but hoped against hope they wouldn’t. They did.

Read about it in the New York Magazine column below (archived here).

 

 

The piece (my bolding):

The New York Times Opinion section is negotiating the exit of columnist Pamela Paul, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Her impending departure is part of a handful of job cuts being made at the section. Last month, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had been a part of Opinion since 2000, announced to much fanfare that he was leaving. Paul was made an Opinion columnist in 2022 after nearly a decade running the Book Review.

Her ouster is sure to raise eyebrows both within and outside the Times. The Opinion section has been the site of the paper’s fiercest culture war battles in recent years, most famously leading to the firing of editor James Bennet in 2020 over an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of troops during the George Floyd protests. Since then, under Opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, management at the Times has labored mightily to show that it is open to a diversity of thought, an effort that appeared to be spearheaded by Paul, who has taken on challenging, contentious topics such as gender-affirming youth care.

Paul is admired by some of her colleagues for her willingness to buck liberal-left conventional wisdom. She has written a defense of J.K. Rowling and scrutinized the MeToo movement for overreach, while a recent column criticized the American Historical Society’s vote to condemn the ongoing “scholasticide” in Gaza. But others have said she does little more than produce rage bait, with what one Times staffer referred to as “intellectually lazy” positions. “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk they touch; Pamela is indeed a rarity,” one newsroom employee said. “She should have spent time making allies if she was going to be as divisive a figure as she was internally. But she didn’t put the time in there, or at least did not have the interest.”

I’m told, however, that Opinion’s decision to part ways with her is not because of her ideological positions. Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”

Look at that weaselly explanation: she was not let go “based solely on political viewpoints.”  Well, what about IN PART for political viewpoints?

Of course the NYT won’t clarify this further, but the  “based solely on political viewpoints” part tells the tale. I loved Paul’s columns (she was supposed to be at our USC Ideology in Science conference, but somehow didn’t show up), and grew to like her as a person through her writing. Now she’s gone.  What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with. Some dispenser of religious bromides like Tish Harrison Warren, whose departure was something to celebrate?

h/t: Jez

China’s Chang’e 7 lunar lander mission will feature a flag fluttering in the vacuum of space.

A CNSA flag flying on the Moon. Credit: CGTN News screenshot.

It’s one of the most often asked questions I get, while showing off the Moon to the public. “Can you see the flag the astronauts left there?” This then leads to a discussion on how far the Moon is, versus the difficulty of seeing a 1.5 by 0.9 meter flag at such a distance. My ‘scope is good, but not that good.

During the U.S. Apollo program, six crewed missions landed on the Moon starting with Apollo 11 in 1969, leaving a like number of flags. Now, China recently announced that one more flag will join the collection in late 2026, when Chang’e 7 heads to the Moon.

Flying a Flag on the Moon

The curious report comes out of the Deep Space Exploration Laboratory (DSEL) via the China Media Group. The free standing flag will actually be designed to ‘flap’ on the airless surface of the Moon. The idea was proposed by elementary school students out of Changsha in China’s Hunan Province. The flag will have closed-loop wires embedded in the fabric, and ‘flap’ using magnetic currents and electromagnetic interactions to create a waving motion.

Coming soon: A ‘flapping flag’ on the Moon…

“This initiative is intended to enhance young students’ understanding of China’s space program and inspire their interest in pursuing space exploration in the future,” says Zhang Tianzhu (DSEL/Institute of Technology) in a recent press release.

A Race to the (Lunar) Pole

Chang’e 7 is designed to carry out some serious science as well. The mission is destined to land near the edge of Shackleton Crater in the Moon’s south polar region. The permanently shadowed floor of the crater is of special interest, as it is suspected to contain water ice. The mission will also carry six instruments from six nations, including a small rover and an observatory built and operated by the International Lunar Observatory Association (ILOA) based out of Hawai’i.

Shackleton crater was one of the candidate landing sites for NASA’s now canceled VIPER rover.

Potential landing sites of interest clustered around the lunar south pole region. Credit: NASA/LRO

While the merits of having a flag flap in space may be limited, it should be an interesting bit of public outreach for the CNSA. Curiously, some of the screen captures show a CNSA logo (not a Chinese national flag) free-standing on a tall pole, meaning a bit of effort and planning will have to be taken to plant it in the lunar soil.

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin and the U.S. Flag on the Moon during Apollo 11. Credit: NASA China in Space 2025

This year and next are busy ones for China’s space agency. The agency plans on launching its first ever asteroid and comet sample return mission Tianwen-2 this May, headed to asteroid Kamo’ oalewa (itself thought to be a fragment of the Moon) then onward to Comet 311P/PanSTARRS. Then, China has plans to launch its own space telescope Xuntian in early 2026. This telescope will station-keep with the crewed Tiangong space station for access for upgrade and maintenance.

The U.S. Flag mounted on the New Horizons mission. Credit: NASA/JPL

Putting flags in space and on the Moon isn’t a new thing. Generally, engineers mount the flags on the spacecraft itself. The U.S. flag placed on NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft is headed out of the solar system. This symbol may well outlive the U.S. and humanity itself. U.S. flags planted by Apollo astronauts on the Moon have most likely been bleached white by intense ultraviolet solar radiation, though images by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in low lunar orbit confirm that at least as few are still standing.

Still standing: the Apollo 17 landing site, including the flag. Credit: NASA/LRO

But the award for the very first flag (or at least symbol) on the lunar surface goes to Luna 2, the first mission to hit the Moon in 1959 which carried a pennant of the now defunct Soviet Union:

A replica of the sphere onboard Luna 2, which impacted the Moon. Credit: Patrick Pelletier/Wikimedia Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

It will be a curious moment (and most likely, an internet meme) to see a flag ‘flap’ next year on the surface of the Moon.

The post China’s Chang’e 7 Will Include a Flag That Will ‘Flap’ on the Moon appeared first on Universe Today.

Predicting space weather is more complex than predicting traditional weather here on Earth. One of the most unpredictable kinds of space weather is solar flares, which explode out from the surface of the Sun and can potentially damage sensitive equipment like electrical grids and the ISS. The Carrington Event, one of the most violent solar storms in history, literally caused telegraph lines to catch fire when it occurred in 1859 – a similar storm would be much more devastating today. Due to their potentially destructive potential, scientists have long looked for ways to predict when a storm will happen, and now a team led by Emily Mason of Predictive Sciences, Inc. in San Diego thinks they might have found a way to do just that.

Solar flares typically occur in highly magnetic areas of the Sun. However, they aren’t the only events that occur in those regions—another, less potentially hazardous event is a coronal loop. These look like giant arches of particles that start from and connect back to the Sun’s outer layer, also called its corona. 

Scientists have long thought there might be some sort of tie between coronal loops and the solar flares that emerge from the same region. However, the lifespan for coronal loops ranges from seconds to weeks, and scientists have yet to find a valid link between that metric, or any other, and the occurrence of a solar flare in the same region.

Fraser discusses the danger of solar storms.

Dr. Mason and her colleagues thought they might take a different approach. They got some observational time on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), a telescope in geosynchronous orbit explicitly designed to observe the coronal layer. They used SDO’s extreme ultraviolet wavelength observational capabilities to observe coronal loops in regions that eventually formed a flare versus those that didn’t.

They observed areas that produced around 50 flares and found that the amount of variability in extreme ultraviolet light the coronal loops in those areas put off was much higher than in the areas that didn’t produce a flare. Essentially, the coronal loops acted like “flashing warning lights” in a certain kind of light spectrum, according to a press release from NASA’s Goddard Institute, some of whose scientists contributed to the paper. 

The discovery was critical because the flashing appeared to take place consistently a few hours before a flare was formed. In technical terms, they accurately predicted the onset of a flare about 2-6 hours beforehand, about 60-80% of the time. That might not seem like great odds and even lesser warning, but some warning is better than none. When given the decision between frying half of the Earth’s electrical grid in a few hours and taking preventive measures, I think policymakers would at least appreciate the opportunity to have a choice.

Fraser talks about how bad the Carrington Event was, even almost 200 years ago.

There are some other nuances in the data, such as stronger flares appear to be predicted by earlier peaking flickering, however more work still needs to be done. Ultimately, this research aims to develop a system of automatically warning the appropriate authorities if there is a potentially hazardous solar event coming our way, but without so many false positives that they feel the system is crying wolf.

That automated system is still a little way off, but this research is a step in the right direction. SDO was initially launched in 2010 and has long outlived its original 5-year mission plan. However, there are plenty of instruments constantly watching the Sun, and undoubtedly, there will be more soon. Maybe they will someday contribute to finalizing a system that will one day save civilization from an avoidable catastrophe.

Learn More:
NASA – NASA Solar Observatory Sees Coronal Loops Flicker Before Big Flares
Kniezewski et al – 131 and 304 Å Emission Variability Increases Hours Prior to Solar Flare Onset
UT – New Research Indicates the Sun may be More Prone to Flares Than we Thought
UT – High-Resolution Images of the Sun Show How Flares Impact the Solar Atmosphere

Lead Image:
NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory captured this image of coronal loops above an active region on the Sun in mid-January 2012. The image was taken in the 171 angstrom wavelength of extreme ultraviolet light.
Credit – NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory

The post Coronal Loops Flicker Right Before the Sun Unleashes Big Flares appeared first on Universe Today.

People seem to assume that expensive branded drugs will be less likely to cause them harm than their generic counterparts, which manifests via the "nocebo effect"

When it comes to sending humans back to the moon, knowing how to work with the regolith that coats the ground will be make-or-break. Phil Metzger is studying how to mitigate its dangers and use it as a crucial resource