We host news of discoveries in various fields of science with the focus on space, medical treatments, fringe science, microbiology, chemistry and physics, while providing commercial and cultural contexts and deeper insight. @http://koyalgroupinfomag.com/blog/

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

The Scientific Method: Science Research and Human Knowledge by The Koyal Group Info Mag

Science research is a rich mine of valuable knowledge if one knows how to go about it with care and precision. As in all scientific endeavours, there is a system to follow whether one is trying to solve a simple problem such as how to kill garden weeds or improving on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Even before the advent of the Internet and the unlimited amount of knowledge and information we have available in a matter of seconds, research has generally been misunderstood as a simple process of going to the library (Googling, for most of us today) and getting the data one needs to make a report or “thesis”. Unfortunately, this is nothing but a single step in the whole process of scientific research. Academics will call this data-gathering or collating observations.

The purpose of scientific research is to observe physical phenomena and to describe them in their operation or functions. The essential question is WHY. Why do things behave as they do? We can predict some things because it is how things are supposed to behave; but we want to know the causes of such phenomena.  Discovering the causes through our research, we can then explain these things and use the knowledge to our advantage in many practical ways. That is, we can then build ships that can carry as many people as we can or explain that the moon, like the apple, is falling into the Earth because it is subject to the force of gravitation. Why it never crashes into the Earth is another question which Newton, fortunately, had to settle for us.

Science research or what others would call the Scientific Method requires several steps to be considered one. Let us look at them with simple examples for the beginner:

1.      Basic or general questions about a phenomenon
Sometimes, it all starts with a casual observation followed by a curious question. Why do apples fall? Why do boats float? It takes a child-like mind to be curious about ordinary but intriguing things.

2.      Setting a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a statement of supposition. For instance, we can say that the Earth is flat and proceed to prove it. A hypothesis is, in reality, a result of general questions we have about real-life problems or phenomena. Whereas the ancient people believed that the world was flat and had an edge where you could fall from, today, we simply assume (without even knowing the basic evidences) that it is an orb. On the other hand, showing a photograph of the Earth taken from outer space may be a shortcut method of disproving the hypothesis. But it is only an indirect or circumstantial evidence and is not, technically speaking, a viable scientific proof. One must follow the entire method to its completion.

3.      Predicting outcomes
Based on our initial observations related to the questions we have posed for ourselves, we come up with possible outcomes. An orange, a ball or a rock will always fall no matter how far or how high you throw it. Why does a bird not fall? We can come up with other questions that may make the initial question irrelevant. Hence, we can either incorporate others observations or limit ourselves to the first simple question and deal with others separately.

The main key in predicting in research is basing our assumed outcomes on solid reason or logic. Unlike Aristotle who assumed that iron fell faster than an apple and that an apple fell faster than a feather, we now know and can predict that they all fall at the same speed due to gravity in a vacuum. Our awareness of wind resistance and friction allows us to predict more accurately than other people before.

4.      Testing the hypothesis
We then set up a method of investigation or a series of experimentation to check whether the hypothesis works for all instances or conditions. Tossing an apple or a rock into the air ten times or a hundred times will not change the outcome. From that observation, we can somehow accept the fact that a certain law applies for the apple as for a rock. What that is is something we can hypothesize as well. For now, we know that it applies for all objects, including a bird that is shot dead in mid-flight.

5.      Deriving conclusions or explaining the hypothesis
Having observed the hypothesis being tested and reinforced so many times and seeing how the outcome displays a certain pattern, we can then derive general conclusions of fact. Any object, no matter how heavy or big it is will always fall to the ground. We know this for a fact because we have seen it happen so many times and have proven it ourselves by the many times we have played basketball or baseball.

In its crudest form, we can say that the scientific method is nothing but highly-systematized common-sense knowledge derived at through a strict process. By ourselves, we also all went through several conscious steps of determining a fact or a truth within the physical realm we live in. Yes, we came up with the same conclusion on our own without having to know or apply this precise method; but other more stringent phenomena cannot be handled simply using simple observations. We need precise tools, instruments and other research results to prove more sophisticated problems.

For example, we might need to send a probe to outer space to prove what a comet is made of, how it behaves in outer space and how it came into existence. For that, you need vast range of technology to discover the facts you need: a rocket, computers, high-tech cameras, advanced communication facilities and other precise, delicate instruments to measure physical phenomena in outer space. At this very moment, a space probe named Rosetta is poised to land on a comet to perform such an unprecedented scientific research.

We can say this latest research rides upon hundreds and thousands of other research studies in the past, proving how knowledge ostensibly expands without limits. What Galileo and Newton learned several centuries ago have helped us discover other things we now take for granted. And yet, we all seem to be asking the same basic question: Where do all things come from? In that sense, scientific research essentially deals with who we are, what we are and where we came from.

All knowledge centers on what makes us humans. And the question will continue to challenge as well as baffle us.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Koyal Group InfoMag News: Work Together to Complete a “Social Revolution"

Molecular biologist Nancy Hopkins, the Amgen, Inc., Professor of Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recalled personal trials as a female scientist and challenged graduates to overcome invisible barriers in an inspiring Baccalaureate Address to the Class of 2014 at Marsh Chapel Sunday morning.

She mentioned some of the great breakthroughs of the last 50 years: the internet, the Higgs particle, and notably, the “discovery of unconscious biases and the extent to which stereotypes about gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and age deprive people of equal opportunity in the workplace and equal justice in society.”

Hopkins was later awarded an honorary Doctor of Science at BU’s 141st Commencement.

She spoke before a packed audience at Marsh Chapel and was enthusiastically applauded for her remarks. President Robert A. Brown, University Provost Jean Morrison, Marsh Chapel Dean Robert Hill, and Emma Rehard (CAS’14) also addressed the graduates and their families. Scott Allen Jarrett (CFA’99,’08), director of music at Marsh Chapel, led the Marsh Chapel Choir in “Clarissima” and “For the Beauty of the Earth.”

Early in her career, Hopkins worked in the lab of James Watson, the codiscoverer of the structure of DNA. She earned a PhD at Harvard and became a faculty member at MIT, working at the Center for Cancer Research. There, she focused her research on RNA tumor viruses, then considered to be a likely cause for many cancers in humans. Hopkins also studied developmental genetics in zebra fish, and helped to design the first successful method for making insertional mutagenesis work in a vertebrate model. That accomplishment enabled her team to identify genes essential for zebra fish development, with implications for better understanding development in other species.

While advancing science in the lab, Hopkins was discouraged by some of the systemic problems she observed in academic research. “When a man and a woman made discoveries of equal scientific importance,” she told the Baccalaureate audience, “the man and his discovery were valued more highly than the woman and her discovery.”

Hopkins cited research by psychologists “who documented the irrationality of our brains, and our inability to make accurate judgments of even simple numerical facts if the conclusions contradict our unconscious biases.

You can demonstrate gender bias,” she said, “simply by making copies of a research article, putting a man’s name on half the copies and a woman’s on the other half, and sending the two versions out for review: reviewers judge the identical work to be better if they believe it was done by a man. Surprisingly, it doesn’t matter if the reviewers are men or women.”

For years, Hopkins said, she avoided calling attention to the problem, for fear of being accused of whining. Then on a whim, in 1994 she measured all of the labs in her building at MIT and found that female scientists had less lab space than male colleagues. She needed more quantitative data and discovered that only 8 percent of MIT’s science faculty were women (Harvard and BU had similar statistics). At MIT, her findings led to a university-wide examination of possible gender bias against women scientists.

“We learned that the unconscious undervaluation of women’s work can cause women of equal accomplishment not to be hired, and cause women who are hired to receive fewer resources for their research,” she said. “The women were marginalized. No wonder there were still so few women science professors 20 years ago. More amazing was that the ones who were there were so successful.”

When the results were published in 1999, Hopkins started receiving emails from women around the world writing that they had experienced the same problems. Hopkins was named cochair, along with BU President Robert A. Brown, then MIT provost, of MIT’s first Council on Faculty Diversity. MIT went on to write new family leave policies, and in 2001, the school’s new computer science building was designed to include a large day-care center. Today, many junior women faculty at MIT have children, proving they can be both scientists and mothers, said Hopkins, who famously walked out of a 2005 speech by Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, when he suggested that “intrinsic aptitude” might explain why there were relatively few high-achieving women in engineering fields.

In her parting words, Hopkins told the graduates that while they should first care about finding work they love, men and women must work together to complete a social revolution.

“If you look around and see that the people you work or study with all look like you, you’ll know something’s wrong, and work to change it,” she said. “Completing this revolution won’t happen by the passage of time, but because you make it happen.”

Friday, July 18, 2014

Science Breakthroughs The Koyal Group InfoMag News Starwatch: The European Extremely Large Telescope

Our image shows an artist's impression of the European Extremely Large Telescope, or E-ELT, whose 39-metre aperture puts it in line to be the world's largest optical-infrared telescope. Being built by the European Southern Observatory, it will cost in excess of 1bn euros, including a British contribution of £88m. Explosions began in June to create a level home for it atop the 3000-metre peak of Cerro Armazones in the Chilean Andes, overlooking the Atacama Desert.

It could be another ten years before the E-ELT is fully operational. By then, the Thirty Metre Telescope (TMT), may have seized the crown. albeit temporarily, as the world's biggest. Built by a US-led consortium that includes India, China and Japan, work to place it on Mauna Kea in Hawaii should begin this summer.

For almost three decades from its completion in 1948, the 200-inch Hale telescope on Mount Palomar, California, was the largest telescope. Its single mirror, 200 inches or 5.08 metres, in diameter, was unrivalled in light-collecting area until the Soviet 6.0-metre BTA telescope on the Caucasus mountains saw its first light in 1975. Sadly this was bedevilled by structural and observing-site problems from the start, but it remained the largest until the first of the two 10-metre Keck telescopes came into operation on Mauna Kea in 1993.

The 10.4-metre and largely Spanish-operated Gran Telescopio Canarias, on the Canary Island of La Palma, has headed the pack since 2006. This and the Kecks use segmented mirrors in which the aperture is filled with an array of smaller computer-controlled mirrors. The new super-telescopes physical sciences will use segmented mirrors, too, with a total of 798 hexagonal segments for the E-ELT and 492 for the TMT.

The observing locations are also critical. The sites in Chile and Hawaii are clear on most nights of the year, with near-perfect "seeing" and negligible interference from artificial lighting. They are also extremely arid with scarcely a hint of water vapour to absorb infrared wavelengths.

It seems inevitable that the size and power of the E-ELT will revolutionise astronomy. It should, for example, allow rocky planets of other stars to be imaged for the first time and for their atmospheres to be analysed. While the ultimate aim may be to glimpse signs of alien life, it is more realistic to expect that it will be able to characterise the planetary systems of other stars, and how they form and evolve.

It should also give us our sharpest views yet of the earliest stars and galaxies, those born only a few million years after the big bang, and how interactions and mergers over the aeons have led to the universe we see today. There must be countless other discoveries awaiting and, undoubtedly, new mysteries identified that we cannot yet imagine.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Science Breaktroughs The Koyal Group InfoMag News: Japanese stem-cell 'breakthrough' findings retracted

Research into one of the biggest recent stem-cell "breakthroughs" has been withdrawn because of "critical errors".

Scientists in Japan had claimed stem cells could be made cheaply, quickly and ethically just by dipping blood cells into acid.

They have now written a retraction that apologises for "multiple errors" in their report.

Nature, the journal that published the findings, is reviewing how it checks scientific papers.

Stem cells can become any other type of tissue and are already being investigated to heal the damage caused by a heart attack and to restore sight to the blind.

Researchers around the world described the acid-bath stem-cell finds as a "game changer," "remarkable" and "a major scientific discovery".

Falling apart

However, errors were rapidly discovered, parts were lifted from early work and presented as though it was new research, and leading scientists have been unable to produce stem cells using acid in their own laboratories.

An investigation by the Riken research institute in Japan found that scientist Dr Haruko Obokata had fabricated her work in an intentionally misleading fashion.

The retraction states: "These multiple errors impair the credibility of the study as a whole and we are unable to say without doubt whether the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluri­potency stem cells phenomenon is real.
"Ongoing studies are investigating this phenomenon afresh, but given the extensive nature of the errors currently found we consider it appropriate to retract both papers."

The affair brings back memories of the false claims by world-renowned cloning scientists Hwang Woo-suk.
He claimed he had produced embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos, but those findings were later found to be "intentionally fabricated".

'Highlighted flaws'

A Nature editorial stated that the public's trust in science was at stake in the latest controversy.

It added: "Although editors and referees could not have detected the fatal faults in this work, the episode has further highlighted flaws in Nature's procedures and in the procedures of institutions that publish with us."

However, it did say a review was under way to increase checking on images used in papers.

The acid-bath stem cells research has not been completely discredited and research is continuing to see if stem cells can be produced using the method.

Chris Mason, a professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, originally said the results were "a very exciting, but surprise, finding" and added: "It looks a bit too good to be true."

After the retraction, he told the BBC: "I'm surprised that Nature took so long when there was so much material showing problems with the papers. I don't understand that."

However, he said the system of peer review, in which fellow scientists critique papers before they are published, would struggle to pick up the problems in this research.

He said: "If you're a reviewer you can only review the material you're given. You have to take it on trust. You're not a detective looking for fraud.

'Good day for science'

"If you have to act as a super-sleuth, that's impossible for anyone to ever do."
He praised the way social media had uncovered and shared the errors, which could have otherwise taken years to unpick.

"I would argue this is not an embarrassing day for science, I think it's a good day for science and it shows we work well to weed out inferior publications."

Dr Dusko Ilic, a senior lecturer in stem-cell science at King's College London, said: "It is easy to be judgmental, and pointing fingers after all is over.

"Gaining knowledge is difficult. It requires both time and persistence, I hoped that Haruko Obokata would prove at the end all those naysayers wrong.

"Unfortunately, she did not. The technology, indeed, sounded too good to be true, though I still find fascinating how a 30-year-old scientist could pass scrutiny of her co-workers and multiple reviewers in Nature with a complete fabrication."

The UK Medical Research Council's Prof Robin Lovell-Badge added: "The stem cell community has been expecting these retractions to come for a while.

"This story illustrates how the stem cell field can rapidly detect bad science and reject it.

"It also illustrates both the problems and benefits of hype, this was potentially important research because of the novelty of the claims in an important field, but it was hyped far beyond reality, by some of the authors and by their perhaps willing victims, the media."

Monday, July 14, 2014

Science Breakthroughs The Koyal Group InfoMag News: Discovery Science Powered, Increasingly, by Donors

As co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, David Scadden hopes to inspire his students to join the ranks of researchers who might one day cure Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or diabetes. But all too often these days, he is losing out to Wall Street, or other higher-paying pursuits.

“They are seeing their senior mentors spending more and more time writing grants and going hat in hand,” Scadden said, in a phone interview. “That’s not a good way to inspire the best and brightest.”

It is an empirical fact that there’s now far less money going toward research science than there used to be, due first and foremost to the decrease in government spending on such research. The budget of the National Institutes of Health is lower (in inflation-adjusted dollars) that at any point since 2000, and 22 percent lower than it was in 2003.

This has meant that the former star students who chose to spend their lives in a lab, working with stem cells or sequencing genomes, the kind of work that most experts believe will usher in the next great medical revolution, are more reliant than ever on a handful of Americans to fund basic research.

That source of funding, while vital, is unstable and relatively scarce.

“We’re going to lose a generation of young scientists, and that’s not something you can make up,” said Dr. Laurie Glimcher, Dean of Weill Cornell Medical College.

Traditionally, researchers rely on a three-legged stool for funding.

While one leg is made up of government grants, another is made up of industry, which pays scientists to research treatments that can be the next billion-dollar idea. But when it comes to discovery science, whose outcomes are inherently unpredictable and which is often conducted without targeting a specific disease, industry tends to be risk-averse.

That leaves philanthropy.

Fiona Murray, a professor of entrepreneurship at M.I.T., published a paper in 2012 finding that philanthropy, both private and corporate, provides almost 30 percent of the annual research funds for leading universities. She also found that while federal funds have been declining, philanthropic funds have been increasing.

“The role of science philanthropy—gifts from wealthy individuals, grants from private foundations to scientific research, and endowment income earmarked for research—is an underappreciated aspect of philanthropy in higher education whose importance becomes clear by examining trends in funding university research,” Murray wrote. “Industry contributions (usually regarded as the alternative funding stream for university research) amount to less than 6 percent of university research funding. In striking contrast, science philanthropy makes up almost 30 percent of university research funding and has been growing at almost 5 percent annually.”

It’s that funding that has made possible a series of breakthroughs that could have outsize clinical implications during the next few decades.

On the west side of harlem, in an unadorned building, some of the most exciting research in medicine is taking place, and almost all of it is being paid for by private donors.

The New York Stem Cell Foundation is supported in part through the Druckenmiller Foundation. The stem cell foundation’s fellowship program is the largest dedicated stem cell fellowship program in the world, and they are one of the only two labs in the country working successfully on a procedure known somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Remember Dolly the sheep? It’s that kind of science, but a bit further along, and instead of cloning mammals, scientists work to create cells, organs or tissues that can replace diseased cells in the human body.

The federal government, for political and ethical reasons, won’t fund any of it.

Though President Obama reversed the Bush administration’s position on funding stem cell research, no new embryonic stem cell lines can be supported because of something called the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which is renewed every year and prohibits federal funding for synthesizing new stem cell lines. (The Obama administration allows N.I.H. funding for research on new lines that were created with private dollars.)

“It’s really an illusion that the government has both feet in,” said Susan Solomon, C.E.O. of New York’s Stem Cell Foundation. “Without philanthropy we would not have a single stem cell research program in this country.”

This past April, a team of scientists from the foundation created the first disease-specific embryonic stem cell line with two sets of chromosomes.

That means researchers were able to create patient-specific stem cells from an adult human with type 1 diabetes that can give rise to the cells lost in the disease, according to Dr. Dieter Egli, who led the research and conducted many of the experiments.

The stem cell experiments began at Harvard and the skin biopsies were done at Columbia. But isolation of the cell nuclei from these skin biopsies couldn’t be conducted in the federally funded laboratories at Columbia, and Harvard scientists had to stop research in 2008 because restrictions in Massachusetts prevented them from obtaining human eggs for research.

Stem cell science is one of the most conspicuous areas of research in which philanthropy is being asked to pick up the slack left by receding public investment. And in the specific case of stem cell research, donors have stepped in to make up the lack of public money.

But overall, money for research is way down, reflecting a general aversion by both the public and private sectors to fund medical-science projects without likely short-term rewards.

“As resources have shrunk, the ability to tolerate risk on bold ideas of course decreases,” Scadden said. “There is an increased attention to ‘what’s the payoff, what’s the return on investment? Can you show me a direct link to the way my constituents benefit?’”

The problem is that science, generally speaking, doesn’t work like that. Telomeres, the tips of chromosomes that protect DNA during cell replication, were discovered in the 1930s. No one knew what they did or if they were of practical importance. Today, scientists think they might hold the key to battling tumor development.

“Today’s medical miracles are yesterday’s wild ideas in a basic laboratory,” Scadden said.

Donations to stem cell work aren’t much different in that respect from the $12.5 million donation by former Microsoft C.T.O. Nathan Myhrvold for a telescope that will search for extraterrestrial life. Scientists haven’t found any yet, and may never, but that shouldn’t be the point.

“While it’s impossible to predict exactly what we will find with a new scientific instrument, we should remember that interesting science is not just about the likelihood of end results—it is also about the serendipity that occurs along the way,” Myhrvold said in 2000 when donating the money.

Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science began a coalition of funders that aims to double philanthropic support for basic science over the next five years.

“The concern of this group is that there is such a big push on the translation science at the expense of the discovery science, which is essentially feed-corn,” said Vicki Chandler, chief program officer for science at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in California, one of several foundations that joined the coalition. “And if we keep heading [toward] that balance there may not be as many as great things to translate from in the next decade.”

Despite the changing proportions of money for research, the United States government remains the principal lifeline for science. The N.I.H. budget is just under $30 billion, much of which is invested in research grants. Private funding for basic research, the kind that doesn’t attach itself to a specific disease or therapy—is only somewhere between $2 and $4 billion.

The question is how far or fast the balance between public and private funding is shifting, and where it will end.

The more it shifts, the more research scientists are coming to rely on a select few donors, who can drive the agenda.

T. Denny Sanford, for example, donated $100 million last year to the creation of the Sanford Stem Cell Clinical Center at the University of California, San Diego.

“I believe we’re on the cusp of turning years of hard-earned knowledge into actual treatments for real people in need,” Sanford said last November. “I want this gift to push that reality faster and farther.”

In 2012, Mort Zuckerman pledged $200 million for the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute at Columbia University.

The Ansary Stem Cell Institute at Weill Cornell exists because of $15 million donation from Shahla and Hushang Ansary, the major Republican donor and former Iranian diplomat.

But Murray, the M.I.T. professor, found these examples are more exception than rule. Her research found “little support” for the notion that philanthropists fill gaps left by federal funding.

“In addition,” she wrote, “few philanthropists appear to seek to identify such gaps. This fact is underscored by one key fact about philanthropy: philanthropists are more concentrated in their giving to specific (translational) fields than the government, suggesting that with few exceptions … patrons add support to already well-funded wealthy fields instead of filling gaps.”

That’s frustrating, Glimcher said, because scientific research seems so close to potentially important breakthroughs on so many medically significant fronts.

Given new tools for genetic sequencing and a better understanding of chemistry, basic discoveries can yield clinical trials faster than ever before. But not if that basic science isn’t funded.

“It’s frustrating right now because we are at a time when we can translate basic discoveries into new therapies for patients,” Glimcher said. “Philanthropic research can be a temporary stop-gap and a wonderful addition to reduce the sting of cuts in government funding, and it can top off government funding, but it’s never going to replace government.”

Visit Koyal Group InfoMag for more related articles.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Koyal Group InfoMag News: NASA prepares to capture asteroid, drag it into Earth’s orbit

NASA prepares to a drag an asteroid into Earth’s orbit.

What is the goal for the Asteroid Redirect Mission?

Through the Asteroid Redirect Mission, NASA will identify, capture and redirect an asteroid to a stable orbit around the moon, which astronauts will explore in the 2020s, returning with samples. The mission is an important early step as we learn to be more independent of Earth for humans to explore Mars. It will be an unprecedented technological feat that will lead to new scientific discoveries and technological capabilities, while helping us learn to protect our home planet. The overall objectives of the Asteroid Redirect Mission are:

• Conduct a human exploration mission to an asteroid in the mid-2020s, providing systems and operational experience required for human exploration of Mars.
• Demonstrate an advanced solar electric propulsion system, enabling future deep-space human and robotic exploration with applicability to the nation’s public and private sector space needs.
• Enhance detection, tracking and characterization of Near Earth Asteroids, enabling an overall strategy to defend our home planet.
• Demonstrate basic planetary defense techniques that will inform impact threat mitigation strategies to defend our home planet.
• Pursue a target of opportunity that benefits scientific and partnership interests, expanding our knowledge of small celestial bodies and enabling the mining of asteroid resources for commercial and exploration needs.

What are the requirements for the asteroid NASA hopes to capture?

NASA is working on two concepts for the mission: the first is to fully capture a very small asteroid in open space, and the second is to collect a boulder-sized sample off of a much larger asteroid. Both concepts would require redirecting an asteroid mass less than 32 feet (10 meters) in size into the moon’s orbit.

NASA’s search for candidate asteroids for ARM is a component of the agency’s existing efforts to identify all Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) that could pose a threat to the Earth. More than 11,140 NEOs have been discovered as of June 9. Approximately 1,483 of those have been classified as potentially hazardous. Some of these NEOs become potential candidates for ARM because they are in orbits very similar to Earth’s and come very close to the Earth-Moon system in the early 2020s, which is required to be able to redirect the asteroid mass to be captured into lunar orbit.

To date, nine asteroids have been identified as potential candidates for the ARM full capture option, having favorable orbits and estimated to be within the right size range. Sizes have been established for three of the nine candidates. Another asteroid — 2008 HU4 — will pass close enough to Earth in 2016 for interplanetary radar to determine some of its characteristics, such as size, shape and rotation. The other five will not get close enough to be observed again before the final mission selection, but NASA’s NEO Program is finding a few additional potential candidate asteroids every year. One or two of these get close enough to Earth each year to be well characterized.

Boulders have been directly imaged on all larger asteroids visited by spacecraft so far, such as Itokawa by the Japanese Hayabusa mission, making retrieval of a large boulder a viable concept for ARM. During the next few years, NASA expects to add several candidates for this option, including asteroid Bennu, which will be imaged up close by the agency’s Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission in 2018. High resolution interplanetary radar is also able to image the surfaces of asteroids that pass close to the Earth and infer the presence of large boulders.

Where will the asteroid be redirected to – reports suggest above the Moon?

After an asteroid mass is captured, the spacecraft will redirect it to a stable orbit around the moon called a “Lunar Distant Retrograde Orbit.” Astronauts aboard an Orion spacecraft, launched from a Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, will explore the asteroid there in the mid-2020s. Learning to maneuver large objects utilizing the gravity fields of the Earth and moon will be valuable capabilities for future activities. Potentially, either mission concept might test technology and techniques that can be applied to planetary defense if needed in the future.

How will ARM fit NASA’s goal to visit Mars?

The mission provides experience in human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit, building on our experiences on the International Space Station, and testing new systems and capabilities in the proving ground of cis-lunar space, toward the ultimate goal of a crewed mission to Mars. ARM leverages and integrates existing programs in NASA’s Science, Space Technology, and Human Explorations and Operations to provide an affordable – and compelling — opportunity to exercise our emerging deep space exploration capabilities on the path to Mars. ARM will test the transport of large objects using advanced high power, long life solar electric propulsion; automated rendezvous and docking; deep space navigation; integrated robotic and crewed vehicle stack operations in deep space environment; and spacewalks out of Orion that will be needed for future cis-lunar space and Mars missions.

NASA’s strategy is that the ARM SEP module and spacecraft bus would be upgradable for the first cargo missions to Mars and its moons. We might do so by procuring these systems commercially to lower cost and for reproducibility. Another option is to repurpose the ARM vehicle after its first mission, as a lowest cost option for transportation. These are among the options being studied this year.

Friday, June 27, 2014

The Koyal Group InfoMag News: First standardized way to measure stars

The same way we need values to measure everything from temperature to time, astronomers have now developed a new stellar scale as a "ruler" to help them classify and compare data on star discoveries.

Previously, as with the longitude problem 300 years earlier for fixing locations on earth, there was no unified system of reference for calibrating the heavens.

The astronomers selected 34 initial 'benchmark' stars to represent the different kinds of stellar populations in our galaxy, such as hot stars, cold stars, red giants and dwarfs, as well as stars that cover the different chemical patterns - or "metallicity" in their spectrum, as this is the "cosmic clock" which allows astronomers to read a star's age.

This detailed range of information on the 34 stars form the first value set for measuring the millions of stars that the Gaia satellite, an unmanned space observatory of the European Space Agency, aims to catalogue.

Many of the benchmark stars can be seen with the human eye, and have been studied for most of human  history — dating to the very first astronomical records from ancient Babylon.

"We took stars which had been measured a lot so the parameters are very well-known, but needed to be brought to the same scale for the new benchmark - essentially, using the stars we know most about to help measure the stars we know nothing about," said Paula Jofre from Institute of Astronomy at Britain's University of Cambridge.

"This is the first attempt to cover a wide range of stellar classifications, and do everything from the beginning - methodically and homogenously," Jofre added.