Rocket Scientist

        One of many things my husband and I discuss are ideas that would work well in fiction.  Part of that is because my husband loves science and technology and anything vaguely animé-ish and part of it because we write fiction together.  Let me tell you, if you can stand to bring a creative concept to life, start to finish, with your significant other, you have the basis for a heckuva a relationship.  But I digress.

In any writing collaboration, there is the component that can, at least in general, spell.  That’s my part.  I take diverse ideas, some of which are mine, and weave them with characters I like for the story, then my husband listens to me read it out loud (I can’t promote the idea of reading aloud too strongly for any aspiring writer) and tells me what I did wrong.  Then we fix it.

He also provides some of the ideas.  Today, it was a discussion on AI, a particular favorite of his.  He was suggesting that, if one could have an AI, one could have them be raised as companions to children (in much the same way many animals/familiars/etc. have done in fiction) and learn their morals and judgement in a similar way.

That’s all well and good, I tell him, except I truly believe it takes more than environment that makes judgement and personality; I believe children are born with a personality, a spirit, a soul if you will.  It alone doesn’t shape a child into an adult; the environment is definitely a factor, but it’s the personality of the child that determines how a child responds to an environment.

So then the subject turned to whether this education would work on an AI that didn’t have an emotional response.  Lee seemed to be of the opinion that you couldn’t get to the learning level of intelligence without an emotional intelligence.  I’m not so sure. It’s not like a number of synapses automatically equates with emotionality.  The human brain is more complex than that and uses the amygdalae for much of this response (though not all).  How does one instill this in a machine?  And would you want to?

Teaching ethics and judgment requires a way of convincing children of what is right and wrong, not just what’s best for the child, usually using reward and/or punishment as an incentive or emotional empathy to help them understand the reasoning behind the decisions (”You wouldn’t want to be treated like that, would you?”).  But, if there is no emotional response to either, no opportunity for empathy, how effective can it be?

Of course, there is no right answer; we haven’t created sentience artificially (yet).  But the idea of each child growing up with a robot companion can definitely be of use.  I’m just not the kind of gal that can turn her back on an idea like that.  And I’m dangerous when I get an idea to worry.

Anybody keeping up with space stuff probably knows that the Constellation program, particularly the launch vehicle–Ares–, is having some issues.  Weight is always an issue, but other problems like vibration and “launch drift,” a vagary of solid rocket design that means that items can drift into each other as solid propellant burns with some unevenness. Uneven burning equates with moments of unexpected impetus or not enough, which can lead to inadvertent contact - never a good thing with rockets.
I have my own impression of current programs and efforts, but I’m not closely enough involved to have an informed opinion of these issues and problems.  And, although I have decided opinions about some of the decisions have been made, particularly with regards to safety, the program and management has been so volatile and has changed direction so frequently, it’s often hard to determine what impressions are still valid.  Nor am I cleared to discuss it publicly, so I won’t.  Nor will I speculate on the future for Ares, at least not here.
However, the issues do bring to mind a few key salutary lessons for space programs in general, or really, any complex technical endeavor.

1. Small changes can have big impacts.  Ares is using a lot of “heritage hardware,” for example, but using them in new ways and new configurations.  Those changes, however minor they might have appeared at first glance, are having considerable impacts as the design has matured.  A solid rocket motor, for instance, seems a very simple type of rocket motor.  In reality, there are many aspects to consider.
2. Space travel ain’t easy.  I can’t stress this enough.  I hear a great deal about commercial human spaceflight, including how it will be so much simpler, so much easier, so much less expensive than what we’ve done before.  Unh-hunh.  Well, NASA has tried that path before, too, several times. It looks easy, but it’s not. SpaceShipOne was successfully flown to the edge of space.  Haven’t heard of many flights since those two that won the X-Prize, have you?  Me either.
3. Design means compromise between often conflicting requirements.  However, compromise too much, and the design can suffer.  For example, cutting cost or rushing to meet a schedule can push decisions that can have serious repercussions.  And that isn’t cost- or schedule- (or design-) effective.

I will tell you my own view on technology in general, but space technology in particular: do it right the first time.  My father-in-law used to work as a technician on nuclear submarines and then did electrical word/design for space systems (still does).  He did gorgeous work and, when everyone around him were screaming and rushing and trying to do this and that on impossible schedules, he’d keep going at his same pace.  In nuclear submarines, he told me, you did it right the first time because failure was deadly.  Guess what, that’s true of space, too.  It may not be the technician/engineer/controller/space professional at risk, but someone is at risk.  When someone buys substandard components because the schedule demands it or because it’s less expensive, they take a chance that it won’t hold up like it’s supposed to.  Same with cutting corners on testing or assembly. It’s foolish beyond belief to think that doing something over, replacing something on orbit, or even late in the flow, could possibly be cost or schedule effective.
Do it right the first time.  I can’t think of anything better for an effective program, better from a cost or schedule perspective (even if it seems to be costlier or more schedule intensive), better for safety, better for reliability.
Do it right the first time.
How hard is that concept?

Prima donnas don’t lead successful teams.  It seems obvious but it’s not.  Believe me, I’ve worked (indirectly) for the government for nearly 20 years and I’ve never seen a successful team lead by an egomaniac unless he (or she) was simply a much-humored figurehead.  In fact, when I’ve seen someone like that leading a team, I can bet there are one of two potential scenarios:

1. She’s a charismatic or influential individual with a good front and/or name but no actual involvement in the real work.  In some cases, the individual may not even realize they are not controlling things, as they are given side but harmless tasks where they can’t do any harm, while others come behind and clean up the mess. These can provide good results, but there’s no guarantee one way or the other.
2. He’s a control freak that needs to be in charge of every detail and either has good but frustrated, possibly antagonistic, folks under him or has “yes men” that never argue or offer constructive criticism.  In both cases, these groups rarely have any thing really useful or successful coming out of them, except, perhaps, the first one that sets the reputation.

If you find a successful team, you can bet there are certain characteristics attached to it:

1. Diverse and complementary talents in the team.  It’s not an effective team if one person is doing it all.  That’s a recipe for failure (and it makes the one good worker prime fodder for being snatched by someone else).  Team players should be able to pitch hit, but each player should bring something special to the party.
2. Honest interaction.  People have to be honest enough to work together effectively, but also to point out flaws.  If one is unwilling to point out drawbacks, the products will suffer, even if it seems friendlier.
3. Self-confidence, but not conceit.  Many confuse these traits.  There’s nothing wrong with knowing your own strengths, knowing your own worth, knowing your own limitations and being proud of what you can do.  That’s entirely different than thinking one is infallible, perfect, beyond criticism or question, completely ignorant of one’s limitations.  Rather than being the same, they’re more like polar opposites.  Here’s my litmus test.  If you can field questions/criticism without getting testy, you are confident not conceited. And you’re more likely to know your stuff.
4. Good leadership.  Good leadership does not mean micromanaging.  Good leadership means providing as much direction as needed to keep the project moving effectively, but trusting the team players to carry their own weight and use their own judgement as well.  If a leader has to do “everything” either he has a crappy team or she is completely deluded as to her own importance.  A good leader also backs their team players.  If a leader hog the credit or use the team players as scapegoats, that leader will not have much of a team before long.  There is often a labor shortage but talent and capability are always in short supply.

So, why is this important?  Well, leadership and teamwork are the key to successful science.  They are also an appealing formula for a fiction.  I have a tendency to do “ensemble” casts in novels, I think because I have really recognized the advantages of talented people working together.  Protagonists generally take leadership roles, but an effective team may not always have the same leader.
Food for thought.

One of the things that really matters to me is the sometimes elusive capability of critical thinking and honest evaluation.  I’m somewhat relieved whenever I go to the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety because I’m not an oddity there. There are people from around the world dedicated to the notion of safety being an integral, critical part of space exploration, devoted to the idea that there are no acceptable losses.  You may be thinking, that’s crazy!  Yeah, well, I love these people.  We speak the same language no matter what language we’re speaking.
IAASS actively works to build understanding, to wrestle out international standards, to ensure accidents that can be avoided are, well, avoided, and we learn from past mistakes.  Professional after professional explains tools, often underfunded or figured out on their own, they’re developing to get a better handle on risks, to identify concerns, to find solutions.  They explain things that worked and things that didn’t so we can learn from them.
They’re not looking for scapegoats or pretending it was all good; you can’t learn if you aren’t honest about what happened.  History that is ignored will be repeated.
So, the conference was good.  The people, exceptional.  But I was still embarrassed at one point.  See, the paper presented was on international space law and how, without international agreements, it was still pretty much a free for all with nothing to prevent one country’s action from having huge impacts (literally and figuratively) on the space assets and actual populace of another country.  After the presentation, cut short due to time constraints, the presenter was discussing the topic with a former cosmonaut now working for Energia (probably Russia’s most important space contractor responsible for building the Soyuz rockets).  He explained that, when the Shuttle was first making trips to the Mir Space Station, some cosmonauts and astronauts would fly up on a Soyuz, but come back down on the Shuttle.  Russian cosmonauts, when they arrived on the ground were immediately arrested as illegal aliens before, even though their return to earth had been coordinated on both sides.
I was appalled and embarrassed, ashamed that we had ever acted so thoughtlessly.  The former cosmonaut said he was unsure if Russia had behaved any better and also that Russia and the US now had an agreement that precluded this reaction, but it really made me think.  Why can’t people think critically and do the right thing, use logic and/or common sense?  It’s something I stress in my fiction and something I’d like to see more of in real life.
How about you?

P.S. Kudos to India for joining in the lunar space fraternity with their recent launch last week.

I didn’t mean to leave my political post at the top for so long. Sorry, folks.

I was getting ready to go to Rome to present a paper and I hate to travel, so I was stressing some. As excuses go, it sucks, but there you have it.

Today, I want to talk about pollution. Before you roll your eyes (I know, too late), let me add that the focus will be on space pollution. Why?

That’s a very good question.

Space, even before we set forth in it, wasn’t exactly empty. Although it’s large so, the earth and the space of this solar system are constantly bombarded with a multitude of small impactors going very very fast. Most is ice and dust from comets and most are very very small but, since they impact at 20 km/s (or faster) they get a lot of bang in a tiny package. See kinetic energy is a product of mass and the square of the velocity. When two objects hit at a high relative velocity, that energy can either bounce off (changing the trajectory of both, though how much depends on relative mass) or it causes damage with the kinetic comparable to the kinetic energy lost, generally to both the impactor and the impacted item. How much depends on the materials and angles and a lot of other factors, but speed is really one of those factors.

To get a feel for the speed we’re talking about with micrometeoroids, a high speed sniper bullet can go on the order of 900 m/s. At 20 km/s, a meteoroid is going 22X faster, that’s 484X more energy for the same massed particle. Fortunately, most micrometeoroids are much smaller and less dense than a rifle bullet, but it means that tiny bits of dust can do considerable damage. (And, for some meteor showers/storms, like Leonids, velocity may be in the 70 km/s range.)

None of that, however, is manmade. Orbital debris, sometimes called space debris, is our little contribution to the problem. Orbital debris is bits of flotsam jettisoned or released from orbiting spacecraft, derelict satellites, leftover stages from rockets and fragmentation debris from many sources, including spacecraft that exploded, collided or destroyed. The good news is that the maximum possible velocities are less than meteoroid velocity (most low earth orbit impacts at 7-10 km/s), but that’s still 10X faster than bullets. It’s also the extent of the good news.

OK, there’s a little more. There are facilities worldwide that track larger debris. They’re always fighting for funding, though, and they are also limited to large debris, like those larger than 10 cm long (about 4 inches), which means we can generally track a dead satellite or rocket stage and usually track a discarded wrench, but not a nut or bolt we lost. We have other facilities that can “count” smaller particles down to a few mm in length. Note the difference though between counting and tracking. With tracking we know where a piece of debris generally is and can move out of the way (generally) if we need to. With counting, we have a snapshot of how much debris went over a counting radar at a given time and a given altitude. We might know some directional info and other data bits but we can’t say where that bit of debris we counted is three days later. We can’t get out of the way and we won’t see it coming.

And there’s a lot more debris up there than there used to be. Part of that is high launch rates and irresponsible practices, many of which are now curbed thanks to international efforts, like venting propellant tanks so they don’t explode and providing for deorbiting or moving defunct satellites to safe orbits so they don’t contribute to the problem. But those steps only help mitigate for satellites we send up from now on. They can’t undo the environment that’s already up there. Irresponsible catastrophes like the Chinese satellite destruction, with its rain of debris at high orbit, certainly don’t help.

In fact, there is a theoretical point where, even if we don’t send anything else up, the environment will get worse on it’s own. Once there’s sufficient debris up there that collisions cause debris to be created faster than it can decay away, it’s out of our hands. And several experts think we’re already there for some orbits.

There’s a lesson there for people who don’t think we really make a difference in our environment. Clearly, we can. It also means that, when we pollute our environment, we rarely think about the real consequences and, more frighteningly, may not be aware of the real impacts down the road for our carelessness. Global warming is an excellent example.

Of course, I’ve barely scratched the surface of useful tidbits on this topic (it’s fascinating). Here are some links of great places for more reading.

Don Kessler’s publications
NASA’s Orbital Debris office
Orbital Debris Quarterly
ESA’s ESOC

I don’t write many political articles. There are several reasons for this.

First, as a whole, I don’t like politicians. I think that, in general, they are opportunists who play off the lowest common denominator, concerned about themselves rather than the nation they’re supposed to represent and are all about power instead of responsibility. I’m not saying that perception applies to all politicians, but I’m not convinced that is more often true than not.

Secondly, I generally eschew labels. Liberal/conservative/radical/moderate/libertarian/populist/etc., I don’t fit neatly into any particular box. I agree on some things and not on others. I think of each issue individually and decide for myself how I feel about it, what I think is the right thing to do and *why*. So, when issues are being touted, I’m often in the middle on a couple, far on one side on one and far to the other on another.

Thirdly, I live in an environment where the prevailing winds are overwhelmingly conservative, so much so that a vote for anyone liberal is all but thrown away. Nor is logic likely to sway anyone to my way of thinking. This area is so closely attuned to the oil industry that no one other thinking can really slip in. That can be disheartening.

Fourthly, there are few topics that can get ugly faster than politics. Even if the majority of the participants are civil and intelligent, only a couple of ugly name callers can make the whole discussion chaos. I don’t think I need to tell you how ugly it’s been out there.

Lastly, to be frank, I think most of us have had about all the politics we can stomach. It’s been an ugly year, with a lot of frightening behavior by our government. Many are shell-shocked or just too sickened to want to spend any more time on the topic. I can understand it, I really can.

But, I’m writing one today anyway because I think it’s important. Especially now. Especially today. The people in government right now have done an abysmal job, particularly that last eight years and the future is stark; we have been spied on, lied to, manipulated and misused. It is possible that this is not going to change, but I have to do what I can to make the situation better.   In my opinion, the only potential bright spot right now out there is Obama.

I have heard the anti-Obama nonsense. All I can say is that, in my opinion, the only way that someone could take the ridiculous and inflammatory garbage at face value is a deep and desperate need to grasp straws because they so don’t want Obama for some other but more embarrassing reasons.

I’m not going to slam McCain or Palin. If their recent behavior hasn’t disgusted you, if you think they are grownups with our best interest in mind, nothing I say is likely to have an effect on you. But I am concerned, deeply, about keeping the republicans in power. We need change and we need it bad.

I read some thought provoking editorials in the New York Times today. The first asked me what kind of country I want to have. I found it thought-provoking and recommend reading it: Bob Herbert’s “Amusing, but Not Funny”. He noted what I noted, that intellectualism and intelligence were becoming bad words, were stigmatized, and what did that say about our country. Well, one thing it tells me is that there is a large faction of people who think having a stupid populace is a good thing. I do not. What kind of future will we have in this country if we continue to stigmatize intelligence and we dissuade our best and brightest from taking advantage of their potential. I think Obama respects and values education and recognizes its importance for the future. At the least, he surrounds himself with intelligent and capable people, something we haven’t seen in our current administration.

I also found an editorial graph showing how the different administrations had affected the economy this past century and this one, clearly demonstrating how much better we consistently have been under democratic leadership. I scratched my head to try to understand why this might be and it occurred to me that, starting from about FDR, democrats have been relatively focused on we the people. Apparently, investing in the American public has apparently better for the economy than investing in Big Business. Why? Well, educated and employed people want more for their children than they had themselves, so we have a pool of intelligent and capable people we might not have had otherwise. Big Business is also dependent on customers. Helping business instead of the customers doesn’t help big business in the long run. That’s probably part of it, too. But the other part, in my opinion, is that pouring money into big business doesn’t add to corporate wealth. Big companies don’t exist to be rich in an of themselves. They are there to make people rich, people who, truth told, already are rich. If you help a big company to a big profit, it goes into someone’s pocket, not into the economy. Bottom line.

So, when people talk to me about Obama wanting to do all these “entitling” actions, most of which I support anyway, I have to say, what’s better for the country? Investing in companies that will likely siphon the money in to pockets already heavy or investing in the populace of this country? If we keep doing the former and not the latter, we’ll end up with collapse and despair while our wealthy elite toddle off to their Tuscan villas or Bahama getaways. But, if we invest in our people, in the people that make our country what it is, we stand a chance of pulling this country back on the road we want it to be on. Some of us think we’ve never left (though I think they’re part of the problem, actively working to be shafted by those they defend); some of us just want us to get on the path. I think, again, that Obama is from that latter group.

There was one other editorial I found thought provoking in the NYT today: David Brooks’ “Big Government Ahead.” He talked about how the current economic situation will force our government to abandon any attempts at fiscal responsibility in order to correct the problems. Here’s the sad part, I could see that. What’s more, I even could see what he was saying as the right thing to do. In the end, we’re still talking about investing in the people of this country. Damn, about time we did that.

I don’t tell people what to vote as a general rule, even now. If you have really made up your mind, nothing I say will change it. But, if you haven’t, I want you to consider making a change this year, gambling again, this time on someone who at least says he wants to put the people first. After all, the other side isn’t even pretending to do so.

So, I’m back. Most of you probably didn’t even notice I was gone, but I was. Went to visit beloved relatives elsewhere in Texas, one of whom takes fantastic pictures. Don’t believe me? Check this gorgeous girl (my daughter, Roxanna) - you’ll need to click to get the full effect of this:

Beautiful, eh?

For those who almost (but not quite) missed me, I’ll be out of pocket next week, too. I will try to keep things updated; in theory, the hotel has internet connectivity, but I’ve been caught before. No promises. I’ll be in Rome, you see, presenting a paper at the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety. Before you go “Wow! How exciting!” let me tell you it’s all about the limitations on models and analyses used for risk assessment… Bet that put half of you asleep and I didn’t even describe it.

Last year, I presented three papers there. One on tin whiskers, which I’ve described here before, one on the advantages of using SI units and another one on micrometeoroids and orbital debris. This year, I only sent in one abstract since I didn’t want to present so many this year.

I think I’ll talk about the other two paper subjects, like I did with tin whiskers, but not today. Today, I want to talk about an article I read on space.com on spinoffs. I know that NASA spinoffs have been mentioned here and there before, but I think it never hurts to remind people just what the investment in Space has bought them. Some of the spinoffs are minor, like swimsuits with lower friction. Others are critical like materials used on wires for syncronizing heartbeats. Spinoff Magazine can be ordered for free or you can check it out online. There’s the list of Spinoffs issues there or you can check out the searchable database. Want some ideas of things to check? How about…

• Fabrics that protect firefighters
• Algae developed for astronaut health now found in baby formulas everywhere
• Portable nanomesh creates safer drinking water
• Robotic surgery
• Emergency response breathing apparatus
• Cleaner landfills

And the list goes on… Check it out.

My good friend, David Rochester (who is well worth reading) put up some 50 word stories he had written some time back.  Presumably, they were part of a recurring challenge to convey something meaningful in a tidy package of 50 words.  (I’d recommend reading David’s far superior work if you find any of these intriguing.)  I have done some recurring 100 word challenges before, but I’d never tried 50 word challenges.  So I did.

Conflagration
A careless spark and it had burned to the ground, the walls his father once designed, the art his father had created and collected. He wandered through the charred bones of a once great building, eyes dry. No lives lost, but a man’s lifetime lay in ashes at his feet.

Predator
He knew her vulnerability, had sensed it at first sight. He had been drawn to her weakness, her susceptibility, and had known instinctively how best to exploit them. Now, she lay beneath him, desperate for him and the soft lies he’d whisper and immediately forget. Tomorrow, he’d find other prey.

Flashback
He kissed her sweetly, his mouth minty. Instantly, she was taken back to a dark room, trapped below a man so much larger, his hungry mouth hot and wet, filling her senses with cloying peppermint as he filled her young body with unspeakable pain… She had to run. Again.

Thirteen Candles
Thirteen candles. She placed them on the ugly cake she knew he’d love, orange and blue. She thought of cleaning his sty of a room and dismissed it. Not yet. She lit them, thirteen candles. Dead now as many years as he had once been alive. Only then, she wept.

Euridice
She followed him, they promised, risen from the dead if he could but believe. His ears strained for her footfalls, a breath of sound to reassure his faltering faith. At last he strode into the light, then turned to see her still shadowed shadow slip back into the depths. Forever.

Hippolyta
She closed her eyes and felt the wind on her face. Beneath her was the powerful horse she had raised from birth. Around her rode other women, her sisters, as formidable as she was in battle. No one would dismiss an Amazon… “Mom!” She sighed, eyes opened. Back to reality.

Siblings
Mother and Father and loved their new creature. The face was small and squished, the head bald. With his finger, he poked the tiny hand. He felt nothing when tiny fingers gripped his. She opened her eyes and gave him a toothless grin. All at once, he fell in love.

I’m not sure what it means that they almost always convey negative emotions.  Perhaps it’s just easier to make short works powerful with the dark sides of the force…

I keep meaning to get to that post on SI units, but, in a tense and troubled world, sometimes you need a little laughter. Well, checking on what’s new (as usual) on Snopes as usual, I got some. A lot. Think screaming with laughter.

So, here’s what absolutely killed me. I know it wasn’t real, but it sure was funny.

As you might note, there’s a link to a church sign generator. You know I had to play…

I started with some stand alone signs

Then, since I enjoyed the ones on snopes so well, I thought I’d have a sign playing off another…

It’s a great deal of fun and, right now, I think we could all use a laugh. If you like it, try the Church Sign Generator.

I’m keeping it brief today because I went to my daughter’s choir concert.  INCREDIBLE!  It was fabulous!  I forgot how much I love chorale music because it’s been that long since I heard really really good choir music.  I got goosebumps.  And these kids missed out on two weeks for the time after Hurricane Ike.

*Glow*

I’m almost done gushing.  I loved to sing growing up by my mother wasn’t interested in anyone who wasn’t an alto and I was a soprano.  I’m SO proud of my daughter.

OK, I’m done.  For the minute.

I know about the science behind voice, but, let me tell you, sometimes, it’s magic.

On today’s menu is another real something that has tremendous potential in the plot of a book (particularly science fiction, though any contemporary book could use it): tin whiskers.

Never heard of them, you say? Well, get some popcorn and sit back. Tin whiskers are cool, they’re scary, and we might be hearing much more about these before you know it. See, two years ago, I had never heard of them either. Last year, I wrote a paper on them (You can also find the presentation). The subject is fascinating.

See, certain metals and alloys, particularly when used as a plating, will start to grow slim little hairs of metal. One of them is tin. Most never get more than a few mm long, but others have grown cm long under the right circumstances. Here’s a great picture of some we found in avionics boxes used to control reaction jets and aerosurfaces on the Orbiter (see page 5). If they bridge a gap with some power, but not too much, they just fuse and evaporate. If it’s a data connection, they can change a control, turn something on that shouldn’t be, for instance. But, if it has power and the conditions are right, you can get something call metal vapor arcing that will make a big unholy mess. I have some pictures in my linked presentation and paper, but there are other examples at the source for all things metal whiskery: Goddard’s Tin Whisker Website. For the science minded, this is a treasure trove of data, stories, pictures, videos, pointers, etc. of all kinds of metal whiskers, well worth wandering through.

Tin whiskers are not a new phenomena. We discovered them the hard way in the 50’s. However, it was discovered early that adding as little as 3%lead to the mix mitigated the whisker problem. But, tin plating is quick, simple, cheap, environmentally friendly and there’s no lead waste to worry over, so tin plated components began working their way into critical circuits. Tin whiskers have been blamed for losing several satellites and the redundant string for others, tripping a nuclear reactor, issues and a major recall on pacemakers, and several ugly accidents with metal vapor arcing. Really, check out those anecdotes.

Tin isn’t the only metal. Zinc and cadmium are also prone to whiskering. Zinc whiskering is becoming a serious concern in computer server facilities. Zinc whisker grows from the galvanized metal shielding on the underside of floor tiles in these facilities. When they go to upgrade or do work below, the floor tiles are lifted up and often shoved over the other floor tiles, shearing the unseen whiskers off and letting them drop into the crawlspace below. When they restart the system, the ventilation, which often flows underneath the floor, picks these whiskers up and sends them right into the computers. Huge, highly redundant server systems have been disabled this way. Really, read about it here or you can just stumble over many resources at the Goddard Tin Whisker Website. They’ve even found lead whiskers, gold whiskers and silver whiskers (though the latter is a different mechanism that grows silver whiskers like mad in a suphur rich environment. See this.

No one’s entirely sure what causes metal whiskers or what factors slow or speed the process. Whiskers may not grow for years and then grow very fast. Others might grow quickly from the beginning.

OK, so this is all cool in a geeky kind of way. So, how is this useful for fiction? Well, whiskers are an effective way to screw up all kinds of redundancy, which is frequently used to mitigate risk for space craft, with one mechanism. It’s one reason why NASA has severe restrictions on the use of pure tin plating. But, it’s not necessarily on the minds of regular people either, so this may not even be on the radar for commercial electronics. That makes it a potential factor in electric cars or planes or, in fact, anything that has critical functions that is governed by electronics. And remember, though we may come up with some way of beating this time, a generation from now, we might forget about them all over again and have to learn it all over.

AKA cutting one’s throat to spite one’s stomach part II

I started to write a comment on Galley Proof’s response to Gumby the Cat’s open letter to creationists. But, it was becoming ridiculously long for a comment.

I’ll let you read both (and encourage you to do so), but, in short, Gumby said that many who were arguing against evolution must know that what they said were lies and that the next generation was getting better at critical thinking and would not be so readily fooled (He said more, but these were the points that were discussed on the response post). GP disagreed, saying that most creationists truly believe what they say and that, sadly, people were becoming more readily misled, not less. In general, I agree with GP on these points, with the caveat that we limit those characterizations to Americans since I don’t have much interaction with non-technical individuals from other countries.

However, as Gumby noted, there are, there must be, people who knowingly distort the truth and don’t believe it.  You can’t manufacture a hoax without knowing it’s a lie. Unlike many other scientific fields, I don’t see the financial benefit in debunking evolution (as opposed to, say, global warming), but people who are conditioned to take at face value what they’re told by certain people are much easier to control than people who regard all information that they’re given critically.  I do think that there are people who deliberately debunk science even though they know better.  But I don’t think they’re the ones we deal with directly most of the time.  It’s the sheep who argue with us.

On GP’s second point, I’d like to add two other reasons besides laziness.  One is fear.  With more of people dependent on technology that most don’t understand, they love the convenience but are uncomfortable with their lack of understanding.  With debunking “ammunition,” they can get a sense they understand reality better than these so called scientists they would otherwise be intimidated by.  They are comforted by their stone-age understanding of reality and don’t see the irony in living in a world shaped by science and technology’s understanding and adaptation of reality.  Hence the smugness that make many of the ignorant accusations irksome to anyone who has taken the trouble to understand science.

But they also fear science showing the mechanisms and processes behind reality.  The more we understand reality, the more we can see how we can and have affected it.  Understanding cause and effect should induce a moral individual to take steps to preclude excessive damage, loss of life, etc; however, doing so requires people to take responsibility for loss and damage that has already occurred and remedial action can be costly and/or uncomfortable.  Pretending that it was “God’s will” and nothing can be done clears one of responsibility or any obligation to preclude a recurrence.  People want to believe that they are powerless to affect their world (I have a hard time understanding why this comforting, but I’m trying) - they expect good things to happen to people who have faith and often think of excuses when innocent people are destroyed.

The unscrupulous, who may or may not have a financial stake in the status quo, but want to keep the populace unquestioning and faithful, take advantage of these tendencies, manipulate them for their own benefit, actively work to quell critical thinking.   In my opinion, that’s a pretty amoral thing to do and I understand Gumby’s disgust.  No self-respecting scientist would do the same thing, no matter how he or she is provoked.  Blind faith (as opposed to thinking faith, which is perfectly possible) is the enemy of critical thinking, the enemy of progress , the enemy of learning lessons from the past to do better in the future.  But GP is right to be concerned because we are at a disadvantage when touting nothing but the truth.  Reality cannot be fooled by propaganda, but people most certainly can.

So, today I’m going to mention this excellent article I found on spacedaily.com (another of those sites I recommend to any space enthusiast). This one has to do with the earth’s magnetic field and what might happen if we lost access to it.

I’m paraphrasing here, but this article describes some experiments done with rats in Russia where they canceled the earth’s magnetic field in a limited area and subjected rats to an environment without it. Like all good science, they included controls and did this for more than one period of time. What the noticed was an increase in aggression, a breakdown of social hierarchy (and these two could be related) and some memory loss in the rats in this special no-field zone.

So, what does that prove? Well, it doesn’t prove anything but it certainly, at least to me, screams out this is an area that must be evaluated before we try any long-term space trips outside the earth’s magnetic fields. Except for the short moon hops, people haven’t really spent much time outside the earth’s magnetic field - in low earth orbit, it’s about 80% its groundside level.

Since we can largely cancel out this field on earth, there’s no reason a similar experiment couldn’t be done before we do any long term trips outside Earth’s orbit, like the lunar expedition mission (6 months or more on the lunar surface). One could say, why assume people would do the same as the rats? I don’t think you have to assume that they would, but I don’t think you can assume that they wouldn’t.

This is an excellent example where a little bit of research can head off a potentially ugly scenario and reduce an unknown risk. If people are affected by a lack of magnetic field, and nothing is known or evaluated ahead of time, people trapped in close quarters might experience debilitating or dangerous cognitive or emotional issues. Halfway to Mars is too late to figure this out. Space is unforgiving for forgetting a crucial step or a lapse in judgment. If understood, however, magnetic fields can be generated artificially, designed right into the spacecraft. But you can’t do it once they’re out there.

That’s the science side of this topic (yes, I think it’s fascinating). Now I have to say, think of the applications available for fiction! For example:

• People traveling across the galaxy and their magnetic system fails. Insanity ensues and no one sees it coming or understands why.

• People colonize a planet with little or no magnetic field. They brought their own, so they’re good, but when insects or rodents invade their homes, they react crazily (OK, anyone else want to know what happens to an ant colony in the no-field zone? While they become an anarchy?)

• What about a binary planetary system where two planets are rotating about each other in close proximity (and around a more distant sun) where one has a notably stronger magnetic field that affects life on the other planet periodically?

This is also why I can’t be left alone with an idea that intrigues me or you never know where I’ll end up.

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.  –Richard Feynman

It appears that Gumby the Cat and I are setting each other off. His blog today, a rather impassioned diatribe against those who try to discredit the theory of evolution, reminded me of one of my own pet peeves: the attitude of many toward the educated, particularly scientists and science.

I’ve mentioned it before, but it bears repeating, especially given the political climate we have going right now. Some of the reactions and rhetoric, and, particularly, the responses from people to them often reveal a contempt for education, for intelligence, even for knowledge. The way someone feels is trumping data and clear facts. Gut reactions and “common sense” come out to allow even the least informed to dismiss overwhelming evidence.

I find this a disturbing trend. The current attitude toward scientists is an excellent example. I’ve been struggling for some time on why and how so many people feel compelled to sneer and dismiss science and scientists without an understanding of scientific knowledge, processes or any understanding of scientists at all. I’ve got some speculation on why it is.

• It is an inherent part of the scientific process to admit to uncertainties and to note areas of speculation vs. proven/data justified areas. Unfortunately, this honesty is used by those who are either unfamiliar with the scientific process or those unscrupulous as a rationale to dismiss the whole rather than the particulars still in question, often with spurious or even no rationale. 
• Scientists are required to show their work, to an extent above and beyond most other fields. This plethora of data is provided specifically so that other scientists in the same field can review, look for problems and duplicate the methodologies for verification. However, by doing so, that work can be taken out of context or evaluated by people who do not have the knowledge or understanding required to fathom the full meaning. So, scientists are either challenged on irrelevant points or on misunderstandings that, once made, are not readily unmade no matter what data is available.
• People have the perception that scientists stand to make fame and fortune for their scientific endeavors. I’m not saying it’s never happened, but it is the exception and not the rule. Many a gifted scientist has worked for peanuts (think George Washington Carver, for instance) and most are satisfied to make a comfortable living. (One should probably pick another field if you covet riches or world-wide fame). But it boggles my mind that the general populace thinks scientists get riches and glory from telling people what they don’t want to know. Scientists have lost their jobs doing so and often struggle even if they keep their jobs. It is, in fact, the ones that do covet wealth and renown, that usually sell out by sacrificing science to “debunk” unpopular truths.
• There are powerful forces who find it financially beneficial to maintain the status quo that science could change. There are a number of examples of this: dangers of cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke, global warming, deterioration of natural environments. Interests in tobacco, oil & coal, real estate pay small fortunes for emotional and dismissive PR campaigns to discredit scientist on these topics because reality is bad for business. They spend the small fortunes because they stand to make large fortunes. Unfortunately, the poor uneducated schmoes manipulated by these shenanigans are not only the ones providing those large fortunes, they are also the ones to pay the price when reality (which is not influenced by PR campaigns) strikes.
• Science often requires action, often unpleasant or challenging action. Disbelief provides an excuse to do nothing. What’s interesting is that disadvantages and risks to doing something so often far outweigh the consequences and costs of action, even in the case where the risks have been overestimated. For example, the health benefits to stopping smoking are certainly better than dying of lung cancer. However, even if one were going to escape that particular fate, dropping the habit will still rid one of an expensive habit that endangers others around you, dulls senses, acerbates allergies, affects one’s cardiovascular system, stinks up one’s breath and contaminates the insides of cars and homes (and can destroy computers). Global warming is another example. Even if, for some reason, all of the scientific data has been exaggerating the risk, what is the downside to addressing it? We use less energy, find alternatives to a limited resource which will eventually run out, reduce out dependence on foreign resources (and the temptation to try other means to coerce countries for their resources), and have a cleaner world. Oh, the horror.
• Science often indicates poor judgement and direction of the past and people hate to admit mistake. It’s not difficult to convince a nonsmoker of the disadvantages of picking up the habit. On the other hand, someone who smoked 2 packs a day for years is unlikely to want to admit to mistake, especially if he or she smoked around their children. Excuses are trotted out on why smoking is not as risky as they say or that they risk more health problems by stopping. Ditto for environmental concerns. Repairing damage requires acknowledging that damage has been done. Many are unwilling to take that kind of responsibility or any at all.

But I’m still disheartened. If someone evaluates my malfunctioning car, I might get a second opinion, but I would never feel I had the right to tell him how to do his job. Surgeons do not have family members looking over their shoulders in the operating room. People don’t ask their bankers for a clear accounting of what is done with the money invested or in savings accounts. Although, perhaps they should.

The same people who wouldn’t hesitate to sneer if you tried to tell your plumber how to do his job, won’t hesitate to tell scientists they don’t know what they’re doing, accuse them of not being scientifically diligent or even call them liars. When explanations are provided, they counter with alternate “theories” that can be readily disproved out of hand - but they defend with passion and call scientists hypocrites for not giving equal credence to their “theories”. They shout and scream about our lack of rigor when they have theories that can’t withstand the most cursory review. Apples and oranges, folks.

But it’s more than an academic question. Science and technology are the gateways to the future and America is already falling behind. If we continue to dismiss scientific knowledge and expertise in favor of “good old fashion horsesense,” America will become as obsolete as the horse and buggy. We might revile our scientists, make it challenging or impossible for them to find venues to work in or make their environment untenable, but other nations will not do the same.

Food for thought.

My husband read this to me yesterday and I couldn’t believe it was true, that any legitimate organization would be this whacked. PETA, that’s People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, sent a letter to Ben and Jerry recommending that they switch from cow’s milk to breast milk for their ice cream. *Slam’s head on desk* Well, it’s there. It exists (as noted by the link which goes to their own damn site).

Now, let’s be clear. I have cats (and have fostered kittens for the local shelter). I love animals and would never advocate mistreatment. I care about animals and don’t like to see them misused, whether the eventual intent is for food or other use, whether in the wild or in one’s home. I’m concerned about the loss of many endangered species and grieve that whale populations and other wild species are at risk because of man’s activities.

I am omnivorous because (a) I like meat and dairy and (b) I think that’s what we are designed to eat. However, I have a vegan sister (and her family) and feel no urge to reform them. Fortunately, she does me the same favor. By all means, be vegetarian/vegan if you choose. More power to you, whether for ethical or health reasons. But I’ve seen what happens to panda’s on their inappropriate diet. For me, I’ll stick with the full gamut.

But, first of all, I don’t see what the big trouble is with milk. I’m a big milk drinker and yes, some people are genetically intolerant of cow’s milk. Others, like apparently myself, have a particular mutation that makes milk readily digested. As it is an excellent source of all kinds of nutrition, I’m all for drinking milk if you can do so comfortably. I don’t advocate it as a substitute for mother’s milk, but I have raised three children on milk-based formula because of an inability to nurse and they’ve all turned out well.

But how is cutting out the milk in Ben and Jerry’s (which is more likely cream, actually) going to help cows? Do you think losing the few thousands of gallons of milk B&J is using is going to make or break the dairy industry? They probably lose that much in shrinkage daily.

Here’s their reasoning:

• Breast milk is better for people than cow’s milk. Actually, breast milk is better for babies than whole milk. Breast milk is formulated for something that will double it’s weight a few times. Most of us don’t want to do that. And who eats ice cream for the health benefit?

• Cow’s milk has been associated with allergies (true), juvenile diabetes and obesity. Even if I were convinced this is true (I’m not for various reasons. And don’t they have a better source than Dr. Spock on this topic?), this is ice cream. You don’t eat ice cream to cure obesity or treat diabetes

• Cows would be grateful because they only give milk when they’re pregnant or have just given birth. They are “forcefully impregnated every nine months”. Uh, guys, Wikipedia says it’s a year or more (and I’d like some proof cows wouldn’t do the same themselves if the opportunity presented itself. Check feral cats.). And artificial insemination should not be confused with “raping cows.” Of course, anyone who’s raised dairy cattle of any kind realize that if you really want to make a cow miserable, you could stop milking her.

• “After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.” Again, I don’t think this reflects the majority of dairy farms. As for using their bodies for food, I wish my body could be put to so much use after I’m dead. Providing extra milk does not cause damage to them. I don’t understand the issue here. Attrition is high among dairy cattle and culling is common if they stop being economical. And, as with most types of cattle, animals no longer useful are generally slaughtered. I don’t see how removing a few thousand gallons of milk from the situation helps them. If we need fewer milkers, more will go to the slaughterhouse.

• “And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can’t produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can’t even turn around.” ALL calves are removed from the mother immediately to preclude bonding (which would make the mother despondent). This also allows the calf to be more comfortable with other methods of feeding. As for the treatment of veal, I’m not sure I’m in agreement with this particular characterization; at the least, I find it biased. On the other hand, I don’t eat veal. Again, though, I don’t see how reducing milk consumption (slightly) helps this situation.

But let’s say all their anti-cruelty arguments held water. Breast milk? Are they whacked? According to this article, breast milk is $3/oz (vs. $0.03/oz cow’s milk or even $0.06/oz baby formula) or at least that’s what an adoptive mother paid for her baby. Say I need a thousand gallons a week and that whole sale prices are proportional to retail: that’s 100 times as much.

And breast milk doesn’t come pasteurized which is OK if you’re drinking from the source, but not so good going through production facilities, trucking, etc. (Pasteurization could readily kill many of the good things about breast milk, by the way). And breast milk isn’t all the same. You need healthy mothers, eating nutritiously, not taking drugs, not smoking, not diseased. Believe me, it will be a hell of a lot harder to ensure that people are healthy than cows. Cows don’t have privacy issues.

And breast milk doesn’t taste the same. They’ll have to adjust all their formulas. Nor do I think it would be good advertising (”Ben and Jerry’s, now with breast milk!”)

But, and I think this is important, if we’re going to have mothers pump extra breast milk, aren’t there some babies that could stand to have it? Which is better, feeding babies or adding a little zing to some grown-up’s ice cream? If I have to choose between the peace of mind of PETA folks and hungry babies, I won’t be deliberating long.

Really, if you really wanted to take cow’s milk out of the equation, why not choose soy milk? Breast milk? Are you kidding me?

You know, a lot of these fanatic fringe groups have seeds at the core that make sense and are perfectly reasonable. It’s easy to sympathize with “Don’t let animals be mistreated,” or “A belief in God can give you hope.” But some of the twisted messages that go out, I mean whacked nonsense that clearly isn’t sane, really, are enough to turn the stomach of the general populace.

Whatever you folks are smokin’, stop!

I feel like a change of pace. Do you like to laugh? I do. I have a number of on-line comics I read every day. Some are just a smile. Others vary from laugh out loud to shrug, depending on how it goes. One of my favorites, however, is one called Sinfest by Tatsuya Ishida. It is not politically correct. In fact, I think that’s it’s charm.

It makes fun of men, women, religious folks, weaponry, pretension, pick something. But you never know who is going to come out ahead. It’s a lot like Bugs Bunny where Elmer or Yosemite Sam sometimes come out ahead.

Actually, I don’t know what it’s like, but I’ve liked it and I’ve read it through from the beginning. More than once.

However, since McCain tagged Palin as his running mate, Ishida has been on fire and I have laughed but butt right off (Ha! I wish). So, I’m sharing my favorite comic with you all.

Now, note, if you have a hard time with politically incorrect humor, if off-color language bothers you, if you think McCain/Palin is the smartest ticket ever (I don’t), you may not like this comic. But, if you don’t mind laughing at yourself and the absurdity around you, this just might be worth the trip. I’ve included links to some key comics from September that I found particularly hilarious and a smattering of ones that tickled me from before. I did not get them all by any measure, and recommend anyone that enjoyed these to continue to explore.

September 1
September 2
September 6
September 14
September 23
September 25
September 28

And now for a few other winners:

January 17, 2000
September 20, 2002
October 20, 2002
February 9, 2003
October 10, 2003
March 24, 2004
December 9, 2004
December 12, 2005
October 8, 2006
February 25, 2007
November 18, 2007
December 30, 2007
April 27, 2008
July 13, 2008

Enjoy and, Gumby, there are cats.