The New Yorker: Online Only: Content
The New Yorker, not known for being a right wing panic merchant, runs an interview this week with (journalist?) Steve Coll that is worth reading.
Mr Coll notes that on the question of how quickly Iran could have a nuke:
John Negroponte, the director of National Intelligence, has said, in his most recent public assessment, that the American intelligence community believes that Iran may acquire a nuclear capacity some time in the next decade, meaning from 2010 or 2011 onward. From my reporting, I gather that in private briefings the Bush Administration’s intelligence analysts focus on a five-to-seven-year window, although they emphasize that there’s a fair amount of uncertainty about this estimate. I think the one assertion that the intelligence community seems comfortable with is that it’s not this year or next year and probably not the year after that. However, the more that is discovered about Iran’s research, the more some analysts wonder whether Iran might be able to move faster than the official forecast indicates.
It gets worse, though:
[Interviewer] Once the centrifuges are working, how long will it take to make enough material for a bomb?
It depends on how many centrifuges you put into your plant. The math is fairly straightforward: a cascade of a hundred and sixty-four centrifuges can produce so many grams of highly enriched uranium in so much time if the centrifuges are operating around the clock. Iran has said that it intends to install three thousand of these centrifuges by the end of this year. That seems like an ambitious goal, but let’s assume the Iranians could achieve it. If they did, they could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of bombs within a year if they operated those centrifuges around the clock. Most people don’t think they can pull that off, but that’s the scale of their operation at this point.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
More bad news from Asia
Southern Thailand beset by bombings, arson | csmonitor.com
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Some other bloggers have noted that while terrorism in Southern Thailand is reported, it doesn't seem to attract much in the way of commentary or analysis.
This article indicates that there is considerable disagreement about whether the Islamic separatist movement is behind all the trouble, or only part of it.
Anyway, things are not looking good:
Three Thai policemen and a soldier were killed in two separate incidents Wednesday, only hours after a series of over 100 attacks in southern Thailand, which has been riven by an Islamic separatist insurgency.
Women and men hit hard in Aceh
The Jakarta Post - Women, the poor singled out by Aceh sharia enforcers: ICG
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
This is a short article on the tough application of sharia law in Aceh.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Back to Hollywood for a minute
TIME.com: Where Have All the Cary Grants Gone? -- Aug. 7, 2006 -- Page 1
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
I think this essay is correct in identifying a trend in Hollywood over the last few years. (A trend which helps explain decreasing interest in Hollywood product in the over 25 market?)
More than an apology needed
ABC sorry for bias on children's show | Media | The Australian
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The bias and plain errors in the original ABC story were so obvious it really makes you wonder about the competence of the editorial oversight of the program. The important point should be that they take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Why is John Howard popular with younger voters?
There have been quite a few images in the Australian media recently of John Howard being accosted by enthusiatic young supporters. Matt Price has noted the PM's recent popularity too.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Does polling confirm this general impression of popularity with youth? A recent Newspoll showing demographic breakdown over the last couple of years pretty much does. To get to it, go here and look for the link to 23/06/06 "Geographic and Demographic Analysis..."
The interesting thing is that while Howard is clearly most popular with the over 50 demographic, his satisfaction rating is sometimes higher with the 18-34 year olds than the 35 - 49 year set. Dissatisfaction with Howard is sometimes higher in the "middle age" bracket too. There's often not a great deal in it, though.
The Newspoll survey shows that voting intention in the 18-34 yr olds is usually pretty evenly split between Lib/Nationals and Labor, with usually only one or two percent higher on the Labor side. (Of course, perhaps the younger crowd tend to favour the Greens too, so preferences from them may help Labor.)
So it would seem that it is certainly not the case that you can argue that on voting intentions, the younger ages are strongly conservative. (Perhaps they are more conservative now than in previous decades; I don't know.) Yet their satisfaction with Howard is quite high. (And unfortunately for Kim Beazley, they are often more dissatisfied with him than satisfied.)
Sometimes a degree of "dagginess" mysteriously reaches a certain level of "cool" amongst the young. (Rolf Harris seems a good example of this in the entertainment field.) I think that is part of Howard's current appeal to the young, mixed with admiration for his clear enthusiasm for the job, and the high degree of resilience he displays (this being a character trait that receives a lot of attention in child development circles now).
I have also always felt that he is a genuinely modest man, who (I like to imagine) has to pinch himself often to be sure he isn't dreaming while being received on the international stage. (He is still capable of appearing not entirely at ease, but I find that oddly endearing.) I presume that others share this view, even if they don't agree with all of his policies.
UPDATE: Janet Albrechtsen gives her view of Howard's popularity today, and it's hard to disagree with her.
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground
Looking for lunar caves as a possible place to set up a permanent colony on the Moon got brief mention here recently. One or two space scientists agree:
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
The Moon appears to possess long, cave-like structures called lava tubes that are similar to ones on Earth. They form when the surface of a stream of lava solidifies and the molten rock inside drains away, leaving a hollow tube of rock.
For decades, engineers and space scientists have discussed the possibility of using these caves as astronaut housing because they are sheltered from space radiation and micrometeorite impacts. But the idea should now be revisited in light of NASA's push to send astronauts back to the Moon, says Austin Mardon of the Antarctic Institute of Canada in Edmonton, Alberta.
At a meeting of the International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) in Beijing, China, last week, he argued that robotic probes should be sent to potential lava tubes to see if they are suitable for habitation.
He says erecting pressurised tents inside a cave would be easier and faster than trying to construct a rigid structure on the surface. "Instead of assembling structures that have to be meteorite-proof on the surface, or burying them, you'd have tent-like structures inside these tubes," Mardon told New Scientist. "It's like being cavemen on the Moon."
"It’s a potentially very inviting place to put infrastructure,” agrees Mark Robinson of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, US. He says sections of the lava tubes with roofs still intact appear to be very stable, having survived for 3 billion years or more since their formation.
But he points out that the lava tubes may not be located where NASA would like to send astronauts. For example, the polar regions – which may harbour water ice that could be used to support a lunar base – appear to bear no sign of the ancient lava flows associated with lava tubes.
That's a pity.
As to how NASA intends looking for water on the Moon, it's hoping to try smashing something into it, and sniffing the plume for water. A previous attempt at something similar was not successful, and in fact I would guess that the new attempt may simply be unlucky too, even if some water is around.
Wouldn't a few astronauts with a couple of drills and some explosives stand a much better chance?
About Mel
Unfortunately (as I don't want reader's thinking I just made this up), I have never mentioned before on this blog something that I have said to family: I have never liked Mel Gibson or his movies. It's not an opinion that can easily be rationalised; being one of the few "conservatives" in Hollywood, you would think I would have found something to like about him. (I also have not seen The Passion of the Christ, which I might like, but I have my doubts.)
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Now that I feel justified in my dislike of him, I should mention a few other actors I just don't like in case they get into trouble too: Clint Eastwood (the critical acclaim given to "Unforgiven" was incomprehensible); Jim Carrey (I never get any sense from any interview I have seen that there is a "real" person inside that body at all; he's just creepy); and ...I am sure there is another one lurking in the back of my mind, but he or she won't come out right now.
Another good Neo Neocon post
neo-neocon: And what does Ariel Sharon have to say about it all?
This one deals with Ariel Sharon's views on the basic issue behing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, as noted in a New Yorker article from the start of the year. Interesting reading as always on Neo Neocon.
This one deals with Ariel Sharon's views on the basic issue behing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, as noted in a New Yorker article from the start of the year. Interesting reading as always on Neo Neocon.
No need to actually read him now
The New Yorker: The Critics: Books
Don't know much about Samuel Beckett and his works? Me neither, but I know more now having read the above article. The author seemingly admires Beckett, but many of his comments do nothing to encourage this blogger to actually read him:
Emptying his books of plot, descriptions, scene, and character, Beckett is said to have killed off the novel—or else, by showing how it could thrive on self-sabotage, insured its future....
One of the most purposely obscure writers of the last century has become all things to all people...
The Beckett of the novels is not a very efficient writer—exhaustion is his method—but he can probably condense more cackling blasphemies onto a single page than anyone else....
...Beckett is, however, a hard read. His plays continue to be performed, but as a novelist—and he considered playwriting “mainly a recreation from working on the novel”—he is increasingly more honored than read. This is too bad, because Beckett’s fiction, whether or not it is the summit of his achievement, is its heart. Meanwhile, vague and grand ideas about Beckett flourish because he goes unread. “A voice comes to one in the dark”: this, the first line of the late novella “Company,” also describes the ideal situation of his contemporary reader, as innocent and as apprehensive as that, as ready to be startled. Strange stuff, this work, that life.
The article usefully extracts some bits from Beckett's novels, just to confirm how tiresome reading him can be:
Here he moved, to and fro, from the door to the window, from the window to the door; from the window to the door, from the door to the window; from the fire to the bed, from the bed to the fire; from the bed to the fire, from the fire to the bed; from the door to the fire, from the fire to the door . . .
Think Beckett can’t go on? He can go on. In this case, for another thirty lines.
Good of the New Yorker to confirm a suspicion that I am not missing anything, other than tedium.
Don't know much about Samuel Beckett and his works? Me neither, but I know more now having read the above article. The author seemingly admires Beckett, but many of his comments do nothing to encourage this blogger to actually read him:
Emptying his books of plot, descriptions, scene, and character, Beckett is said to have killed off the novel—or else, by showing how it could thrive on self-sabotage, insured its future....
One of the most purposely obscure writers of the last century has become all things to all people...
The Beckett of the novels is not a very efficient writer—exhaustion is his method—but he can probably condense more cackling blasphemies onto a single page than anyone else....
...Beckett is, however, a hard read. His plays continue to be performed, but as a novelist—and he considered playwriting “mainly a recreation from working on the novel”—he is increasingly more honored than read. This is too bad, because Beckett’s fiction, whether or not it is the summit of his achievement, is its heart. Meanwhile, vague and grand ideas about Beckett flourish because he goes unread. “A voice comes to one in the dark”: this, the first line of the late novella “Company,” also describes the ideal situation of his contemporary reader, as innocent and as apprehensive as that, as ready to be startled. Strange stuff, this work, that life.
The article usefully extracts some bits from Beckett's novels, just to confirm how tiresome reading him can be:
Here he moved, to and fro, from the door to the window, from the window to the door; from the window to the door, from the door to the window; from the fire to the bed, from the bed to the fire; from the bed to the fire, from the fire to the bed; from the door to the fire, from the fire to the door . . .
Think Beckett can’t go on? He can go on. In this case, for another thirty lines.
Good of the New Yorker to confirm a suspicion that I am not missing anything, other than tedium.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Weather talk
Reuters AlertNet - US hurricane expert stirs global warming debate
Seems it's still not clear whether hurricanes are worse than before.
In Brisbane, it seems to have been a mild winter. Roses here can flower all year around (if you don't do a winter prune), although they obviously slow down in winter, and the buds take a long time to open. This last couple of weeks, a couple of the rose bushes in my yard have had a sudden flush of blooms. I also noticed a neighbours tree that looks something like a flowering plum or peach is starting to bloom. All signs, I think, that it has indeed been a milder winter. Summer could be a stinker, it seems.
Seems it's still not clear whether hurricanes are worse than before.
In Brisbane, it seems to have been a mild winter. Roses here can flower all year around (if you don't do a winter prune), although they obviously slow down in winter, and the buds take a long time to open. This last couple of weeks, a couple of the rose bushes in my yard have had a sudden flush of blooms. I also noticed a neighbours tree that looks something like a flowering plum or peach is starting to bloom. All signs, I think, that it has indeed been a milder winter. Summer could be a stinker, it seems.
The strange world of the placebo
Nothing can cure you - Health - Times Online
The link is to an interesting story on the placebo effect, and in particular how it is a large part of the complementary medicine story.
It does seem odd that an effect that is known to be quite powerful cannot really be used by doctors due to ethical/legal issues. (This didn't stop Dr House on the TV show "House" using it last week, though.)
One study is mentioned in the report which I think may have missed at the time:
Four years ago, a big study examined two popular treatments for depression: the herbal remedy St John’s Wort, the antidepressant tablet Zoloft, and a placebo. It revealed, amazingly, that the placebo was more effective than both of them.
Is there any way around the problems of how you could allow placebo to be legitimately used beyond the confines of medical studies? It would be tricky, I know, but it does seem a pity that only fictional doctors ever do it.
The link is to an interesting story on the placebo effect, and in particular how it is a large part of the complementary medicine story.
It does seem odd that an effect that is known to be quite powerful cannot really be used by doctors due to ethical/legal issues. (This didn't stop Dr House on the TV show "House" using it last week, though.)
One study is mentioned in the report which I think may have missed at the time:
Four years ago, a big study examined two popular treatments for depression: the herbal remedy St John’s Wort, the antidepressant tablet Zoloft, and a placebo. It revealed, amazingly, that the placebo was more effective than both of them.
Is there any way around the problems of how you could allow placebo to be legitimately used beyond the confines of medical studies? It would be tricky, I know, but it does seem a pity that only fictional doctors ever do it.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
On the Shia/Sunni divide
The Tablet
The link is to a pretty good article in The Tablet talking about the Shia in the Middle East, and what the future may hold. As a summary of who is where, and who holds political power, this paragraph is useful:
Shia beliefs are held by perhaps one in 10 Muslims today - some 140 million people. Only Iran is overwhelmingly Shia, where they form 90 per cent of the population. Across the Persian Gulf, the littoral states with significant proportions of Shia include Kuwait, with 30 per cent of its population, Bahrain with 75 per cent, Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent, Qatar with 16 per cent and the United Arab Emirates with just 6 per cent. Approximately half of all Shia live in the arc beginning in Lebanon, with 45 per cent of its population being Shia, and ranging through Iraq with 60 per cent, Azerbaijan with 75 per cent, Afghanistan with 20 per cent to Pakistan, also with some 20 per cent.
In Syria, the ruling elite is Alawite, a Shia- affiliated group with just 15 per cent of the country's people. Alawite domination has bred deep resentment among many of Syria's Sunni Muslims who constitute 70 per cent of the population. Uprisings by Sunni Islamists in the early 1980s were partly fuelled by this sectarian divide.
The author suggests that (as I had said somewhere in comments before), the invasion of Iraq should logically be only a positive to Iran, due to the empowerment that it gave to Iraqi Shia:
Despite the history of Iraqi nationalism, Arab and Persian mutual suspicion and the legacy of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran is not displeased with the changes in the region and will not want to "rock the boat" irredeemably. Before recent changes, Iran considered itself surrounded by hostile Sunni states: Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the West and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. It would not want to see "anti-Iranian Arab nationalism" championed by Sunnis to emerge as a threat.
But if that is the case, why is it acting so belligerently about the having an un-monitored nuclear enrichment program?
The link is to a pretty good article in The Tablet talking about the Shia in the Middle East, and what the future may hold. As a summary of who is where, and who holds political power, this paragraph is useful:
Shia beliefs are held by perhaps one in 10 Muslims today - some 140 million people. Only Iran is overwhelmingly Shia, where they form 90 per cent of the population. Across the Persian Gulf, the littoral states with significant proportions of Shia include Kuwait, with 30 per cent of its population, Bahrain with 75 per cent, Saudi Arabia with 10 per cent, Qatar with 16 per cent and the United Arab Emirates with just 6 per cent. Approximately half of all Shia live in the arc beginning in Lebanon, with 45 per cent of its population being Shia, and ranging through Iraq with 60 per cent, Azerbaijan with 75 per cent, Afghanistan with 20 per cent to Pakistan, also with some 20 per cent.
In Syria, the ruling elite is Alawite, a Shia- affiliated group with just 15 per cent of the country's people. Alawite domination has bred deep resentment among many of Syria's Sunni Muslims who constitute 70 per cent of the population. Uprisings by Sunni Islamists in the early 1980s were partly fuelled by this sectarian divide.
The author suggests that (as I had said somewhere in comments before), the invasion of Iraq should logically be only a positive to Iran, due to the empowerment that it gave to Iraqi Shia:
Despite the history of Iraqi nationalism, Arab and Persian mutual suspicion and the legacy of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran is not displeased with the changes in the region and will not want to "rock the boat" irredeemably. Before recent changes, Iran considered itself surrounded by hostile Sunni states: Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the West and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. It would not want to see "anti-Iranian Arab nationalism" championed by Sunnis to emerge as a threat.
But if that is the case, why is it acting so belligerently about the having an un-monitored nuclear enrichment program?
The superconducting future
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy
This is a very futuristic sounding idea for a superconducting electricity grid that is cooled by hydrogen. Thus the grid distributes hydrogen as well as electricity. (It is also going to involve new, better designed, nuclear power stations.)
Sounds technically challenging, but still, the future has to start somewhere.
This is a very futuristic sounding idea for a superconducting electricity grid that is cooled by hydrogen. Thus the grid distributes hydrogen as well as electricity. (It is also going to involve new, better designed, nuclear power stations.)
Sounds technically challenging, but still, the future has to start somewhere.
Have spacesuit will travel
New Scientist SPACE - Future spacesuits could heal themselves
The spacesuit would be self-healing because its innermost layer, which provides the spacesuit's airtight seal, is filled with a thick polymer gel. The rubber-like gel is sandwiched between two thin layers of polyurethane so that if a hole forms in these layers, the gel oozes from surrounding areas to plug it. In vacuum chamber tests, the gel healed punctures up to 2 millimetres wide.
Cool.
One other problem for new lunar spacesuits: accounts of the Apollo missions made it clear that a significant problem was the amount of moon dirt that stuck to the suits and got dragged into the Lunar Module. From another article:
The moonwalkers of the 1960s struggled with the fine, powdery dust that covered their spacesuits. Back inside their tiny one-room cabin, it got everywhere-in the machinery, in their eyes, in their throats.
Scott said that moon dust even got in the connectors between the backpack and the spacesuits."You could almost hear them grind after three days," he said. He ranks dust as "the major problem for a long stay."
I assume that for a habitat on the Moon, they will have to devise some decent way of getting fine dirt off the suits so it is not dragged in through the airlock. (The Apollo lunar module did not have an airlock at all, which was a major problem. ) But even with an airlock, seems to me there will still be a problem unless you can use some fluid or cleaning device of some kind to use. Would a really efficient vacuum cleaner work?
UPDATE: by co-incidence, I just found this snippet about the Apollo spacesuits in a Tech Central Station article (it's a review of a book for kids about the Apollo program):
A central theme of Team Moon is that a large number of people -- the 400,000 of the subtitle -- pooled their talents to make the mission happen. These included, for instance, the seamstresses of the spacesuits worn by the astronauts. The suits consisted of 22 layers of materials such as Mylar and neoprene-coated nylon that were stitched and glued together by a team at the company ILC Dover. Team members had a great deal of confidence in the extensively tested suits, but still felt pangs of worry when, as recalled by seamstress Eleanor Foracker, "the guys on the moon started jumping up and down."
The spacesuit would be self-healing because its innermost layer, which provides the spacesuit's airtight seal, is filled with a thick polymer gel. The rubber-like gel is sandwiched between two thin layers of polyurethane so that if a hole forms in these layers, the gel oozes from surrounding areas to plug it. In vacuum chamber tests, the gel healed punctures up to 2 millimetres wide.
Cool.
One other problem for new lunar spacesuits: accounts of the Apollo missions made it clear that a significant problem was the amount of moon dirt that stuck to the suits and got dragged into the Lunar Module. From another article:
The moonwalkers of the 1960s struggled with the fine, powdery dust that covered their spacesuits. Back inside their tiny one-room cabin, it got everywhere-in the machinery, in their eyes, in their throats.
Scott said that moon dust even got in the connectors between the backpack and the spacesuits."You could almost hear them grind after three days," he said. He ranks dust as "the major problem for a long stay."
I assume that for a habitat on the Moon, they will have to devise some decent way of getting fine dirt off the suits so it is not dragged in through the airlock. (The Apollo lunar module did not have an airlock at all, which was a major problem. ) But even with an airlock, seems to me there will still be a problem unless you can use some fluid or cleaning device of some kind to use. Would a really efficient vacuum cleaner work?
UPDATE: by co-incidence, I just found this snippet about the Apollo spacesuits in a Tech Central Station article (it's a review of a book for kids about the Apollo program):
A central theme of Team Moon is that a large number of people -- the 400,000 of the subtitle -- pooled their talents to make the mission happen. These included, for instance, the seamstresses of the spacesuits worn by the astronauts. The suits consisted of 22 layers of materials such as Mylar and neoprene-coated nylon that were stitched and glued together by a team at the company ILC Dover. Team members had a great deal of confidence in the extensively tested suits, but still felt pangs of worry when, as recalled by seamstress Eleanor Foracker, "the guys on the moon started jumping up and down."
Insects displaying common sense
ScienceDaily: Male Praying Mantids Prefer Not To Be Victims Of Sexual Cannibalism
Gotta love a headline like that. From the article:
Lelito and Brown thus varied female hunger and physical orientation in order to assess how male mantids respond to variation in the risk of cannibalism. They found that males responded to greater risk by slowing their approach, increasing courtship behavior, and mounting from a greater – and possibly safer – distance.
"This shows that male mantids actively assess variation in risk and change their behavior to reduce the chance of being cannibalized," explains Brown. "Males are clearly not complicit, and the act of sexual cannibalism in praying mantids is an example of extreme conflict between the sexes."
Good to know.
Gotta love a headline like that. From the article:
Lelito and Brown thus varied female hunger and physical orientation in order to assess how male mantids respond to variation in the risk of cannibalism. They found that males responded to greater risk by slowing their approach, increasing courtship behavior, and mounting from a greater – and possibly safer – distance.
"This shows that male mantids actively assess variation in risk and change their behavior to reduce the chance of being cannibalized," explains Brown. "Males are clearly not complicit, and the act of sexual cannibalism in praying mantids is an example of extreme conflict between the sexes."
Good to know.
My suggestion for the Iranian problem
With regards to Iran and its nuclear program, I wonder whether the use of an electro magnetic pulse via either a nuclear explosion or a conventional "electronic bomb" has been discussed in Washington. It doesn't seem clear how far advanced the US is with non nuclear e-bombs, but there is a lengthy Australian article about them here. A short New Scientist article is here.
Last year, the US Senate thought about the possible consequences of a nuclear EMP attack from Iran on the United States, and some right wing Christian websites made much of it for a time (possibly that was all a beat up).
But I can't find anywhere yet that has discussed an attack in the opposite direction. Using such weapons against Iran as a first attempt to dissuade from the nuclear research would have many advantages. A nuclear EMP attack seems too big; by the sounds of it, if done at high enough altitude (which basically means in space) the effects on the power grid could extend well into neighbouring countries. If done at night, the giant glowing cloud in the sky shoud have considerable psychological impact though.
OK, first attempt could be by non nuclear e-bombs, which (as far as I can tell) detonate high above the targets and are largely non lethal on the ground (unless you use a pace maker, perhaps). It would seem that non nuclear ones would have a much narrower affected area.
The hope would be to fry all of the electronic equipment in the labs, and the power supply to them, without ruining the entire country's power supply. If such bombs can be delivered by cruise missiles, so much the better. If Iran laughs that off, then how about a really small nuclear one not too high over a desert area?
I trust no one from Iran reads this blog.
UPDATE: just to clarify, when I talk of a small nuclear one over a desert area, I am talking at high-ish altitude for the purpose of demonstrating EMP. I am not suggesting a nuclear strike on the ground. The nuclear EMP that is talked about most often, the Starfish Prime test in 1962, was well out into space, and didn't do satellites much good either. The Wikipedia entry on this is really good. Another Wikipedia entry talks about other high altitude tests in the 1960's - I didn't realise that so much had gone on at the time. Another long entry on EMP from nuclear devices is here. Seems the lowest altitude mentioned is about 40km, well below earth orbit.
Anyway, obviously a nuclear explosion anywhere in the atmosphere is not going to go over well with the Greenies or the UN. Also, it seems that the effectiveness of any EMP attack (non nuclear or nuclear) is going to be very hard to judge for the attacking country. (Especially if you are attacking underground facilities.) I wonder if that is the biggest disadvantage they have?
All interesting stuff for armchair generals to think about in any case.
Last year, the US Senate thought about the possible consequences of a nuclear EMP attack from Iran on the United States, and some right wing Christian websites made much of it for a time (possibly that was all a beat up).
But I can't find anywhere yet that has discussed an attack in the opposite direction. Using such weapons against Iran as a first attempt to dissuade from the nuclear research would have many advantages. A nuclear EMP attack seems too big; by the sounds of it, if done at high enough altitude (which basically means in space) the effects on the power grid could extend well into neighbouring countries. If done at night, the giant glowing cloud in the sky shoud have considerable psychological impact though.
OK, first attempt could be by non nuclear e-bombs, which (as far as I can tell) detonate high above the targets and are largely non lethal on the ground (unless you use a pace maker, perhaps). It would seem that non nuclear ones would have a much narrower affected area.
The hope would be to fry all of the electronic equipment in the labs, and the power supply to them, without ruining the entire country's power supply. If such bombs can be delivered by cruise missiles, so much the better. If Iran laughs that off, then how about a really small nuclear one not too high over a desert area?
I trust no one from Iran reads this blog.
UPDATE: just to clarify, when I talk of a small nuclear one over a desert area, I am talking at high-ish altitude for the purpose of demonstrating EMP. I am not suggesting a nuclear strike on the ground. The nuclear EMP that is talked about most often, the Starfish Prime test in 1962, was well out into space, and didn't do satellites much good either. The Wikipedia entry on this is really good. Another Wikipedia entry talks about other high altitude tests in the 1960's - I didn't realise that so much had gone on at the time. Another long entry on EMP from nuclear devices is here. Seems the lowest altitude mentioned is about 40km, well below earth orbit.
Anyway, obviously a nuclear explosion anywhere in the atmosphere is not going to go over well with the Greenies or the UN. Also, it seems that the effectiveness of any EMP attack (non nuclear or nuclear) is going to be very hard to judge for the attacking country. (Especially if you are attacking underground facilities.) I wonder if that is the biggest disadvantage they have?
All interesting stuff for armchair generals to think about in any case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)