November 21, 2011
Linkage: Space
So with the holidays coming on and stuff I don't know how much time I will have to spend writing stuff other than essays and answers to algebra and stuff*. But I don't want you to be left bereft of blogger wisdom (variable definition of 'wisdom' in use here) so I'll just post a bunch of links that I use. These people are usually smarter than me anyhow.
November 18, 2011
November 17, 2011
Long Road
I like Bad Astronomy. It's a great site, with tons of great stuff on it. Phil Plait kept mentioning Jennifer Oullette and her blog, Cocktail Party Physics. So I decided to check it out. It's also a great read, full of interesting stuff. It turns out that Jennifer was the editor of this years Open Laboratory anthology series this year. These collections, hosted by Scientific American's The Network Central blog, are a compilation of all the years best science writing on the internet. Which is itself pretty neat. You should definitely read some of the essays, articles, and blog posts they have listed. But that's not why I'm writing. I clicked over to TNC blog to see what other sorts of stuff they do, which is basically compile a list of current SciAm blogs for the week. On one of those posts I ran across Anna Kuchment's blog, Budding Scientist, and her post "Ask Bryan Greene Anything".
This is actually a short post, with only ten questions. But they're good ones! I especially enjoyed Greene's responses to questions five and six. He makes a good point about how our teaching methods fail to give the big picture of science, and how this effects people perceptions of what is usually portrayed as a bunch of esoteric factoids. Definitely worth a read!
PS I hope Discover doesn't get pissed at Phil for keying people into Scientific American's blog ring. I for one think both magazines are great. I read both, I enjoy both, and I'm glad that both exist. So no conflict of interest, as I'm interested in both.
This is actually a short post, with only ten questions. But they're good ones! I especially enjoyed Greene's responses to questions five and six. He makes a good point about how our teaching methods fail to give the big picture of science, and how this effects people perceptions of what is usually portrayed as a bunch of esoteric factoids. Definitely worth a read!
 |
| Phil Plait's last slide at TAM 6. Image via Wikipedia |
PPS Full Disclosure: Actually, deep down, I kinda hope they do get pissed, and use this post as an example, because then I might get to meet Phil, which would be freaking awesome. I don't think he'd agree.
November 07, 2011
November 06, 2011
Reiteration
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/is-this-nasa-document-saving-or-killing-manned-private-spaceflight-6518496
It strikes me that it is exactly this type of oversight and micromanagement that private corporations are supposed to alleviate NASA from. SpaceX and Boeing certainly don't like it. Of course, this issue will come down to the nitty gritty details of the CCIDC. Depending on what NASA actually has planned, this may make some sense. Flying cargo up on an independent vehicle is one thing, sending people up is something else entirely. More intricate requirements, which already seem taken care of (SpaceX launch abort), and keeping a closer eye on the development of human rated vehicles may simply be prudent.
It strikes me that it is exactly this type of oversight and micromanagement that private corporations are supposed to alleviate NASA from. SpaceX and Boeing certainly don't like it. Of course, this issue will come down to the nitty gritty details of the CCIDC. Depending on what NASA actually has planned, this may make some sense. Flying cargo up on an independent vehicle is one thing, sending people up is something else entirely. More intricate requirements, which already seem taken care of (SpaceX launch abort), and keeping a closer eye on the development of human rated vehicles may simply be prudent.
October 14, 2011
English Essay 2 - Cosmos
I wrote this for my English class, just turned it in today. Which means that I can now post it!
Cosmos has been one of the most enduring and popular series on television. Premiering in 1980, the 13 episode series was hosted by astronomer Carl Sagan, who also wrote the series along with his wife Anne Druyan and their partner Steven Soter. In a break from previous science television shows, Cosmos did not limit itself to just one area of study. The breadth of the show goes from the tiniest particles then known to the largest scale structures of the universe. But at no point does the series lose its sense of humanity, and that is I think what has made the series consistently relevant. We are shown the wonders of the universe, and rather than being alien and remote these awe inspiring wonders are intricately linked to the deepest parts of ourselves.
Cosmos spoke to your heart. Its opening image is of a vast star field with ethereal music drifting out of your speakers. The series begins with a man and his imaginings as he ponders science, humanity, and the universe. This show was Carl Sagan's vision. He showed us all how he saw the world. He took such a joy in existence, and was so good at explaining it, that you couldn't help but feel as he did about this universe we inhabit.
Carl Sagan was the perfect host for this show. He was calm, intelligent, and personable. He saw beauty in everything, and he could communicate that beauty to you with ease. Though most famous for this show, and quite accomplished in astronomy, he was most prolific as a writer. I for one don't mind that at all. He wrote beautifully, eloquently; powerfully. He wrote with a clarity that could leave you breathless. He explained scientific principles with such passion that you were automatically enthralled. His compassion for individual people could be heartbreaking. Richard Dawkins has said that science is the poetry of reality. If that's true, then Sagan was its poet laureate.
But the show was about more than the simple eloquence of a man. It was about the wonder and beauty of the world, and our place within it. The first five minutes of the very first show exemplifies this. Standing on a cliff by the ocean, he tells us of the immensity of the cosmos. Interweaved within this he extols our accomplishments over the past few millennia, he expounds upon what humans have done. He shows us that the universe is vast, and that we are just a small part of it. He tells us of our potential and our danger. He puts us into the cosmos, connecting us, small as we are, to the largest concepts possible. We are, as he was fond of saying, made of star stuff.
Each episode takes the form of travelers' tales, short stories interwoven and interrelated. Each on its own insufficient to be compelling, but in combination they are complex and subtle and powerful. Each small bit complements all the rest. He begins on the shore of an ocean, comparing the vastness of the cosmos to the vastness of the sea. Like the sea, the stars are where we came from. The atoms and molecules that we are all made of were themselves made in the fiery heart of a dying star. There is a sense of returning home, both to the ocean and to space. Through this episode he documents our curiosity, our drive to understand, and our courage. He forms a compelling argument that not only is exploration built into the very fabric of Humanity, but that we are capable of truly becoming an interstellar species.
In the second and third episode he starts using the metaphor of music. He starts by applying it to biology, and the possibility of life on other worlds. He compares it to singing, that we are but one voice in a cosmic fugue. He continues with this metaphor when he investigates our obsession with finding the cycles and harmonies of nature. He walks the path from astrology and farming to keeping a calendar and the cycle of life and death. He shows how these ideas were applied to early astronomy. He discusses the 'harmony of the spheres' and how we gradually learned more about our solar system. This culminates in the story of Johannes Kepler.
Kepler was an astronomer who for years struggled to find a way to understand the movement of the planets using platonic solids. The way he saw the world, the way he was taught to see the world, relied heavily on ancient Greek scholars. Like Pythagoras, Kepler assumed there were whole number harmonies throughout nature. He used the five Platonic solids as his basis for astronomical geometry, and applied Pythagorean ideas to their motion. We learn of his struggle with these ideas. We watch as he spends years doing calculation after calculation, none of which work. We also watch as he throws out all his preconceptions, and we learn about the insight that finally let him understand what was going on. His work laid the foundations of all modern astronomy, and this was only possible once he was willing to admit he was wrong.
In Cosmos we are taken on journeys into the past. We learn of our history, and the history of science. Scientific ideas are not often created and proven in one generation. Democritus, we learn, was trying to prove that we are made of atoms over two thousand years ago. It wasn't until the sixteenth century that we saw mountains on the moon and the clouds of Jupiter. We have sought to understand gravity for millennia, electricity for centuries, genetics for generations, and ourselves for ever. To tell these stories we must understand not just the facts, but the context. We have to know the people and the world they lived in. We have to follow the growth of an idea, sometimes for thousands of years. This is not an easy task, but Sagan was a master story teller.
I have touched on just one story that Sagan tells us in this series. There are many more. In each one,Cosmos made use of some new technology: Computer graphics. Sagan does not use such technological wizardry gratuitously, but artfully. When he uses a model of the Library of Alexandria as a digital backdrop it feels entirely appropriate. Though the issues he is talking about at that point are quite diverse, they all have a connection with the Library. Looking at it now, it is obvious that Sagan was digitally dropped into a shot of a model. To be honest, the scene may have been more realistic if they had used a painted backdrop. But with a digital image you can pan and zoom, change angles and walk through doorways. You can't do that with canvas. It's these options that make the use of digital technology the right choice. Whether it's a scenic library background or the information of the mind portrayed as great shelves of books, the use of digital is not gratuitous. The visual metaphor perfectly complements the verbal.
They are however, late seventies computer graphics. They aren't, given the standards of today, that good. But we can get a measure of how good they once were by examining the documentaries that have followed. Earlier documentaries were bland. They were appropriate for school use, and given the alternative (black and white textbooks) were certainly appreciated. But they were not emotionally compelling. We learned about science sure, but we didn't learn anything about why scientists become scientists. Some, like Wild Kingdom, were excellent. Most, however, featured a middle aged balding man with a monotonous voice who was usually holding something sciency. But after Cosmos that changed. Graphics were used much more extensively. The hosts were expecting to have at least some personality. The BBC started producing a variety of series on science that incorporated ideas from Cosmos. This legacy continues today with such films as Wonders of the Solar System andThrough the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. Even we yanks have gotten into the act, courtesy of Discovery channel, History Channel, and Family Guy. Well, more the first two than the last. But Seth McFarlane is producing the next completely new series of Cosmos, premiering on Fox in 2013, which is just plain old fashioned exciting. I wonder if Peter Griffin will be the host. I hope not, but still, that would be amusing.
Cosmos has been translated into over forty languages, broadcast in sixty countries, has been re-mastered, re-edited, updated and re-updated at least a dozen times. It continues be cited as inspiration by some of our top scientists, as well as have consistently high ratings when re-broadcast. The show is so enduring because of its strength of vision. Sagan artfully balanced factual data and human spirit in his stories. He was awestruck by the cosmos and that there are such creatures as we to observe it. His demeanor, his speech, his thoughts and the images he brought forth all tie into each other, are connected to each other. They weave together into an intricate tapestry, an epic tale greater than anything you can imagine.
Cosmos has been one of the most enduring and popular series on television. Premiering in 1980, the 13 episode series was hosted by astronomer Carl Sagan, who also wrote the series along with his wife Anne Druyan and their partner Steven Soter. In a break from previous science television shows, Cosmos did not limit itself to just one area of study. The breadth of the show goes from the tiniest particles then known to the largest scale structures of the universe. But at no point does the series lose its sense of humanity, and that is I think what has made the series consistently relevant. We are shown the wonders of the universe, and rather than being alien and remote these awe inspiring wonders are intricately linked to the deepest parts of ourselves.
Cosmos spoke to your heart. Its opening image is of a vast star field with ethereal music drifting out of your speakers. The series begins with a man and his imaginings as he ponders science, humanity, and the universe. This show was Carl Sagan's vision. He showed us all how he saw the world. He took such a joy in existence, and was so good at explaining it, that you couldn't help but feel as he did about this universe we inhabit.
Carl Sagan was the perfect host for this show. He was calm, intelligent, and personable. He saw beauty in everything, and he could communicate that beauty to you with ease. Though most famous for this show, and quite accomplished in astronomy, he was most prolific as a writer. I for one don't mind that at all. He wrote beautifully, eloquently; powerfully. He wrote with a clarity that could leave you breathless. He explained scientific principles with such passion that you were automatically enthralled. His compassion for individual people could be heartbreaking. Richard Dawkins has said that science is the poetry of reality. If that's true, then Sagan was its poet laureate.
But the show was about more than the simple eloquence of a man. It was about the wonder and beauty of the world, and our place within it. The first five minutes of the very first show exemplifies this. Standing on a cliff by the ocean, he tells us of the immensity of the cosmos. Interweaved within this he extols our accomplishments over the past few millennia, he expounds upon what humans have done. He shows us that the universe is vast, and that we are just a small part of it. He tells us of our potential and our danger. He puts us into the cosmos, connecting us, small as we are, to the largest concepts possible. We are, as he was fond of saying, made of star stuff.
Each episode takes the form of travelers' tales, short stories interwoven and interrelated. Each on its own insufficient to be compelling, but in combination they are complex and subtle and powerful. Each small bit complements all the rest. He begins on the shore of an ocean, comparing the vastness of the cosmos to the vastness of the sea. Like the sea, the stars are where we came from. The atoms and molecules that we are all made of were themselves made in the fiery heart of a dying star. There is a sense of returning home, both to the ocean and to space. Through this episode he documents our curiosity, our drive to understand, and our courage. He forms a compelling argument that not only is exploration built into the very fabric of Humanity, but that we are capable of truly becoming an interstellar species.
In the second and third episode he starts using the metaphor of music. He starts by applying it to biology, and the possibility of life on other worlds. He compares it to singing, that we are but one voice in a cosmic fugue. He continues with this metaphor when he investigates our obsession with finding the cycles and harmonies of nature. He walks the path from astrology and farming to keeping a calendar and the cycle of life and death. He shows how these ideas were applied to early astronomy. He discusses the 'harmony of the spheres' and how we gradually learned more about our solar system. This culminates in the story of Johannes Kepler.
Kepler was an astronomer who for years struggled to find a way to understand the movement of the planets using platonic solids. The way he saw the world, the way he was taught to see the world, relied heavily on ancient Greek scholars. Like Pythagoras, Kepler assumed there were whole number harmonies throughout nature. He used the five Platonic solids as his basis for astronomical geometry, and applied Pythagorean ideas to their motion. We learn of his struggle with these ideas. We watch as he spends years doing calculation after calculation, none of which work. We also watch as he throws out all his preconceptions, and we learn about the insight that finally let him understand what was going on. His work laid the foundations of all modern astronomy, and this was only possible once he was willing to admit he was wrong.
In Cosmos we are taken on journeys into the past. We learn of our history, and the history of science. Scientific ideas are not often created and proven in one generation. Democritus, we learn, was trying to prove that we are made of atoms over two thousand years ago. It wasn't until the sixteenth century that we saw mountains on the moon and the clouds of Jupiter. We have sought to understand gravity for millennia, electricity for centuries, genetics for generations, and ourselves for ever. To tell these stories we must understand not just the facts, but the context. We have to know the people and the world they lived in. We have to follow the growth of an idea, sometimes for thousands of years. This is not an easy task, but Sagan was a master story teller.
I have touched on just one story that Sagan tells us in this series. There are many more. In each one,Cosmos made use of some new technology: Computer graphics. Sagan does not use such technological wizardry gratuitously, but artfully. When he uses a model of the Library of Alexandria as a digital backdrop it feels entirely appropriate. Though the issues he is talking about at that point are quite diverse, they all have a connection with the Library. Looking at it now, it is obvious that Sagan was digitally dropped into a shot of a model. To be honest, the scene may have been more realistic if they had used a painted backdrop. But with a digital image you can pan and zoom, change angles and walk through doorways. You can't do that with canvas. It's these options that make the use of digital technology the right choice. Whether it's a scenic library background or the information of the mind portrayed as great shelves of books, the use of digital is not gratuitous. The visual metaphor perfectly complements the verbal.
They are however, late seventies computer graphics. They aren't, given the standards of today, that good. But we can get a measure of how good they once were by examining the documentaries that have followed. Earlier documentaries were bland. They were appropriate for school use, and given the alternative (black and white textbooks) were certainly appreciated. But they were not emotionally compelling. We learned about science sure, but we didn't learn anything about why scientists become scientists. Some, like Wild Kingdom, were excellent. Most, however, featured a middle aged balding man with a monotonous voice who was usually holding something sciency. But after Cosmos that changed. Graphics were used much more extensively. The hosts were expecting to have at least some personality. The BBC started producing a variety of series on science that incorporated ideas from Cosmos. This legacy continues today with such films as Wonders of the Solar System andThrough the wormhole with Morgan Freeman. Even we yanks have gotten into the act, courtesy of Discovery channel, History Channel, and Family Guy. Well, more the first two than the last. But Seth McFarlane is producing the next completely new series of Cosmos, premiering on Fox in 2013, which is just plain old fashioned exciting. I wonder if Peter Griffin will be the host. I hope not, but still, that would be amusing.
Cosmos has been translated into over forty languages, broadcast in sixty countries, has been re-mastered, re-edited, updated and re-updated at least a dozen times. It continues be cited as inspiration by some of our top scientists, as well as have consistently high ratings when re-broadcast. The show is so enduring because of its strength of vision. Sagan artfully balanced factual data and human spirit in his stories. He was awestruck by the cosmos and that there are such creatures as we to observe it. His demeanor, his speech, his thoughts and the images he brought forth all tie into each other, are connected to each other. They weave together into an intricate tapestry, an epic tale greater than anything you can imagine.
"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the cosmos stir us - there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."
-Carl Sagan
July 31, 2011
Poll by IBOPE Zogby indicates the majority of voters support space exploration
According
to a new poll by IBOPE
Zogby, most people disagree with ending the shuttle and agree with the idea
of a public/private partnership in space. Now that caught my attention. You
see, the shuttle was intended as a low Earth orbit transport vehicle. Private
companies are trying to do exactly that. By shutting down the shuttle we open
the market to private companies.
However,
that's not space exploration, that's space utilization. I think that closing
down the shuttle not only fosters the growth of the private space market, but
it also frees up resources that can be devoted to true space exploration.
Furthermore, once the market has become established, scientific research can be
funded primarily by national institutions. Those institutions can purchase
flights on private rockets instead of requiring a LEO vehicle paid for by
another national organization. This will help improve access to space for
smaller organizations, such as universities.
So, while
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding the shuttle and private enterprise,
I am glad to see that there is general support of the space program.
However,
I'm not sure I like the poll itself. It was short, and the questions weren't
always easily answerable. The first question asked if you agreed or disagreed
with the decision to end the shuttle. The initial decision was made by Pres.
Bush, and Obama decided to continue that decision when he took office.
Secondly, the conditions under which each decision was made differ from each
other. By clarifying which decision was meant would help clarify peoples
thoughts on the matter.
 Image via Wikipedia |
| Map of countries with human spaceflight capability (dark blue) |
The third
question asked whether future space exploration should be conducted by NASA or
private companies. There was no distinction made between LEO and GEO
utilization and being the first group to pioneer a new horizon. Getting junk
into space (and hopefully soon, back out of space) is different from first
sending people to Mars or an asteroid.
The fourth
and final question wondered whether people were concerned that other nations
might surpass us in space. The question should have been broken into two parts.
First, ask if you think that other nations will surpass us. Then ask if another
nation surpassing us would concern you.
I do not
think that this poll offers an accurate, in depth view on what people think of
space exploration. It's questions do not provide insightful answers, and they
do not address all the relevant issues. The poll lacks in clear definitions of
terms. Overall, however, the poll's questions do quite well in posing the
question: Should we be exploring space? As the sample size is fairly large, and
somewhat representative, it seems clear that the majority of the public
supports exploring space. But a more nuanced understanding is impossible with
this poll.
July 14, 2011
Prophesy in a song lyric
You know that song? You hear it all the time, in commercials and movies. It's got the line, "Money money money money, money!" You know the one I'm talking about right? Do you know the title? I didn't use to, but it got brought up in conversation today and none of us could figure out what the title is or who did it. Happily, there exists Google. It turns out that the song was recorded by a sixties soul trio called the O'Jays, named after Cleveland DJ Eddy O'Jay. They had a number of hits, some from when there were five members, such as "Lonely Drifter", and some from when they became a trio, such as "For the love of Money" and "Love Train". Hey! They also did "Love Train"! That's neat. But that wasn't the song I was looking for. It had something to do with money, that's for sure, but I'm a little deficient in further details. I know! Song lyrics search engines! Yes! I found the song title! And even better, the video for the song was embedded, right on the page! So I could verify that the song lyrics I was reading actually belonged to the song that I was thinking of on one web site. Neat. And the title of this song about the perils of money and greed, as recorded by the O'Jays? For the love of money. And the name of the album? Backstabbers. Frickin' genius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)