History – Australian Science

The Great Race of Mercy

Charles Ebikeme — Mon, 27 May 2013 00:17:37 +0000

“How the boy said, ‘mama, I’m going to die,’ and how she knew enough to say, ‘no you aren’t honey, no you never will.’ How this boy could only stare back at his father and mother and why they lied.

test
The post The Great Race of Mercy appeared first on Australian Science.

Tasting colours and seeing sound: Synaesthesia

Lauren — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:30:18 +0000

Kandinsky: “Composition 8”

“One hears a sound but recollects a hue, invisible the hands that touch your heartstrings,

Cite this article:
Fuge L (2012-11-07 00:30:18). Tasting colours and seeing sound: Synaesthesia. Australian Science. Retrieved: Apr 29, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/history/tasting-colours-and-seeing-sound-synaesthesia/
test
The post Tasting colours and seeing sound: Synaesthesia appeared first on Australian Science.

The astronauts who put the USA on the moon

Kevin Orrman-Rossiter — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:19:52 +0000

The Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 into an elliptical low Earth orbit on October 4, 1957. This surprise precipitated the space age and triggered the space race. The success ushered in new technological, political, military, and scientific developments.

On April 12, 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first person in history to leave the Earth’s atmosphere and venture into space. His flight aboard a Soviet Vostok rocket lasted 108 minutes, at the end of it he had ignited the manned space race.

Who were men who responded to these Soviet firsts, launching America into space and then onto the moon?

NASA selected the first US astronauts, the Original Seven (also referred to as the Mercury Seven and Astronaut Group 1), on April 9, 1959. This was the only astronaut group with members who flew on all classes of NASA manned orbital spacecraft of the 20th century — Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space Shuttle.

The Mercury Seven stand in front of a F-106 Delta Dart. Photo credit NASA.

The original seven were Alan B Shepard Jr, Virgil I “Gus” Grissom, John Herschel Glenn Jr, M Scott Carpenter, Walter M “Wally” Schirra, Leroy Gordon Cooper Jr, and Donald K “Deke” Slayton.

The first American launched into space was Alan Shepard, followed by Gus Grissom. Their ballistic flights were followed by orbital flights by John Glenn then Scott Carpenter, each managing three orbits. Wally Schirra made six orbits and Gordon Cooper completed the Mercury project with 22 orbits. Cooper was the first American travelling in space for over a day and the last American to be launched solo into Earth orbit. Deke Slayton, was grounded in 1962 due to a heart arrhythmia, but reinstated in 1972 and flew on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975.

The New Nine. Back row: See, McDivitt, Lovell, White, & Stafford. Front row: Conrad, Borman, Armstrong, & Young. Photo credit NASA.

With the announcement of the Gemini program and planning of the Apollo program a second group of astronauts were selected by NASA and announced on September 17, 1962. The New Nine augmented the original Mercury 7. While the original seven had been selected to accomplish the simpler task of orbital flight, the new challenges of rendezvous and lunar landing led to the selection of candidates with advanced engineering degrees (for four of the New Nine) as well as test pilot experience.

This illustrious group became the first group with civilian test pilots in the group; Neil A Armstrong, first man on the moon and Elliott M See Jr, killed in a plane crash four months before he was due to pilot Gemini 9. Two of this group, Charles Conrad Jr and James A Lovell Jr, had been candidates for the original seven, but were not selected then for medical reasons. In addition, the group was Frank F Borman Jr, James A McDivitt, Thomas P Stafford, Edward H White II, and John W Young.

NASA announced the third group of astronauts, the “Apollo fourteen” in October 1963. Four (Charles A Bassett II, Roger B Chaffee, Theodore C Freeman, and Clifton C Williams Jr) died in training accidents before they could fly in space. Chaffee was killed along with Grissom and White in the Apollo 1 fire. All of the surviving ten (Edwin E “Buzz” Aldrin Jr, William A Anders, Alan A Bean, Eugene A Cernan, Michael Collins, R Walter Cunningham, Donn F Eisele, Richard F Gordon Jr, Russell “Rusty” L Schwiekart, and David R Scott) flew in the Apollo program; five (Aldrin, Cernan, Collins, Gordon, and Scott) also flew Gemini missions. Aldrin, Bean, Cernan and Scott walked on the Moon.

The Fourteen (seated, left to right) Aldrin, Anders, Bassett, Bean, Cernan, and Chaffee. Standing (left to right) are Collins, Cunninham, Eisele, Freeman, Gordon, Schweickart, Scott and Williams. Photo credit NASA.

Group 3 was the first group to include candidates with no test pilot background. They are the only ones of the first 19 NASA astronaut groups to have no members at all fly on the Space Shuttle.

The fourth group of astronauts, the Scientists, selected by NASA in June 1965, came as a rude shock to the existing astronauts. While the astronauts of the previous three groups were required to have college and some advanced degrees, they were chosen for their test pilot expertise. The six members of this group, on the other hand, were chosen for their research and academic backgrounds. Doctorate degrees were required and minimum flight time requirements were waived for this group.

Scientist-Astronauts: Front row, L-R: Michel, Schmitt, and Kerwin. Back row, L-R: Garriot, and Gibson. Photo credit NASA.

This group included the science poster boy, Harrison H Schmitt, a geologist, the only scientist to walk on the Moon. Owen K Garriott, Edward G Gibson and Joseph P Kerwin all flew to Skylab. Garriott also flew on the Space Shuttle. While Duane E Graveline and F Curtis Michel left NASA without flying in space.

John Young labelled the next astronaut group, selected by NASA in April 1966, the “Original Nineteen” in parody of the original seven Mercury astronauts. Of the six Lunar Module Pilots that walked on the Moon, three came from this group (Charles M Duke Jr, James B Irwin, and Edward D Mitchell). This group is also distinctive in being the only time when NASA hired a person into the astronaut corps who had already earned astronaut wings, X-15 pilot Joseph “Joe” H Engle.

The Original Nineteen. Photo credit NASA.

The group as a whole is roughly split between the half who flew Apollo (Duke, Ronald E Evans Jr, Fred W Haise Jr, Irwin, T Kenneth Mattingly II, Mitchell, Stuart A Roosa, John Swigert Jr, and Alfred M Worden) and the other half who flew Skylab and Shuttle (Vance D Brand, Gerald P Carr, Engle, Don L Lind, Jack R Lousma, Bruce McCandless II, William R Pogue, and Paul J Weitz) providing the core of Shuttle Commanders early in that program. John S Bull resigned from the program for medical reasons, whilst Edward G Givens Jr died in a car crash after being support crew for Apollo 7.

The final group of this era, the second group of scientist-astronauts, were appointed by NASA on August 11, 1967. They were labelled the “excess Eleven” with only five, including the first Australian born astronaut Philip Chapman, given formal assignments in the Apollo Program, and these were all non-flying. These were: Joseph P Allen, Chapman, Anthony W England, Karl G Henize, and Robert A R Parker. Chapman resigned from NASA in July 1972 due to lack of space-flight opportunities. Three others, Donald L Holmquest, Anthony A Llewellyn, and Brian T O’Leary resigned earlier from the group for various reasons.

The Excess Eleven civilian scientists. Seated at the table, L to R: Chapman, Parker, Thornton, and Llewellyn. Standing, L to R: Allen, Henize, England, Holmquest, Musgrave, Lenoir, and O'Leary. Photo credit NASA.

Assignments for the group were delayed by the requirement to spend a full year to become qualified as jet pilots (as were the Group 4 scientists before them). This requirement for scientists to be trained as jet pilots was eventually lifted with the creation of the Mission Specialist position in the Shuttle Program. The seven members (Allan, England, Henize, William “Bill” Lenoir, Story Musgrave, Parker, and William E Thornton) of Group 6 who stayed with the program after Apollo went on to form the core of Shuttle Mission Specialists, accomplishing a total of 15 flights.

This chart organizes each NASA astronaut group by order of their assignment to fly. Codes as explained in the legend illustrate each person's skills and accomplishments. Image credit: Tdadamemd

In all 66 men became NASA astronauts during this first era of manned space exploration. No women were included – although there was an unofficial group called the First Lady Astronaut Trainees– not being jet test pilots there were ineligible to become astronauts.

Was this a “boys’ own adventure”? Was this a period of great social upheaval in the USA? Did this era cement in the US politicians and public the image of supremacy and isolationism in space endeavors? Yes, is the answer to all three questions.

There are a myriad of stories from these groups’ exploits. These stories have a contemporary relevance as we reach an era of: new commercial space opportunities (leisure, exploration and mining), new entrants (China and India), and find the US and Europe hampered by self-imposed budget challenges and hurdles.

Cite this article:
Orrman-Rossiter K (2012-10-31 00:19:52). The astronauts who put the USA on the moon. Australian Science. Retrieved: Apr 29, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/history/the-astronauts-who-put-the-usa-on-the-moon/
test
The post The astronauts who put the USA on the moon appeared first on Australian Science.

Panique au village: the revolution that caused an epidemic

Charles Ebikeme — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:16:20 +0000

It boasts, struts, and flaunts with that kind of assurance that only comes from the mentality of knowing that you are right, and that even if you may be wrong, others will admire you for it. This is Paris.

Where other cities flowed and spilled out to occupy a space larger than its originality, Paris said enough is enough and contained itself. To this day only the “arrondissements

Cite this article:
Ebikeme C (2012-10-23 00:16:20). Panique au village: the revolution that caused an epidemic. Australian Science. Retrieved: Apr 29, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/health/panique-au-village-the-revolution-that-caused-an-epidemic/
test
The post Panique au village: the revolution that caused an epidemic appeared first on Australian Science.

Alien encounters and the man from Grenada

Charles Ebikeme — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:45:16 +0000

The month of August indeed belonged to the tiny rover that could — Curiosity. We were all hooked right from the landing and until those first images of the red planet were beamed back. Not even Will.i.am could spoil it for us. We revelled in everything in between, from the missed high-fives, peanuts, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s conversation with the rover, to — yes, unfortunately — Will.i.am’s new single being broadcast from the surface. Curiosity even spawned this generation’s cultural hallmark that is the fake twitter account. If there is any one milestone that denotes you’ve reached a certain level of cultural status… it’s the fake twitter account. From Mrs Rupert Murdoch to dead literary figures, the fake twiteratti are just as important as the real ones.

In an odd roundabout way, all of this got me thinking about a bizarre event that happened in 1977.

The United Nations debating such topics as aliens and extra-terrestrial encounters of any kind seems like something confined to the annals of science fiction. And yet, the most significant debate any international body has had on the prospect of alien encounter happened at the 32nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, for reasons unbeknown to me and probably many at the committee.

Member nations and delegations convened at the 32nd session of the General Assembly to listen to the man from Grenada, Sir Eric M. Gairy, the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of Grenada (evidently taking his title to its farthest logic conclusion — what could be more external than space?).

He began with a reading from the Bible — Psalm 100, then launching into an engaging speech that touched on freedom and independence of nations, human rights, wars and conﬂicts. It quickly took on another flavour. The smallest nation in the UN (at the time) had centre stage and was determined to make the most of it. Mr. Gairy began to speak of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) with the same unabashed enthusiasm he was getting a reputation for.

He concluded by recommending that not only the UN take it seriously but they should set up a department to study UFOs. The UN already had a space outfit — the Of

test
The post Alien encounters and the man from Grenada appeared first on Australian Science.

The Mathematics of War

Markus — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:35:04 +0000

Scientists often exercise a certain detachment when doing their work. I’ve often seem friends and colleagues get “lost in the numbers” and forget precisely what it is they’re looking at and what those numbers actually mean. However, in some cases this may not be a bad thing. For instance, in the analysis of conflict data.

Putting aside any personal reactions and moral implications of what you’re really looking at may not be easy for everyone, but analysis of conflict data is important in predicting the behaviour of wars and potentially minimising risks and harm in the future. Technology is marching on, and as a result the amount of data being collected from war zones is huge. With the state of social media, internet resources like Twitter and Facebook have proven to be valuable sources of information, providing a quick way to share information with people trapped in the middle of troubled areas – a remarkably significant use which I’m sure no one could have ever predicted when these services originally started up. The problem for researchers lies in how exactly to use that data. Constructing a model of how a conflict will unfold and making predictions from it may be vital in stopping things from escalating out of control. Unfortunately, such predictions aren’t easily made.

The idea that the movements of masses of people could be predicted is not a new one. In fact, in his typically insightful manner, the idea was first devised by Isaac Asimov who created the fictional science of psychohistory, featured in his 1951 novel Foundation. Asimov’s ideas weren’t without firm basis in reality, and while the details may be different, it seems like the concept of psychohistory may not be quite so fictional after all.

Predicting the Afghan War Diaries

The Afghan National Army at Kabul Military Training Centre (2009)

Between then, a group of researchers based in Edinburgh and Sheffield in the UK and New York decided to try a different approach. They noted that most of the data analysed previously didn’t go beyond simply visualising what had been seen and recorded. Actual predictions had proved too challenging, not least because it hadn’t been clear how to actually model the data available.

This group of researchers, led by Guido Sanguinetti, constructed a set of methods to use statistical dynamic modelling to make predictions on conflicts such as the recent war in Afghanistan. They needed to look at the times and locations, as well as how information was transported from place to place. They decided that the best way to analyse how a conflict unfolded was to treat it the way other researchers model environmental events and the spread of infectious diseases. In many ways, these events proceed in ways very similar to outbreaks of violence during conflicts.

In this case though, Sanguinetti and his colleagues had an ace up their sleeve. Courtesy of the now infamous whistleblowers at WikiLeaks, a huge disclosure of US military logs from the Afghan conflict had been made in 2010. Known as the Afghan War Diary, this set of records drew a lot of attention internationally on its release and also served to be the ideal way of testing the effectiveness of any predictions. Essentially, Sanguinetti and the others could use their models to make predictions on the conflict and then check against the released reports to see how accurate they’d been.

Conflict climates

Remarkably, based entirely on written reports between 2004 and 2009, they were able to predict with impressive accuracy, what events would occur in 2010. In short, using nothing but some clever mathematics, the researchers could tell what would likely happen next. Where conflicts would increase in intensity and where things would remain quiet. And this isn’t even a comprehensive model yet. There are many adjustments which can still be made to improve the accuracy still further. Even accounting for sudden changes, like the dramatic increase of US forces in Afghanistan in 2010, the predictions remained accurate. Evidently, events will continue unabated despite any large military offensives which may be taking place.

The war in Afghanistan has not been of the traditional type between two armies. Instead, the conflict there has been irregular, involving a huge number of loosely connected groups. This may be the reason why a relatively simple model works so well in predicting the behaviour of those groups – where and when violence would escalate. This sort of behaviour is typically the sort that large scale armies have trouble in countering due to the lack of any centralised organisation. Mathematically speaking, it genuinely becomes a lot like trying to predict the weather.

To me, this kind of work offers some hope in resolving serious conflicts as quickly as possible. Being a pacifist myself, I abhor violence of any kind, and the ability to predict and avoid any serious bloodshed is certainly a good thing. Whatever your feelings on it, the ability to predict violence in conflict situations the same way meteorologists predict the weather has some potentially very useful possibilities.

A visualisation of the increasing number of events recorded in the Afghan War Diaries (A) compared with predictions of events occurring (B-F).

Cite this article:
Hammonds M (2012-08-30 00:35:04). The Mathematics of War. Australian Science. Retrieved: Apr 29, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/news/the-mathematics-of-war/
test
The post The Mathematics of War appeared first on Australian Science.

Neil Armstrong’s speech in Sydney 24 August 2011

Alan Kerlin — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:21:44 +0000

UPDATE: Regrettably, the CPA engaged lawyers to threaten me with everything they could think of if I didn’t pull the recording (below). So pull it I have. Please feel free to pass on any feelings about this to them. At least for the time it was available, about 500 people got to hear the great man’s words. All is not lost though. I have a contact in the US who is friends with one of the family. When the time is right, I hope she will be able to raise the issue with him. Too soon right now of course.

On 20 July 1969, my entire school in the very young city of Canberra packed into the hall to watch Neil Armstrong step onto the Moon. The school’s only television set was tiny, and my only real memories of that historic day were black and white blobs on the television screen, and teachers constantly shushing all the children.

But I did witness the event, and it is one of the earliest endures memories I have from my childhood – certainly the earliest world event I can recall. As an inspiration, the Moon landings – this first one, and all the others that followed – laid the foundation for an education in science.

On 24 August 2011, Neil Armstrong delivered a very rare and unique speech in Sydney. And it was to rekindle in me an interest in science and space exploration that had laid essentially dormant for many years.

Neil Armstrong delivering his speech in Sydney, 20 August 2011

Somewhat curiously, the event was the 125th Anniversary of the Certified Practising Accountants Australia. The CPA’s CEO Alex Malley pulled off a real coup, based on the knowledge that Armstrong’s father Steven had been an auditor.

Courtesy of my wife being a CPA, I was privileged to attend that incredible event with her. I recorded the entire speech, plus about one hour of questions and answers after that, but I was only using a cheap point-and-shoot camera, picking up the sound through the PA system. I haven’t published it beforehand though, not wanted to circumvent any speaking tours he might undertake.

However, one year and one day following that event, the man who inspired so many of us has passed away, following complications stemming from heart surgery he had a couple of weeks ago. So I feel there’s now a responsibility to get his words out there for everyone.

The speech is about 42 minutes. It doesn’t include the questions and answers – I’ll post that as soon as can get get the editing done.

CPA Australia also published an extended interview with Armstrong. The introduction to that interview contained these prophetic words:

“Rarely, if ever again, will Neil Armstrong conduct an interview such as this.”

Nor a speech like this one…

A sad sad day.

Cite this article:
Kerlin A (2012-08-26 15:21:44). Neil Armstrong's speech in Sydney 24 August 2011. Australian Science. Retrieved: Apr 29, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/history/neil-armstrongs-speech-in-sydney-24-august-2011/
test
The post Neil Armstrong’s speech in Sydney 24 August 2011 appeared first on Australian Science.

Science and Faith

Kelly Burnes — Thu, 17 May 2012 07:15:46 +0000

If I let go a hammer on a planet having a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has, in fact, fallen. – Spock, “Court Martial,” Star Trek, stardate 2948.9.

I recently viewed the film Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. Dr. Jones, (brilliantly played by Ewan McGregor), has been ordered by the Ministry of Fisheries to undertake this farfetched project of introducing salmon into the Yemen River, wholeheartedly, or be out of a job. Dr. Jones reluctantly agrees but continuously ridicules this idea based on his years of research and meticulous study of salmon. He casts doubt every chance he gets that this project will actually work. And what we actually have here is a case of policy dictating science; in the name of a heartfelt, goodwill story meant to assuage the voting public’s uneasiness with the war. (A totally different issue of debate, which I will not touch on here.) It’s not until Dr. Jones meets Sheikh Muhammed, a deeply spiritual man of faith that he begins to open up to another way of thinking, one that defies all his principles of scientific reasoning. And he embraces that this plan just might work, with farmed salmon no less. But what causes the radical reversal of the scientist’s viewpoint from staunch biological reasoning to faith that this project might actually be possible?

Science and religion have had something of a love-hate relationship, intertwined for centuries and often at direct odds with each other. Popes and bishops issued condemnations and accused some great scientific minds of heresy in the Middle Ages. The work of Galileo, Conrad Gessner and Charles Darwin also come to mind, having caused quite a ruckus of controversy in their day. And well Darwin may always be at odds with some folks.

From my own experience growing up Catholic and pursuing biology and chemistry in college, I found it difficult to compartmentalize science and religion. But there have been and still are a few scientists out there who can separate their scientific beliefs from their religious practice. Copernicus was a Catholic clergyman; Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian friar; and Georges Lemaitre, who first proposed the Big Bang Theory, a Belgian priest. They seemed to have been able to separate their work from their spiritual beliefs. Perhaps they had truly find enlightenment? Or maybe that’s exactly what it is; just a spiritual belief, for right or wrong, that has nothing to do with science.

As with most conflicts, it seems that the bitter clashes between science and religion arose primarily due to a different interpretation over the definition of ‘science’. Secular philosophers considered science in the sense of natural science; while theologians took the view that all science is based on demonstrations – according to the St. Thomas Aquinas viewpoint. The shift toward science becoming the top dog, so to speak, over religion seems to have occurred as Europe and North America experienced greater secularization. The political power and influence of the church relating to scientific research has gradually decreased. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are”. I will leave it up to the reader to ponder that and agree or disagree.

But let’s explore the concept of faith for a moment. The word faith is thought to date back to the early 13th century, around the time of some budding scientific discoveries. Formally, faith is a belief in one or more gods or in the doctrines of religion. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikh, Hinduism, Islam – all of these religions have some concept of faith stationed at the root of their core beliefs. Informally, it can mean a trust or belief without proof, a hope. And this is where the criticism starts, over this very definition of faith, and how it can seem at odds with science.

Critics argue that faith is opposed to reason, while advocates argue that faith addresses questions that cannot be settled by evidence. The evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins stated, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

test
The post Science and Faith appeared first on Australian Science.