Category Archives: Moon Colonization

District of Muskoka Logo. (Courtesy of District of Muskoka)

The District of Muskoka has revamped its strategy to work more closely with Indigenous Peoples.

The Strengthening Indigenous Municipal Relationships Strategy 2.0 was approved by District Council at its August meeting. According to Tina Kilbourne, team lead for the districts Continuous Improvement Unit, the previous version of the strategy established both a formal land acknowledgement statement, as well as the Muskoka Area Indigenous Leadership Table.

Kilbourne says that through the table, the district consults on municipal matters with the Wahta Mohawks, Moose Deer Point, Chippewas of Rama, Georgina Island, Wasauksing, and Huron-Wendat First Nations, as well as the Moon River Mtis Council. Kilbourne says the District does not have active participation from Chippewas of Beausoleil First Nation, but that theyre working on it.

Another shortfall the new strategy is meant to address is the lack of representation for Indigenous People who do not live on a reservation.

Right now at the leadership table we have all the Nations at the table, but what we arent representing is the urban Indigenous or off-reserve Indigenous voice, says Kilbourne. We thought the best way to do that would be to establish a Muskoka Indigenous Alliance, have people from that attend our leadership table, and then wed be capturing all the voices.

Kilbourne says Parry Sound-Muskoka MP Scott Aitchison and MPP Norm Miller have also been invited to sit at the leadership table to strengthen relationships at all levels of government with First Nations. Since Indigenous elections often do not coincide with municipal, provincial, federal elections, or each other, she says work will need to be done to make sure the table continues beyond the term of its current membership.

Other parts of the revamped strategy include:

See the article here:
District working to improve Indigenous relations - My Muskoka Now

While humans have long thought of gods living in the sky, the idea of space travel or humans living in space dates to at least 1610 after the invention of the telescope when German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote to Italian astronomer Galileo: Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travellers, maps of the celestial bodies.

In popular culture, space travel dates back to at least the mid-1600s when Cyrano de Bergerac first wrote of traveling to space in a rocket. Space fantasies flourished after Jules Vernes From Earth to the Moon was published in 1865, and again when RKO Pictures released a film adaptation, A Trip to the Moon, in 1902. Dreams of space settlement hit a zenith in the 1950s with Walt Disney productions such as Man and the Moon, and science fiction novels including Ray Bradburys The Martian Chronicles (1950).

Fueling popular imagination at the time was the American space race with Russia, amid which NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was formed in the United States on July 29, 1958, when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. After the Russians put the first person, Yuri Gagarin, in space on Apr. 12, 1961, NASA put the first people, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on the Moon in July 1969. What was science fiction began to look more like possibility. Over the next six decades, NASA would launch space stations, land rovers on Mars, and orbit Pluto and Jupiter, among other accomplishments. NASAs ongoing Artemis program, launched by President Trump in 2017, intends to return humans to the Moon, landing the first woman on the lunar surface, by 2024.

As of June 17, 2021, three countries had space programs with human space flight capabilities: China, Russia, and the United States. Indias planned human space flights have been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, but they may launch in 2023. However, NASA ended its space shuttle program in 2011 when the shuttle Atlantis landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21. NASA astronauts going into space afterward rode along with Russians until 2020 when SpaceX took over and first launched NASA astronauts into space on Apr. 23, 2021. SpaceX is a commercial space travel business owned by Elon Musk that has ignited commercial space travel enthusiasm and the idea of space tourism. Richard Bransons Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos Blue Origin have generated similar excitement.

Richard Branson launched himself, two pilots, and three mission specialists into space from New Mexico for a 90-minute flight on the Virgin Galactic Unity 22 mission on July 11, 2021. The flight marked the first time that passengers, rather than astronauts, went into space.

Jeff Bezos followed on July 20, 2021, accompanied by his brother, Mark, and both the oldest and youngest people to go to space: 82-year-old Wally Funk, a female pilot who tested with NASA in the 1960s but never flew, and Oliver Daemen, an 18-year-old student from the Netherlands. The fully automated, unpiloted Blue Origin New Shepard rocket launched on the 52nd anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing and was named after Alan Shepard, who was the first American to travel into space on May 5, 1961.

The International Space Station has been continuously occupied by groups of six astronauts since Nov. 2000, for a total of 243 astronauts from 19 countries as of May 13, 2021. Astronauts spend an average of 182 days (about six months) aboard the ISS. As of Feb. 2020, Russian Valery Polyakov had spent the longest continuous time in space (437.7 days in 1994-1995 on space station Mir), followed by Russian Sergei Avdeyev (379.6 days in 1998-1999 on Mir), Russians Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov (365 days in 1987-1988 on Mir), Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly (340.4 days in 2015-2016 on Mir and ISS respectively) and American Christina Koch (328 days in 2019-20 in ISS).

In a 2018 poll, 50% of Americans believed space tourism will be routine for ordinary people by 2068. 32% believed long-term habitable space colonies will be built by 2068. But 58% said they were definitely or probably not interested in going to space. And the majority (63%) stated NASAs top priority should be monitoring Earths climate, while only 18% said sending astronauts to Mars should be the highest priority and only 13% would prioritize sending astronauts to the Moon.

The most common ideas for space colonization include: settling Earths Moon, building on Mars, and constructing free-floating space stations.

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, stated, I think there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multi-planetary, in order to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen, in which case being poor or having a disease would be irrelevant, because humanity would be extinct. It would be like, Good news, the problems of poverty and disease have been solved, but the bad news is there arent any humans left. I think we have a duty to maintain the light of consciousness, to make sure it continues into the future.

According to some philosophies, humans are the only beings capable of morality, and, thus, preserving humanity is the highest moral imperative. Following from that premise, Brian Patrick Green, Director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, concluded, Because space settlement gives humankind the opportunity to significantly raise the chances of survival for our species, it is therefore a moral imperative to settle space as quickly as possible.

Some theorists, including Gonzalo Munevar, PhD, interdisciplinary Professor Emeritus at Lawrence Technological University, believe colonizing space will increase clean energy on Earth, provide access to the solar systems resources, and increase knowledge of space and Earth. The benefits to humanity created by the resources and knowledge create a moral obligation to colonize space.

Sheri Wells-Jensen, PhD, Associate Professor of English at Bowling Green State University, argues that the moral imperative goes even further than simple preservation: [W]e have a moral obligation to improve: that is, to colonize yes, but to do it better: to actively unthink systems of oppression that we know exist. To spread ourselves without thought or care would probably result in failure: more planets spiraling toward global warming or space settlements filled with social unrest.

Fred Kennedy, PhD, President of Momentus, a space transportation company, explained, Ill assert that a fundamental truth repeatedly borne out by history is that expanding, outwardly-focused civilizations are far less likely to turn on themselves, and far more likely to expend their fecundity on growing habitations, conducting important research and creating wealth for their citizens. A civilization that turns away from discovery and growth stagnates. Kennedy pointed out that while humans still have problems to resolve on Earth including civil rights violations and wealth inequality, Forgoing opportunities to expand our presence into the cosmos to achieve better outcomes here at home hasnt eliminated these scourges. We shouldnt avoid exploring space based on the false dichotomy of fixing Earthly problems first.

Humans are not a species of stagnation. Jeff Bezos, Founder of Amazon.com who traveled to space in 2021, asserted that exploring space would result in expanded human genius: The solar system can easily support a trillion humans. And if we had a trillion humans, we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts and unlimited, for all practical purposes, resources and solar power unlimited for all practical purposes.

Space, in particular, is connected to exploration and growth in the human imagination. In 2014 Elon Musk stated, Its obvious that space is deeply ingrained in the American psyche SpaceX is only 12 years old now. Between now and 2040, the companys lifespan will have tripled. If we have linear improvement in technology, as opposed to logarithmic, then we should have a significant base on Mars, perhaps with thousands or tens of thousands of people.

While Earth is experiencing devastating climate change effects that should be addressed, Earth will be habitable for at least 150 million years, if not over a billion years, based on current predictive models. Humans have time to explore and colonize space at the same time as we mend the effects of climate change on Earth.

Brian Patrick Green stated, Furthermore, we have to realize that solving Earths environmental problems is extremely difficult and so will take a very long time. And we can do this while also pursuing colonization.

Jeff Bezos suggested that we move all heavy industry off Earth and then zone Earth for residences and light industry only. Doing so could reverse some of the effects of climate change while colonizing space.

Munevar also suggested something similar in more detail: In the shorter term, a strong human presence throughout the solar system will be able to prevent catastrophes on Earth by, for example, deflecting asteroids on a collision course with us. This would also help preserve the rest of terrestrial life presumably something the critics would approve of. But eventually, we should be able to construct space colonies [structures in free space rather than on a planet or moon], which could house millions. These colonies would be positioned to construct massive solar power satellites to provide clean power to the Earth, as well as set up industries that on Earth create much environmental damage. Far from messing up environments that exist now, we would be creating them, with extraordinary attention to environmental sustainability.

Space Ecologist Joe Mascaro, PhD, summarized, To save the Earth, we have to go to Mars. Mascaro argues that expanding technology to go to Mars will help solve problems on Earth: The challenge of colonising Mars shares remarkable DNA with the challenges we face here on Earth. Living on Mars will require mastery of recycling matter and water, producing food from barren and arid soil, generating carbon-free nuclear and solar energy, building advanced batteries and materials, and extracting and storing carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide and doing it all at once. The dreamers, thinkers and explorers who decide to go to Mars will, by necessity, fuel unprecedented lateral innovations [that will solve problems on Earth].

Briony Horgan, PhD, Assistant Professor of Planetary Science at Purdue University, explained that terraforming Mars is way beyond any kind of technology were going to have any time soon.

In one widely promoted plan, Mars needs to first be warmed to closer to Earths average temperature (from -60 C/-76 F to 15 C/59 F), which will take approximately 100 years. Then the planet must be made to produce oxygen so humans and other mammals can breathe, which will take about 100,000 years or more. And those two steps can only be taken once Mars is thoroughly investigated for water, carbon dioxide, and nitrates.

A 2018 NASA study concluded that, based on the levels of CO2 found on Mars, the above plan is not feasible. Lead author Bruce Jakosky, PhD, Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, stated, terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology.

If a workable solution were found and implemented, a project of that magnitude would cost billions, perhaps trillions.

Billionaire Elon Musk explained that the SpaceX Mars colonization project would need one million people to pay $200,000 each just to move to and colonize Mars, which doesnt include the costs incurred before humans left Earth. Returning to the Moon would have cost an estimated $104 billion in 2005 (about $133 billion in 2019 dollars), or almost 7 times NASAs entire 2019 budget.

But, a person has yet to set foot on Mars, and no space station has been built on another planet or natural satellite.

Further, as Linda Billings, PhD, Research Professor at George Washington University, noted, all life on Earth evolved to live in Earth conditions If humans cant figure out how to adapt to, or arrest, changing conditions on Earth then I cant see how humans could figure out how to adapt to a totally alien environment.

If humans have the technology, knowledge, and ability to transform an uninhabitable planet, moon, or other place in space into an appealing home for humans, then surely we have the technology, knowledge, and ability to fix the problems weve created on Earth.

Lori Marino, PhD, Founder and Executive Director of the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy, asserted, [W]e are not capable of enacting a successful colonization of another planet. The fact that we have destroyed our home planet is prima facie evidence of this assertion. It is sheer hubris to even consider the question of whether we should go or not go as if we are deciding which movie to see this weekend because we really are not in a position to make that choice What objective person would hire humanity to colonize a virgin planet, given its abysmal past performance in caring for the Earths ecosystem (overpopulation, climate change, mass extinctions)?

Some assert that leaving Earth in shambles proves we are not ready to colonize space in terms of cultural, social, or moral infrastructure, regardless of technological advancements.

John Traphagan, PhD, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, argued, Colonization has the odor of running away from the problems weve created here; if we do that, we will simply bring those problems with us. We need a major change in how we think about what it means to be humanwe need to stop seeing our species as special and start seeing it as part of a collection of species. In my view, as long as we bring the [idea] of human exceptionalism with us to other worlds, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes we have made here.

As novelist Andy Weir explained, The problem is that you still dont want to send humans to the moon. You want to send robots. Humans are soft and squishy and they die. Robots are hard and nobody gets upset when they die.

Bioethicist George Dvorsky summarized the hostile nature of Mars: The Red Planet is a cold, dead place, with an atmosphere about 100 times thinner than Earths. The paltry amount of air that does exist on Mars is primarily composed of noxious carbon dioxide, which does little to protect the surface from the Suns harmful rays. Air pressure on Mars is very low; at 600 Pascals, its only about 0.6 percent that of Earth. You might as well be exposed to the vacuum of space, resulting in a severe form of the bendsincluding ruptured lungs, dangerously swollen skin and body tissue, and ultimately death. The thin atmosphere also means that heat cannot be retained at the surface. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees Fahrenheit (-63 degrees Celsius), with temperatures dropping as low as -195 degrees F (-126 degrees C).

Meanwhile, lunar dust is made of shards of silica and cuts like glass. The dust clung to the space suits of Apollo astronauts, scratching their visors and getting in their eyes and throats, which could result in bronchitis or cancer. And the radiation on the Moon is about 200 times higher than on Earth, in addition to other problems colonizing the Moon would cause humans.

Humans would have a host of illnesses to deal with due to climate differences on Mars or the Moon: cancer, radiation illnesses, reproductive problems (or sterility), muscle degeneration, bone loss, skin burns, cardiovascular disease, depression, boredom, an inability to concentrate, high blood pressure, immune disorders, metabolic disorders, visual disorders, balance and sensorimotor problems, structural changes in the brain, nausea, dizziness, weakness, cognitive decline, and altered gene function, among others. Astronauts who have spent just a year in space have demonstrated irreversible health problems.

Humans havent even attempted to live in Antarctica or under Earths seas, which have many fewer challenges for human bodies, so why would humans want to live on a planet or on the Moon thats likely to kill them fairly immediately?

Discussion Questions

1. Should humans colonize space? Why or why not?

2. If humans were to colonize space, where should we start: Mars, Earths Moon, or another celestial body? And what should be done on that body: residences, industrialization, or another purpose? Explain your answer(s).

3. If humans were to colonize space, how could life on Earth change? And would these changes be good or bad? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action

1. Analyze Christopher Schabergs position that Were Already Colonizing Mars.

2. Consider the language used to talk about humans living in space with Bill Nye.

3. Explore George Dvorskys position that Humans Will Never Colonize Mars.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the other side of the issue now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.

Sources

Go here to read the rest:
Space Colonization - Top 3 Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

Its been 52 years now! 20th July 1969! A memorable day for humanity. On that day, two people represented the whole world in breaking the boundaries of Earth and started an era of explorations beyond Earth by stepping on the hitherto unexplored soil of Earths nearest neighbour in the cosmos, the Moon.

It was not only a story of technological excellence and competency, but also a tale of the human minds eternal quest for the unknown and our intention for going beyond our natural habitat, our environment to conquer distant alien worlds. It was 8:17 p.m. on 20th July, that Eagle, the Lunar Lander of the Apollo 11 mission touched down on the Moon. Soon after Neil Armstrong stepped onto the soil of Moon. Edwin Aldrin followed and for two and half hours they ventured, moved and performed experiments on the Lunar surface. It must have been quite an exciting and thrilling experience for them. Much more unique than their extensive training on simulated lunar environments and landscapes on Earth. They were part of the Apollo 11 Mission, now a subject of every science textbook around the world. On their module named Eagle, they landed and later safely returned back to the orbiting module named Columbia, where another astronaut, Michael Collins waited for them. Rest is history. Throughout the world people were enthralled with the scratchy images of Neil Armstrong climbing down the stairs of the spacecraft, jumping gently onto the Moon. His first statement will remain forever a poignant utterance oft-quoted by multitudes of people thereafter for motivating further conquest of space.

Thats one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. A statement probably made in the excitement of a successful landing on the Moon, but with a profound effect on generations of space scientists all over the world.

It was the beginning of an era of increasingly more technologically advanced missions to the Moon. From 1969 to 1972 six Apollo missions successfully landed on the Moon. Altogether 12 astronauts stepped onto the moon and carried out complex manoeuvres trying to get as much information possible from the lunar surface, atmosphere, interiors and the possibility of the presence of water molecules.

The Mission to Moon started in earnest when Soviet Russia sent numerous spacecraft to the Moon, some to orbit, some to land under the Luna Programme. Luna 1 had the first successful flyby. Luna 2 crashed into the moon. Luna 3, in 1959, orbited the moon and sent the first close up pictures of the moons surface and far side. Russia continued with their lunar programme by sending almost regularly different spacecraft. Some were successful in sending us data that earlier nobody was aware of, but at other times their missions were failures.

One has to remember that the prevalent period was also of tremendous international conflict, mistrust and competition. The Cold War was raging. The USA and its allies were up against arms with Soviet Russia and the Soviet Block countries to prove their excellence in financial, defence, science, technology and global powerplay. The initial success of Soviet Russia in reaching the Moon galvanized the Western Block, especially America. It was the American President, John F. Kennedy who wanted to create a masterstroke for his nation and in 1961 made it a national goal to land an astronaut on the moon and return them safely to Earth within a decade! It was a tall order, given the level of preparedness and prevalent technological efficiency of NASA which was established only in 1958. Mostly to compete with Russia and to win the race of supremacy in space science, NASA had its Mercury and Gemini Programmes to test the possibility of a manned mission to the Moon and return safely to Earth. These projects and their partial successes along with the interest of the scientists, political leaders and general public paved the way for the ambitious Apollo Programme, which in today's money, had a budget of about $225 billion! It seemed that the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 was instrumental in strengthening the resolve of American technocrats and the scientific community to proceed at a breakneck speed and win the race to the Moon thereby partly winning the imaginary Superpower Challenge between the USSR and USA.

The purpose of the Apollo missions (1963 -72) was to achieve the goal of landing an astronaut on the moon and bringing them back to Earth safely. The first Apollo mission (Apollo 1) ended in a disaster where 3 astronauts died in a fire during a flight pre-test.

The next manned mission was Apollo 7. Apollo 7 spent more time in space than all the Soviet space flights combined up to that time. Apollo 8 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after travelling over 800,000 Km. and orbiting the moon ten times. Apollo 9 was the first manned flight in Earth's orbit and the first manned flight of the lunar module. This flight paved the way for Apollo 10, which was the first to travel to the moon with the entire Apollo configuration.

Apollo 11 started its journey from the Kennedy Space Flight centre on 16th July 1969 on a Saturn V rocket and ultimately the lunar lander slowly settled on the moon on July 20, at around 20:17 UT (IST: July 21, 1:47 hrs.) Commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin formed the American crew that landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle. Armstrong became the first person to step onto the lunar surface six hours and 39 minutes later on July 21 at 02:56 UT (IST: 8:26 hrs). Aldrin joined him 19 minutes later. They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft and collected around 20 Kg. of lunar rock to bring back to Earth. Command module pilot Michael Collins flew the Columbia orbiter alone in lunar orbit while they were on the Moon's surface. Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface, at a site named Tranquility Base at the Sea of Tranquility ( Sea basically meant plain land on the surface of the Moon), before lifting off to re-join Columbia in lunar orbit. They returned to Earth on 24 July, 1969 after the 8 days travel and crashed onto the Pacific Ocean from where they were collected.

The next three years saw the successful landing of five more spacecraft named Apollo 12-17. Apollo 13 could not land because the crew faced a crisis when the oxygen tank on the service module leaked and they had to come back to earth just orbiting the Moon in a loop. It was a high drama of how they survived the ordeal, which was later made into a popular movie released in 1995 of the same name.

Then there was a pause in Moon missions. That probably started a rumour that the Americans have not at all landed on Moon and staged the whole event in a well-orchestrated make-believe movie set on the Earth itself. Initially, the rumour may have been fuelled by the fierce competition between the superpowers and an effort to demean the tremendous achievement. But later on, the conspiracy theory caught on and reached every corner of the Earth. NASA and other scientific bodies have categorically and repeatedly refuted the conspiracy claim by proper explanations and information.

But, the question remained. Why did space agencies lose interest in Moon? The conspiracy theorists had a field day. But truly speaking, the scientific community was continuously gaining more knowledge about our cosmic neighbour through a stream of space crafts which mostly circled the moon, but some of them landed and sent back data and even in one case some samples as well.

In the past, our interest in space and the moon in particular was driven primarily by scientific curiosity and an interest in trying to understand the past, present and future of the moon. Numerous missions helped the scientists to gather a volume of data about its surface composition, environment and other physical parameters. It slowly dawned onto the global space community that huge deposits of minerals andthepresence of water ice can open up enormous possibilities for the future. The Voyages of Discovery gave way to Voyages of Profit!

The hint of the presence of water ice at the permanently shadowed polar regions and discoveries of hydroxyl ion on the surface material, called regolith, fuelled the imagination and aspirations of the scientific community to create a base on the moon as a precursor of starting off a human colony in the future. It was considered profitable to extract the mineral and other chemical deposits. Especially, two factors galvanized the dream of further manned moon missions. One definitely was the presence of water, albeit in solid form. Water separated into hydrogen and oxygen can be tremendously helpful for any space activities and further colonization of the Moon. The oxygen can be used to create an artificial bio-sphere to make habitable zones and use hydrogen and oxygen to refuel spacecraft on their return journey to Earth. In this context, one should note that it was Chandrayaan 1 which for the first time definitively identified hydroxyl ions in the lunar surface by first smashing an impactor in a controlled manner on November 14, 2008, and showing the presence of the molecule in the ejecta of the impact. It also showed through a specific instrument called Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), fabricated in collaboration with NASA and Brown University, the presence of about 600 million tonnes of water ice in the polar region of the moon. These discoveries generated enthusiasm in scientists to explore the Moon in a much intensive way.

The second important aspect of further moon explorations and human presence is the existence of a magic element called Helium-3. A school of scientists believe that the atomic structure of helium-3 promises to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive by-products produced in conventional nuclear reactors. In calculations they have shown that only a few tonnes of Helium 3 can generate enough power for a big country for a year, thereby reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation. But the process is questionable and difficult. Yet, scientists are quite interested to try out the option, and the moon can provide a reservoir of this magical element that is scarcely found on Earth.

Moon can also play another important role in space exploration. Because of lesser gravity than Earth (1/6) rocket lunches can be easier and less fuel consuming. Moon can be used as an interplanetary rocket launching base.

To date more than 100 missions have been sent towards the moon, only half of them achieved success, some partially though. But if one gets into the statistics, till date, 38 orbiters, 21 landers and 11 rovers have successfully operated and fulfilled their moon missions. At present 3 landers and 2 rovers are present on the moon and 4 orbiters are operational and sending huge amounts of data to the Earth.

Staring from the success of Chandrayaan 1 in 2008, India and ISRO have started an exhaustive programme of the further moon and even planetary missions. Chandrayaan 2 launched in 2019 was the next step. Though a large number of people felt disheartened when the communication with the Lander named Vikram along with the Rover, named Pragyan was lost just 2.1 km above the lunar surface during their controlled descent, to the scientific community Chandrayaan, 2 is mostly successful, since it is orbiting the moon as planned and sending back valuable data for better understanding of the moon, paving the way for future human travel and habitation. Chandrayaan 3 is being planned for a launch in possible 2022 or 2023. The pandemic situation has made it difficult to maintain the schedule earlier planned. ISRO in collaboration with the Japanese Space Agency, JAXA is also planning for the Lunar Polar Exploration Mission sometime in late 2024. ISRO will be fabricating the Lander module whereas, JAXA will provide the orbiter and the rover.

A number of Missions to the moon are being planned. The USA is planning for a manned mission in 2025. Russia, China & Japan have shown interest in human travel to the Moon sometime in the 2030s. So, the future is exciting. The Cold war accelerated Voyages of Discovery to the Moon and the new possible Hot War being anticipated by some may dictate heightened activity for reaching out to the Moon again, this time for benefit of the human society. Though the agreement was drafted and implemented by United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs in 1984, stating that the Agreement provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible, it is to be seen how different countries interpret them. Whether the tensions generated at the South China Seas gets replicated in future at the various seas(plain lands) on the moon named as Tranquility, Serenity, Fertility or Crises. 52 years back when Apollo 11 astronauts left the moon and returned to Earth, left a plaque on the moon with the message, We came in Peace for All Mankind. Whether the present human civilization still respects the sentiments in todays world is to be seen.

(Dr. Debiprosad Duari is the Director of Research & Academic at M. P. Birla Planetarium, Kolkata, West Bengal. Views expressed in this article are personal and may not reflect the views of Outlook Magazine.)

See the article here:
52 Years Of Moon Landing: Voyages Of Discovery, Voyages Of Profit - Outlook India

Billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson wears his astronaut's wings after flying with a crew in Virgin Galactic's passenger rocket plane VSS Unity to the edge of space. [Courtesy]

For decades; invention, innovation and technological advancement have been largely tied to State machinery.

In many cases, all the three dimensions have thrived under intelligence and warfare conditions as governments multiply budgets for military and defence ministries adopting the latest technologies.

Throughout history, innovations including ICT technologies have thrived alongside global situations and world wars.

Space exploration and development has over the ages not only thrived amidst conflict but has been tied to the hip with warfare and warfare like conditions.

One, however, has to go back more than 30 years ago to appreciate this dimension of space exploration and interest.

Cold war

To date, space exploration has hit heights albeit with international hostilities, fear, intimidation and even paranoia.

For instance, as per reports, when the former Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States differed on policy in the aftermath of the 1947 Second World War, this set the then president for suspicion, competition and in some instances proxy wars as was the case in Cuba and Vietnam.

Spaceflight capability was also at the centre of this tension which virtually split up the world in two.

In bare-knuckle fashion, both the United States and the USSR battled each other for supremacy high above the rest of us to end with remarkable fetes in space exploration and the accompanying technologies.

The Soviets took a clear head start in the race putting out the first satellite and the first human in outer space with the first satellites including probes to the moon and Venus.

Soviets Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human on a space flight in 1961, this fete would however be eclipsed in July of 1969 when the Apollo 11 mission landed the first humans on the lunar surface.

Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on the bus on the way to the launch of Vostok 1 on April 12, 1961. [Reuters]

Deemed as the single event designating the winner of the space race, the landing of man on the moon brought space exploration to the fore while astronauts like Neil Armstrong became household names as the fight captivated masses in both rival camps.

Earlier on in 1958, US President Dwight Eisenhower signed a public order creating the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA), a key federal agency dedicated to space exploration to this very day.

In 1991, the USSR crumbled to pieces in an internal disintegration, effectively bringing to an end the more than three decades space race and the birth of a softer Russian Federation.

The same moment marked the end of the hay days for space exploration as rivalry turned to collaboration - including the joint development of the International Space Station (ISS).

Years later, space exploration has slowly waned into the background with the US government for instance slashing spending to programs alongside aerospace accidents with catastrophic outcomes and the retirement of the maverick space shuttle.

The slow degeneration of space exploration, however, seems to have reached its ends as the industry sees new impetus.

Billionaire's patch

The new era of space exploration is not characterized by sovereigns and taxpayer-backed funding as the private sector now seeks a piece of the action.

Aerospace manufacturer SpaceX has been one such revelation and its goal revolve around the colonization of Mars in the near term and cost-effectiveness in the development of space technologies.

Founded in 2002 by billionaire Elon Musk, SpaceX is already the front runner in space exploration by private entities beating its closest rivals by miles in the marathon to outer space.

SpaceX has been the first private company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft.

In the most recent, the company has both sent craft and astronauts to the ISS. By going to Mars, Musk says it shall be the furthest that life has travelled.

In March last year, Musk and company market the first crewed launch from the US in more than nine years.

Elon Musk, founder, CEO and lead designer at SpaceX and co-founder of Tesla, speaks at the SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition II in Hawthorne, California, U.S., August 27, 2017. [Reuters]

Today, SpaceX has a 29 billion dollars contract with NASA to develop the first commercial lender which will put the next American astronauts on the moon, including the first woman.

The flight path for SpaceX has, however, experienced turbulence with both the company and Elon Musk going through tough times.

Between 2006 and 2008 for instance, the company marked three failures at rocket launch which put pressure on the company plans.

Musk was forced to split $30 million between SpaceX and his automobile company Tesla before subsequent successful missions and eventual deals from NASA.

More billionaires

Earlier this month, British billionaire Richard Branson became the first person in history to successfully test his spacecraft as he flew close to the end of space.

This coming in just under a fortnight to another billionaires maiden space flight. Unlike SpaceX, Branson and his space exploration company Virgin Galactic have an eye on space tourism with Bransons experience being taunted at the private astronaut experience.

Branson targets to create the first commercial spaceline sub-orbital flights with the flights commencing in 2022.

A ticket for the experience will start from $250,000 or Ksh.27 million in local terms. Just like Musk, Branson has had his moments of adversary including the death of three contractors killed during a test in 2007 and the death of a pilot in 2014 when a Galactic craft broke into parts mid-flight.

Billionaire Jeff Bezos is set to fly out to the edge of space before the end of July on his most secret project Blue Origin.

The company targets passenger flights to space with Bezos being on the inaugural flight. Bezos has mostly funded the project out of pocket to this point.

Amazon and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos addresses the media about the New Shepard rocket booster and Crew Capsule mockup at the 33rd Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States April 5, 2017. [Reuters]

Private money including the three billionaires and more is now set to take centre stage in the exploration of space and will likely determine the pace and efficiency of space exploration.

While many argue space exploration is the burning of stacks of cash that would otherwise be used in resolving earthly; challenges, humans ventures into space will remain a key pillar.

From the feasibility of a second home for man and new commercial opportunities, humankind have more to reap from space than is comprehendible by most.

Already, developments in space satellites have improved the quality of life on earth including the ability to pre-empt weather patterns and high-speed internet connectivity and communication.

If anything, humans are now universal beings with the cosmos being out there for us to reap and conquer.

The near future looks worrying, with everyone going through a global pandemic recession but the new digital technologies and space travel innovations remain an interesting commercial opportunity both for the public and private sectors.

-Chris Diaz, Business leader and Trustee Brand Africa

The rest is here:
Billionaires to the moon - The Standard

ON Sunday, July 11, Richard Branson, the billionaire founder of the Virgin commercial empire, took a ride on a suborbital spaceplane built by one of his companies, Virgin Galactic. The global news media, using completely inappropriate superlatives such as "historic" and "record-breaking" has subsequently spent every day since cramming the story down everyone's throats, and I suspect most people are tired of it. I know I am.

Nevertheless, Richard Branson and his little "spaceship" are an interesting case study in why the world probably deserves an extinction-level meteor impact, and so, the topic is worth a little more examination.

First, the particulars of the flight itself. The vehicle, known as "SpaceShipTwo," with Branson, three other Virgin Galactic employees and two pilots aboard, was lifted to an altitude of about 46,000 feet above its base in New Mexico by a carrier plane dubbed "White Knight Two." The spaceplane then detached and fired its single-rocket motor for 70 seconds to accelerate upward, then coasted to its peak altitude of about 282,700 feet (roughly 53 miles or 86 kilometers) a few minutes later. The plane then descended, taking about 25 minutes to glide to a landing back at its base, which is grandiosely named "Spaceport America."

The flight was only the fourth powered test flight of SpaceShipTwo; an earlier version, SpaceShipOne, successfully flew three times before suffering a mechanical failure and crashing during its fourth flight in 2014. Branson's expressed goal for his program, which has been in development for about 17 years, is to be able to enter the "space tourism" business or, in other words, provide recreational flights for paying passengers who wish to experience a few minutes of weightlessness and see some nice views of the Earth from extremely high altitude.

First of all, there was nothing at all "historic" or "record-breaking" about the flight. Although the Virgin system surely represents a great deal of refinement in the technology, the basic system of launching a rocket-powered plane from a carrier aircraft has existed since the end of World War 2. The concept of "space tourism" is nothing new as well; the first "space tourist" spent a week on the International Space Station in 2001, and there have been others since (at prices of upward of $20 million for the privilege).

And unlike Branson, those forerunners can actually claim to have been to space, whereas the limit of his achievement was to have been "really high up." Although the relatively modest altitude achieved by SpaceShipTwo has sparked something of a debate about where "space" really starts, there is actually a reliable definition: it is called the Karman Line, and it is at an altitude of 100 km or 62 miles; in other words, about 17 kilometers higher than Branson and his fellow passengers traveled. To put it in a more familiar perspective, that would be like traveling from Caloocan to Manila and then going home and telling everyone you visited Las Pias.

Granted, the Karman Line is an arbitrary boundary. What is considered "the edge of space" in a scientific sense may be much higher or somewhat lower, depending on who you ask. There is a specific reason, however, why the 100-km altitude is a valid benchmark. According to the internationally-recognized legal definition of space, based on the principle that space cannot be claimed as territory, the Karman Line marks the ceiling of any country's airspace. Get above that line and you're in space; below it and you're in the territory of whatever country is below you. Thus, Richard Branson didn't go to space; he just went to a really remote part of New Mexico.

Why, then, if Richard's Big Adventure was so unimpressive, have we been compelled to hear so much about it? It is because for his entire career, Richard Branson has been a master of image cultivation and marketing. By crafting a persona of the hip, rebel adventurer - in short, an annoying wanker - he has managed to fool the entire world into assuming he has done innovative things and made billions in the process.

Compared to his contemporaries like Jeff Bezos, who is scheduled to ride his own rocket next week, or Elon Musk, whose SpaceX company has built a fleet of space trucks, Branson is contributing almost nothing to the overall human march to the stars, except for what amounts to a very expensive amusement park ride (tickets for a Virgin Galactic flight will start at something north of $250,000). Bezos and Musk are every bit as annoying as Richard Branson if not more so, but both of their space ventures are long-term programs with real practical aims toward offering broader commercial opportunities in space, space exploration, and even colonization of the Moon and Mars. Naturally, they will make a great deal of money from pursuing those aims, but they are at least potentially contributing to the greater good.

Richard Branson, on the other hand, gets all the rest of us to contribute to Richard Branson, on the basis of his being Richard Branson. As one glaring example, he was able to prevail upon the government of New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the US, to pony up some $220 million in state taxpayer money to build his "Spaceport America," and then let it sit idle for 10 years before finally moving Virgin Galactic's operations there.

It is somewhat impressive that he has been able to make his vacuous, personality-worship business model work to his advantage, but rather than praising him for it, we should blame ourselves for letting him do it at the rest of the world's expense.

[emailprotected]

Twitter: @benkritz

Visit link:
Raise your hand if you're tired of hearing about Richard Branson - The Manila Times

In 2019, 44 percent of older Americans reported playing video games at least once a month. Part of this trend is seen in the rising popularity of game-like brain training programs such as Lumosity (which alone boasts over 75 million users), which promise improvements in memory, attention, and decision-making skills. But are these claims backed up by research?

One early study found effects of working memory training on intelligence, sparking a field of research focused on potential training benefits. After initial promising results, subsequent studies failed to replicate these findings. Often studies find some evidence of near transfer, or a training boost to specific skills, but fail to see far transfer, or benefits to general cognitive performance.

A 2021 study set out to determine the effectiveness of brain training programs in over 8,000 online participants, including 1,000 people who reported being active users of a brain training program. If these programs are as effective as they claim, then these active users should outperform the other participants on tests of memory, verbal ability, and reasoning skills. The participants came from a variety of countries, education levels, genders, and ages, a major strength of this study. The self-reported brain trainers actively used at least one program, and had used programs for anywhere between two weeks and five years.

The researchers found no evidence of an effect of brain training. Active brain trainers did not perform better on any cognitive measure than people who do not use these programs. Furthermore, no effect was found for any demographic group, such as age, education or socioeconomic status, or specific brain training program, further bolstering the conclusion that these programs are not effective.

The researchers found one significant result: people who believed that brain training was effective, regardless of whether they actually used them or not, counterintuitively performed worse on cognitive tests compared to people who didnt believe these programs are effective. Whether or not people believe these games work, they seem to have little benefit to general cognitive function. Play games for enjoyment, not with any expectation of a major cognitive boost.

Read the rest here:
Floods in Germany are the latest wake-up call in the climate crisis - Massive Science

On June 7, Jeff Bezos announced his plan to go to space on July 20just fifteen days afterfinishing up as CEO of Amazon. It was positioned as a bold next step in the billionaire space race that has been escalating for several years, though it didnt take long for its true face to show itself. Soon after Bezos set his date, Virgin Galactic CEO Richard Bransona man known for his marketing stuntsdecided he would try to beat the richest man in the world into orbit and scheduled his own space flight for July 11.

But as these billionaires had their eyes turned to the stars and the media showered them with the headlines they craved, the evidence that the climate of our planet is rapidly changing in a way that is hostile to lifeboth human and otherwisewas escalating.

Near the end of June, Jacobabad, a city of 200,000 people in Pakistan,experienced wet bulb conditionswhere high humidity and scorching temperatures combine to reach a level where the human body can no longer cool itself down. Meanwhile, half a world away, on the West Coast of North America, a heat dome that wasmade much worse by climate changesent temperatures soaring so high that the town of Lytton, British Columbia, hit 49.6C,beating Canadas previous temperature record by 4.6C, thenburned to the groundwhen a wildfire tore through the town.

At a moment when we should be throwing everything we have into ensuring the planet remains habitable, billionaires are treating us to a spectacle to distract us from their quest for continued capitalist accumulation and the disastrous effects it is already having.

The contrast between those stories is striking. On one hand, billionaires are engaging ina dick-measuring contestto see who can exit the atmosphere first, while on the other, the billions of us who will never make any such journey are increasing dealing with the consequences of capitalisms effects on the climateand the decades its most powerful adherents have spent stifling action to curb them.

At a moment when we should be throwing everything we have into ensuring the planet remains habitable, billionaires are treating us to a spectacle to distract us from their quest for continued capitalist accumulation and the disastrous effects it is already having.

Last May, we were treated to a similar display of billionaire space ambition. As people across the United States were marching in the streets after the murder of George Floyd and the government was doing little to stop COVID-19 from sweeping the country,Elon Musk and President Donald Trump met in Floridato celebrate SpaceXs first time launching astronauts to the International Space Station.

As regular people were fighting for their lives, it felt like the elite were living in a completely separate world and had no qualms about showing it. They didnt have to make it to another planet.

Over the past few years, as the billionaire space race has escalated, the public has become increasingly familiar with its grand visions for our future. SpaceXs Elon Musk wants us tocolonize Marsand claims the mission of his space company is to lay the infrastructure to do just that. He wants humanity to be a multiplanetary species, and he claims a Martian colony would be a backup plan in case Earth becomes uninhabitable.

Meanwhile, Bezos doesnt have much time for Mars colonization. Instead, he believes we shouldbuild large structures in Earths orbitwhere the human population can grow to a trillion people without further harming the planets environment. As we live out our lives in ONeill cylinders, as theyre called, well take occasional vacations down to the surface to experience the wonder of the world we once called home.

Neither of these futures are appealing if you look past the billionaires rosy pitch decks. Life on Mars would be horrendous for hundreds of years, at least, and would likelykill many of the people who made the journey, while the technology for massive space colonies doesnt exist and similarly wont be feasible for a long time to come. So, whats the point of promoting these futures in the face of an unprecedented threat to our species here on Earth? Its to get the public on board for a new phase of capitalist accumulation whose benefits will be reaped by those billionaires.

To be clear, that does not even mean anything as grand as asteroid mining. Rather, its form can be seen in the event last May: as Musk and even Trump continued to push the spectacle of Mars for the public, SpaceX was becoming not just a key player in a privatized space industry but also in enabling a military buildup through billions of dollars in government contracts. The grand visions, rocket launches, and spectacles of billionaires leaving the atmosphere are all cover for the real space economy.

While Branson is using the PR stunt for attention, the real competition is between Bezos and Muskand while they do compete with each other, they have significant mutual interest. In 2004, Bezos and Musk met todiscuss their respective visions for space, which led Musk to call Bezoss ideas dumb. As a result of that discussion, they occasionally snipe at each otherexchanges the media eats upbut theyre still working to forward a private space industry from which they both stand to benefit.

The years of competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin over landing platforms, patents, and NASA contracts show what the billionaire space race is really about. The most recent example of this is a$2.9 billion NASA contractawarded to SpaceX to build a moon lander, which Blue Origin and defense contractor Dyneticschallenged. In the aftermath, Congressconsideredincreasing NASAs budget by $10 billion, in part so it could hand a second contract to Blue Origin. But thats hardly the only example of public funding for the ostensibly private space industry.

For all the lauding of private space companies and the space billionaires that champion them, they remain heavily reliant on government money.

A report from Space Angels in 2019estimatedthat $7.2 billion had been handed out to the commercial space industry since 2000, and it specifically called out SpaceX as a company whose early success depended on NASA contracts. Yet private space companies arent just building relationships with the public space agency.

SpaceX won a $149 million contract from the Pentagon to buildmissile-tracking satellites, and two more worth $160 million touse its Falcon 9 rockets. It also won an initial contract of $316 million to providea launch for the Space Forcea contract whose value will likely be worth far more in the futureand its building the military a rocket that willdeliver weapons around the world. On top of all that, SpaceX won$900 million in subsidiesfrom the Federal Communications Commission to provide rural broadband through itsoverhypedStarlink satellites.

For all the lauding of private space companies and the space billionaires that champion them, they remain heavily reliant on government money. This is the real face of the private space industry: billions of dollars in contracts from NASA, the military, and increasingly for telecommunications that are helping companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin control the infrastructure of spaceand its all justified to the public under the promise that its in service of grand visions that are nothing more than marketing ploys.

Part of the reason SpaceX has been so successful at winning these contracts is because Musk is not an inventor but a marketer. He knows how to use PR stunts to get people to pay attention, and that helps him win lucrative contracts. He also knows what thingsnot to emphasize, like the potentially controversial military contracts that dont get tweets or flashy announcement videos. Bezoss trip to space is all aboutembracing spectacle, because he realizes its essential to compete for the attention of the public and the bureaucrats deciding who gets public contracts.

For years, there have been concerns that billionaires space investments are about escaping the climate chaos their class continues to fuel here on Earth. Its the story of Neill BlomkampsElysium: the rich live on a space colony, and the rest of us suffer on a climate-ravaged Earth while being pushed around by robot police as we perform the labor that makes the abundance of the colony possible. But thats not actually the future were headed toward.

As Sim Kern explains, keeping just a few people alive on the International Space Stationtakes a staff of thousandsand it gets harder the farther away people are from the one world we can truly call home. Mars colonies or massive space stations are not happening anytime soon; they wont be a backup plan, nor an escape hatch. As billionaires chase profit in space and boost their egos in the process, theyre also planning for climate apocalypse down here on Earthbuttheyre only planning for themselves.

Just as Musk uses misleading narratives about space to fuel public excitement, he does the same with climate solutions. His portfolio of electric cars, suburban solar installations, and other transport projects are promoted to the public, but they are designed to work bestif not exclusivelyfor the elite. Billionaires are not leaving the planet, theyre insulating themselves from the general public with bulletproof vehicles, battery-powered gated communities, and possibly even exclusive transport tunnels. They have the resources to maintain multiple homes and to have private jets on standby if they need to flee a natural disaster or public outrage.

We desperately need the public to see through the spectacle of the billionaire space race and recognize that theyre not laying the groundwork for a fantastic future, or even advancing scientific knowledge about the universe. Theyre trying to extend our ailing capitalist system, while diverting resources and attention from the most pressing challenge the overwhelming majority of the planet faces. Instead of letting the billionaires keep playing in space, we need to seize the wealth theyve extracted from us and redeploy it to address the climate crisisbefore its too late.

Go here to see the original:
Piiigs iiin Spaaace! - The Real News Network

(Welcome toWhere to Watch, which provides a clear and simple answer to the question, Hey, where can I watch this thing? In this edition: theAlienfranchise.)

TheAlien franchise has a little bit of something for everyone. There are scares, thrills, existential dread, some laughs, and even a little bit of romance. Regardless of what youre looking for, theres anAlien film tailored to your wants.The franchise started in 1979 withAlien, which followed a rag-tag crew of space tuggers who get killed by a nasty alien that gets aboard their ship. From there, the series spawned three sequels, two prequels, and two spinoff movies.The world of xenomorphs and the people who fight them is a fascinating one, so heres where you can catch all the films in this fantastic series.

Where to stream:Amazon Prime

The one that started it all is 1979sAlien,a science-fiction horror film directed by Ridley Scott and written by Dan OBannon. It follows the crew of the commercial space tug Nostromo after they encounter a violent extraterrestrial that gets loose on the ship.Sigourney Weaver stars as Ellen Ripley, the warrant officer aboard the Nostromo. The less you know aboutAlien going in, the better.Alienis a haunted house movie set in a spaceship, its scares coming from what might be lurking around the next corner. Its a moody, terrifying film with incredible set and creature designs from acclaimed Swiss artist H.R. Giger.Everyone should seeAlien at least once, even if the chest-burster sequence ends up giving them nightmares for a week.

Where to stream:Amazon Prime

The second film in the series,Aliens, features less claustrophobic horror and more fist-pumping action. Written and directed byJames Cameron, this 1986 sequel features some of the most iconic moments in the franchise. After losing contact with a colony on the same moon where the Nostromo encountered the killer alien, Lieutenant Ripley (Weaver) agrees to return to check things out. After being the only survivor last time, however, shes eager to bring along some company with big guns. Joined by a crew of colonial marines, she sets out to investigate what happened to the colony and hopefully erase the xenomorph threat once and for all. She also discovers her maternal instincts when the crew finds a lone survivor, a young girl called Newt (Carrie Henn).

The banter among the colonial marines, especiallyBill Paxtons Private Hudson, makesAliens much tonally lighter than its predecessor. Theres also the introduction of the franchises most lovable android, Bishop (Lance Henriksen), who is a far cry from the villainous Ash in the first film.The most iconic scene is the final fight, which sees Ripley geared up in a power-loader exosuit to take on the massive queen alien. Its queen vs. queen in a showdown for the ages.

Where to rent:Redbox ($2.99), Amazon/Apple/YouTube/Vudu ($3.99)

The third installment in theAlien quadrilogy was released to mixed reviews but has since found a cult following. David Finchers decidedly darkerAlien lacked the ghost-house scares of the first film and was nothing like the action blockbuster of the second.

Following the events ofAliens, a xenomorph escapes on Ripleys ship while everyone is in cryostasis. The ship launches its escape pod, though one of the crew has a facehugger alien on them. (We all know how that tends to go) The pod lands on Fury 161, a floating foundry and prison station for prisoners with a YY chromosomal mutation that can cause them to be extra aggressive. Ripley is woken up only to discover that on top of worrying about the killer alien on the loose, she is also the only woman on an entire station full of angry men.Alienis heady sci-fi thatdigs into issues surrounding the prison system, gender dynamics, abortion rights, and personal identity. Its not nearly as fun as either of the previous two films, but it has a lot more to say. It also gives closure to Ripleys arc, and is the film that dives the deepest into her character.

Where to rent:Redbox ($2.99), Amazon/Apple/YouTube/Vudu ($3.99)

Even though it seemed like Ripleys story had come to a close at the end ofAlien,screenwriterJoss Whedon brought her back (as a clone!) forAlien Resurrection in 1997. Weaver returns as Ripley 8, a clone of Ellen Ripley created 200 year after the events ofAlien.A xenomorph queen is removed from the Ripley clone, and the two somehow share DNA with one another. Ripley gains alien-like superpowers:the clone has enhanced strength and reflexes, acidic blood, and a psychic link with the xenomorphs.

A group of mercenaries including the android Call (Winona Ryder) bring kidnapped humans in stasis to the scientists. The scientists use these captive humans as hosts for the aliens, and raise several xenomorphs for study. Then they escape, because they have freaking acid blood that can eat through metal.

Alien Resurrection was directed byJean-Pierre Jeunet, who gained international fame with his comedy Amelie.Its a mess of a movie that feels more like Alien franchise fanfiction than a part of the overall narrative, but it has some decent performances and moments. Watch out forBrad Dourif as a scientist andRon Perlman as one of the mercenaries teamed with Call.

Where to stream:HBO Max

Ridley Scott returns to the franchise he started withPrometheus, set approximately 30 years before the events ofAlien. Scott directs a script byJon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, telling the origin of both humanity and xenomorphs. The movie follows the crew of the exploratory science shipPrometheusas they search a distant moon for signs of humanitys creator. Funded by the Weyland corporation and following a map found painted in caves on earth, the crew hopes to find the origin of all human life. What they find instead is lots of death.

Prometheushas an all-star cast that includes Charlize Theron as Weyland employee Vickers, Idris Elba as the captain of theship, Noomi Rapace as the hopeful scientist Shaw, and Logan Marshall-Green as her scientist husband, Holloway.Michael Fassbender steals the show, however, as the android David. David is one of the first androids created by the Weyland corporation, and he sees Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) as a father. Seeing the origin of androids in the franchise is interesting, given where it goes with the villainous Ash, loyal Bishop, and curious Call.Prometheus ends up becoming Davids story as he tries to find his creators creator. Theres a lot of existential pondering here, but theres also an extended alien C-section sequence that is gory greatness.

Where to rent:Redbox ($2.99), Amazon/Apple/YouTube/Vudu ($3.99)

Prometheusleft a lot of questions unanswered and ended on a cliffhanger, so five years later its sequel,Alien: Covenant,arrived. Alien: Covenant is once again directed by Scott, with a script by John Logan and Dante Harper, from a story by Michael Green and Jack Paglen. Alien: Covenant begins 11 years after the events ofPrometheus, following a colonization ship searching for new planets to inhabit. A solar flare damages the ship and the android Walter, who is a later version of the David build, wakes up the human crew. They decide to follow a transmission of a human voice from a nearby planet, only to discover that the entire planet is void of life.

The reason everythings dead, of course, is because David and Shaw crash-landed their ship there and unleashed a deadly pathogen. Walter and David go head-to-head in the worlds best game of good android, bad android, and we learn that David has been breeding all kinds of new aliens. Ship second-in-command Daniels (Katherine Waterston) must do everything she can to save not only her crew, but all of the colonists still in stasis on the ship.Alien: Covenant ends up being halfAlienmovie, halfandroid existential crisis, and it delivers on both fronts.

Where to stream:HBO Max

There are a lot of Alien franchise fans who dont countAlien vs. Predator or its sequel as part of the franchise, but Im a completionist, so here we are. The idea for a Predator to take on a xenomorph originally appeared in aPredator comic book in 1989. In 2004, writer and directorPaul W.S. Anderson createdAlien vs. Predator, a silly but fun science fiction/adventure flick that pits the formidable alien foes against one another (and some unlucky humans). Genre greatLance HenriksenplaysCharles Bishop Weyland, the head of the Weyland corporation, who once again funds an expedition to go check out some trouble in space.Sanaa Lathanplays Lex Woods, an experienced guide hired to show the expedition team around. Lex is based loosely on the character Machiko Noguchi, who appears in multipleAlien vs. Predator books and eventually joins the ranks of the Predators herself.

Lex and the rest of the crew eventually discover that Predators have been visiting Earth for centuries, sacrificing certain humans as hosts for new xenomorphs in order for the Predators to hunt them. Its a coming-of-age ritual, Predator style, and the crew manages to get caught in the crossfire. While the films PG-13 rating certainly hampers it,Alien vs. Predator is still a fun, gory ride that gives us plenty of extraterrestrial-on-extraterrestrial action.

Where to stream:HBO Max

You can watch this one if you really want, but I dont recommend it.Aliens vs. Predator: Requiempicks up where the previous film left off. A Predator ship crashlands in a forest in Colorado, and an alien/Predator hybrid called the Predalien escapes. It wreaks havoc on a small town, and a skilled veteran Predator is sent to dispatch it.Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem was the directorial debut of brothers Colin and Greg Strause and was written by Shane Salerno, who co-wroteArmageddon. Theres plenty of Predalien fighting Predator carnage here, but the cinematography is so dark you can barely see any of it. At least this ones rated R?

Continue reading here:
Where to Find the Alien Movies Streaming or For Rent - /FILM

What would an RNA molecule today have to say about the origins of life? We live in a world where cellular life is dominated by DNA, but this wasnt always the case. The Origins of LifeAgain is a speculative look at the future from the perspective of an RNA molecule if she was able to take agency for her own destiny. Instigated by an NSF funded project that is using synthetic biology to investigate the origins of life RNA imagines a future based on the past, one that leads to insight on RNA-based viruses, the limits of fully synthetic genomes, and potential extraterrestrial life.

We have synthesized functional genomes of viruses, bacteria and simple celled organisms, but are we able to replicate life that no longer exists on this planet? Before DNA became indispensable to cellular life, there was an RNA world in which RNA performed all the functions, produced all the proteins necessary for transmission, replication, and evolution, aka life. RNA can even do the work of proteins...without proteins. Creating an RNA-based organism in the lab that self-replicates would shed light on how we transitioned into our DNA-based world.

This is exactly what our RNA character is investigating as she shuns her repetitive messenger job within the DNA factory to engineer her own likeness. RNA is inspired by the past - a rollercoaster world full of possibilities as a way to build a new future. Can RNA create an entirely new form of life using new rules, and what does that mean for biology?

If successful, this will (hypothetically?) be the first time in billions of years that cellular life with an RNA chromosome will grace the surface of the Earth. Fully synthetic genomes, including artificial genomes that go beyond what could evolve in known life, will enable us to answer questions about lifes origins and to extend the rules that set lifes limitations.

To animate is to bring to life and animation is a lot like synthetic biology both have near infinite creative capacity under the guidance of a few rules and certain tools. To match the transformative potential of the research, we took a meta angle and wondered what life itself would think of the origins of life. In creating a figurative universe its possible to envision new hypotheses and subvert traditional metaphors within synthetic biology. Metaphors always break down at some point, and the more radical a proposal, the quicker they crumble.

The original research project delves into the cultural aspect of science from the outset and includes an ethics and rhetoric component, pieces to be explored in future animations.

Presented by The Johns Hopkins University.

Read the rest here:
Mycorrhizal fungi helped plants make the transition from water to land Read now - Massive Science

Most of what we now know as the Bay Area was Ohlone territory, from Vallejo down to Monterey, including San Francisco and the Peninsula. "Now within that, there's at least 54 independent nations," Medina says. While these groups share some things in common, they speak many different languages; Medina speaks one called Chochenyo.

Other groups around the Bay Area include the Miwok Coast Miwok people along the shoreline of Marin County, and Bay and Plains Miwok further up the Delta as well as Patwin and Wappo.

As for where the term Ohlone comes from, Medina says there are a few explanations:

"Sometimes people will say that it comes from the name of one of those smaller nations I was describing on the San Francisco Peninsula, but we have another explanation for that in our family here in the East Bay. We believe it comes from the Miwok term which means 'people of the west.' "

The record is spotty, but humans were definitely here before the last ice age ended around 11,700 years ago and back then the place was not a windswept tundra. The weather was mild, and the low sea level meant the coast was miles further west than today. Whats now the bay was more like a lush river valley.

The first people we know of living here probably enjoyed abundant seafood, says Kent Lightfoot, an anthropology professor at UC Berkeley with expertise in California archaeology.

"The earliest people we have really good archaeological records of," Lightfoot says, "were maritime peoples, seafaring peoples who had boats and who had come down the coast."

It's possible another wave of migrants came in to hunt the mammoths and mastodons that roamed the Bay Area around this time. While Lightfoot says there's not great evidence of this, it wouldn't surprise him.

Over the next several thousand years, sea levels rose. The ice age megafauna vanished, but a tremendous array of wildlife remained including the now-extinct California grizzly bear.

During this period, the people here came to use bows and arrows rather than spears to hunt animals like elk. And they learned to process acorns into a kind of porridge. They also used grass-like tule reeds for everything from building structures and boats to crafting baskets and nets for fish.

Malcolm Margolin, an author and publisher who has written extensively about the native peoples of California, says the shellmounds that can still be found in the region are a hallmark from this age.

"By the time the first Europeans came, the bay had about 400 shellmounds around it. These shellmounds were accumulations of earth, of shells, of ashes from fires, of refuse and burials," Margolin says. Some were around 300 feet in diameter and three stories high and would've taken generations to build up long enough for their use to gradually shift with time. Perhaps some generations used them as ritual places, others for dwelling, he says.

Today, many shellmounds have become the sites of shopping centers and parking lots. And there are ongoing legal disputes and protests over this type of development. Perhaps the best surviving example of a shellmound is in Coyote Hills Regional Park, but that one is only open to the public on certain occasions.

It's a sad but familiar story: Waves of colonizers came to the Bay Area and killed nearly all the native people living here. Survivors had to give up their land and their way of life.

Margolin calls the genocide "an attempt to erase people," saying, "I think Europeans had no use for Indians. I think they had a sense of them as inferior beings. What they saw were people that didn't have the right clothes, that didn't have the right manners. They didn't have the right religion."

Bay Curious is a podcast that answers your questions about the Bay Area. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, NPR One or your favorite podcast platform.

The devastation came in three waves, starting about 250 years ago with the Spanish.

"The conquest was as cruel as it could be. Indians were drawn into the missions and many of them died either from disease or were killed outright," Margolin says.

Then, during the era of Mexican control that followed, native people were cut loose from the missions. With nowhere to return to, many were forced to work on ranches.

Mexico gave up rights to California at the end of the Mexican-American War. A few months after California became a state in 1850, the first governor, Peter Hardeman Burnett, said to expect a "war of extermination" against native people.

"Our family experienced a lot of hardships that came with colonization too many hardships to ever really list," Vincent Medina says.

Through it all, Indigenous people like Medinas great-grandmother quietly preserved and passed on the traditions of their ancestors.

"When not everything could be carried on, one way that our family found to keep these things alive was through documenting them," Medina said. His great-grandmother and other elders wrote thousands of pages on history, language, religion and foods.

"My great-grandmother survived that time," Medina said. She got through it, and she still kept our culture close, passing on as much as she could to everybody in our family around her. And through those efforts that's how so many of us, including myself, grew up empowered with our culture."

Medina says at one point not a single person he knew spoke Chochenyo. But over the past several years, he and others have worked to resuscitate the language, using the documentation their elders left behind as a guide. Now a whole community is conversant.

That shows healing right there in action, Medina says. That shows how we can be able to have things back again that we might have not had a short time ago, but that we were always meant to have.

Medina works to make Indigenous culture more visible in other ways, too. He runs Cafe Ohlone recently relocated to UC Berkeley's Hearst Museum of Anthropology where the menu features shellfish, acorn soup and even acorn-flour brownies a hit with kids.

He's one person among many working to revive traditional dance, basketry and even making boats of tule reeds. He sees this as carrying forward a story that began a very, very long time ago.

"Knowing that were Indigenous here, that we were created here, it gives us that responsibility and that obligation to keep these teachings close with a lot of integrity and a lot of deep care and love," Medina says.

Originally posted here:
Who Were the First People to Live in the Bay Area? - KQED