Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Simulated Worlds


clipped from pruned.blogspot.com
Simulated Worlds



























A few years before the first landing of an Apollo crew on the moon, scientists recontoured a volcanic field just outside of Flagstaff, Arizona, with artificial impact craters resembling those found on Mare Tranquillitatis, the proposed first manned American landing site.

With high explosives, they terraformed a lunar surrogate right here on the surface of the earth.

There, during the 60s and 70s, nearly all of the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon were taught the basics in extraterrestrial exploration and earthworks. They learned, among other things, how to do productive fieldwork using traditional geologic methods such as observation, mapping and sample collecting. It is there as well that the tools with which human beings would physically deform another world for the first time were tried out.

Hammers, adjustable sampling scoops, rakes and tongs, rock drills and rover vehicles. Together with astronaut boots and gloves, these would soon leave an imprint, albeit minimal, where before meteors and the solar wind held a monopoly in lunar resurfacing.
























To read the rest of the article click here.



The Wonders of the World: An Interview with Mary Beard (pt. 1)

clipped from bldgblog.blogspot.com
The Wonders of the World: An Interview with Mary Beard (pt. 1)

Mary Beard is a Professor of Classics at Cambridge University, where she is a fellow of Newnham College. She also writes a blog for the Times, called A Don's Life, and she is the editor of an excellent new series of books, The Wonders of the World.
The latter is "a small series of books that will focus on some of the world's most famous sites or monuments." It is published by Profile in the UK, and by Harvard University Press in North America.












A few notable titles in that series include Mary Beard's own book about The Parthenon; her collaboration with Keith Hopkins for The Colosseum; Cathy Gere's extraordinary look at The Tomb of Agamemnon (previously discussed on BLDGBLOG here); and many others

In the following two-part interview, Mary Beard talks to BLDGBLOG about the Wonders of the World series, including how and why the particular buildings and monuments have been chosen.

BLDGBLOG: To start with, what are the basic editorial intentions behind the Wonders of the World series? For instance, who are the books for?

Mary Beard: You sometimes wonder whether you reinvent your editorial intentions as you go along! But I suppose there are three intentions. The first is that I want these books to open up culture and history, as well as dissent about culture and history, through the contested life stories of individual monuments and wonders – real or imaginary. I think it's about using a single object – a single monument, a single wonder – as a kind of window onto not just culture and history but also the controversies of culture and history. That's number one.

Number two – and these are not meant to be hierarchical – is quite a simple one, and it's to show that bricks and mortar, or concrete and marble, are always more than that. A great building is always more than the sum of its parts: it's about mythology; it's about argument; it's about cultural re-use and re-presentation.

And I think the third intention is that you want to help people to enjoy looking at monuments, and at the complexity of monuments – and to see that the complexity and the arguments are what's fun about this. Sometimes, when people write for what they think of as a popular market, they think that they should make it simple, whereas I think that what you should be doing is helping people to enjoy how complicated it all really is.

Of course, some of these buildings work better for one of those functions rather than others – but that's the overall theme.












To read the remainder of this article click here.


Monday, September 10, 2007

9/11

clipped from writersalmanac.publicradio.org



On this day in 2001 terrorists flew two planes into Twin Towers in New York City, causing both towers to collapse.











In the weeks following the attacks, many writers and other artists wondered how to respond to what had happened.


One of the first groups of writers to take action were the reporters for The New York Times, who began writing portraits of the victims in a special section of the paper called "Portraits of Grief." The journalists involved decided that they would try to write portraits of every victim of the attack whose family they could reach. And they decided that the stories would focus on how the victims lived, not how they died.


The portraits were shorter than the average Times obituary, at about 150 words, and they skipped things like college degrees, jobs held, and names of surviving family members. They just tried to capture some detail or anecdote that would express each person's individuality. There was a firefighter who wore size 15 boots; a pastry chef who could eat as many desserts as she wanted without gaining weight; a man who put toothpaste on his wife's toothbrush when he got up before her; and a grandmother who wore pink rhinestone-studded sunglasses and a metallic gold raincoat.


Ultimately, 143 reporters worked on the project, and they managed to write about 1,910 of the 2,749 victims. They would have written about every victim, but some families didn't want to participate or couldn't be found. The portraits were collected in the book Portraits 9/11/01 (2002).


One of the people who read the "Portraits of Grief" was the singer/songwriter Bruce Springsteen, and he noticed how many of the victims of the attacks had loved his music. So he started calling the spouses of the victims on the telephone to express his condolences. One of the people he called said, "I got through Joe's memorial and a good month and a half on that phone call."


Less than a year later Springsteen released his album The Rising (2002), with songs written in response to the attacks, many of the lyrics based on the stories people told him in those phone calls.


The novelist Don DeLillo has just come out with a novel about the September 11 attacks called Falling Man (2007). When asked why he wanted to write about the attacks, DeLillo said, "They say that journalism is the first draft of history and maybe in a curious way fiction is the final draft. Not because it's more truthful, but because it can enter unknown territory. A writer can work his way into the impact of history on interior lives. He can examine what a character sees, thinks, feels, hears, even what a character dreams."


To Luck

Poem: "To Luck" by W. S. Merwin.

To Luck

In the cards and at the bend in the road
we never saw you
in the womb and in the crossfire
in the numbers
whatever you had your hand in
which was everything
we were told never to put
our faith in you
to bow to you humbly after all
because in the end there was nothing
else we could do
but not to believe in you
still we might coax you with pebbles
kept warm in the hand
or coins or the relics
of vanished animals
observances rituals










not binding up
on you
who make no promises
we might do such things only
not to neglect you
and risk your disfavor
oh you who are never the same
who are secret as the day when it comes
you whom we explain
as often as we can
without understanding


Drug War's Latest 'Achievement' -- Boosting Global Terrorism

NEAL PEIRCE COLUMN
For Release Sunday, September 2, 2007

© 2007 Washington Post Writers Group

DRUG WAR'S LATEST 'ACHIEVEMENT" --
BOOSTING GLOBAL TERRORISM

By Neal Peirce

Thirty-eight million arrests, most for simple possession. Lives ruined, families disrupted. America turned into the most prison-happy nation on the face of the earth. Illegal rewards incentivizing shooting fields in inner city neighborhoods -- enough bloodshed to appall even an Al Capone. Over $1 trillion in taxpayer outlays.

Thirty-six years after President Richard Nixon inaugurated this country's misbegotten "war on drugs," worldwide narcotics markets are booming, drug ring profits are higher than ever, and drugs cost less than ever on the street.

Our "war" is a miserable, incredibly costly failure.

But now, we're learning, there's a jarring new dimension. The drug war is directly feeding international terrorism. The most startling new evidence comes from Afghanistan, where the U.S. is leading a full-blown NATO campaign to eradicate production of poppies, the plant from which heroin is derived.

Colossal failure is already apparent. Afghanistan is producing 95 percent of the world's poppies; its production rose 58 percent last year alone.

And the biggest beneficiary? It's the Taliban, gaining popularity as it protects local poppy farmers against the Western-led eradication campaign. Then it becomes the opium sales agent into international markets, reaping huge amounts of money it can plow back into its terrorist campaign against the West.













One result, it's fair to say: American soldiers, dying in skirmishes in Afghanistan, are the latest casualties in the international campaign we've waged incessantly -- with friendly governments, inside the U.N., wherever we've had the chance -- to make drugs globally illegal. American administrations, Republican and Democratic, persistently blame foreign countries and international drug supplies for our own domestic narcotics appetite.


And then, notes Jack Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, "we go to countries like Afghanistan, spend millions, or billions over the years, to spray poppies and coca plants, in the process risking poisoning of other crops and people on the ground. And despite that, every year we see bumper crops."

The other prime example is "Plan Colombia" -- our multi-year, $4.7 billion (so far) campaign to stamp our coca production through spraying Colombia's farms, together with providing the Colombian government with Black Hawk helicopters and sensitive intelligence-gathering technology.

Our billions are also supposed to fight back FARC -- the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- a 17,000-strong peasant-based army described by international crime and terrorism expert Misha Glenny as "by far the largest terrorist organization in the Southern Hemisphere." But FARC, like the Taliban, allies itself with local farmers and finances operations through the drug trade. Last year, coca production was up 8 percent.

Will we ever learn? President Bush now wants to channel about $1 billion to Mexico to fight "narco-trafficking and violence at the border." Like past Mexican presidents, Felipe Calderon has pledged a major anti-trafficking campaign, fighting drug cartels responsible just this year for more than 1,000 murders (including reporters, police and judges).

But more drug-fighting money to Mexico won't do any good, says Cole: the United States' prohibition policy has created a "super-obscene profit motive." The inducements are so powerful that for every drug kingpin, domestic or foreign, that we put out of business, there's an aspirant ready to coerce, and if need be kill his way to dominance.

Will we find any presidential candidate willing to talk to us honestly about our disaster-strewn policy, to suggest rational paths toward drug legalization? To credit us with intelligence -- that if we cared enough about our personal health to reduce drastically our consumption of readily available red meat, alcohol and tobacco, we might just be smart enough to resist dangerous narcotics? And that we could look to the Swiss and others for ways to wean addicts off truly dangerous substances?

I'm not holding my breath. Though, refreshingly, the rest of the world is starting to think afresh.

A prime example: the Senlis Council, a European-Canadian drug-policy institute that's done major research in Afghanistan, proposes licensing Afghanistan with the International Narcotics Control Board to sell its opium legally. Even a western subsidy to pay Afghan farmers the same price the Taliban and drug lords do -- about $600 million a year -- would be well below what we're spending on eradication.

There's a huge, unmet, global demand for the painkillers codeine and morphine, derived from opium. Developing countries, with a vast majority of the world's people, receive and use only 6 percent of medical opiates -- substances deemed by the World Health Organization as "absolutely critical" for treating severe pain. As a result, hundreds of millions of people with cancer, AIDS and other painful conditions live and die in agony. And addiction is rare among pain patients.

Here's a chance for the West to spend money, visibly, helping poor Afghan farmers survive, instead of destroying their livelihoods. Simultaneously, the Taliban would lose its big revenue source for terrorist activities. Couldn't we be this humanitarian and smart -- for once?

Navigating Celestial Currents


clipped from www.sciencenews.org

Navigating Celestial Currents

Math leads spacecraft on joy rides through the solar system

Erica Klarreich

Last April, the Genesis spacecraft began its journey home. It had been parked out in space collecting solar particles for 2 years. Yet even though its job was done, Genesis didn't head straight home. Instead, it took a 3-million-mile detour, swinging past Earth to do a loop de loop around a distant point before flying back to Earth.



















LOOP-DE-LOOP. The Genesis spacecraft's superhighway path took it to the Earth-sun gravitational-equilibrium point L1, where it made five "halo" orbits before swinging around L2 and heading home.
Ross


This circuitous route was no accident. The spacecraft had hopped aboard the interplanetary superhighway, a network of tubes crisscrossing through the solar system. By jumping from one tube to another at the solar system's version of highway interchanges, a spacecraft can travel vast distances using practically no fuel.

"Genesis was the most efficient space mission ever flown," says Jerrold Marsden, a mathematician at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who studies spacecraft trajectories.

A celestial superhighway sounds like the output of a science fiction writer's overheated brain. Yet it's reality, grounded in the competing gravitational tugs of the sun, Earth, and other solar system bodies. By studying the mathematics underlying subtle gravitational interactions, researchers are starting to create an atlas of this superhighway. Engineers are designing trajectories to send spacecraft coasting along these routes to make voyages that were previously unimaginable.

Traditionally, spacecraft have used fuel-guzzling engines to punch their way across the solar system, says Edward Belbruno, a mathematician at Princeton University who masterminded the first spacecraft journey along low-fuel highways in 1991. Travel on the interplanetary superhighway works with gravity, not against it, he explains.

"The old way is like using a 747 jet to blast through the sky," Belbruno says. "The new way is like using a glider plane, which rides the natural currents and eddies of the air."

Gravitational sweet spots

Engineers have traditionally pieced together a spacecraft's path by considering the gravitational pulls between the spacecraft and just one other body at a time. To create trajectories for the Apollo lunar missions, for instance, engineers calculated how Earth's gravity would affect the spacecraft at the beginning of its trip and how the moon's gravity would affect the craft toward the end. Each of these interactions is considered a two-body problem because it asks how two objects—such as Earth and a spacecraft—behave if the only forces acting on them are each other's gravity.

Isaac Newton solved the general two-body problem in the 17th century. He calculated that the two bodies rotate around their common center of gravity. By adding in the forces generated by a spacecraft's thrusters, engineers have used Newton's equations to design the spacecraft's trajectory.

The paths that arise from this method tend to be direct but inefficient. "You just brute force your way there," Marsden says. The spacecraft must expend much fuel to counterbalance the pulls of other celestial bodies.

Newton himself tried to analyze these other pulls, but he hit a wall when he tried to calculate how three objects would move under the influence of each other's gravity. In the centuries that followed, this three-body problem became one of the most famous questions in mathematics. In the 1950s, mathematicians finally proved that it's impossible to solve.

Nevertheless, over the centuries, mathematicians have gained traction in understanding a simplified version of the three-body problem that happens to be ideal for designing spacecraft trajectories. This restricted three-body problem asks, What happens to three bodies if two are massive but the third—say, a spacecraft—is so small that its gravitational pull on the other two is negligible?

In such a setup, the two large bodies—say, the sun and Earth—behave as in Newton's two-body analysis, rotating around their common center of mass. In the case of Earth and the sun, this center of mass is buried deep inside the sun, creating the appearance that the sun is stationary and that Earth orbits it.

To visualize how the gravitational pulls of the sun and Earth will affect a spacecraft, mathematicians plot the three bodies using what's called a rotating frame, a coordinate system that turns along with the sun and Earth. In these coordinates, the sun and Earth are always at the same two fixed points.

In the 18th century, European mathematicians Leonhard Euler and Joseph-Louis Lagrange discovered that in this rotating frame there are five gravitational sweet spots, now called Lagrange points. At these equilibrium points, the competing pulls on the third body balance each other, and the body remains motionless.

To find one of these Lagrange points, consider the line connecting the sun and Earth. At one point on this line, the gravitational pulls of the sun and Earth balance, so any object placed there should stay put. This equilibrium is unstable, like that of a marble poised on a mountain ridge. If the object is given even the slightest push, it will go zooming away from the equilibrium.

That analysis is incomplete because it ignores another pull. The centrifugal force, which pushes a person outward on a carousel, also pushes outward any objects in the rotating coordinate system. As a result, the true balance point between the sun and Earth, called L1, is closer to the sun than it would be without the centrifugal force.

The centrifugal force produces four additional equilibrium points. One, called L2, sits along the Earth-sun line on the far side of Earth, at the spot where the combined inward pulls of the sun and Earth balance the outward centrifugal push. An analogous point, L3, sits on the far side of the sun. Like L1, these two equilibriums are unstable.

Harder to visualize are L4 and L5, which sit at two points that complete equilateral triangles with the sun and Earth. L4 and L5 are stable equilibriums: An object placed at one of these points will tend to stay fixed.

The Lagrange points have captured the attention of both astronomers and amateur space enthusiasts. Because L1 offers an unobstructed view of the sun, it's currently home to several sun-observing spacecraft, such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. And L2, at which a telescope can always face away from both Earth and the sun, is an ideal spot for deep-space observatories. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which measures the cosmic background radiation, is in orbit there. More fancifully, L3 is science fiction writers' favorite spot to conceal a "Planet X," since it's always on the opposite side of the sun from Earth.

It's the unstable Lagrange points—especially L1 and L2—that are most useful for designing spacecraft trajectories, according to Marsden. "In nature, unstable things are often more efficient than stable things," he says.

Just as it's possible to balance a pencil vertically on your hand—a highly unstable state—by gently wiggling your hand, it's possible for a spacecraft to stick around an unstable Lagrange point using small rocket thrusts. But, it's even easier for that craft to go swinging away into a different part of the solar system.

Tube hopping

In the late 19th century, French mathematician Henri Poincaré had an amazing insight. He realized that the restricted three-body problem displays sensitivity to initial conditions. That is, two objects that start out in nearly the same spot can go spiraling off into wildly different regions of space. Poincaré's discovery gave birth to the mathematical field of chaos theory, which today encompasses a host of phenomena, from the weather to traffic patterns.

Despite this chaos, Poincaré found that it's possible to organize similar paths through the three-body system into special surfaces. In the late 1960s, mathematicians Charles Conley of the University of North Texas in Denton and Richard McGehee of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis built on this work to discover a collection of these special surfaces shaped like tubes. These spiral into or out of orbit around the unstable Lagrange points. If an object sits in one of these tubes, the natural gravitational pulls sweep it along, toward or away from the Lagrange points.























In 2000, Marsden and his collaborators showed that these tubes wind chaotically through space. Although chaos is a drawback when it comes to predicting the weather, from the point of view of designing spacecraft trajectories it's great news. Near a Lagrange point, a spacecraft can use a tiny thrust to hop between tubes that snake off to completely different destinations.

These tubes make up the freeways of the interplanetary superhighway, so named by Marsden's collaborator Martin Lo of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif. However, the tubes of the five Lagrange points are just a small piece of the picture. After all, the restricted three-body problem can be applied not just to the sun and Earth but also to Earth and the moon, the sun and Jupiter, and many other pairs of large bodies. Each celestial pair produces its own Lagrange points and tubes. And "in remarkable coincidences all through the solar system," Marsden says, many of these tubes link to form a network of intersecting highways.

Unlike terrestrial highway systems, the interplanetary superhighway is not static. The Earth-sun Lagrange points and tubes, for instance, are stationary only when considered in the Earth-sun rotating frame. In reality, the tubes flail about "like streams from a crazy garden sprinkler," Marsden says, and the patterns of highway interchanges keep shifting.

To get from one tube to another, a spacecraft must hop on at exactly the right moment and at the right speed. Marsden says, "It's like transferring between trains at a station with no platform. The other train had better get to the station at the exact time you arrive." Fortunately, researchers can now use computers to chart when and where many of these highway interchanges materialize.

Exploring the superhighway

The three-body problem made its spacecraft trajectory debut in 1991, when Belbruno helped rescue the first Japanese mission to the moon. The Japanese spacecraft Hiten, while orbiting Earth, had ejected a basketball-size probe that was supposed to go into lunar orbit. Unfortunately, the probe was lost after its communications system failed. The much-larger Hiten, never intended for lunar orbit, lacked the fuel to reach the moon.

Five years earlier, Belbruno had used the dynamics of the three-body problem to design a hypothetical 2-year trajectory that rode gravitational currents from Earth to the moon without requiring fuel. He and James Miller of JPL put the idea to the test by modifying this trajectory into a 3-month path to the moon for Hiten.

"The route flew 1 million kilometers past the moon before falling down to it," Belbruno recalls. "It allowed Hiten to ride a crest and get to the moon for free."

More recently, the European Space Agency's SMART-1 spacecraft followed Belbruno's original 2-year trajectory to the moon, arriving there late last year.

Although Belbruno didn't express his work in terms of tubes and highways, it laid the groundwork for subsequent mathematical explorations of the interplanetary superhighway. In the mid-1990s, a team led by Lo and Kathleen Howell of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., built on these ideas to design a superhighway trajectory for Genesis, whose mission was to collect particles of the wind constantly emanating from the sun. In August 2001, Genesis rode a tube from Earth out to the Earth-sun L1, where it orbited five times, facing the sun. For its return journey, it followed a highway route that swung past the Earth-sun L2 and then coasted back to Earth.

After takeoff, Marsden says, Genesis used fuel only to stay balanced and make small adjustments to keep on course. That fuel amounted to just 4 percent of the craft's total mass, says Shane Ross of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who worked with Lo and Howell. By contrast, previous missions, such as Galileo and the Apollo Lunar Lander, consumed from 40 percent to 60 percent of their weight in fuel.

It currently costs about $1 million to send just a pound of fuel to the moon, Belbruno says.

But perhaps more important, the interplanetary superhighway's fuel efficiency enables researchers to construct space trajectories that would otherwise be infeasible. For instance, Marsden, Lo, and Ross worked out a potential tour of Jupiter's moons that NASA has adapted for its planned Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). Its launch is tentatively scheduled for 2012.

JIMO will exploit the linkages among the tubes of the planet and its four icy moons to leapfrog from one moon to the next, orbiting each in turn, to collect data on whether liquid oceans lurk under the moons' surfaces. Previous missions to Jupiter have included only brief flybys of its moons because to slow down and go into orbit using conventional trajectories takes "a colossal amount of fuel," Marsden says. "But using tube hopping, you can linger as long as you want at one of the moons and it doesn't cost you more fuel," he adds.

In addition to planning one-time missions along the superhighway, Marsden, Lo, and Ross, together with a NASA team, conceive of a permanent manned space station at the Earth-moon L1 point. Ross calls it the "nearest rest stop on the superhighway." Astronauts could get there from Earth in days, and a spacecraft could travel in hours from the station to any point on the moon.

The main attraction of such a station, Ross says, is that each month the tubes from the Earth-moon L1 intersect tubes to the Earth-sun L1 and L2. Astronauts could travel to the station by conventional means. Once there, they could assemble, say, a deep-space telescope intended for the Earth-sun L2, then set it drifting along the tubes toward its final destination. Such telescopes could be larger and more delicate than those sent from Earth because they wouldn't have to fit in a rocket and withstand the rigors of a launch. And if a telescope at the Earth-sun L2, such as WMAP, were to malfunction, it could simply ride a tube back to the lunar gateway station for servicing.

"It would be hard to send humans to the Earth-sun L2 to service a broken telescope because of the long transit time and the harsh radiation environment," Ross says. "But it would be easy to bring the telescope back to the gateway station."

It's unlikely that astronauts themselves will ever ride the interplanetary superhighway, though they might someday guide telescopes on and off its entry ramps, says Wendell Mendell of NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston. Because the tubes follow such winding routes, trips along them tend to take a long time—compare Belbruno's 2-year trajectory to the moon to the 4-day Apollo 11 mission, for instance. Using the tubes is like sending cargo down the Mississippi River on a barge, Mendell says. "It's cheap but slow."

For unmanned missions, the interplanetary superhighway's potential is just starting to unfold, Marsden says. "I suspect that there are tubes connecting many more systems of moons and planets than we've discovered so far."

I left my heart in . . . .


clipped from www.boingboing.net
Woman visits own heart

Jennifer Sutton, 23, recently visited her own heart at an exhibition in London. Sutton received a heart transplant and her original ticker is on display as part of the Wellcome Collection's educational exhibition The Heart.

















As you might imagine, she found the experience very odd and moving. "Seeing my heart for the first time is an emotional and surreal experience. It caused me so much pain and turmoil when it was inside me. Seeing it sitting here is extremely bizarre and very strange. Finally I can see this odd looking lump of muscle that has given me so much upset. It's tremendous it has become an object of fascination and will get people thinking about the disease, heart transplants and organ donation."