It’s been 31 years since the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after liftoff killing a crew of seven astronauts, including Christa McAuliffe, who was to be the first civilian and school teacher in space. It was Jan. 28, 1986, and many Americans still remember where they were and what they were doing on that morning 39 minutes after 11 a.m. when the Challenger erupted into a mass of smoke and fire 10,000 feet above the earth.

NASA recently held a commemorative event on Jan. 31 called a Day of Remembrance to honor the Challenger, and also the Apollo I fire that killed three astronauts in 1967. Memoralizing the Columbia, the Space Shuttle that exploded in 2003 killing seven crew members, rounded out the day’s observance.

Huge Live TV Audience

The Challenger was the first catastrophic disaster for the Space Shuttle program since this class of launch system first flew in 1981. The first operational flight for the Space Shuttle, or STS, was in 1982. After four years of successful missions NASA was confident enough to add its first non-astronaut to a flight crew.

Christa McAuliffe was a school teacher from Concord, New Hampshire, who was selected from a field of 11,000 applicants for the NASA Teacher in Space Program. The fact that McAuliffe was aboard made the mission an extremely high-profile event – tens of thousands of school children were tuned in around the nation to watch the launch on live TV. An estimated 17% of all Americans were tuned into the event.

Also killed were astronauts Dick Scobee, Michael Smith, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Judith Resnick. The Challenger disaster is considered America’s greatest space disaster, although The Columbia also killed seven astronauts after it broke up upon re-entry in 2003. However, the presence of McAuliffe on the Challenger gave added poignancy to the event in addition to being the first fail catastrophically.

Grounding And Investigation

The entire Space Shuttle fleet was grounded for 32 months after the Challenger exploded. A special commission was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to investigate the cause of the event. The Rogers Commission was headed by former Secretary of State William Rogers. It included such famous members as Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, and world famous physicist Richard Feynman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

The Commission ultimately concluded that the explosion was due to the failure of an O-Ring that served as a seal for a joint in the Challenger’s right solid rocket booster. Hot fuel burned through the ring which then allowed flames to contact the fuel in an external tank. The result was an explosion powerful enough to break up the entire STS launch complex.

Part of the reason the O-Ring failed was because temperatures were unusually cold at the Florida launch site on Jan. 28. Icy temperatures made the material in the O-Rings brittle and less responsive to changes in pressure and temperature. This facet was famously illustrated by Feynman before news cameras when he dropped a sample O-Ring into a glass of ice water.

Controversy Over NASA Deaths

While many assumed that all seven astronauts died instantly in the catastrophic explosion, most experts believe the crew survived the blast and lived at least for the two minutes and 45 seconds it took for the crew cab to fall back to the Atlantic Ocean. The impact speed of contact with the water was 207 mph.

The ultimate cause of death for the crew has never been released – although NASA astronaut and medical doctor Story Musgrave said it is likely the crew remained conscious and aware after the blast, and lived at least until they impacted the water.

Image source: kennedyspacecenter.com

The grass carp, an invasive species of fish not natural to U.S. waters, has entered three of North America’s Great Lakes sparking great concerns among wildlife biologists. The large foreign species of carp has been discovered in lakes Ontario, Erie and Michigan.

They hold the potential to wreak great damage upon the Great Lakes’ aquatic environment. What worries experts further is that 9 out of the 10 of the recent grass carp caught are fertile. Most previous grass carp found in American waters have been infertile.

What Is the Grass Carp and How It Got Here

The grass carp is a freshwater fish that can reach weights up to 90 pounds. It’s an herbivorous species meaning it eats only plant life. They are native to eastern Asia, with a natural range from northern Vietnam to the Amur River on the Siberia-China border. The fish was imported to the United States in 1963 from Taiwan and Malaysia to aquaculture facilities in Alabama and Arkansas.

It was hoped that the grass carp would be an effective weapon against weed control in some American waters. As early as 1966 a number of grass carp escaped from a Fish Farming Experimental Station in Stuttgart, Arkansas. Several more subsequent escapes, and several illegal releases have resulted in the unwanted spread of the species into greater American and Canadian water systems.

Trouble For Native Fish

The reason grass carp can be devastating to American water systems is that they are extremely aggressive feeders on a variety of aquatic plants. Native species of fish, such as Great Lakes salmon, lake trout, smelt, walleye, northern pike, perch and many others also rely on the same vegetation not just for food, but to provide underwater habitat conducive to maintaining an overall environment for survival.

Too many grass carp can essentially “deforest” underwater ecosystems, leaving behind barren aquatic landscapes that starve out native fish. Grass carp eat about three times their own body weight daily – a lot of food for those reaching 90 pounds.

Still Time to Control

Scientists estimate they have about 10 years to counter the incursion of grass carp into the Great Lakes. The fish still require several generations to gain sufficient numbers before they can radically alter the aquatic ecosystems here. One suggested tactic is to place nets over areas where the carp are likely to spawn during mating season. Another is to simply control the number of new invaders from being released from other U.S. locations where the fish are legally cultivated.

Another possible weapon against the grass carp are fisherman. This fish possesses many of the qualities that angling enthusiasts enjoy – it’s large, puts up a good fight on the rod and reel, and they are good to eat. A problem, however, is that because grass carp are strictly vegetarians, baiting them is a challenge.

A preferred method to lure the grass carp is chumming – scattering foods like corn, cherry tomatoes or bread on the surface of the water – and then floating a hook “pinch-baited” with corn or bread nearby. Spearing and bow fishing are other popular methods.

Other Invasive Carps

The grass carp is just one of several Asian species of carp causing great concern in American waters. The bighead carp and the silver carp — also called the flying silver carp — have been found in great numbers in many U.S. waterways. These species were also imported from Asia for the purpose of weed and plankton control, but escaped through either accidental or illegal release.

Photo by Peter Salasz, available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

Scientists at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) who are researching Venus are very disappointed to find out that their projects were again not chosen for funding. They had two proposals in the top six, but the agency decided neither one was worth being funded at this time.

The team behind the proposals warned that if NASA does not find a way to fund a project on the planet soon, interest in Venus among scientists will fizzle out.

How Are NASA Projects Chosen?

While most people would assume that NASA gets to decide how they want to spend the money that they get from Congress, it’s actually not the case. The process of getting any funding approved is over two years long.

The procedure begins before March, when the head of NASA (until the 20th of January, this was Charles F. Bolden) asks all of his managers to submit budget proposals for what they will need in two years. NASA operates 10 space centers. The manager of each center must create a budget for their own division.

This is the first time that funding for Venus projects may be declined because the project manager lacks the faith in its importance. Since there haven’t been many exciting developments on Venus lately, the number of people supporting a mission on Venus is diminishing.

By July, the Head of NASA must submit his detailed budget proposal to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). This group of people then makes sure that the submitted plans meet the commitments set by NASA, from the top of the agency to the bottom. The budget then goes back to NASA for a final approval of any changes made by OCFO.

By September, the budget then goes to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB). This office has many smaller committees. In the case of NASA proposals, the budget must be approved by the Science and Space Branch of the Energy, Science, and Water Division.

Up to this point, all people working on the budget are hired permanently. Once the budget reaches the OMB, the budget sees its first political appointee. The committees must present their recommendations to the Director of the OMB. This person is appointed by the President and serves on his cabinet.

Therefore, Venus projects can be turned down at this point because this director doesn’t think that the President would be interested. As you can see, it’s a pretty complicated procedure overall.

What Happens Next? Will We Have a Venus Mission?

After the director makes a decision, this person sends a letter back to the Head of NASA. In in, the director can tell the leader of the agency that he needs to alter how NASA recommends spending money, cancel whole programs or make changes to NASA’s policy.

In this most recent case, NASA asked for funding for six projects. Two of those projects were Venus projects. The committee denied both Venus projects.

Bolton has just one chance to state his case again. Alternatively, he can simply accept what OMB recommends. Once NASA and the OMB agrees, then the final writing of the budget happens to make sure that it looks nice. The plans then go to Congress who must approve the budget. Finally, the president signs the budget.

Robert Grimm, a program director in the space science division of San Antonio based Southwest Research Institute says

With five total missions, and an expectation that two missions were going to be accepted, it seemed natural to do a Venus one and an asteroid one.

But when the process was done, the budget was approved for two asteroid projects, while no Venus proposal was greenlighted.

Conclusion

Getting a Venus project funded is a complicated process involving many different steps. It starts with project managers recommending budgets to NASA’s head. Then, the budget goes to the OCFO who then makes their changes to projects sending it back to NASA’s administrator for his approval.

The budget then goes to the OMB who makes more changes. Finally, the budget goes to Congress for their approval. The final step is for the president to sign the budget. Sadly, considering the recent rejection of the two projects, a Venus mission doesn’t seem to be in stars in the immediate future.

Image source: here.

Genetic engineering has been used in the agricultural industry for decades. When crops are genetically engineered, they become what is labeled as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. There is much debate about the safety and future of GMOs in terms of food safety and food supplies.

Still, genetic engineering can also be used to actually modify human tissue. This scientific process is accomplished by manipulating the genetic codes in DNA and using the genes’ own defense mechanisms against itself.

The Challenge of Using Genetic Engineering for Good

Human genetic engineering has the potential to bring out the worst in science. We could, presumably, manipulate DNA to create humans that possess characteristics and traits that would put the entire human species in jeopardy. Fortunately, scientists have devised a way to curb their own temptation to use this technology for bad rather than good.

The CRISPR-Cas9 genetic engineering tool facilitates this science for the betterment of humans and makes it more difficult to change human DNA for the worst.

This tool works in party by manipulating genes’ own defense mechanisms against themselves. Normally genes use these defenses to prevent phages from attaching themselves to the genes for the purpose of making more phages.

The genes use their own DNA sequences to verify whether or not the phages are safe organisms or if they are a danger. If the genes find the same sequence in their DNA, they attack and eliminate the phage entirely.

However, the tool can manipulate this process and trick the genes into accepting phages that it would otherwise deny. The result is a modified organism that can be used to treat or cure diseases like Parkinson’s disease, MS, cancer, and a host of other deadly illnesses.

As scientists become familiar with this tool and learn more about its potential applications, it is predicted that beneficial genetic engineering could soon make its way into the healthcare and medical industries. Scientists could be on the verge of discovering cures for diseases that kill millions of people each year.

The Risks of Human Genetic Engineering

Despite the existence of the CRISPR-Cas9 genetic engineering tool, scientists may still be tempted to use this technology for the worse rather than the benefit of humankind. In fact, scientific experts theorize that modifying humans to eliminate what are perceived to be bad traits and replicate the characteristics that are deemed desirable could introduce a dangerous precedent to the world.

Some experts even compare it to Hitler’s attempts to create a master race of blue-eyed, blonde hair people. Genetic engineering, when used for the bad, could give leeway to bias and personal consumer choices in matters where no one should have this kind of a say. Imagine the world we would live in if parents would be able to ‘shop’ for their perfect child.

Further, genetic engineering could also devalue and even jeopardize the lives of people with disabilities, disfigurements, and other uncommon physical appearances. These people are already facing enough discrimination as it is.

Genetic engineering could also remove the spontaneity found in human recreation now. People who are scientifically modified could all look, sound, and perform the same rather than exhibit unique characteristics that set people apart from each other now.

Undoubtedly, this type of research will continue to have an important role in science in the future. It continues to be used to modify farm crops like wheat, corn, and other commodities. Just as scientists debate the safety of GMOs produced in farming, they likewise debate the safety and need for modified humans.

To keep themselves in check and to increase the likelihood that this technology will be used for good, scientists have created the CRISPR-Cas9 tool. Hopefully, we will hear more good things about it in the years to come.

Image source: here.