SousVide Supreme Review: How To Cook From the Inside Out [Review]

Sous vide is French for cooking in a vacuum, placing sealed meat or veggies in water held at an exact temperature. Because this precision requires high technology, the method was solely for chefs—until the $450 SousVide Supreme arrived.

Sous What Now?

Think of sous vide as cooking from the inside out, rather than the outside in.

When the Coen Brothers were making The Big Lebowski, they couldn't for the life of them figure out how to fling the ringer—a briefcase supposedly containing $1 million but actually holding Walter's dirty undies—in a graceful arc from the Dude's moving car. It sounds easy, but it's physically impossible. They were about to give up when the sage-like Jeff Bridges suggested shooting it backwards. Eureka. They filmed the bag toss, its perfect trajectory, falling into the slowly reversing automobile, and made cinematic history.

Sous vide is a lot like that. Instead of burning the crap out of your extra-thick filet mignon in a pan, perhaps tossing it into a hot oven afterwards, all with the hope of hitting a target internal temperature of 130ºF almost by chance, you vacuum seal the lightly salted raw meat and stick the bag into the "water oven," raising the temperature of the entire cut to 130º.

Once the ideal "medium rare" is reached, you sear the outside for a pleasing Maillard-effected crust.

Your steak is perfect. And you can't fail. Seriously, you can do this 1000 times and never screw up. Because of sous vide's precision temperature, you can let meat sit for hours without fear of it overcooking. Sous vide is (mostly) moron-proof—high science brought down to home kitchens that may or may not be worthy. If you eat medium-rare steak at home at least once a week, you basically need this.

In some ways, sous vide is the next obvious kitchen tool, like its predecessors the microwave, the convection oven and the induction cooktop. It's a unique tool that could easily go from exotic to commonplace in just a few years. As you'll see, the microwave comparison is perhaps most apt, since they're both self contained, make simple meal prep easier, and function on a fool-proof, "set-it-and-forget-it" basis.

The only catch is, when cooking sous vide, you have to vacuum seal everything, or—as I discovered—buy food that comes pre-sealed. The SousVide Supreme doesn't have its own sealer, so you need to buy a FoodSaver or something like it, which can be expensive. I was loaned a Reynolds Handi-Vac, which was finicky but at least affordable. The sad news is that Reynolds discontinued it, so if you own one or buy one on eBay, make sure to stock up on bags. (Here are some official details on that.)

Beyond Steak

My crash course in sous vide cooking came from this amazing, nerdy practical guide by Douglas Baldwin, a comp-sci/math guy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He covers the basics of cooking meat and other protein in a sous vide bath as thoroughly as one could ask for from a guy busy getting his PhD in Applied Mathematics. I encourage you to read it, though it's basically a discourse of temperature and time, the only two factors in sous vide cooking.

Seriously, that's really all there is to the SousVide Supreme. You set the temperature, in Celsius or Fahrenheit, and then you set the timer. That latter part is optional if you own a clock, since it takes hours, sometimes days, to overcook anything. I prepared many meals in there, and only managed to ruin one dish. I left some chicken cooking overnight, mostly to see what would happen if I did. The meat just became inedibly flaky.

There is a very nice, very expensive cookbook by Thomas Keller (and his team of cooking/writing geniuses) that explains the miracles sous vide is capable of performing. I did not use that book during this test, in part because I wouldn't have had any money left over to buy food, but in part because we're talking about you and me, not TK and the CIA posse. If you will likely be creating "cuttlefish tagliatelle with palm hearts and nectarine" or maybe "squab with piquillo peppers, marcona almonds, fennel and date sauce" on a regular basis, then a) I pretty much hate you and b) why the hell are you taking advice from me? What I can tell you is what an enthusiastic, experienced and adventurous home cook could possibly do with this thing on an ongoing basis. That, it turns out, is the trick. It's not what you can make, it's what you can keep making, day in and day out. Here's what I cooked, and whether or not SousVide Supreme is worth having on hand for best results.

Food Porn

Eggs: Hard boiling an egg is easy, but getting the perfect custard-like consistency of a gently soft-boiled egg is not. This baby can do it blindfolded. Just set the temperature to 148º F, wait for the thermostat to beep, then toss in a few eggs, no vacuum sealing needed, since nature already did that. I made a spaghetti carbonara the other day that was absolutely perfect, in large part due to SousVide Supreme. Since I don't know of any other way to get the perfect soft-boiled besides maybe timing and praying, I'm going to say SVS wins this round: Worth It

Duck breast: Lord love a duck… and so do I. But duck is another classic overcookable meat. I set mine for 150º and frankly, I still think I could have gone lower. Once it came out of the vacuum-sealed bag (which it was conveniently packaged in when I bought it, along with a cheap but not terrible l'orange sauce), I stuck the breast in a hot pan, searing the fat out of the skin side, and then browning the rest of the breast with the rendered fat. Verdict? I've overcooked enough duck in the past to say yes, this kind of control is appreciated: Worth It

Rack of lamb, rib roast, and other tender roast meats: Steak and duck are just a few of the "tender" meats that benefit from sous vide. I didn't try these others (partly cuz they're so damn expensive), but my experience with them in ovens, sometimes undercooking, sometimes overcooking, tells me how nice it would be to have the ability to reach a fixed internal temperature, even if it took many hours. But is it worth it? These are not foods one prepares too often, and there are tried-and-true ways to roast them in an oven, especially a convection oven with more controls. So I am going to have to say: Not Worth It

Short ribs and other tough meats: Here's another example of getting something different than what you can achieve in an oven. I love to brown the hell out of my short ribs, then braise the hell out of them in wine and mirepoix for 4-6 hours, in an oven, at a temperature of 325º. With sous vide, you can slow-cook short ribs at 135º for two days, rendering them softer but still rare. The meat is almost prime-ribby. I actually browned them before their sous vide cooking process, so they could be eaten immediately out of the vacuum bag. Verdict? I've never tasted slow-roasted meats like this—it was very good, and there's something to be said for transforming a rude cut of meat into a fine steak, but my in-oven slow-cooking method is as fool-proof, and has the added benefit of creating a carmelized sauce to go with it. It's a Draw

Fish: One of the funny things about sous vide fish is that so many fish come frozen vacuum sealed in plastic, often already steeped in marinade. You just throw the whole bag in, still frozen, wait an hour, and pull it out. There it comes, spilling out of the bag ready to eat, every bit a sci-fi—or at least 1st class airline—fantasy. But anybody interested in buying a SousVide Supreme will have no problem broiling or poaching fish to their desired doneness, and you don't sear a cooked fish as you would a cooked steak, so the sous vide process is a liability, or at least a limitation. Not Worth It

Vegetables: Veggies are another strangely gray area. I mean, I don't have any problem steaming, boiling, roasting or pan-frying vegetables, but there's some allure to the fact that you can cook them in a perfectly sealed environment, thereby preserving the very essence of that vegetable. (I'll admit, the allure doesn't pull me too strongly.)

I tried artichokes and beets. Nailing the beets was easy, since a beet is the same from outside in, so you just leave them in there for 90 minutes or so they're cooked through at 183º. And when they come out? They taste like cooked beets.

But those artichokes, ugh. Not only do the heart and petals cook differently, they can be quite different from one to the next. Also, they float. At least the big old leathery dead-of-winter flown-in-from-God-knows-where prickly sons of bitches that I tried. I've cooked artichokes for ages, even carefully charring them on the grill, but in this case I assumed the set-it-and-forget-it approach was good enough, and it wasn't. I eventually did get the artichokes cooked through, but I had to pop them out of the bag to check them, and I had to sit a heavy plate over the top of them to get them both underwater. Those two specific issues—and the general fact that I was dicking around with artichokes for several hours—combine to kill any advantage of this over the old pot-boil method. Not Worth It (though I am sure Thomas Keller's artichaux are to die for)

That Sweet, Succulent Bacteria

I might add that there's a food-poisoning angle to sous vide that could be a problem, but only if you're totally oblivious to the issues. Usually, you cook food at a bacteria-scorching 300º F or higher. With sous vide, you're often operating in that weird borderland of 130º to 140º, so you have to be far more careful. Generally speaking, anything cooked so that the center reaches 130º or higher is fine, and anything you sear the daylights out of after you sous vide it is fine, too.

If you want to research this issue further, I suggest starting with Baldwin's practical guide (specifically, the sections on "Safety" and—my favorite—"Pathogens of Interest"). In reality, the key is to exercise the same caution you normally should, only with extra vigilance. Don't reuse knives and utensils used for prepping raw meat, don't let food sit around at room temperature for very long, and don't undercook anything of dubious origin.

The Next Microwave

SousVide Supreme is the first home-targeted sous vide machine that I am aware of, certainly the first getting any kind of attention in the US. It's not the last. I know that precise temperature control does cost money, but technologies like this get inevitably cheaper, and I predict slightly smaller units selling in the $100 range in the next 2-3 years. I have a $100 rice cooker that gets a regular workout, and a brand new $100 Max Burton inductive burner that gets daily use. On the other side, I've got a $100 deep fryer that comes out twice or three times per year for occasions that demand Belgian frites, and a really nice slow cooker we have seriously never used.

My point is that, within the spectrum of fairly specialized cooking devices that a kitchen adventurer like me would own, the SousVide Supreme sits on the more useful end. But $430 is too much, and the size of the thing too great, to be justifiable for any but the most voracious of carnivores.

Five years from now, you will have a freezer full of pre-sealed pre-seasoned raw meats and fish, and you will toss these into your precision water bath like you throw something in the microwave now. We won't think about sous vide as a gift from science, just like we no longer consider it crazy that we "zap" food with radar microwaves. Sous vide will simply be an option, at least for those who want it. As great as this convenience will be for avid cooks, I hope the experience doesn't become mundane.

In the meantime, you could spring for the SousVide Supreme, which works as advertised, or you can hack yourself something cheaper, that's close if not perfect. Either way, you will love it—especially the steak—but don't expect a miracle. This won't turn you into the next Thomas Keller unless that's who you're destined to become anyway.

First "affordable" home sous vide cooking machine, offering a unique set of cooking capabilities that aren't easy to emulate without precision equipment

Extremely easy to use, and works exactly as billed

It will not make you a great cook overnight, though it will help you achieve goals you may already have

$450 is still too much for most home cooks, especially for something that they might not use often enough

Vacuum sealer equipment sold separately (and can be costly)

As large as a bread-maker or turkey roaster, equally hard to store when not in use

Interface not great; display lacks count-down timer, and buttons are sometimes unresponsive

Shout out to John Mahoney, who reviewed the SVS at Popular Science. If you're seriously considering buying this, it makes sense to read both of our takes; we think differently, but are equally in search of great culinary experiences.

Special thanks to reader Michael A., who alerted me to the existence of the SousVide Supreme after reading my holiday gift guide for home cooks. He also told me about this slightly cheaper SV controller, a little too science-projecty for a Giz review, but possibly a great alternative for someone with enough cojones.

A quick note about the Coens: Though I've come across it on several occasions, one account of the Coen Brothers' ringer-toss challenge can be found in the source-rich—but literarily unsatisfying—The Big Lebowski; The Making of a Coen Brothers Film. Coulda been way better, but still, it's required reading for die-hard Lebowski/Coen fans.

And finally, a little self promotion: If you like my style of food porn, and my cooking chatter, take a peek at my online cooking diary, You Make It You Eat It.


Alienware M11x Specs and Price Leaked With a Few Surprises [Alienware]

We were quite taken with the M11x when we got some hands-on time with it at CES, and while newly leaked info on the gaming ultraportable aren't exactly what we expected, they don't at all dampen the excitement.

We knew already about the Nvidia 335M graphics running the show on Dell's 11.6-inch machine, but now the processor options have been detailed as well in slides that showed up on Sina.com. The M11x will apparently ship with either a Pentium SU4100 or Core2Duo SU7300, giving it more power than you would typically expect from such a small laptop.

The slides also indicate that the M11x will ship as early as Feb. 5th, earlier than the "later this year" we'd gotten earlier had indicated. It also apparently prices out starting at $899, presumably for the Pentium model, though it's not entirely clear based on the slide. UPDATE: According to the Alienware M11x Sweepstakes website, pricing will start at $799. So we'll have to wait and see exactly what configuration that $899 price point is referencing. (Thanks, Tyler!)

Time will tell if this information holds up, but if it does, that's sounds like a pretty good price for such a powerful and portable gaming notebook.

UPDATE: Looks like the specs held up better than the price and date. [Sina via Engadget]


Commercial Space Flight Community Responds to NASA Budget

Space Industry CEOs Host Teleconference to Discuss President Obama's 2011 Budget Request for Expanded Role of Commercial Space

"The Next Step in Space Coalition and the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, two organizations representing businesses, organizations, and people working to ensure the future of U.S. human spaceflight, today will hold a joint teleconference for members of the media. Top CEOs of the commercial spaceflight industry will provide comments on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) FY2011 Budget."

- Coalition for Space Exploration Awaits Collaboration between the White House and Congress on America's New Space Initiative and FY2011 Budget
- X PRIZE Foundation: NASA Budget Proposal Will Fuel Innovation and Investments in Game Changing Technology
- Commercial Spaceflight Federation Welcomes New NASA Human Spaceflight Plan, Congratulates Commercial Crew Development Winners

Stud Bolts and Nuts

Regarding the nuts for the studs, normally they use the nominal size as M12, M16, M24, ... what is these numbers 12, 16, 24 ... indicate to what?, most of the handbooks their tables by inch or mm, which is not indicating to the above numbers, actually Iam looking for the nuts diameter according to t

Success in the fight against childhood diarrhea

Rotavirus is the world’s most common cause of severe childhood diarrhea.  In the U.S. alone, rotavirus disease leads to around 70,000 hospitalizations, 3/4 million ER visits, and nearly half-a-million doctor office visits yearly.  But it rarely causes death.

The same is not true for the developing world.  Rotavirus disease is estimated to kill around a half-million children a year world wide.   Finding a way to mitigate this is an active public health concern, with the World Health Organization specifically recommending rotavirus vaccinations in areas where the virus has a significant public health impact.

Rotavirus causes a severe diarrheal illness. It is passed via a fecal-oral route, meaning that contaminated food, surfaces, and water can all be sources.   In developed countries like the US, rotavirus disease is unpleasant and inconvenient.  Since rotavirus spreads more readily in areas without access to clean water and medical care, it takes a greater toll in these areas, and children afflicted are at risk of death due to dehydration.  The US has seen a decline in rotavirus disease in the last few years, an effect that appears to be due to increased vaccination and a herd immunity effect.

Given the large number of pediatric rotavirus deaths in developing countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) has made vaccination a priority. Two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine report on the progress of the fight against rotavirus.

The first article looked at the affect of the vaccine in  Africa.  It was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of several thousand infants (the ethics of such trials in developing nations has been discussed at length elsewhere, including here).  It found a very significant reduction in severe diarrhea during the first year of life, with a vaccine-attributable reduction in severe rotavirus gastroenteritis of 5.0 cases per 100 infant-years.  This study did not specifically study mortality.

The next study specifically assessed mortality, but using an “ecologic assessment”.  The authors looked at deaths from diarrhea over a several year period which included a period before and after the regular use of rotavirus vaccine.  They found that:

Among infants who were 11 months of age or younger, diarrhea-related mortality fell from 61.5 deaths per 100,000 children at baseline to 36.0 per 100,000 children in 2008 (rate reduction, 41%; 95% CI, 36 to 47; P<0.001)

This type of study has certain limitations, but the seasonal peak of rotavirus deaths was found to be significantly blunted since the introduction of the vaccine.

The final piece in the Journal was a case series. It looked at three infants who appeared to have developed rotavirus infection from the vaccine itself.  The two available rotavirus vaccines are live attenuated viruses.  They should not cause disease under normal circumstances, and in these three cases, the circumstances were not normal.  All three children had severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID).   Immune diseases are a relative contraindication to vaccination. In the African experience, where HIV is endemic, children were vaccinated independent of HIV status and HIV rates were similar in all groups.  Despite this, there was still a reduction in severe diarrheal disease.

The two currently available rotavirus vaccines are not associated with intussusception as a previous vaccine was, and appear to be safe, effective at preventing severe diarrhea in small children, and effective at reducing deaths in small children.  These vaccines appear to be effective across geographic and economic regions, although the magnitude of the effect was greatest in hardest-hit areas.

This puts a very heavy  burden on those who would choose to fight the introduction of these vaccines.  Rotavirus vaccine appears to be a safe, effective measure for preventing one of the world’s most common causes of childhood mortality.

References

Madhi, S., Cunliffe, N., Steele, D., Witte, D., Kirsten, M., Louw, C., Ngwira, B., Victor, J., Gillard, P., Cheuvart, B., Han, H., & Neuzil, K. (2010). Effect of Human Rotavirus Vaccine on Severe Diarrhea in African Infants New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (4), 289-298 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904797

Richardson, V., Hernandez-Pichardo, J., Quintanar-Solares, M., Esparza-Aguilar, M., Johnson, B., Gomez-Altamirano, C., Parashar, U., & Patel, M. (2010). Effect of Rotavirus Vaccination on Death from Childhood Diarrhea in Mexico New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (4), 299-305 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905211

Patel, N., Hertel, P., Estes, M., de la Morena, M., Petru, A., Noroski, L., Revell, P., Hanson, I., Paul, M., Rosenblatt, H., & Abramson, S. (2010). Vaccine-Acquired Rotavirus in Infants with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency New England Journal of Medicine, 362 (4), 314-319 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904485


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

The new NASA

The reports on the “death” of America’s manned space program are greatly exaggerated.  Contrary to the opinions of some, I think the new budget proposal for NASA is a much-needed course correction that brings the agency back to a focus on its core strengths – research, development, and exploration.

Yes, the Constellation Program will be canceled. The Ares I and V booster rockets and the Orion crew exploration vehicle are going away. The Space Shuttle will be retired as scheduled.  In their place will be a robust commercial Low Earth Orbit capability built on the premise of multiple providers competing to provide NASA the best offer for services.  NASA will also fund a significant heavy-lift R&D program, likely based out of Marshall Space Flight Center, to develop “game changing” and affordable new rocket technologies.

Don’t just take my word for it, though.  Go look at the proposal for yourself.  NASA has posted it all to their website.

FY 2011 Budget Overview (PDF)

NASA – FY 2011 Budget Documents and Statements

At the top level, NASA is getting an overall increase of $6 billion over the next five years.  Rather than being a provider of launch services to itself, NASA will instead pursue an Exploration Research & Development strategy with three main prongs:

  1. $7.8 billion over five years for technology demonstrators, including in-orbit refueling and storage.
  2. $3.1 billion over five years for heavy-lift and propulsion R&D
  3. $3.0 billion over five years for robotic precursor missions

The Technology Demonstrator program will evaluate such ‘critical path’ technologies as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support systems.

The Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D will target “new approaches” to first-stage propulsion, advanced in-space propulsion, and “foundational” propulsion research.

The Robotic Precursor Missions will expand our practice of “scouting” locations for future manned exploration with new robotic missions to the Moon, Mars and its moon, the Lagrange points, and Near Earth asteroids.  Examples might include telerobotic demonstrators on the Moon and automated processing of lunar and/or asteroid local resources.

Additionally, NASA is committing to an extension of the ISS Program to 2020 with a budget increase of $2 billion over four years.  The Human Research Program itself will see a 42% budget increase and the National Laboratory function will be expanded.  In the interest of full disclosure, I will remind everyone that I support the ISS National Lab Office.

NASA is also investing $6 billion over the next five years in commercial cargo and human spaceflight vehicles.  While all such providers will be required to meet NASA’s safety standards, funds will be awarded through competitive allocations, instead of the cost-plus contracts so common today.

Earth and Climate Science missions, Planetary Science missions, Astrophysics, Heliophysics, Aeronautics, and Education will all be sustained at current levels or their budgets increased.

Before I moved to the ISS Program, I actually worked on the Constellation Program.  As Administrator Bolden himself said, they are some of the finest people I’ve ever had the privilege of working with and they did a heck of a job with often untenable constraints.

However, I do think Jim Kohlenberger from the Office of Science and Technology Policy was right when he said that we shouldn’t throw another $50 billion at an unsustainable program just because we already spent $9 billion on it.

I think this new proposal is exactly what the spaceflight community needs.  It’s a fundamental change in the way we operate and a kickstart to really start innovating again.  This is not “Apollo on steroids,” nor should it be.  We don’t have the budget for that and we never did.  We have to learn to adapt or get out of the way of those who can.  I’m excited to see what we can accomplish.

Again, don’t just take my word for it.  Check out what Buzz Aldrin has to say.

Today I wish to endorse strongly the President’s new direction for NASA. As an Apollo astronaut, I know the importance of always pushing new frontiers as we explore space. The truth is, that we have already been to the Moon – some 40 years ago. A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our Nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century. We need to be in this for the long haul, and this program will allow us to again be pushing the boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth. I hope NASA will embrace this new direction as much as I do, and help us all continue to use space exploration to drive prosperity and innovation right here on Earth.

I also believe the steps we will be taking following the President’s direction will best position NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible. To do that, we will need to support many types of game-changing technologies NASA and its partners will be developing. Mars is the next frontier for humankind, and NASA will be leading the way there if we aggressively support the President’s plans.

Finally, I am excited to think that the development of commercial capabilities to send humans into low earth orbit will likely result in so many more earthlings being able to experience the transformative power of spaceflight. I can personally attest to the fact that the experience results in a different perspective on life on Earth, and on our future as a species. I applaud the President for working to make this dream a reality.

There will be more than enough work to go around for all the centers, so we shouldn’t let parochial concerns stop us from doing the right thing for the country as a whole.  We have an opportunity here to really make some progress on transforming humanity into a spacefaring species with a sustainable presence in space.  Let’s not waste it.
Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries.

TDK Wireless Headphones Don’t Trust Bluetooth One Bit [Headphones]

Handsets like the iPhone may be capable of transmitting stereo Bluetooth, but as we've seen, it's tough to find a great stereo Bluetooth headset. So TDK just hands us a dongle instead.

Their new TH-WR700 utilizes any 3.5mm headphone port to transmit music for up to 10 meters, and thanks to Kleer wireless tech rather than Bluetooth, TDK claims a much higher fidelity—up to 40db less noise in the signal, which would be more than noticeable.

The TH-WR700 goes on sale in Japan starting this March for about $200, but there's no word on a US release at this time. [TDK via CrunchGear]


Obama’s Plan For NASA Revealed

The Obama Space Vision for NASA: Massive Paradigm Shifts Ahead

"In announcing its $19.0 billion FY 2011 NASA budget today, the Obama Administration has made it very clear that it intends to attempt a paradigm shift in the way that America explores and utilizes space. The current plan NASA is following will be cancelled. But the intent to explore will remain and will be reconfigured into a new plan that openly taps private sector creativity while making certain that the taxpaying public is involved in an unprecedented fashion.

This plan for change comes with additional funds - to the tune of an additional $6 billion over FY 2011 to FY 2015 when compared to what the FY 2010 budget anticipated - approximately $700 million of which will appear in FY 2011. That means that NASA will get $100 billion over the next 5 years according to the White House's plans.

In so doing, the White House is hoping to make a clean break with much of the old way of doing things at NASA. As they do, NASA will be pushed to broaden its vision, seek new partnerships, and transform its way of doing things. This will be unsettling to many people.

However, that break begins with some hard choices - most notably, the outright cancellation of The Constellation Program. Started shortly after President Bush announced his "Vision for Space Exploration" in 2004, Constellation was the umbrella activity for what eventually became development activities for the Ares launch vehicle family, the Orion crew module, and the Altair lunar lander. All of this now comes to a halt."

Participatory Exploration at NASA

Keith's note: I asked NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver "While NASA has certainly been at the forefront of using new media - social media etc. - to connect with the public it still has a long way to go to catch up with how people actually learn and communicate in the real world. As you well know Education and Public Outreach at NASA is all too often an afterthought or a "nice to have" activity. Yet it is often the only way that the public really comes to understand what NASA does since press releases are aimed at the media - not real people. There has been a lot of talk about something NASA calls "participatory exploration". Can you elaborate on the new ways that NASA will engage the public and describe the priority for such efforts from an overall agency perspective."

Lori replied "The budget has $5 million to do this sort of thing. When we look at robotic prcursor missions - not only will we land - but we will have milions of people travelling along with us - with robots that can be controlled from Earth by students. This will be an oportunity for the taxpaying public who owns this program to participate. We hope to take take a page from DARPA and allow people to utilizing the science we develop. This is the people's program and we are giving it back to them."

Lightweight Blast and Fire Panel

I would like to ask if there is a lightweight panel system that is able to resist high temperatures (2000F) and blast mitigation, also important is the steam laden pressure. Any information or website would be helpful.

Thanks,

Rumor: 27-inch iMac Production Halted Due to Display Issues [Rumor]

Apple has already put a 3-week delay on all of its 27-inch iMac shipments because of the manifold issues with its display. Now Hardmac is reporting they've stopped all assembly lines until a fix is found.

It's an anonymous source that has yet to be substantiated, but it makes some sense given the depths of problems Apple has had with the 27-inch iMacs, including a flickering and yellow-tinted screen. There's no point in continuing to manufacture a product that you know is faulty, especially if the eventual fix could potentially involve a recall. [Hardmac via AppleInsider]


President Obama’s NASA budget unveiled | Bad Astronomy

NASA logoAs promised, today President Obama released his planned NASA budget for the year. Not too surprisingly, it’s pretty much as the rumors indicated. There’s a lot to say here, and I have a lot on my mind, so please hear me out.

The Good News

The good news for sure is an increase of $6 billion over the next five years. It stresses new technology and innovation (to the tune of over $1.5 billion), which is also good. A lot of NASA’s successes have been from pushing the limits on what can be done. It also stresses Earth science, which isn’t surprising at all; Obama appears to understand the importance of our environmental impact, including global warming. So that’s still good news.

The very very good news is that half that money — half, folks, 3.2 billion dollars — is going to science. Yeehaw! The release specifically notes telescopes and missions to the Moon and planets. That, my friends, sounds fantastic.

Bye bye Constellation

Now to the other aspects of this budget. As I have written before, this new budget axes Constellation:

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…

[Emphasis mine.]

I can’t say I disagree with much that’s written there. A lot of it is based on the conclusions of the Augustine commission, a blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by Obama to look into NASA’s future plans and make recommendations.

The Space Station

The budget calls for extending the International Space Station beyond the 2016 timeline, perhaps for four more years. I would say this is a bad idea, BUT the budget also asks for extending the ISS’s scientific capabilities. I would be happy to see that; ISS is very limited as a science platform. However, the dang thing is already built and in orbit, so it makes sense to spend a little bit more (I was surprised to see only about $180 million for this) to make it useful scientifically. If that becomes the case, then a lot of the issues I have with ISS go away.

Incidentally, the budget calls for a guaranteed $600 million for the next five Shuttle missions to ISS, even if a launch slips into FY11.

Back to the Moon?

So, where does this leave us as far as going back to the Moon? It leaves us delayed, again. That sucks. However, as I have pointed out before, Constellation was already a mess. Behind schedule, over budget, and starved of funding. It was a mandate from the Bush White House, but never got the money it needed from them or Congress to ensure it could be done (this didn’t work when it was attempted from the Bush Sr. White House/Congress either).

I don’t want a repeat of the Apollo program: a flag-and-footprints mission where we go there, look around, and then come home for another 40 years. I want to go there and stay there. Apollo was done as a race, and the goal of a race is to win. It wasn’t sustainable. We need to be able to figure out how to get there and be there, and that takes more than just big rockets. We need a good plan, and I’m not really sure what we had up until this point is that plan.

Building a heavy-lift rocket that can take us to the Moon, Mars, and near-Earth asteroids is not really easy. It’s not like we can dust off the old Saturn V plans and start up the factories again. All that tech is gone, superseded, and we might as well start from scratch with an eye toward newer tech. This budget is calling for that, as well as relying heavily on private companies.

Commercial space

And about that. I’ll say this again: private companies have not yet put a man in orbit, but Space X, as an example, is close to doing so. Once the Shuttle retires later this year, private companies will be putting humans in space before NASA will have the capability to do so again [UPDATE: please see my comment below; the above statement about companies beating NASA is correct]. I am no fan of paying the Russians or other countries to do this for us, and going the route of civilian space makes sense.

Now, Space X doesn’t have the heavy lift capacity that an Ares 5 or other planned NASA rocket might have had… but with routine launches to space covered by private companies, NASA can concentrate on what it should: innovation, pushing the limits, paving the road. Once the road is laid, let others use it.

So I don’t see this as doom and gloom. I see this as 1) putting science and innovation first, and 2) freeing NASA up to do what it does best: explore the boundaries.

Here’s what I think. Warning: political complaining ahead.

Remember: the way we’ve been doing things for 40 years has gotten us literally in circles. It’s perhaps long past time to shake things up and try something different. In my previous posts on this (see Related Posts at the bottom), people are complaining that Obama is killing our Moon plans and gutting NASA. That’s simply not true. I think this may very well save NASA and our future manned exploration capabilities, if this is all done correctly.

As for that, and having said my piece that I think this is a good idea, it may not matter: the other thing to remember is that this must pass Congress first. I honestly don’t think that will happen. For one thing, two many Congresscritters have too big a stake in NASA to let go; if you don’t believe me, read this article where Alabama Congressmen complain about the new budget. When Republicans whine about privatizing something, you know you’re in for a fight, and it’s not like Congressional Democrats haven’t been all that useful in backing up Obama’s plans.

We’ll see how this goes. If it’s business as usual with Congress, then I suspect it may be a lot like the health care plan all over again: lots of spin and noise, lots of knee-jerk reactions because it’s Obama’s plan, lots of "compromise" that’s really just watering down something to make it worse, and then a budget will be passed that won’t be able to get anything done.

I’m pretty damn tired of that, and I’m going to do something about it. I’ll write my Congressmen, and I’ll tell them that the time for bending over backwards is long gone. It’s time to grow a spine, time for boldness, time for innovation. Whether people like it or not, this is the new budget being proposed, and if Congress wheedles over it, then yeah, NASA really will be screwed, and we’ll spend the next four decades circling our planet and gazing at the Moon, wondering when we’ll ever go back.

Perhaps it’s fitting that this news is released on the anniversary of the loss of Columbia — it’s been seven years since that day when the orbiter broke up upon re-entry. A very good case can be made that complacence played a big role in that event. When it comes to space exploration, we must never rest on our laurels, we must never have the arrogance to think we have it all under control, and we must never forget that to explore means to push ahead into unknown territory. That is the lesson of Columbia.

The Moon, Mars, and all of space await us. This new budget may not be perfect, but I strongly suspect it’s the best we can do, and far, far better than the course we currently have laid out. If we don’t push for this now, we may never go back.

A ship may be safe in the harbor, but that’s not what ships are for.


Related posts:
Give space a chance
RUMOR: Obama to axe Ares and Constellation
Apollo 1 redux: The inevitability of disaster


iPad Snivelers: Put Up or Shut Up [Ipad]

It's taken me a couple of days for me to understand the wet sickness I felt in response to all the post-iPad whining, until it finally came up in a sputtering lump: disgust.

The iPad isn't a threat to anything except the success of inferior products. And if anything's dystopian about the future it portends, it's an American copyright system that's been out of whack since 1996.

Mark Pilgrim, a man I don't know but can easily presume is my technical better many times over if only because he is employed by Google, said this in a piece called "Tinkerer's Sunset":

Now, I am aware that you will be able to develop your own programs for the iPad, the same way you can develop for the iPhone today ... And that's fine - or at least workable - for the developers of today, because they already know that they're developers. But the developers of tomorrow don't know it yet. And without the freedom to tinker, some of them never will.

Then, John Naughton, writing for the Guardian:

For the implication of an iPad-crazed world – with its millions of delighted, infatuated users – is that a single US company renowned for control-freakery will have become the gatekeeper to the online world. The iPad – like the iPhone – is a closed, tightly controlled device: nothing gets on to it that has not been expressly approved by Apple. We will have arrived at an Orwellian end by Huxleian means. And be foolish enough to think that we've attained nirvana.

This noxious attitude has permeated our tech culture for the last couple of decades, from a half-decade of open-source devotees crying about Microsoft on Slashdot, on toward the last few years of Apple ascendency. It's childish. It's defeatist. And it shows a simultaneous fear to actually innovate and improve while spilling gallons of capitulative semen to a fatuous, dystopian cuckold wank-mare.

Stop trembling, start creating

Nerds! You're not smarter or better than the people who just want to use your creations for their own purpose. You want it both ways: to be able to complain about the incompetency of your family when you're asked to help them work on their computers, but to swing around the half-understood ideas of dead authors when a company actually decides to build a computer that doesn't crumble to dust as a matter of course.

You learned to love technology by tinkering? That's great! Please explain to me how a closed ecosystem like Apple's will impede a curious child's ability to explore in the least way. It's not 1980. It doesn't cost a month's salary to buy a computer. And as long as it takes code to make programs, there will still be plenty of "real" computers around.

Worse, this inviolate right to tinker you claim, the oh-so-horrible future you're trying to frighten everyone with literal think-of-the-children fearmongering, is the imagined possibility that future engineers won't be able to create their own tools.

Well guess what? Only shade-tree tweakers give a flip about creating their own tools. Most people want to use the quality tools at hand to create something new.

Fix the law

Is the DMCA a travesty? Is it bullshit that someone should go to jail for cracking the firmware of a device they own? Of course. Only monsters would allow the curious to go to jail for exploring. Every song ever recorded, every movie ever filmed—they're all together less important than a person's freedom.

But you know what will fix those issues? It's not bitching about how those stupid customers may or may not buy an iPad. It's fixing the legal system. (Or for most of us, myself included, letting the EFF fight those battles for us.)

The number of engineers complaining about Apple's decisions who aren't using products of other capitalist corporations who thrive in the shadow of patent law and the DMCA approaches zero: Moan away in your Google browsers on Windows running on your copyrighted Intel processors. You're really fighting the good fight.

Hilariously, the great open-source hope is Google's Android, but its best apps are designed—and tightly controlled—by Google, which has used its clout to roll over countless web-based companies in a manner just as Orwellian or Huxleyan or whoever it is we're invoking now as Apple or Microsoft. And even with the threat of the DMCA looming, the iPhone has been cracked over and over again. It's been a tinkerer's paradise.

If you want to walk the walk, you can follow Stallman's lead and do all your computing on a tiny netbook, interfacing with the internet from a text console running emacs. Let me know how that works out for you. Be sure to take a picture of yourself using your Lemote Yeeloong next to the biodiesel engine you made on your handforged anvil.

Fix your product

"Now it seems [Apple is] doing everything in their power to stop my kids from finding that sense of wonder. Apple has declared war on the tinkerers of the world," whimpers Pilgrim. Grow the fuck up. Apple has no more "declared war" on your children than Henry Ford declared war on colors besides black.

Apple is selling a product. They've chosen to keep it closed for demonstrably reasonable benefits. And—yes, okay!—several collateral benefits that come from controlling the marketplace that services their products.

But Apple is not the government. There's no mandate to buy an Apple product except the call of excellence. And if you think the average persona on the street doesn't recognize both the ups and downs of buying into an Apple ecosystem, you're eyeing them with the typical nerd myopia, looking down your nose with the same autistic disdain you cultivated in high school. Turns out the internet you helped build as a sanctuary ended up a great place for normal folk, too.

Consider a path that will truly inspire the coming generations of tinkerers and engineers: Working your ass off to make a product that competes with Apple on every count that matters—design, ease-of-use, a simple marketplace, customer satisfaction; you know, everything—and does it with the open-source licenses and values you claim to believe in; or fight to change the broken copyright laws that demonize the tinkering in the first place.


I’m Now A Podcast Host: For Point of Inquiry | The Intersection

I just got the press release by email, so there is no hiding this news any longer. Here it is, from the Center for Inquiry:

Center for Inquiry Announces Three New Hosts for its Popular Podcast, ‘Point of Inquiry’

The Center for Inquiry has announced that there will be three new hosts for its popular podcast, Point of Inquiry. Joining the podcast are Chris Mooney, Karen Stollznow, and Robert Price.

“We are tremendously excited about having Chris Mooney, Karen Stollznow and Robert Price as hosts for our podcast,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “All three are smart, articulate, witty individuals, with a depth of knowledge in their respective areas of expertise. We expect the podcasts to be thought-provoking and engaging—an entertaining intellectual feast. Moreover, given the scope of topics to be covered, we anticipate we will be able to broaden the audience for our podcast.”

Mooney is expected to host about half of the approximately 50 new shows per year, with the balance evenly split between Price and Stollznow. The first episode to feature this new format is scheduled tentatively for February 12.

The Center for Inquiry launched the weekly podcast in 2006, and it was hosted by CFI Vice President for Outreach D.J. Grothe until his recent departure from CFI to become president of the James Randi Educational Foundation.

About the hosts:

Chris Mooney is a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. Mooney maintains a blog hosted by Discover magazine titled “The Intersection” with Sheril Kirshenbaum and serves as a contributing editor for Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

Robert M. Price is professor of theology and scriptural studies at Coleman Theological Seminary and professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute. He is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion and the Jesus Seminar. Dr. Price is the author of a number of books, including The Reason Driven Life, Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and The Da Vinci Fraud. He has appeared widely in the media, and was featured prominently in the movie The God Who Wasn’t There. His latest book is Top Secret: The Truth Behind Today’s Pop Mysticisms.

Karen Stollznow is an author and skeptical investigator with a doctorate in linguistics and a background in history and anthropology. She is an associate researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and a director of the San Francisco Bay Area Skeptics. A prolific skeptical writer for many sites and publications, she is the “Naked Skeptic” Web columnist for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the “Bad Language” columnist for Skeptic magazine, a frequent contributor to Skeptical Inquirer, and managing editor of CSI’s Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Dr. Stollznow is a host of the Monster Talk podcast and writer for the Skepbitch and Skepchick blogs, as well as for the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Swift.

Point of Inquiry is the premier podcast of the Center for Inquiry, drawing on CFI’s relationship with the leading minds of the day, including Nobel Prize-winning scientists, public intellectuals, prominent authors, and social critics and thinkers. Each episode combines incisive interviews, features, and commentary focusing on issues of science and public policy, pseudoscience and the paranormal, and religion and secularism.

So what do folks think of that?


Cubase 5

I'am trying to cleanup my old session in cubase 5 I have session I opened to learn about cubase and I'am not sure how to clean them up or just delete them, that doesn't sound like the proper way

Intel and Micron’s 25nm NAND Flash: The Secret to Cheap SSDs [Ssd]

Intel and Micron's IMFT joint venture's just announced they've started producing NAND flash using 25nm transistors—they're pushing 8GB on a single die—with products shipping sometime this year in fatter capacities (up to 600GB). In English:

Using the smaller 25nm manufacturing process, they can get roughly twice as much storage in the same amount of space as the current 34nm flash manufacturing tech. More storage in the same amount of space, as we learned before, doesn't just mean more storage, it means more storage for cheaper. [Anandtech]


The Secret to the Sex-less Rotifer’s Success: It’s Blowing in the Wind | 80beats

RotiferBiologists are a step closer to figuring out the bizarre animals known as bdelloid rotifers, thanks to a new study in Science.

This group of near-microscopic aquatic organisms has lived for tens of millions of years without sex, can withstand blasts of gamma radiation, and if their habitat dries up they can survive for years in a dessicated state. Two years ago, DISCOVER covered the findings that determined how these all-female invertebrates manage to diversify their genes without sex: Their genome breaks apart when they dry up, and as they reassemble when water returns, they pull in new DNA from a host of other beings. Now, the new study says, drying up is also the key to how rotifers avoid parasites that would normally take advantage of their asexual ways.

To figure out how rotifers might survive infection, the scientists gave them a parasitic fungus. And they found that bdelloid rotifers can shake the infection by drying out, drifting away and then rehydrating once they land someplace moist but fungus-free. The fungi don’t survive the desiccation, so the longer the bdelloids stay dry, the better off they be [Scientific American]. A control group of rotifers infected by fungus while in water all died within two weeks.

Normally, a sexually-reproducing parasite has an advantage over its asexual victims. It can evolve faster thanks to the constant shuffle of genes that occurs when males and females mix their DNA, while an asexual population can be too genetically similar: If every individual in a population is genetically identical, then one parasite can wipe them all out [Science News]. But with their apparent incorporation of alien DNA and ability to outlast parasites when times get tough, the rotifers have endured for millions of years.

Related Content:
Discoblog: Sexless Sea Creatures Steal Foreign Genes
Discoblog: Asexual, Tough-As-Hulk Animals Withstand Hulk-Level Radiation
DISCOVER: The Real Dirty Secret About Sex (Life doesn’t need it, so why do we do it?)

Image: Kent Loeffer, Kathie T. Hodge, Christopher G. Wilson