Live video chat with Zach Weiner | Bad Astronomy

I’m guest hosting for Kiki on "Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour" today, interviewing Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal! If I have everything coded correctly, then from 4:00 to 5:00 Pacific time today you’ll be able to watch the streaming video live below:


Live Broadcast by Ustream.TV

If you see nothing above this line, then a) I did it incorrectly (but it works for me), 2) something’s wrong on your end, γ) try clicking here for the stream at TWit TV (where there is also a chat room), or ∞) the interview is over. But it’ll be archived on Kiki’s website and I’ll link to it when it does.


The Avengers Help You Understand Your Fears About Transhumanism | Science Not Fiction

Transhumanism is a big, complicated, sprawling idea. The central concept – that humans can be made better with technology – touches on a lot of hopes and fears about the future of humanity. Though I’m always going on about how great human enhancement could be, I’ve got my fair share of fears myself. But my fears are probably way different than many of your fears. But how in the world can we represent those concerns? As it turns out, I’ve found a pretty good set of archetypes that represent our hopes and fears: Marvel Comic’s Avengers.

How we frame scientific progress changes how we see individual technologies. When we think about science changing people, our minds naturally go to that group of individuals constantly being bombarded by gamma radiation, genetic mutagens, cybernetic interventions, and biological acceleration. I’m talking, of course, about superheroes. Superheroes are modern mythology. And because of that, they make great metaphors for understanding big issues. With The Avengers movie officially announced, I can’t help but notice that the four main members* of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes – Thor, the Hulk, Captain America, and Iron Man – are great examples of the different ...


Gene Therapy, Successful Against Parkinson’s, Continues on the Road to Redemption | 80beats

Back in the 1980s, gene therapy was one of science’s greatest hopes and hypes, and researchers predicted the technique would be used to cure a huge range of illnesses. During the 90s, many early gene therapy trials were effective or downright dangerous, some causing cancer or even death. But more recently, scientists who stuck with gene therapy have started to see positive results, with promising treatments for malformed hemoglobin, color blindness, and depression. (See the DISCOVER magazine feature “The Second Coming of Gene Therapy” for more.) Now, researchers have announced that they’ve successfully treated the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in a small group of people—a far cry from a cure, but still a step in the right direction.

I Once Was Blind but Now I See

The theory behind gene therapy is simple: A healthy gene hitches a ride into the patient’s genome on a virus, replacing the genes responsible for some genetic disease or disorder. Actually doing this is more difficult, because humans have a little thing called an immune system that’s remarkably efficient at finding and destroying foreign bodies. After the first U.S. death from gene therapy in 1999, ...


Replaying evolution reveals the benefits of being slow and steady | Not Exactly Rocket Science

Video game players are used to replaying history. They can load up any saved game and start afresh, sometimes making different choices that lead to alternative endings. Life, sadly, is no game and it’s far more difficult to reload and start again… difficult, but not impossible. In a laboratory in Michigan State University, Richard Lenski repeatedly replays evolution from saved files.

Lenski’s aptly named “long-term evolution experiment” is the longest-running in history, and one of the most important. It looks deceptively simple – just twelve gently shaking flasks of sugary solution, each containing a strain of the gut bacterium Escherichia coli. Lenski bred the dozen strains from a common ancestor in 1998. Every day since then, his team has transferred one per cent of the cells into a fresh flask to grow anew. Last month, the bacteria passed their 50,000th generation.

Every 500 generations, the team takes a sample from each of the dozen strains and freezes them. These stocks are the experiment’s “fossil record” – its living save-files. By thawing them out and growing them afresh, the team can compare their fates to that of the ...

MESSENGER arrives at Mercury today! | Bad Astronomy

Just a quick note to y’all, since I’m in the middle of about eight things all demanding my full attention: the MESSENGER spacecraft will enter orbit around Mercury tonight at 9:00 p.m. EDT, after a tortuous 7-year journey. Once safely circling the planet, engineers will be focusing on making sure the probe is safe and sound, so it’ll be a while (days) before we start getting images.

I’m quite sure my pal Emily Lakdawalla will be poised for attack on every tidbit of news that comes in, so follow her on Twitter and on her blog at the Planetary Society.

Related posts:

- MESSENGER’s family portrait
- MESSENGER’s third tryst with Mercury
- Mercury hides a monster impact
- MESSENGER contacts the Borg queen


Icy moon and distant rings | Bad Astronomy

[REMINDER: I'm guest hosting Dr. Kiki's Science Hour today at 4:00 Pacific time!]

Ya know, for a tiny ball of ice, Saturn’s moon Enceladus really knows how to pose for a picture:

Cassini snapped this shot from 34,000 km (20,000 miles) away, looking down on the northern hemisphere of Enceladus. Peeking just over the edge is a slice of Saturn’s rings, too.

Most of the action on Enceladus is at the south pole, where geysers of water are erupting. But up at the other end of the 500 km wide moon — for comparison, Colorado is 600 km across — it’s still pretty nifty. The reflective, icy surface is saturated with craters, including that interesting triple smackdown on the left. Something must have broken apart as it hit… though I’ll note the two big craters are elongated, indicating a very shallow angle of impact, while the third smaller one is round. It may only coincidentally line up with the other two. If that’s the case, maybe a binary asteroid hit here long, long ago.

Cracks snake their way across the surface too. Enceladus certainly has liquid water under ...


U.S. Public on Global Warming: “Been There, Done That, No Big Issue” | The Intersection

Gallup has new data on the public and climate change; and I’ve devoted my latest DeSmogBlog piece to discussing it. Let’s just say the latest news is not….good:

Public concern about climate change, Gallup reports, is “stable at lower levels”—just 51 percent say they worry significantly about global warming, down from 66 percent in 2007. If you don’t think that the rise of an ever-more-assured climate denialism in Congress is tied to those numbers, you don’t know politics.

As usual, the latest survey also underscores the depth of the partisan divide on the climate issue. Democrats are 40 percentage points more likely to worry about global warming than Republicans, and 35 percentage points more likely to agree with scientists that global warming is human caused. Republicans, meanwhile, are 45 percentage points more likely to claim global warming is exaggerated in the news. Lovely.

You can read the full Gallup results here and my full DeSmogBlog commentary here.

P.S.: I’m about to head out of the country for a friend’s wedding. My blogging will probably be light to nonexistent for a week, but Sheril will be here…


Don’t lose your cool | Cosmic Variance

Japan is in the midst of a slow-motion nuclear meltdown. Each new day brings word of further problems. At this point three reactors have been flooded with seawater, and appear contained (at least for the time being). The news reports are incoherent and conflicting, and nobody seems to really know what’s happening. This may be because the information is not public. Or it could be because the situation on the ground is fundamentally incoherent. You can’t exactly walk up to reactor #2, open the door, and take a peek inside. Amazingly, the best up-to-date resource appears to be wikipedia (which incorporates the useful summary tables from the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum).

The earthquake happened at 2:26pm. Two minutes later, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant went into SCRAM mode, and shut down. The control rods were inserted. The diesel generators fired up. Everything worked to plan.

The Fukushima-Daiichi plants are boiling water reactors. In simplest terms, this is just a pile of radioactive material (generally uranium) which gets hot (literally hot, not just radioactive). You run water over it, generate superheated water and steam, drive a turbine, and produce electricity. Instead of burning coal, you use radioactive decay as the source of heat, but otherwise the basic mechanism is surprisingly similar to a conventional power plant. You turn off a nuclear reactor by inserting control rods, which absorb a lot of the neutrons, and inhibit further fission reactions. So, two minutes after the quake, the control rods were inserted, and the reactors were no longer undergoing nuclear fission. However, one of the peculiarities of nuclear power is that even after the reactor is shut “off” there is still a significant amount of residual radioactive material. This material continues to decay, generating significant heat (>10 megawatt; by now [almost a week later] it’s ~1 megawatt, enough to power a thousand homes). Thus, even after turning a reactor off, it still generates significant power for a few weeks, and the resulting heat needs to be removed and the radioactive core kept cool . And to do this, you need to pump in a lot of water (ideally thousands of gallons/min) at high pressure. And this requires a fair amount of power.

The plant was working perfectly for roughly 30 minutes after the earthquake. The tsunami was on its way, but the plant operators were blind to it. Had they known, they could have depressurized the nuclear cores in anticipation. But they were focused on riding out the earthquake, which they did admirably. And then the tsunami hit. Just a few years ago, after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the Fukushima-Daiichi plant was upgraded to deal with a worst-case, 5.3 meter tsunami. The wave that hit the plant last Friday was roughly 10 meters high. It swamped the diesel generators, as well as the fuel tanks and the switching station. The system was “live” because of the SCRAM, and the local electrical grid got fried. Fortunately there were backup batteries, which lasted another 9.5 hours. At around midnight the batteries ran out of power, and the plant was no longer able to cool its reactor cores. At this point, the Troubles began.

As the core starts to heat up, it boils off the surrounding water. Eventually the fuel rods are exposed to the air. This causes the core to heat up even faster, and also causes a reaction with the zirconium cladding (which holds the uranium fuel pellets in place), generating hydrogen gas. Without any cooling, the fuel gets hot (> 1500 K/2200 F), and starts to melt. The hydrogen gas collects, and eventually explodes (think Hindenberg). This happened in reactor #1 on Saturday, blowing the roof off of the reactor building, but leaving the containment vessel (which is ~1 meter thick steel) intact. On Monday a similar explosion happened to #3, and on Tuesday there was an explosion at #2. Both of their containment vessels were probably compromised. Rupturing a containment vessel is very bad. So long as most of the radioactive material is contained, the damage to the outside world is similarly contained (modulo venting of various radioactive gas, which has been happening, but not at profoundly dangerous levels). Once a containment vessel is ruptured, the radioactive material can end up anywhere; the sky’s the limit. Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel.

The current situation seems to be that seawater is being pumped into all three broken reactors (#1–3), and they are in thermal control. It seems likely that all three sets of fuel rods are partially melted and damaged. It also seems likely that the containment vessels in #2 and #3 have been compromised, although probably not severely. There are some concerns about spent fuel rods in pools near reactors #3 and #4. So long as the rods are covered in sufficient water, they are stable. If the rods are exposed, they heat up. And when they get hot, they start to burn through their cladding, and emit radioactive material. These pools are not within containment vessels, and therefore they are potentially even more dangerous than the cores of active reactors. Their radioactive emission goes directly into the surroundings. But so long as there is water in the pools, they should be fine. The latest claim (by the Chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is that the storage pool at the #4 reactor has little to no water. If true, this is a very ominous development.

This is by far the most dire situation on the planet at the moment. It has the world’s attention. We’ve had almost a week. Why can’t we just fix it? There are a number of serious complications. First, there’s the issue of radiation. People are unable to walk up to most of the buildings and see what’s going on, lest they get immediate and severe radiation poisoning. There are remote sensors and cameras, but fundamentally everyone is guessing as to what’s happening inside. Even if we knew exactly how things looked, it’s still a major engineering feat to get the appropriate amount of water running through these highly complex systems to do the cooling. There have been explosions, there are stuck valves, there are broken pumps, there are ongoing fires. The world’s resources are focused on this problem. Millions of lives potentially depend upon the outcome. And, thus far, progress has been haphazard and halting, despite heroic efforts on the part of the Japanese crew. The engineering challenges may simply be too great.

The worst-case scenario for the Daiichi reactors plays out something like this: 1. the storage pool at #4 is indeed dry. Because it’s uncontained, the radiation levels in the area get very high. Everyone needs to evacuate the complex. 2. Without anyone manning the cooling systems, the cooling stops. Everything overheats. 3. There are various explosions, resulting in a breach to a containment vessel. 4. There is a subsequent steam explosion, and a plume of radioactive material is generated. 5. Wind carries the plume in the direction of Tokyo (world’s largest metropolis), a mere 140 miles (225 km) away. We can’t even contemplate trying to evacuate and treat a city of 35 million people. As far as I can tell, things do not appear to be headed in this direction. But such an outcome is unfortunately not outside the realm of possibility, and just contemplating this should freak you out. But, to reiterate, it’s very unlikely, and a lot of things would have to go catastrophically wrong. I’d love to quantify just how unlikely, but cannot. My guess is that nobody can, since there are too many uncertainties, and we’re fundamentally in uncharted territory.

The best-case scenario, and probably most likely, is that the Fukushima-Daiichi plant will limp along, but without any catastrophic events (such as a major Chernobyl-style radioactive explosion and fire). The fuel will continue to cool, the fires will be put out, the amount of radiation will subside, and eventually the entire site will be entombed and become a testament to human hubris.


Today’s Best Science: Mercury Orbiting, Toxin-Sucking Bananas, Language Colors Perception | 80beats

Orbit time! Launched in 2004, NASA’s Messenger spacecraft will this Friday become the first probe to orbit Mercury—potentially uncovering polar ice or explaining why the planet is oddly dense.
Older AND wiser: When scientists played recordings of lion roars for elephants, they discovered that the oldest female elephants were the most sensitive, and even discerned the calls of lions from lionesses.
Health experts say that this year’s cholera epidemic in Haiti could affect double the UN’s prediction of 400,000 people. The UN’s “crude” predictions assumed only a certain percentage of the population would be affected, whereas the new estimate takes water supplies and immunity into consideration.

Bananas are redefining the term “water-purification plant.” It turns out minced banana peels efficiently remove toxic metals from drinking water.
Your blue is not my bleu: A new study suggests that language colors our thoughts, after they found that Japanese volunteers distinguished light and dark blues better than English speakers.
Japan update: The U.S. government thinks Japan has underestimated nuclear risk since last Friday’s quake, saying that Fukushima Daiichi’s No. 4 nuclear reactor has probably boiled dry and is leaking ...


NCBI ROFL: How touching gets people to do your bidding. | Discoblog

An evaluation of touch on a large request: a field setting.

“The effect of touch on compliance to a request has traditionally been tested with small solicitation (answer to a small questionnaire, give a dime to a confederate ….). In our experiment a larger request was evaluated. Passersby, 53 men and 67 women, were asked by two confederates to look after a large and very excited dog for 10 minutes because each wanted to go into a pharmacy where animals were prohibited. In half of the cases, subjects were touched during the request. Analysis showed that, when touched, 55% of the subjects agreed with the request whereas 35% only in the no-touch control condition agreed. This finding indicates that touch was positively associated with the subjects’ compliance (p<.03).”

Photo: flickr/Terwilliger911

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Can a machine tickle?
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Double feature: foot in the door and door in the face techniques.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: I’m pretty sure this is how the Civil War started…

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!


I’m guest hosting Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour on Thursday! | Bad Astronomy

Hey, who has two thumbs and is hosting Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour on Thursday?

Well, usually the answer would be Kiki Sanford, the host. Assuming she has two thumbs. I’ve never really paid that close of attention, honestly. But Thursday the answer will be: me! Kiki hatched a youngling, and so she’s off on maternity leave. She asked a few people to sub for her, one of them being me.

Mwuhahaha!

Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour is a live streaming video science talk show, and my shot at stardom will be at 4:00 p.m. Pacific time (23:00 GMT) on Thursday (tomorrow) March 17.

I’ll also have a very special guest on the show! It’s a secret, but here’s a hint: his name is ZACH WEINER!

The show can be watched LIVE at TWIT TV. There’s also a chat room there, so you can log in and ask questions, or you can ask via Twitter, but to be honest it’ll be hard to check the tweets during the show itself.

If you want to see what the show is like, I was guest a while back and the video is embedded there.

This will be a ...


No, YouTube’s Fake-Boob-Biting Snake Didn’t Die of Silicone Poisoning | Discoblog

If the snake in YouTube’s latest viral video could talk (and were still alive), it’d probably take a line from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” After it bit Israeli model Orit Fox’s fake breast during a photoshoot in Tel Aviv, it apparently died of silicone poisoning—which is a ridiculous rumor at best, though you can be the judge of that:

The snake did die, but it doesn’t take a snake biologist to explain that it probably wasn’t from silicone poisoning. I went ahead and talked to a snake biologist—University of Sydney scientist Rick Shine—anyway, who wrote in an email: “I’m skeptical—it’s hard to believe that it could have ingested any significant amount of silicone from the bite shown in the video clip.” And even if the snake did get a mouthful of silicone, there isn’t any evidence that medical-grade silicone can poison a snake, he added. (Though he did point out—with a laugh—that some snakes do eat mammals, and this one went straight for mammaries…)

With no official snake autopsy (shucks), we don’t know the true cause of death, but Universidad Central de Venezuela snake biologist Jesus Rivas thinks that it’s probably what ...


Engineers Can Now Wirelessly Hack Your Car | 80beats

It wasn’t too surprising when scientists first hacked into a car using its own onboard diagnostic port—sure, it’s easy to get into a car’s electronic brain if you’re already inside the car. Now the science of car-hacking has received a digital upgrade: Researchers have have gained access to modern, electronics-riddled cars from the outside. And in so doing, they’ve managed to take control of a car’s door locks, dashboard displays, and even its brakes.

The oddest part of these findings, which were presented this week to the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Electronic Vehicle Controls and Unintended Acceleration, is that they weren’t entirely intentional: It was all part of an investigation prompted by the Toyota acceleration problems, and was meant to probe the safety of electronic automotive systems. But testing those system’s safety also uncovered some flaws.

How It Works

The researchers took a 2009 sedan (they declined to identify the make and embarrass the manufacturer) and methodically tried to hack into it using every trick they could think of. They discovered a couple good ones.

By adding extra code to a digital music file, they were able to turn a ...


Diluting nuclear homeopathy | Bad Astronomy

The disaster is still unfolding in Japan. The earthquake, the flood, the cyclical escalating and abating of the radioactive threat from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant… it seems that everyone wants to help, but many are unsure how (I have a list of charities to which you can donate if you want to help financially). But one thing I can be pretty sure of is that not all advice is as good as others, and some is downright dangerous.

My friend, the Australian skeptic Richard Saunders, sent me a note letting me know that if I am worried about radiation poisoning or radiation induced cancers, homeopathy has me covered. The group Homeopathy Plus in Australia has sent out a note telling people they can use homeopathic "remedies" to alleviate radiation sickness, including such things as strontium-carbonicum, phosphorus, and, bizarrely, X-rays.

X-rays? Seriously? Since X-rays are a form of light, it seems weird, even for homeopathy, to claim they can make a diluted solution based on them. If you expose water to X-rays, the molecules of H2O will shatter, but then recombine, leaving… water. Of course, that’s ...


World’s First Instant Universal Eyeglasses To Help Children in the Developing World | The Intersection

Over 100 million children in the developing world need–but lack access to–vision correction. Today Dow Corning and the Centre for Vision in the Developing World announced that they have teamed up to do something about it. Through the use of silicones, a new initiative called Child ViSion will provide 100 million self-adjustable eyeglasses to children by 2020, which reportedly correct nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and age-related difficulty focusing:

The Child ViSion initiative will design, manufacture and distribute a child-specific version of self-adjustable eyeglasses to children in the developing world. The aim is to increase the effectiveness of classroom-based education by improving children’s ability to see the blackboard from which they are being taught.

Read more about this terrific program here.


Moral Realism | Cosmic Variance

Richard Carrier (author of Sense and Goodness Without God) has a longish blog post up about moral ontology, well worth reading if you’re into that sort of thing. (Via Russell Blackford.) Carrier is a secular materialist, but a moral realist: he thinks there are such things as “moral facts” that are “true independent of your opinion or culture.”

Carrier goes to great lengths to explain that these moral facts are not simply “out there” in the same sense that the laws of physics arguably are, but rather that they express relationships between the desires of particular humans and external reality. (The useful analogy is: “bears are scary” is a true fact if you are talking about you or me, but not if you are talking about Superman.)

I don’t buy it. Not to be tiresome, but I have to keep insisting that you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. You can’t use logic to derive moral commandments solely from facts about the world, even if those facts include human desires. Of course, you can derive moral commandments if you sneak in some moral premise; all I’m trying to say here is that we should be upfront about what those moral premises are, and not try to hide them underneath a pile of unobjectionable-sounding statements.

As a warm-up, here is an example of logic in action:

  • All men are mortal.
  • Socrates is a man.
  • Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two statements are the premises, the last one is the conclusion. (Obviously there are logical forms other than syllogisms, but this is a good paradigmatic example.) Notice the crucial feature: all of the important terms in the conclusion (“Socrates,” “mortal”) actually appeared somewhere in the premises. That’s why you can’t derive “ought” from “is” — you can’t reach a conclusion containing the word “ought” if that word (or something equivalent) doesn’t appear in your premises.

This doesn’t stop people from trying. Carrier uses the following example (slightly, but not unfairly, paraphrased):

  • Your car is running low on oil.
  • If your car runs out of oil, the engine will seize up.
  • You don’t want your car’s engine to seize up.
  • Therefore, you ought to change the oil in your car.

At the level of everyday practical reasoning, there’s nothing wrong with this. But if we’re trying to set up a careful foundation for moral philosophy, we should be honest and admit that the logic here is obviously incomplete. There is a missing premise, which should be spelled out explicitly:

  • We ought to do that which would bring about what we want.

Crucially, this is a different kind of premise than the other three in this argument; they are facts about the world that could in principle be tested experimentally, while this new one is not.

Someone might suggest that this is isn’t a premise at all, it’s simply the definition of “ought.” The problem there is that it isn’t true. You can’t claim that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time, and then defend your claim by defining “greatest basketball player of all time” to be Wilt Chamberlain. When it comes to changing your oil, you might get away with defining “ought” in this way, but when it comes to more contentious issues of moral obligation, you’re going to have to do better.

Alternatively, you’re free to say that this premise is just so obviously true that no reasonable person could possibly disagree. Perhaps so, and that’s an argument we could have. But it’s still a premise. And again, when we get to issues more contentious than keeping your engine going, it will be necessary to make those premises explicit if we want to have a productive conversation. Once our premises start distinguishing between the well-being of individuals and the well-being of groups, you will inevitably find that they begin to seem a bit less self-evident.

Observe the world all you like; you won’t get morality off the ground until you settle on some independent moral assumptions. (And don’t tell me that “science makes assumptions, too” — that’s obviously correct, but the point here is that morality requires assumptions in addition to the assumptions we need to get science off the ground.) We can have a productive conversation about what those assumptions should be once we all admit that they exist.


Astro Noms | Bad Astronomy

Steve DeGroof over at MadArtLabs (who brought us Felicia Day as a counterexample to homeopathy) has knocked another one out of the park: Astronom Os!

My love for geeky breakfast cereal is a matter of record, so it’s no surprise that I would totally eat Astronom Os. And I would do the connect-the-dots game on the back too; the Big Dipper would be helpful in pouring the milk.

I would also be happy to help market these. As for a slogan, that’s easy: "Astonom Os: breakfast of the stars!"

Or, "Contains elements forged in the fires of a supernova!"

Or, "Get your RDA of the most stable nuclide!"

Or, "Not Taurus, Torus!"

Or, "Retains low ductility for statistically significant durations even when submersed in lactic liquids!"

That last one will sell 106s of boxes.


Rethinking Engineering Culture :: Data, Openness, Social

This post is cross posted from jonverve.posterous.com. Leave a comment here or on the original post.

Much of the work we do at NASA is truly world-class and routinely we push the capabilities of science and engineering by leading the way. Lately, I’ve thought a lot about how we can push the envelope of our engineering work to improve how we build spacecraft at NASA Goddard, where I work.

But I find that often we are like the mad scientist who invents new technology that is going to change our lives, but can’t seem to find his wallet. It seems that we often cannot do some very practical, day-to-day activities to keep our “capability engine” well tuned, poised, and ready to strike at solving the next big problem.

I think there are tremendous opportunities for us at Goddard and more broadly across NASA to improve our process of the way we do engineering and to introduce some new tools that will substantially allow us to stop re-inventing the wheel and focus more on solving the titan challenges we face everyday.

There are three areas which I believe can tremendously help. They are the title of this article. I will dive into each of them below.

1) respect for data

42-18136065

I find that we are kings of silos. We have a separate, monolithic IT system for everything we do. This is not a unique approach — both industry and government weigh the options for tools to do our work, and often come to very different conclusions, depending on the schedule, manpower, and budget factors at play. But where I feel we fall short is that we do not think of our systems from a truely life-cycle perspective. What I mean is that we look at solving the engineering problem, but do not look at the larger implications of how we can keep our “capability engine” well tuned. We seem to see the data and information we work in on a daily basis no differently than a disposable ketchup wrapper — we feel it is simply for our pragmatic use to accomplish the engineering task for the day, but we forget that it has value in the knowledge in the larger organization. What if we were to actually treat the data and information more like an heirloom which we treated with care and made sure to give it a good home which others could benefit from down the road? I think this could have tremendous implications. I know this description is quite vague and is not any call for a particular way of doing things, but I do not believe I know enough to specify a call. I simply believe that that if we respected our data and information, and ultimately knowledge, that we would have a more long-term and wholistic view of the data and information we product as an effect of our day-to-day work as engineers, instead of treating it like dust under our feet.

2) culture of openness

“It’s very political” is a phrase I hear quite often at Goddard to describe when some process has slowed down to make its progress indiscernible. Unfortunately, I believe some get so caught up in the unavoidable politics, that they use that as an excuse to clamp down on advertising the good work they are doing. Perhaps they fear getting their funding taken away, or perhaps they feel they make be “discovered” by headquarters, or perhaps what they are doing may become institutionalized, potentially killing it. Whatever the reason, I believe some people have learned that the best way to operate is “under the radar.” What I believe this causes is a side-effect of paranoia, which gets in the way of our innocent nature of simply sharing by default. Certainly on a one or two person basis, most engineers at Goddard will give you a full run down of a situation. But in front of a group, their story slowly changes. I believe this politics is not unique to the government, but exists in any organization which comprises over 5 people. And I do not think we should try to eliminate it, its innate to the way any organization makes decisions when it has to weigh many factors.

But, I believe there is great potential to share information as I have laid out in the “Respect for Data” section previously. But if people have learned to fight their innate nature for openness, I believe that potential will never be realized. I think the solution is to short circuit the politics by incentivizing openness for our engineers at Goddard. How do we make openness so attractive that the alternative is outweighed 3-to-1? I do not have an answer, but I have a feeling that this process comes slowly with small wins.

3) social software

Humannetwork

The web has evolved tremendously in the last few years, more than anyone could have predicted — even those who followed the tremendous steps forward of the early web. What the web allows is a democratization of information, whether it be personal or business. Facebook, twitter, and other sites have raised the level at which we interact with each other on the web. I say “with each other” instead of “with a computer” because the fundamental shift in the last decade on the web is that it does not just enhance an old activity, it transforms the old mechanistic activity to a deeper personal connection with others. What this allows is a interaction with others that mirrors more the “in-person” interaction than previously possible. So instead of just sharing words over email, I can tie into imagery, and a fully threaded conversation with identity which now allows me to track the progress of a discussion or look back at pictures of friends from many years ago, as it is all now cataloged on the web. And of course these are very simple examples of very rich interactions that these technologies enable every day by thousands of organizations.

You may ask what this has to do with engineering process and work? Everything. I believe the social web has tremendous possibility to provide the incentive I mention above for openness. If you give people the mechanism to democratize an idea and level the playing field, I believe then a culture of openness can flourish, because our engineers will realize that as they give one piece of their valued engineering data, they get back many fold. Imagine for a moment, if every engineer at Goddard posted the top 5 equations, tools, or principles that guide the way they do their work. As unbelievable as this may be for ever happening, imagine if it did. Wouldn’t that be a huge resource for everyone else for insight into the way others did their work? I’m not trying to say that the complex engineering we do can be reduced down to a formula, but which I believe this type of thing would do is give everyone insight into each others’ work and jump start an openness revolution.

Now finally, imagine if we were to take the engineering processes that we perform to execute our design challenges and adapt them for the social web. Now imagine a system which at least partially self-documents in that the record of the WHY of our work and not just the WHAT is fully documented in threaded conversation. Now with some simple framework, we could start to categorize and organize this information and we would be able to start to grasp the emerging concepts of the next generation of engineering process, which does not exist in any textbook yet. (By WHY I mean, the reasoning behind a technical decision, and by WHAT I mean the technical decision itself. The WHY is often something that is very difficult to pick up from existing documentation, but is often the most important question, because that is what involves our engineering problem solving.)

what I looking for from you

I am writing these ideas down to try to get feedback from others who have one foot in engineering within the space community and the other within seeing the potential at the intersection of technology and culture. Please comment below. Forward this post to friends and colleagues you may think would be interested. My ultimate aim is to develop the “game changing” incentive for our engineers to open up about their innovative work and ideas and to consider adopting the use of a new tools which may transform the way we do our business of scientific discovery.

what am I up to?

I am an Information Architect and Software Engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. I work on engineering frameworks and am trying to develop new processes for our engineers to accomplish their work, innovate, and collaborate. You can read more information and see some of my talks here: http://opennasatools.pbworks.com/AETD-Wiki Much of the thought I have shared here is from my experience in this role.

related past openNASA posts