Image: Shutterstock / Built InWhat Is Aerospace Engineering?

Aerospace engineering is the branch of engineering that works in the design, development, testing and production of airborne objects such as aircraft, missiles, spacecraft, rocket propulsion systems and other related systems. Aerospace engineering can either fall into the categories of aeronautical engineering or astronautical engineering.

Early aerospace engineering and its concepts can be traced back to the late 19th century. The true birth of the aerospace industry, however, took place in 1903, when Wilbur and Orville Wright demonstrated the first example of an airplane capable of sustained flight. The brothers conducted extensive research and development, which led to a breakthrough in developing an onboard system that would allow pilots to control the warping of the planes wings for altitude control. The Wright brothers began licensing their technology to governments and military contractors, and by 1909, they were able to develop the first plane capable of flying faster than 40 miles per hour.

Fast forward through several years of development bolstered by the emergence of both World War I and World War II, plus the introduction of commercial airliners in the 1930s and the aerospace industry would continue to take shape well into the 1950s. Along the way, superpowered jets were produced as well as missile defense systems that would further revolutionize combat. During the late 1950s, a new goal of reaching yet another frontier space became increasingly realistic.

The Space Age was marked by fierce competition between the Americans and the Soviets, both aspiring to become the first to explore beyond the sky. The Soviets were the first to succeed with the launch of a small satellite, Sputnik, first entering orbit in 1957. Sputniks achievement was a result of the evolution of missile systems and used rockets of similar construction to boost small payloads past the atmosphere. The United States completed its first successful launch in 1958 with Project SCORE, successfully placing the first low-orbit communications satellite into orbit.

Several additional satellites were launched and followed by the launch of the first successful human-piloted spacecraft to enter orbit, accomplished by Yury A. Gagarin aboard the Soviet Unions Vostok 1. Since Gagarins orbit, there have been hundreds of successful missions to space completed by both manned and autonomous aircraft.

Modern successes of the aerospace industry include manned missions to the moon, the exploration of Mars by rovers, an intricate system of navigational satellites launched into space and the permanent installation of an International Space Station in orbit.

Modern aerospace developments and breakthroughs often fall into one of two categories: Aeronautical Engineering and Astronautical Engineering.

Aeronautical engineering refers to the science, theory, technology, practices and advancements that make flight possible within the earths atmosphere, while astronautical engineering focuses on enabling space exploration, which includes the construction of spacecrafts and launch vehicles.

Enabling flight both above and below the atmosphere requires the cooperation and collaboration of engineering experts across multiple fields. Organizations within these fields are responsible for designing systems that are both compatible with existing technology and sustainable enough to remain in use without the need for constant redesigns. These systems are designed through rigorous research and development and built around several key aerospace engineering concepts. By studying these concepts, aerospace engineers can choose the field that they would most like to specialize in and take on a role in some of the most critical jobs.

Aerodynamics refer to how air moves and the interaction between the air and any solid masses passing through it. This is the foundation of aerospace engineering and provides a baseline for sustained flight.

Thermodynamics is the science of the relationship between heat, temperature, energy and output. This concept is key to mechanical engineering as it defines how heat is transformed into energy and creates mechanical output.

Read MoreWhat Is a Drone? Drone Definition and Uses.

Celestial mechanics applies principles of physics to astronomical objects, including stars, planets, asteroids, and other organic material in order to project the motion of objects throughout outer space. Astronautical engineering relies on celestial mechanics to propel engines and avoid contact with objects in orbit.

There are four forces that play into successful flight: thrust, drag, weight and lift. All of these forces must be balanced and react to changes in any of the other forces to sustain flight. Thrust is the result of propulsion and is controlled by engines, propellers, or rockets; drag slows a flying object down; weight is the effect gravity has on an object; and lift suspends flying objects in the air, often through the use of wings.

Propulsion is the use of a system to drive or push an object forward. Thrust is a result of propulsion, crucial to acceleration and maintaining speed in any craft.

Acoustics principles within aerospace are applied when evaluating and addressing aeroacoustic noise in spacecraft, launch environments, engines, and propulsion systems due to aerodynamic flow. Proper acoustics are crucial to maintaining a safe and manageable environment for those near a flying craft and require careful consideration due to changing pressures that can create catastrophic failure.

All aerospace engineering concepts come into play when designing guidance and control systems, allowing pilots and controllers to adjust systems as needed to maintain flight. Guidance and control systems also utilize GPS navigation to ensure safe travel through low visibility environments.

Best Aerospace CompaniesView Top Aerospace Companies Hiring Now

Aerospace engineers should possess a deep understanding of several elements crucial to success in any aerospace field. These concepts, plus several others, are imperative to building successful systems and playing a role in the future of aerospace capabilities:

Excerpt from:

What Is Aerospace? Aerospace Industry & Engineering. | Built In

Branch of engineering

Aerospace engineering is the primary field of engineering concerned with the development of aircraft and spacecraft.[3] It has two major and overlapping branches: aeronautical engineering and astronautical engineering. Avionics engineering is similar, but deals with the electronics side of aerospace engineering.

"Aeronautical engineering" was the original term for the field. As flight technology advanced to include vehicles operating in outer space, the broader term "aerospace engineering" has come into use.[4] Aerospace engineering, particularly the astronautics branch, is often colloquially referred to as "rocket science".[5][a]

Flight vehicles are subjected to demanding conditions such as those caused by changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature, with structural loads applied upon vehicle components. Consequently, they are usually the products of various technological and engineering disciplines including aerodynamics, Air propulsion, avionics, materials science, structural analysis and manufacturing. The interaction between these technologies is known as aerospace engineering. Because of the complexity and number of disciplines involved, aerospace engineering is carried out by teams of engineers, each having their own specialized area of expertise.[7]

The origin of aerospace engineering can be traced back to the aviation pioneers around the late 19th to early 20th centuries, although the work of Sir George Cayley dates from the last decade of the 18th to mid-19th century. One of the most important people in the history of aeronautics[8] and a pioneer in aeronautical engineering,[9] Cayley is credited as the first person to separate the forces of lift and drag, which affect any atmospheric flight vehicle.[10]

Early knowledge of aeronautical engineering was largely empirical, with some concepts and skills imported from other branches of engineering.[11] Some key elements, like fluid dynamics, were understood by 18th-century scientists.[citation needed]

In December 1903, the Wright Brothers performed the first sustained, controlled flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft, lasting 12 seconds. The 1910s saw the development of aeronautical engineering through the design of World War I military aircraft.

Between World Wars I and II, great leaps were made in the field, accelerated by the advent of mainstream civil aviation. Notable airplanes of this era include the Curtiss JN 4, the Farman F.60 Goliath, and Fokker Trimotor. Notable military airplanes of this period include the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 from Japan, United Kingdom, and Germany respectively. A significant development in aerospace engineering came with the first operational Jet engine-powered airplane, the Messerschmitt Me 262 which entered service in 1944 towards the end of the second World War.[12]

The first definition of aerospace engineering appeared in February 1958,[4] considering the Earth's atmosphere and outer space as a single realm, thereby encompassing both aircraft (aero) and spacecraft (space) under the newly coined term aerospace.

In response to the USSR launching the first satellite, Sputnik, into space on October 4, 1957, U.S. aerospace engineers launched the first American satellite on January 31, 1958. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 as a response to the Cold War. In 1969, Apollo 11, the first human space mission to the moon took place. It saw three astronauts enter orbit around the Moon, with two, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, visiting the lunar surface. The third astronaut, Michael Collins, stayed in orbit to rendezvous with Armstrong and Aldrin after their visit.[13]

An important innovation came on January 30, 1970, when the Boeing 747 made its first commercial flight from New York to London. This aircraft made history and became known as the "Jumbo Jet" or "Whale"[14] due to its ability to hold up to 480 passengers.[15]

Another significant development in aerospace engineering came in 1976, with the development of the first passenger supersonic aircraft, the Concorde. The development of this aircraft was agreed upon by the French and British on November 29, 1962.[16]

On December 21, 1988, the Antonov An-225 Mriya cargo aircraft commenced its first flight. It holds the records for the world's heaviest aircraft, heaviest airlifted cargo, and longest airlifted cargo, and has the widest wingspan of any aircraft in operational service.[17]

On October 25, 2007, the Airbus A380 made its maiden commercial flight from Singapore to Sydney, Australia. This aircraft was the first passenger plane to surpass the Boeing 747 in terms of passenger capacity, with a maximum of 853. Though development of this aircraft began in 1988 as a competitor to the 747, the A380 made its first test flight in April 2005.[18]

Some of the elements of aerospace engineering are:[19][20]

The basis of most of these elements lies in theoretical physics, such as fluid dynamics for aerodynamics or the equations of motion for flight dynamics. There is also a large empirical component. Historically, this empirical component was derived from testing of scale models and prototypes, either in wind tunnels or in the free atmosphere. More recently, advances in computing have enabled the use of computational fluid dynamics to simulate the behavior of the fluid, reducing time and expense spent on wind-tunnel testing. Those studying hydrodynamics or hydroacoustics often obtain degrees in aerospace engineering.

Additionally, aerospace engineering addresses the integration of all components that constitute an aerospace vehicle (subsystems including power, aerospace bearings, communications, thermal control, life support, etc.) and its life cycle (design, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, lifetime).

Aerospace engineering may be studied at the advanced diploma, bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. levels in aerospace engineering departments at many universities, and in mechanical engineering departments at others. A few departments offer degrees in space-focused astronautical engineering. Some institutions differentiate between aeronautical and astronautical engineering. Graduate degrees are offered in advanced or specialty areas for the aerospace industry.

A background in chemistry, physics, computer science and mathematics is important for students pursuing an aerospace engineering degree.[22]

The term "rocket scientist" is sometimes used to describe a person of great intelligence since rocket science is seen as a practice requiring great mental ability, especially technically and mathematically. The term is used ironically in the expression "It's not rocket science" to indicate that a task is simple.[23] Strictly speaking, the use of "science" in "rocket science" is a misnomer since science is about understanding the origins, nature, and behavior of the universe; engineering is about using scientific and engineering principles to solve problems and develop new technology.[5][6] The more etymologically correct version of this phrase would be "rocket engineer". However, "science" and "engineering" are often misused as synonyms.[5][6][24]

Here is the original post:

Aerospace engineering - Wikipedia

Asteria Aerospace receives DGCA type certification for its A200-XT drone  Economic Times

Follow this link:

Asteria Aerospace receives DGCA type certification for its A200-XT drone - Economic Times

Investors in Continental Aerospace Technologies Holding (HKG:232) from five years ago are still down 78%, even after 11% gain this past week  Simply Wall St

Link:

Investors in Continental Aerospace Technologies Holding (HKG:232) from five years ago are still down 78%, even after 11% gain this past week - Simply...

SKF Weighs Sale Of Aerospace Unit Amid Activist Investor Pressure  Marketscreener.com

Continued here:

SKF Weighs Sale Of Aerospace Unit Amid Activist Investor Pressure - Marketscreener.com

SKF is Exploring a Sale of Its Aerospace Operations as the Swedish Industrial Group Trims ... - Latest  LatestLY

See the original post:

SKF is Exploring a Sale of Its Aerospace Operations as the Swedish Industrial Group Trims ... - Latest - LatestLY

Meat and Greet

Behold, ethical omnivores: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given a key go-ahead to what could be the first lab grown meat product bound for human consumption in the US.

The decision, a first for cultivated meat in the US, paves the way for Californian startup Upside Foods to start selling its lab-grown chicken product domestically — meaning that now, it only needs approval from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) before the ersatz chicken can hit restaurant menus.

"The world is experiencing a food revolution and the [FDA] is committed to supporting innovation in the food supply," FDA officials said in a statement. "The agency evaluated the information submitted by Upside Foods as part of a pre-market consultation for their food made from cultured chicken cells and has no further questions at this time about the firm’s safety conclusion."

Upside Foods' products were evaluated via a process in which manufacturers divulge the production process to the agency for review, along with a sample. If everything looks good after inspection, the FDA then sends back a "no further questions" letter to the company.

"We are thrilled at FDA's announcement," said Upside director of communications David Kay in an email to Reuters. "This historic step paves the way for our path to market."

Going Protein

Lab meat like Upside's aren't a plant-based imitation, unlike popular vegan alternatives such as Beyond Burgers. Instead, they're made from real animal cells grown in bioreactors, sparing the lives of actual livestock.

But while at a cellular level the meat may be the same, customers will definitely notice a difference in price. For now, cultivating meat remains an extremely expensive process, so pending USDA approval notwithstanding, it could still be a while before you see it hit the shelves of your local grocer.

To let eager, early customers try out the lab meat, Upside, which already announced its collaboration with Michelin star chef Dominique Crenn last year, will be debuting its chicken at specific upscale restaurants.

"We would want to bring this to people through chefs in the initial stage," CEO Uma Valeti told Wired. "Getting chefs excited about this is a really big deal for us. We want to work with the best partners who know how to cook well, and also give us feedback on what we could do better."

While the FDA's thumbs-up only applies to a specific product of Upside's, it's still a historic decision, signalling a way forward for an industry that's rapidly accruing investment.

Updated to clarify details regarding the FDA's evaluation of the product.

More on lab grown meat: Scientists Cook Comically Tiny Lab-Grown Hamburger

The post FDA Gives First Go Ahead for Lab Grown Meat Product appeared first on Futurism.

View post:

FDA Gives First Go Ahead for Lab Grown Meat Product

Effecting Change

The disgraced former head of the crypto exchange FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, built his formidable public persona on the idea that he was a new type of ethical crypto exec. In particular, he was a vocal proponent of "effective altruism" — the vague-but-noble concept of using data to make philanthropic giving as targeted and helpful as possible.

But in a direct message, Vox's Kelsey Piper asked Bankman-Fried if the "ethics stuff" had been "mostly a front."

Bankman-Fried's reply: "Yeah."

"I mean that's not *all* of it," he wrote. "But it's a lot."

Truth Be Told

If the concept of becoming rich to save the world strikes you as iffy, you're not alone — and it appears that even Bankman-Fried himself knows it.

When Piper observed that Bankman-Fried had been "really good at talking about ethics" while actually playing a game, he responded that he "had to be" because he'd been engaged in "this dumb game we woke Westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and everyone likes us."

Next time you're thinking of investing in crypto, maybe it's worth taking a moment to wonder whether the person running the next exchange might secretly be thinking the same thing.

More on effective altruism: Elon Musk Hired A Professional Gambler to Manage His Philanthropic Donations

The post Sam Bankman-Fried Admits the "Ethics Stuff" Was "Mostly a Front" appeared first on Futurism.

See the original post:

Sam Bankman-Fried Admits the "Ethics Stuff" Was "Mostly a Front"

Big Baby

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's name has clearly lost its luster among the parents of newborns.

According to BabyCenter's review of the data the name "Elon" has cratered in popularity over the last year, dropping from 120 babies per million in 2021 to just 90 babies per million, falling in the popularity rankings by 466 spots.

The name had seen a meteoric rise over the last seven or so years, but is currently falling out of favor big time, plummeting back down to 2019 levels.

The read? It seems like Musk's public reputation has been taking a significant hit.

Name Game

There are countless reasons why Musk could be less popular public figure than he was three years ago.

Especially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk emerged as a controversial figure, speaking out against vaccinations and lockdowns. He has also become synonymous with an unhealthy work culture, firing practically anybody standing in his way and forcing his employees to work long hours.

The fiasco surrounding Musk's chaotic takeover of Twitter has likely only further besmirched his public image.

For reference, other baby names that have fallen out of fashion include "Kanye" — almost certainly in response to the travails of rapper Kanye West, who's had a years-long relationship with Musk — which fell a whopping 3,410 spots over the last year.

More on Elon Musk: Sad Elon Musk Says He's Overwhelmed In Strange Interview After the Power Went Out

The post "Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason appeared first on Futurism.

View original post here:

"Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason

Welp, that didn't take long. The first civil suit against the still-imploding crypto exchange FTX was just filed in a Florida court, accusing FTX, disgraced CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, and 11 of the exchange's many celebrity ambassadors of preying on "unsophisticated" retail investors.

The list of celeb defendants impressive — honestly, it reads more like an invite list to a posh award show than a lawsuit.

Geriatric quarterback Tom Brady and soon-to-be-ex-wife Gisele Bündchen lead the pack, followed by basketball players Steph Curry and Udonis Haslem, as well as the Golden State Warriors franchise; tennis star Naomi Osaka; baseballers Shoehi Ohtani, Udonis Haslem, and David Ortiz; and quarterback Trevor Laurence.

Also named is comedian Larry David — who starred in that FTX Super Bowl commercial that very specifically told investors that even if they didn't understand crypto, they should definitely invest — and investor Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank" fame.

"The Deceptive and failed FTX Platform," reads the suit," "was based upon false representations and deceptive conduct."

"Many incriminating FTX emails and texts... evidence how FTX’s fraudulent scheme was designed to take advantage of unsophisticated investors from across the country," it continues. "As a result, American consumers collectively sustained over $11 billion dollars in damages."

Indeed, a number of FTX promos embraced an attitude similar to the cursed Larry David commercial. In one, Steph Curry tells viewers that with FTX, there's no need to be an "expert," while a Naomi Osaka promotion pushed the idea that crypto trading should be "accessible," "easy," and "fun."

It's also worth noting that this isn't the first suit of its kind. Billionaire Mark Cuban, also of "Shark Tank" fame, was named in a class action lawsuit launched against the bankrupt lender Voyager in August, while reality TV star Kim Kardashian was recently made to pay a roughly $1.2 million fine for hawking the "EthereumMAX" token without disclosing that she was paid to do so.

The FTX suit, however, appears to be the most extensive — and high-profile — of its kind. And while a fine for a million or two is basically a one dollar bill to this tax bracket, $11 billion, even if split amongst a group of 11 exorbitantly wealthy celebs, is a more substantial chunk of change.

Of course, whether anyone actually ever has to pay up remains to be seen. Regardless, it's still a terrible look, and real people got hurt. If there's any defense here, though? At least they didn't promise to be experts.

READ MORE: FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried hit with class-action lawsuit that also names Brady, Bündchen, Shaq, Curry [Fox Business]

More on the FTX crash: Experts Say Sam Bankman-fried's Best Legal Defense Is to Say He's Just Really, Really Stupid

The post Celebrities Are Officially Being Sued by FTX Retail Investors appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to see the original:

Celebrities Are Officially Being Sued by FTX Retail Investors

Elon Musk's Twitter operations are still in free fall.

Earlier this week, the billionaire CEO sent an email to staff telling them that they "need to be extremely hardcore" and work long hours at the office, or quit and get three months severance, as The Washington Post reports.

Employees had until 5 pm on Thursday to click "yes" and be part of Twitter moving forward or take the money and part ways. The problem for Musk? According to former Uber engineer Gergely Orosz, who has had a close ear to Twitter's recent inner turmoil, "far fewer than expected [developers] hit 'yes.'"

So many employees called Musk's bluff, Orosz says, that Musk is now "having meetings with top engineers to convince them to stay," in an  embarrassing reversal of his public-facing bravado earlier this week.

Twitter has already been rocked by mass layoffs, cutting the workforce roughly in half. Instead of notifying them, employees had access to their email and work computers revoked without notice.

Even that process was bungled, too, with some employees immediately being asked to return to the company after Musk's crew realized it had sacked people it needed.

According to Orosz's estimations, Twitter's engineering workforce may have been cut by a whopping 90 percent in just three weeks.

Musk has been banging the war drums in an active attempt to weed out those who aren't willing to abide by his strict rules and those who were willing to stand up to him.

But developers aren't exactly embracing that kind of tyranny.

"Sounds like playing hardball does not work," Orosz said. "Of course it doesn't."

"From my larger group of 50 people, 10 are staying, 40 are taking the severance," one source reportedly told Orosz. "Elon set up meetings with a few who plan to quit."

In short, developers are running for the hills — and besides, they're likely to find far better work conditions pretty much anywhere else.

"I am not sure Elon realizes that, unlike rocket scientists, who have relatively few options to work at, [developers] with the experience of building Twitter only have better options than the conditions he outlines," Orosz argued.

Then there's the fact that Musk has publicly lashed out at engineers, mocking them and implying that they were leading him on.

Those who spoke out against him were summarily fired.

That kind of hostility in leadership — Musk has shown an astonishing lack of respect — clearly isn't sitting well with many developers, who have taken up his to get three months of severance and leave.

"I meant it when I called Elon's latest ultimatum the first truly positive thing about this Twitter saga," Orosz wrote. "Because finally, everyone who had enough of the BS and is not on a visa could finally quit."

More on Twitter: Sad Elon Musk Says He's Overwhelmed In Strange Interview After the Power Went Out

The post Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave appeared first on Futurism.

Original post:

Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave

Floored Apes

The value of Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs have absolutely plummeted, leaving celebrities with six figure losses, in a perhaps predictable conclusion to a bewildering trend.

Earlier this year, for instance, pop star Justin Bieber bought an Ape for a whopping $1.3 million. Now that the NFT economy has essentially collapsed in on itself, as Decrypt points out, it's worth a measly $69,000.

Demand Media

NFTs, which represent exclusive ownership rights to digital assets — but usually, underwhelmingly, just JPGs and GIFs — have absolutely plummeted in value, spurred by the ongoing crypto crisis and a vanishing appetite.

Sales volume of the blockchain knickknacks has also bottomed out. NFT sales declined for six straight months this year, according to CryptoSlam.

According to NFT Price Floor, the value of the cheapest available Bored Ape dipped down to just 48 ETH, well below $60,000, this week. In November so far, the floor price fell 33 percent.

Meanwhile, the crypto crash is only accelerating the trend, with the collapse of major cryptocurrency exchange FTX leaving its own mark on NFT markets.

Still Kicking

Despite the looming pessimism, plenty of Bored Apes are still being sold. In fact, according to Decrypt, around $6.5 million worth of Apes were moved on Tuesday alone, an increase of 135 percent day over day.

Is the end of the NFT nigh? Bored Apes are clearly worth a tiny fraction of what they once were, indicating a massive drop off in interest.

Yet many other much smaller NFT marketplaces are still able to generate plenty of hype, and millions of dollars in sales.

In other words, NFTs aren't likely to die out any time soon, but they are adapting to drastically changing market conditions — and leaving celebrities with deep losses in their questionable investments.

READ MORE: Justin Bieber Paid $1.3 Million for a Bored Ape NFT. It’s Now Worth $69K [Decrypt]

More on NFTs: The Latest Idea to Make People Actually Buy NFTs: Throw in a House

The post Celebrities' Bored Apes Are Hilariously Worthless Now appeared first on Futurism.

Continue reading here:

Celebrities' Bored Apes Are Hilariously Worthless Now

In just about a year, Facebook-turned-Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse vision has cost his company upwards of $15 billion, cratering value and — at least in part — triggering mass company layoffs. That's a high price tag, especially when the Facebook creator has shockingly little to show for it, both in actual technology and public interest.

Indeed, it seems that every time Zuckerberg excitedly explains what his currently-legless metaverse will one day hold, he's met with crickets — and a fair share of ridicule — at the town square. Most everyone finds themselves looking around and asking themselves the same question: who could this possibly be for, other than Zucko himself?

That question, however, doesn't really seem to matter to the swashzuckling CEO, who's either convinced that the public wants and needs his metaverse just as much as he does, or is simply just convicted to the belief that one day people will finally get it. After all, he's bet his company on this thing and needs the public to engage to stay financially viable long-term.

And sure, points for conviction. But conviction is easy if you're surrounded by a bunch of yes men — which, according to Vanity Fair, the founder unfortunately is. And with $15 billion down the line, that may not bode well for the Silicon Valley giant.

"The problem now is that Mark has surrounded himself with sycophants, and for some reason he's fallen for their vision of the future, which no one else is interested in," one former Facebook exec told Vanity Fair. "In a previous era, someone would have been able to reason with Mark about the company's direction, but that is no longer the case."

Given that previous reports have revealed that some Meta employees have taken to marking metaverse documents with the label "MMA" — "Make Mark Happy" — the revelation that he's limited his close circle to people who only agree with him isn't all that shocking. He wants the metaverse, he wants it bad, and he's put a mind-boggling amount of social and financial capital into his AR-driven dream.

While the majority of his many thousands of employees might disagree with him — Vanity Fair reports that current and former metamates have written things like "the metaverse will be our slow death" and "Mark Zuckerberg will single-handedly kill a company with the metaverse" on the Silicon Valley-loved Blind app — it's not exactly easy, or even that possible, to wrestle with the fact that you may have made a dire miscalculation this financially far down the road.

And if you just keep a close circle of people who just agree with you, you may not really have to confront that potential for failure. At least not for a while.

The truth is that Zuckerberg successfully created a thing that has impacted nearly every single person on this Earth. Few people can say that. And while it can be argued that the thing he built has, at its best, created some real avenues for connection, that same creation also seems to have led to his own isolation, in life and at work.

How ironic it is that he's marketed his metaverse on that same promise of connection, only to become more disconnected than ever.

READ MORE: "Mark Has Surrounded Himself with Sycophants": Zuckerberg's Big Bet on the Metaverse Is Backfiring [Vanity Fair]

More on the Meta value: Stock Analyst Cries on Tv Because He Recommended Facebook Stock

The post Former Facebook Exec Says Zuckerberg Has Surrounded Himself With Sycophants appeared first on Futurism.

Read the rest here:

Former Facebook Exec Says Zuckerberg Has Surrounded Himself With Sycophants

Italian Import

Carbon dioxide has a bad rep for its role in driving climate change, but in an unexpected twist, it could also play a key role in storing renewable energy.

The world's first CO2 battery, built by Italian startup Energy Dome, promises to store renewables on an industrial scale, which could help green energy rival fossil fuels in terms of cost and practicality.

After successfully testing the battery at a small scale plant in Sardinia, the company is now bringing its technology to the United States.

"The US market is a primary market for Energy Dome and we are working to become a market leader in the US," an Energy Dome spokesperson told Electrek. "The huge demand of [long duration energy storage] and incentive mechanisms like the Inflation Reduction Act will be key drivers for the industry in the short term."

Storage Solution

As renewables like wind and solar grow, one of the biggest infrastructural obstacles is the storage of the power they produce. Since wind and solar sources aren't always going to be available, engineers need a way to save excess power for days when it's less sunny and windy out, or when there's simply more demand.

One obvious solution is to use conventional battery technology like lithium batteries, to store the energy. The problem is that building giant batteries from rare earth minerals — which can be prone to degradation over time — is expensive, not to mention wasteful.

Energy Dome's CO2 batteries, on the other hand, use mostly "readily available materials" like steel, water, and of course CO2.

In Charge

As its name suggests, the battery works by taking CO2, stored in a giant dome, and compressing it into a liquid by using the excess energy generated from a renewable source. That process generates heat, which is stored alongside the now liquefied CO2, "charging" the battery.

To discharge power, the stored heat is used to vaporize the liquid CO2 back into a gas, powering a turbine that feeds back into the power grid. Crucially, the whole process is self-contained, so no CO2 leaks back into the atmosphere.

The battery could be a game-changer for renewables. As of now, Energy Dome plans to build batteries that can store up to 200 MWh of energy. But we'll have to see how it performs as it gains traction.

More on batteries: Scientists Propose Turning Skyscrapers Into Massive Gravity Batteries

The post Startup Says It's Building a Giant CO2 Battery in the United States appeared first on Futurism.

See the article here:

Startup Says It's Building a Giant CO2 Battery in the United States

Birth Canal

The James Webb Space Telescope's latest mind-bending image just dropped — and this one is, in a word, splendid.

As NASA notes in a blog post about the finding, the telescope's Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) was put to incredible use when capturing the "once-hidden features" of the beginnings of a star.

Known as "protostars," celestial objects like this one — found inside an uber-absorbant "dark nebula" cloud — are not yet stars, but will be soon. In short, the Webb telescope capture imagery of a star being born.

As NASA notes, the fledgling star itself is hidden within the tiny "neck" disk of the spectacular, fiery hourglass shape in the image — which is, as NASA notes, "about the size of our solar system" — and the colorful lights seen below and above this neck are emitted by the protostar's birth.

Countdown to a new star

Hidden in the neck of this “hourglass” of light are the very beginnings of a new star — a protostar. The clouds of dust and gas within this region are only visible in infrared light, the wavelengths that Webb specializes in: https://t.co/DtazblATMW pic.twitter.com/aGEEBO9BB8

— NASA Webb Telescope (@NASAWebb) November 16, 2022

Stellar Anatomy

While this incredible capture is not the first time space telescopes have observed star birth, Webb's latest does provide an incredible look at the phenomenon.

"The surrounding molecular cloud is made up of dense dust and gas being drawn to the center, where the protostar resides," the post reads. "As the material falls in, it spirals around the center. This creates a dense disk of material, known as an accretion disk, which feeds material to the protostar."

Some of that material, NASA notes, are "filaments of molecular hydrogen that have been shocked as the protostar ejects material away from it," most of which the stellar fetus takes for itself. It continues to feed on that material, growing more massive and compressing further until its core temperature rises to the point that it kickstarts nuclear fusion.

This gorgeous peek at that process is extraordinary to witness — and a yet another testament to the power of the mighty James Webb.

More on Webb: NASA Fixes Months-Long Issue With Webb Telescope

The post NASA Drops Stunning New James Webb Image of a Star Being Born appeared first on Futurism.

Excerpt from:

NASA Drops Stunning New James Webb Image of a Star Being Born

Red Crew, Blue Crew

Had it not been for the heroics of three members of NASA's specialized "Red Crew," NASA's absolutely massive — and incredibly expensive — Space Launch System (SLS) likely wouldn't have made it off the ground this week.

During the launch, the painfully delayed Mega Moon Rocket sprang a hydrogen leak. The Red Crew ventured into the dangerous, half-loaded launch zone to fix it live. Incredible work indeed, although in spite of their heroics, keen-eyed observers did notice something strange about the so-called Red Crew: they, uh, don't wear red?

"How is it we spent $20B+ on this rocket," tweeted Chris Combs, a professor at the University of Texas San Antonio, "but we couldn't manage to get some RED SHIRTS for the Red Team."

Alas, the rumor is true. Red shirts seemed to be out of the budget this year — perhaps due to the ungodly amount of money spent on the rocket that these guys could have died while fixing — with the Red Crew-mates donning dark blue shirts instead. Per the NYT, they also drove white cars, which feels like an additional miss.

A leftover from last night that’s still bothering me:

how is it we spent $20B+ on this rocket but we couldn’t manage to get some RED SHIRTS for the Red Team pic.twitter.com/FO10Y6mg3H

— Chris Combs (@DrChrisCombs) November 16, 2022

Packing Nuts

For their part, the Red Crew didn't seem to care all that much, at least not in the moment. They were very much focused on needing to "torque" the "packing nuts," as they reportedly said during a post-launch interview on NASA TV. In other words, they were busy with your casual rocket science. And adrenaline, because, uh, risk of death.

"All I can say is we were very excited," Red Crew member Trent Annis told NASA TV, according to the NYT. "I was ready to get up there and go."

"We were very focused on what was happening up there," he added. "It's creaking, it's making venting noises, it's pretty scary."

In any case, shoutout to the Red Crew. The Artemis I liftoff is historic, and wouldn't have happened if they hadn't risked it all. They deserve a bonus, and at the very least? Some fresh new shirts.

READ MORE: When NASA'S moon rocket sprang a fuel leak, the launch team called in the 'red crew.' [The New York Times]

More on the Artemis I launch: Giant Nasa Rocket Blasts off Toward the Moon

The post Experts Baffled by Why NASA’s “Red Crew” Wear Blue Shirts appeared first on Futurism.

Continued here:

Experts Baffled by Why NASA’s “Red Crew” Wear Blue Shirts

No Photos, Please

NASA barred the press from photographing the launch site of its Space Launch System after it boosted the agency's Artemis I Moon mission into space earlier this week.

Multiple space reporters said on Twitter that the agency had sent them a message telling them they were prohibited from photographing the Artemis 1 launch tower after the liftoff.

"NASA did not provide a reason," Eric Berger, Ars Technica's senior space editor, tweeted. The reporter added that according to his sources, the ban was apparently an attempt to save face after the launch damaged the tower.

"So now sources are saying that yes, Launch Complex-39B tower was damaged during the Artemis I launch on Wednesday morning," Berger tweeted. "Basically, there were leaks and damage where there weren't supposed to be leaks and damage."

Damaging Reports

Later, Washington Post space reporter Christian Davenport posted a statement from NASA that seemed to corroborate Berger's sources, though he emphasized that there was "no word on damage" to the launch pad.

"Because of the current state of the configuration, there are [International Traffic in Arms Regulations license] restrictions and photos are not permitted at this time," the statement given to Davenport read. "There also is a launch debris around the pad as anticipated, and the team is currently assessing."

Whatever NASA's reasoning, it's pretty clear that the agency doesn't want unapproved photos of its expensive and overdue Space Launch System rocket going out to the public. NASA loves positive publicity, it seems — but not negative.

More on the Artemis 1 launch: NASA Says It's Fine That Some Pieces May Have Fallen Off Its Moon Rocket During Launch

The post NASA Orders Press Not to Photograph Launch Site After Moon Mission Takes Off appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original post:

NASA Orders Press Not to Photograph Launch Site After Moon Mission Takes Off

Above all else, FTX advertisements wanted you to know two things: that cryptocurrency is a force for good, and that you don't need to be an expert to buy and trade it. In fact, you don't even have to understand it at all. You just need to get involved, because if you don't, you'll get left behind.

If a bit cheesy then, those same promotions — an array of of television commercials, social media posts, and print ads featuring an impressive lineup of A-list celebrities and athletes, in addition to appearances by the now-bankrupt exchange's ex-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried — are surreal, if not troubling, to watch now, roughly a week after the exchange's spectacular collapse.

Bankman-Fried, widely believed to be the cryptosphere's alleged savior, is under investigation by both the SEC and the CFTC, having lost virtually all his personal wealth in a single day. Meanwhile, an estimated $11 billion's worth of user funds — including that of the retail investors targeted by those shiny ads, many of whom have lost their savings — have vanished. But just six or so months ago? Unretired Buccaneers quarterback Tom Brady was asking people if they were "in"; basketball star Steph Curry coolly told users that, like him, they didn't need to be a crypto "expert" to invest in digital assets; comedian Larry David told retail investors to ignore their crypto-skepticism; supermodel Gisele Bündchen, in a print campaign with Bankman-Fried, promised that she and FTX would save the world.

"The blood's on [Sam Bankman-Fried's] hands," Joseph Kaye, a Partner at the Moskowitz Law Firm in Florida, told Futurism. "And as far as we're concerned, it's on the hands of anybody who has been promoting this product."

Kaye's firm, alongside that of New York's David Boies, is representing thousands of dismayed FTX retail investors in a class action lawsuit filed this week against FTX, its founder, and its many celebrity sponsors, accusing those named of intentionally preying on low-information investors.

Of course, consuming a celebrity endorsement is like breathing air at this point. They're soaked into every corner of the culture, and most every public figure has their influencing hustle — makeup, clothes, shoes, cars, gummies and the like. And sure, a fair share of celebs have inspired rage over, say, Instagram posts touting diet suppressant lollipops.

FTX accounts, however, are a different story. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who bought a celeb-endorsed lollipop and woke up to find thousands — if not millions — of their savings gone, and a balance sheet marking an eight billion dollar hole to show for it.

Like the now-also-defunct Voyager Digital's Earn Program, FTX accounts were yield-bearing, promising its investors high returns for their investments — so, basically, the markings of a security, just without the actual label. (The Moskowitz firm is also representing plaintiffs in a class action suit brought against Voyager and Mark Cuban, billionaire of "Shark Tank" fame.)

"A lot of people get confused and think that 'oh, well, investing in cryptocurrency is inherently risky,'" Kaye said. "But the issue here is not so much 'did they make an investment in cryptocurrency. It's the function of the account."

And while that's risky enough to begin with, it now appears that FTX — which hasn't officially been charged with anything yet — was using its investors' cash like a piggy bank, funding its own lending activities with the user money with which it'd been trusted.

"When you make statements like [those celebrities did] — and you don't disclose how much you're making or what your arrangement with them is — and it ends up being an unregistered security," Kaye continued, "you're liable as a promoter to the same extent as if you're the FTX exchange."

No one's saying that Brady or Bündchen or anyone else knew that FTX was potentially involved in any malpractice. They were likely taken in by Bankman-Fried's efforts to build a reputation for himself as Mr. Trustworthy Crypto Man, which he admitted shortly after the collapse had largely been a "front." It's also unlikely that they knew, or even really understood, that they were or could be hawking what might just shake out to be an unregistered security.

That's exactly the point, though. We believe, as they told us, that they weren't "experts." Not in the slightest. There doesn't appear to have been much — if any — due diligence here, and a lot of real people have been badly hurt because of it. Did Curry stand on a street corner and hand out FTX accounts? No, but it can be argued that he and the other figures named in the suit played a serious role in FTX's adoption by the masses, downplaying the instability and messiness of the blockchain world while promising that FTX had their back.

And considering how central they may have been to FTX's rise, it would be heartening to see them take some kind of responsibility after its fall.

"I remember our first meeting and we were speaking to the FTX guys… They started to explain it to us and I said, 'I don't know if you can tell over Zoom when our eyes glazed over, but I still don't understand it," David told The Hollywood Reporter back in February, shortly after his Super Bowl commercial aired. "But that's OK. I don't have to know everything.'"

More on the FTX fallout: Politicians Refuse to Say Whether They'll Give Back Donations From Sam Bankman-Fried

The post Behind the Lawsuit Against Celebs Who Shilled FTX Before Its Spectacular Meltdown appeared first on Futurism.

Continued here:

Behind the Lawsuit Against Celebs Who Shilled FTX Before Its Spectacular Meltdown

Worst Case Scenario

Elon Musk's Twitter-buying experiment is somehow going even worse than expected, amid reports that he's locked employees out of the company's office buildings.

As reported by Platformer's Zoë Schiffer, an email sent to Twitter staff yesterday evening informed them out of the blue that they wouldn't be able to get into their offices for the rest of the week.

"We're hearing this is because Elon Musk and his team are terrified employees are going to sabotage the company," Schiffer wrote. "Also, they're still trying to figure out which Twitter workers they need to cut access for."

Then, the saga somehow got even stranger today when Musk emailed staff asking them to come to the 10th floor of Twitter's headquarters — which, remember, they'd just been told they were locked out of — for a meeting on the 10th floor.

Ultimatums

All told, the aura of chaos surrounding Twitter since Musk's acquisition late last month has deepened to a comical degree.

News of the office closure, you'll recall, comes not long after Musk issued an ultimatum to the staff who survived his first purge the company's employees, in which he said that if "tweeps" didn't come into the office, they would be effectively tendering their resignations.

Just before the office closure announcement, Musk gave his new employees another apparent threat: that if they are not prepared "to be extremely hardcore" and work long in-office hours, they can cut and run with three months severance.

Unsurprisingly, many Twitter employees have chosen the latter — a move that some described to CNN's Darcy as a "mass exodus."

And in the face of all this contradiction and whiplash, who could blame them?

More on Musk: Panicked Elon Musk Reportedly Begging Engineers Not to Leave

The post Elon Musk Locks Twitter Employees Out Office, Then Asks Them to Meet Him on the 10th Floor appeared first on Futurism.

Follow this link:

Elon Musk Locks Twitter Employees Out Office, Then Asks Them to Meet Him on the 10th Floor

The notorious ticket peddling service Ticketmaster has never been a fan favorite, and anyone who's ever bought a concert ticket there can attest to why. Preposterous prices, slimy junk fees, and terrible customer service are just a few of its mundane evils. In spite of how universally reviled it is, Ticketmaster has persisted as the king of the box office. But now, it's facing its worst PR nightmare in years — and that's saying something. Why? It made the fatal error of pissing off Taylor Swift fans, or "Swifties."

Swift's "Eras Tour," which will have her perform at over 50 venues in the US alone, is set to be one of the biggest music events on the planet. Biding their time, her fiercely loyal fanbase — probably the largest of any single artist and easily the most vocal online — have been waiting since 2018 for her next headlining tour. So, looking to guarantee a spot, many of them signed up for Ticketmaster's Verified Fans program, a system which was supposed to only allow a select amount of around 1.5 million real fans — as opposed to scalper bots — to buy tickets ahead of time.

It didn't work. Ticketmaster CEO Michael Rapino told The Hollywood Reporter that around 14 million users, some of them bots, rushed to buy pre-sale tickets this week, and it pretty much broke the service. Parts of the website immediately crashed, leaving millions either waiting for hours or suffering through a miserable, glitchy experience — only for some to be told they couldn't buy a ticket anyway even though they were verified. In total, Ticketmaster was barraged with 3.5 billion system requests, which is nearly half the population of the Earth and four times its previous peak.

Even with all the difficulties, it did manage to sell around two million tickets — but it's unclear how many of those went to actual, verified Swifties and how many went to scalpers.

And we suspect that Ticketmaster has made way more than that in the form of enemies. Search its name on social media right now, and you'll be returned with swarms of complaints from ardent Swifties and Ticketmaster haters crawling out of the woodwork.

To make matters worse, the maligned seller abruptly informed fans via Twitter that it would be canceling the sale of tickets to the general public originally planned for Friday, "due to extraordinarily high demands on ticketing systems and insufficient remaining ticket inventory to meet that demand."

With Ticketmaster shutting its doors, vulturous resellers who gobbled up tickets during the presale pandemonium remain the only alternative for fans, selling them at outrageous amounts as high as $28,000, Reuters reports.

Exceptionally crummy service isn't exactly a scandal in itself, but the magnitude of Ticketmaster's mishandling of the situation — and the blatant scalping it's enabled — has brought significant attention to the company's nefarious practices and its stranglehold on the market.

Now, politicians are jumping on the Swifties' grievances to call for Ticketmaster's head.

"Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, [its] merger with LiveNation should never have been approved, and they need to be [reined] in," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), in a tweet. "Break them up."

"It's no secret that Live Nation-Ticketmaster is an unchecked monopoly," echoed Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), the chair of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

"The merger of these companies should never have been allowed in the first place," Cicilline added, stating that he's joining others to call on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to "investigate LiveNation’s efforts to jack up prices and strangle competition."

Ticketmaster was already a behemoth in the 90s when Pearl Jam — then one of the biggest bands in the world — tried to take them on. Eddie Vedder and his bandmates certainly made the concert corporation sweat for a time, but since then, it's only grown. In 2010, it merged with LiveNation, once its largest competitor and now Ticketmaster's parent company. Critics, like AOC and Cicilline, argue that this merger was in blatant violation of antitrust laws.

Monopolistic behavior aside, as well as frequently bullying artists and venues to give into its tyrannical demands, consumers don't have to dig very far to realize Ticketmaster is ripping them off. Buy a ticket on there and it could charge you a significant portion of the ticket price in service and other junk fees.

Another culprit? Its dynamic pricing model, infamously used in other industries like airline tickets and hotels, in which prices are continuously adjusted in real time based on demand. As a result, ticket prices are not made public before a sale begins. In theory, dynamic pricing is meant to make predatory resellers obsolete by keeping prices competitive. But really, it's just a good excuse for Ticketmaster to match its prices with that of ludicrous resellers and pocket the extra cash.

Furthermore, at least one 2018 investigation by CBC found that Ticketmaster was quietly recruiting professional scalpers into its reseller program, and turned a blind eye to them using hundreds of fake accounts to sell tickets.

Bearing all that in mind, you'd think Swift would speak up about the most recent fiasco over her tour.

And for a while, she didn't, driving fans frantic over her silence — which she's finally broken.

On Friday, Swift spoke out in a carefully worded statement on her Instagram.

"Well, it goes without saying that I’m extremely protective of my fans," she began. "It’s really difficult for me to trust an outside entity with these relationships and loyalties, and excruciating for me to just watch mistakes happen with no recourse."

Swift is clearly alluding to Ticketmaster here, and euphemistically summed up the situation as there being "a multitude of reasons why people had such a hard time trying to get tickets" — though she never specifically names the corporation.

Diplomatic as the words may be, they've dropped at the perfect moment, because The New York Times reports that the DOJ has opened an antitrust investigation over LiveNation's ownership of Ticketmaster (though at press time, official confirmation is still pending.)

Could this be the beginning of the end of the company's unfettered dominance? Maybe. Ticketmaster and LiveNation only seem to get stronger with the more bad PR they get. So taking them down? It'll take more than online outrage. However, with Swift looking poised to join the fight alongside the DOJ, maybe this time around the concert conglomerate will get a run for its money.

More on Taylor Swift: Taylor Swift Reportedly Threatened Microsoft Over Racist Chatbot

The post Ticketmaster May Have Finally Met Its Match: Furious Swifties appeared first on Futurism.

Read more from the original source:

Ticketmaster May Have Finally Met Its Match: Furious Swifties