Grudge-Holding Crows Pass on Their Anger to Family and Friends | 80beats

Posted on by

spacing is important

What’s the News: A few years ago scientists learned that American crows can recognize and remember human faces, particularly faces they associate with bad experiences. Now, new research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that the birds can share that knowledge of dangerous humans with other crows.

How the Heck:

Five years ago, zoologist John Marzluff and his research team at the University of Washington trapped, banded, and released 7–15 American crows at five different sites near Seattle. Before trapping the birds, the researchers donned different rubber masks specific to each site (a caveman face, for example). While the birds were caged, nearby crows circled the site and sounded alarm calls.
The team then tested the crows’ reactions to the masks. Over the first two weeks, about 26 percent of the crows that the researchers encountered scolded—with a harsh, repeated kaw, accompanied by wing and ...


No bookstores in Nashville? | Gene Expression

Posted on by

That’s what Ann Patchett is claiming. More specifically, there are no bricks & mortar institutions which specialize in selling new books. There are places you can get used books in the city of Nashville. To remedy the situation Patchett is opening up a bookstore herself. She asserts that “…we’ve got to get back to a 3000-square-foot store and not 30,000. Amazon is always going to have everything – you can’t compete with that. But there is, I believe, still a place for a store where people read books.”

I recall going to a Barnes & Noble when I was in Nashville in the summer of 2004. Here’s some demographic data: “As of the 2010 census, the balance population was 601,222. The 2000 population was 545,524.” The details here are a bit muddy because parts of Davidson county are included with the Nashville total, but you get a general sense of how substantial the population of this city is. As a point of comparison Eugene, OR, has a population of 156,185, and 29 Yelp hits for bookstores. Nashville has 46 results.

Back to Patchett’s claim, I think there is something there. I don’t know how it’s ...

Google+, not Wave or Buzz | Gene Expression

Posted on by

I’ve been playing around with Google+ a little today. Farhad Manjoo no like, More Like Google Minus:

… First, I don’t know whom the company thinks it’s kidding; Google+ is obviously a direct competitor to Facebook. Given the large overlap in functionality, I can’t imagine that many people will use Google+ and Facebook simultaneously. For most of us, it will be one or the other. Google+’s success, then, will rest in large part on Google’s ability to convince people to ditch Facebook for the new site. For that, Google+ will have to offer some compelling view of social networking that’s substantially different from what’s available on Facebook. And that’s where Google+ baffles me. What is so compelling about Google+ that I can’t currently get on Facebook or Twitter? Or Gmail, for that matter? At the moment, I can’t tell….

…

But circles are nothing new. Facebook has offered several ways to break your network into smaller chunks for many years now, and it has worked constantly to refine them. And you know what? Almost no one uses those features. Only 5 percent of Facebookers keep “Lists,” Facebook’s first attempt for people to categorize their friends. Recognizing that “Lists” weren’t great, last ...

NCBI ROFL: What does a generic Mormon look like? The answer probably won’t surprise you… | Discoblog

Posted on by

On the perception of religious group membership from faces.

“BACKROUND:
The study of social categorization has largely been confined to examining groups distinguished by perceptually obvious cues. Yet many ecologically important group distinctions are less clear, permitting insights into the general processes involved in person perception. Although religious group membership is thought to be perceptually ambiguous, folk beliefs suggest that Mormons and non-Mormons can be categorized from their appearance. We tested whether Mormons could be distinguished from non-Mormons and investigated the basis for this effect to gain insight to how subtle perceptual cues can support complex social categorizations.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:
Participants categorized Mormons’ and non-Mormons’ faces or facial features according to their group membership. Individuals could distinguish between the two groups significantly better than chance guessing from their full faces and faces without hair, with eyes and mouth covered, without outer face shape, and inverted 180°; but not from isolated features (i.e., eyes, nose, or mouth). Perceivers’ estimations of their accuracy did not match their actual accuracy. Exploration of the remaining features showed that Mormons and non-Mormons significantly differed in perceived health and that these perceptions were related to perceptions ...


Google’s Facebook-Like Anti-Facebook Aims for Privacy & Freedom | 80beats

Posted on by

What’s the News: To much fanfare, Google has released a preview version of Google+, their long-anticipated move into the social-networking space dominated in the U.S. by Facebook, whose meteoric growth challenges Google’s dominance over the Web itself. The new service lets users send messages and pictures to each other, like Facebook, but puts more emphasis on grouping and communicating with varying-sized audiences, as with email or in the real world of meatspace.

The two consensus early reactions (from the small group of people who have access) are that the service is mostly smooth and functional, a welcome change after Google’s social flops Buzz and Wave; and that it sure looks a heck of a lot like Facebook. Will that be enough to challenge Facebook, whose enormous base of users have uploaded much of their lives to one social network and may not want to invest time in another?

How It’s Like Facebook:

Profile pages that include info about you
A “Stream” of information incoming from contacts you choose, very much like Facebook’s News Feed
The homepages look very similar: top-level navigation tabs along the top, lower-level navigation menu on the left, Stream/News Feed down the ...


New Polls Offer Positive Outlook On The Public’s View of “Controversial” Science | The Intersection

Posted on by

This is a guest post by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., a research scientist and policy wonk, who encourages the scientific community to get engaged in the policy-making process

Few things bring me as much pleasure as delivering good news. Today, the science headlines include two stories that fit that bill.

Scientific American reports on a Stanford Poll that shows,

“Candidates of either party who take an environmental stance on climate can gain the votes of some citizens while not alienating others.”

According to researchers at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, in the eyes of the American electorate, “there’s no heavy penalty or reward that will be attached to taking a position one way or another on the issue.” In fact, voters tend to favor political candidates who believe that humans have contributed to global warming and that the nation should move away from fossil fuels by investing in renewable sources of energy.

Global warming and the candidates’ reactions to it have already emerged as issues that will affect the 2012 Presidential Race. The fact that the public prefers candidates who embrace the science of anthropogenic global warming bodes well for political remedies as we go forward.

The second bit of good news that I’m pleased to deliver involves public opinion on embryonic stem cell research.

A study published in Nature Biotechnology this week has found that many Americans support the use of embryonic stem cell research for curing serious diseases. The researchers found that:

More than 70% of respondents support the use of therapeutic cloning and stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos to cure cancer or treat heart attacks.

The study sheds light on how Americans make their decisions on this issue. Less than half (47%) of respondents support the same research for treating allergies. This suggests that the decision to support the use of embryonic stem cells is highly influenced by the potential benefits of the controversial research. Further, the respondents largely base the decision on their personal judgment rather than deferring to the will of authority establishments such as their Church or government ethics committees. Interestingly, though, more individuals (21%) did follow the will of their church than followed the recommendations of their medical doctors (15%) or the U.S. National Institutes of Health (13%).

Both studies offer insight into the current American psyche in regards to controversial scientific issues (perhaps things aren’t as bad as we thought) and will surely be the subject of future posts here at The Intersection.

Follow Jamie Vernon on Twitter or read occasional posts at his personal blog, “American SciCo.”


The Head-Butting Champ of the Animal Kingdom | Discoblog

Posted on by

Stegoceras “Steel Skull” validum

It’s a question we’ve all asked ourselves, watching nature “red in tooth and claw”: Which animal, in all evolution’s bounty, would win in a head-butting fight?

We don’t have to wonder anymore. In a new study, researchers have rounded up the likely contenders for head-butting champ, living or dead, ranging from long-extinct domeheaded dinosaurs to modern-day musk oxen. Since some animals had an obvious advantage, what with being currently alive, the scientists settled for a virtual throwdown. They used CT scans to suss out the precise shape and size of each creature’s noggin, then relied on computer models to see how they’d hold up when the animals went head to head.

Two animals, giraffes and llamas, were knocked out of the competition right away—but they were never really in it. Both animals’ skulls would fracture in a truly aggressive tête-a-tête, the researchers said. Giraffes can, in fact, literally knock each other out if they accidentally butt heads; the stress is simply too much.

Frequent head-butters like the bighorn sheep and musk ox fared much better. The configuration of their skulls—tough outer shell, spongy covering protecting the brain—let them emerge ...


Silver Pen Lets You Draw Your Own Circuits | Discoblog

Posted on by

circuits
Circuits drawn with the pen make LEDs light up and give a 3D antenna its juice.

Gel pens, beloved by middle-school girls, are good for decorating cootie catchers, evading laboratory ink analysis, and not much else. But if you replace that metallic ink with real silver, you get something quite remarkable: a pen that can draw functioning circuits on paper.

Engineers at the University of Illinois have built such a device and used it to put together several clever electronic doodads. Silver is a conductor, so it ferries electrons from a power source, like a battery, to an outlet, like an LED light, even when it’s just a line on a piece of paper instead of a wire. Once the silver ink dries, it’s as good as wire or printed circuits at conducting electricity, and it survives all kinds of mangling—researchers had to bed the paper back and forth 6,000 times to get the ink to begin to crack and flake off, in fact—so it could be used in situations where flexibility is key. And, of course, just to make cool stuff.

circuits
The artifact in question.

To demonstrate their pen-and-paper ...


Save yourself, mammal! | Bad Astronomy

Posted on by

I’ve been meaning to write a review of Zach Weiner’s webcomic collection Save Yourself, Mammal! ever since I got it a couple of weeks ago, but seriously, if you’re a fan of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal then just go and buy the book, OK?

And if you’re not, buy one anyway. His comics are really funny. Bonus: it includes a snarky "choose your own adventure" series of tiny cartoons.

And hey – I’m saying all this even though there is not a single, solitary instance in the book of his using one of his cartoons featuring a beloved red-bearded balding astronomer. Not one. And yet, somehow, the comics manage to be awesome.

Full disclosure: I was going to give this book a positive review even before Zach offered to draw my new Twitter avatar, which is me as a baby, because the way he draws babies always makes me laugh. The shirt he gave me in the picture though was totally a bribe.

Have you bought the book yet? C’mon, ...


Study: Conventional Understanding of Static Electricity Is Wrong | 80beats

Posted on by

What’s the News: In high school physics classes, students are often taught that static electricity develops when electrons detach from the surface of one object and jump to another, causing a difference in charge. Since opposite charges attract, the two objects are drawn to one another (like your hair to a balloon). But new research published in the journal Science shows that static electricity is caused by more than just the exchange of individual electrons, and instead involves the transfer of bigger (yet still tiny) clumps of material.

How the Heck:

Scientists conventionally believed that static electricity required friction between two different non-metals, which would tug at their electrons with different amounts of force. But last year, a group of researchers at Northwestern University found that two sheets of the same polymer, like Teflon, can generate static electricity, also called contact electrification (pdf). After the discovery, some of the researchers, including chemist Bartosz Grzybowski, wanted to understand how it all worked.
Grzybowski ...


We Have the Tasmanian Devil’s Genome. Will It Save Them From Extinction? | 80beats

Posted on by

What’s the News: Due to a vicious disease, the population of the endangered Tasmanian devil has decreased by at least 70 percent since 1996. The cancer, devil facial tumor disease, spreads when an infected devil bites another, typically during feeding or mating. Because Tasmanian devils are so genetically similar, their bodies don’t recognize the intruding cancer cells as foreign.

But now, researchers have sequenced the genome of two devils and created a genetic test that could help breeders select genetically diverse mates. The test will help conservationists breed future generations of Tasmanian devils that are prepared for the cancer, as well as other types of diseases.

How the Heck:

Stephan Schuster of Pennsylvania State University and an international team of researchers began by sequencing and comparing the genome of two wild Tasmanian devils. Because the devils came from opposite ends of the island, they represented the maximum geographic spread of the species. One of the devils, Cedric, was resistant to two ...


Closing the Fox News-Misinformation Debate…For Now | The Intersection

Posted on by

Despite the fact that I conclusively refuted Politifact last week over the Fox News-Jon Stewart affair, the site does not seem intent on reversing itself and affirming reality. Facts, in this case, don’t seem to matter–not even to the fact checkers.

My latest DeSmog item is just to provide a summary of this state of affairs–because this is not the last we are going to hear of this matter, I’m quite confident. But there won’t really be anything more to say until there is more evidence, either in support of me or otherwise–or until there is another controversy about Fox and the misinformation believed by its viewers.

The item begins like this:

My two posts about Fox News and misinformation are probably the most popular items I’ve contributed here. They’ve been widely linked, Tweeted and Facebooked hundreds of times, and viewed well over ten thousand times. That’s because they perform a simple task that, at least as far as I had seen when I wrote the first one, hadn’t been done elsewhere: They list studies (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) showing that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed about an array of factual—but politicized—issues.

In these posts, I’ve tried to be as dispassionate as one can be on such a matter. I’ve repeatedly said that the studies don’t prove that Fox causes people to be misinformed; they just show a correlation, but the causal arrow could run in either direction (or both). I’ve also said that there may well be other studies out there than the 6 that I’ve found; and there may even be studies out there showing some cases where Fox News viewers are not the most misinformed. Indeed, I could design such a study myself–though it would have to be politically skewed by only asking about topics where liberals and Democrats are likely to be misinformed….

You can read on here.

Let’s remember why this matters–there are facts about the world, and ways of determining what they are, and these facts have significance and consequences. That’s why we have to hold the misinformers to account–and also, sadly, do the same for the fact-checkers.


NASA SMD’s Fancy Dinner Party (Updated)

Posted on by

Keith's 1 July update: According to NASA SMD: this is what SMD paid for the reception: "Planetary Program costs: $37.5K, which included the NASM facility rental, rental for chairs/stage/tables/etc, a/v, music, lighting and rigging, delivery, taxes." That's $37,500 that could have been spent on science. Instead, Ed Weiler spends it on a party.

Keith's 30 June update: According to the AAS: "AAS handled the reception, the costs of which were covered by the corporate sponsors. Over 250 people attended, and the cost per person for food was approximately $48." AAS did not handle rental for the facility, travel costs, media or any of the other things associated with this event. Rental of the floor space alone is in the range of $25,000 - even when discounted for NASA by NASM. NASA clearly wrote some large checks - and the money came from SMD - and that is money that was not available to be spent on actual EPO - or science. Yet last night at the reception SMD people were telling attendees (in response to my Twitter posts) that "no SMD money was used". I am waiting for SMD to tell me what the cost to NASA was. Stay tuned.

Earlier post below

Keith's 29 June note: NASA SMD held a reception and buffet (photo) at the National Air & Space Museum tonight to honor 50 years of nuclear powered spacecraft. Here is the non-transferable invitation I was sent. Note that no corporate sponsors are listed. These things are usually an excuse to see people you haven't seen for 3 days at some other event. Not exactly a powerhouse topic to attract attendees from around Washington - and if it did, the food was the main draw - not nukes in space. In other words this was choir practice and free chow for NASA folks and their friends.

I have asked SMD PAO to provide cost figures for the reception. Having actually arranged for NASA receptions myself at NASM years ago I can tell you that these things are not cheap. Tens of thousands of dollars - easily - even for small ones. What baffles me is why Ed Weiler is off throwing self-congratulatory parties for a niche audience inside the beltway while his staff are forced to cut Exobiology grants - a place where the cost of the reception could make the difference in a grant for a grad student or some equipment.

Given the money that was spent on this why wasn't it recorded for NASA TV? Streamed live? Tweeted @NASA? Oops. Can't do that. NASA holds parties but doesn't want to admit it. Oh well. Here in DC we all go to them and eat. We're all guilty - but that still doesn't make it the most prudent use of taxpayer dollars. Then again this is being done by SMD Education and Public Outreach which is only accountable to Ed Weiler. PAO has no control over this "public" activity.

This must have been what it was like at Nero's house when Rome was burning.

Keith's 29 June update: I am now told that the program handed out at the reception lists "sponsors". Why are they not listed on the invitation - the one with the official NASA logo and "National Air & Space Museum" (a requirement for any event held there even if they do not spend a penny on it) listed as the inviting organizations? Isn't it borderline fraudulent to send out an invitation for something this expensive with overt government agency endorsement and not say who is paying for it? Why are NASA civil servants calling people up to invite them to a reception?

Keith's later 29 June update: Well if you do some digging (NASA offers no advice) you will see that the NASA invitation that NASA employees were sending out was intentionally misleading - this page from the invitation response website link shows that AAS, Lockheed Martin, APL, Hamilton Sunstrand, and Teledyne Brown were "hosts". So NASA did not pay for all of this - but clearly they paid for some of it. We'll see what, if anything, SMD provides me with tomorrow. So let me turn down my outrage (a little) about spending research dollars. This still this begs the question, what do these exclusive parties for a select few inside the beltway do to promote the exploration of space? The same money could have advanced real careers instead of expanding the waistlines of the locals at NASA HQ.

Just for giggles, this is the WAG letter (Widely Attended Gathering) that NASA OGC put out to alert employees as to how much they can accept as gifts. They expected 500 attendees at a cost of $50/person or $25,000. I will be willing to bet that the actual cost is much more than that.

This is still fiddling - while Rome burns - regardless of who pays the fiddler.

More Calls For Open Competition for SLS

Posted on by

Letter from Sen. Warner to Charles Bolden Regarding Open Competition for SLS Propulsion

Letter from Sens. Murray and Chambliss to NASA Regarding Open Competition for SLS

"I am writing to encourage NASA to initiate a competitive bidding process for the propulsion component of the new Space Launch System (SLS). I believe the greatest challenge we face as a nation is the need to balance our spending priorities with principles of fiscal discipline. Rather than consider a non-competitive sole-source contract, NASA should undertake a competitive bidding process to ensure billions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the most cost-effective and responsible manner possible. Furthermore, increased competition will encourage new, innovative technologies that can lead to lower costs and higher value for Americans in the long run."

Keith's note: Some staffer needs to get the name of the agency, address, etc. correct next time. These letters are all the same and are addressed to "National Aeronautics and Space Agency" at "200 E Street, SW, Room 9F44".

Preview of Bolden’s Public Remarks Today

Posted on by

Message from the Administrator: What's Next for NASA

"In just a couple of hours, I am delivering an address at the National Press Club to talk about NASA's future, and before I do so, I wanted to share with you what I'm going to be discussing. You can also watch the speech at 1:00 P.M. EDT on NASA TV or the Web, or if you are at Headquarters, in the James Webb Auditorium. ... Some say that our final shuttle mission will mark the end of America's 50 years of dominance in human spaceflight. As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I want to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success - and here at NASA failure is not an option."

The Economist Still Is Not Thrilled With Humans in Space

Posted on by

Into the sunset, Economist

"Disasters apart, the shuttle generally succeeded in at least one aspect of its mission: its regular launches (not to mention stunts such as flying a 77-year-old astronaut, and assorted senators and congressmen) made space travel seem routine, almost mundane--which helped to dampen public interest."

The end of the Space Age, Economist

"But the shuttle is now over. The ISS is due to be de-orbited, in the inelegant jargon of the field, in 2020. Once that happens, the game will be up. There is no appetite to return to the moon, let alone push on to Mars, El Dorado of space exploration. The technology could be there, but the passion has gone--at least in the traditional spacefaring powers, America and Russia."

Space Shuttle Challenger Families Support Commercial Human Spaceflight

Posted on by

Families of Challenger and Chairman of the Board of Challenger Center for Space Science Education Regarding the Future of Human Spaceflight

"We, the families of the Space Shuttle Challenger crew and founders of the Challenger Center for Space Science Education--heroes we lost to further the exploration of space--strongly support the continuation of human spaceflight under a new paradigm of commercially led efforts to low earth orbit, and government led efforts beyond.

We recognize that commercial development in human spaceflight is a new paradigm, but so was America's government-driven space program at its birth more than 50 years ago. Our nation and others have been quite successful in moving the aviation industry from a military and government led operation to a viable commercial industry; we believe a similar approach is now necessary in space.

We also recognize that the commercialization of space will bring new innovations, capabilities, public interest, and economies to the grandest of human endeavor. This will also allow NASA to focus on deep space exploration, as it should."

JWST SRB: New Baseline Not Viable (Update)

Posted on by

Internal NASA GSFC Report: Weekly Input May 14, 2011- May 21, 2011 Submitted to Code 550

"JWST ISIM - Davila and Mehalick/551: The JWST Standing Review Board (SRB) outbrief to the project was held last Friday. The SRB heard from the project regarding the new baseline plan (including budget and schedule) for a launch date of fy18. The SRB reported that the new baseline plan for JWST was not viable due to lack of sufficient funding in fy11 and fy12, rapid ramp-up of support planned for fy13 and marginal reserves for the years fy13 fy18. The SRB was very complimentary of the new OTIS testing structure, and systems engineering take-over by GSFC."

Webb telescope delayed past 2018?, Nature

"Hubble's successor -- the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) -- is in a heap of trouble. Things were already bad in October, when it was supposed to launch in 2014 and its price tag stood at $5 billion. Then in November, an independent review said its costs had risen to $6.5 billion and that it would not launch until 2015. Now, a review board says the 6-metre segmented telescope may not even get off the ground in 2018. A baseline plan that includes the telescope launching in fiscal year 2018 is "unfeasible", according to an internal memo from Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, that was first disclosed today by NASAWatch."

Keith's note: According to NASA PAO: "NASA is still developing and discussing a new cost and schedule baseline plan for JWST. It's simply premature to make any conclusions until a plan is completed and reviewed within the agency and by an outside team of experts. This will ensure adequate levels of both cost and schedule reserves are in the appropriate years to successfully complete JWST development."

Lunch at The Dinosaur Club

Posted on by

Keith's update: The National Press Club (NPC) invited Charlie Bolden to speak at a luncheon and he accepted. No cost to NASA. NPC makes a lot of money renting out their rooms for press conferences and hosting these luncheons so having Bolden there is a guaranteed money maker. The original NPC notice for this event said it was for NPC members and their guests. That was eventually amended to say that the public could attend too (and pay $36) or watch the event on TV and web streaming. But no one will be allowed to ask Bolden questions directly. You have to submit them ahead of time and then NPC screens them and asks the questions they have selected.

They also added that the media could "cover" this too. When I inquired what media "coverage" meant they said that I had to have a "hard badge" credentials. When I asked them what credentials they mean (NPC, NASA, NASA Watch, etc.) they did not answer. NASA HQ has not issued "hard" media credentials for more than 5 years - so media who only cover NASA are not going to have these things. I asked NPC if I could simply make a laminated badge (as editor of NASA Watch) and credential myself (other media outlets/publications do this). I have asked them three times. No response. As such I have to assume that I will not be allowed on the premises to cover this event - but if I want to pay $36 (the food is awful so I never eat it) I can sit and listen but not ask questions.

How odd. The NPC is supposed to be promoting journalism and news coverage - yet they put a barrier between media who cover their events by requiring all questions be submitted in advance. In addition, they pick and chose as to what media allowed to "cover" the event based on whether or not they have some sort of laminated name tag (they are not exactly clear on where you get these tags). And those who do not meet their criteria have to pay money to have access to the government official who is speaking. What is really odd is that I have covered events at the NPC multiple times in the past decade and asked questions of the speakers. Now they suddenly go retro.

NPC is a business, so they need to make money I suppose. What is odd is how they hold themselves up as some sort of bastion of journalistic integrity and excellence when in fact they are stuck in the the way that the news media used to work - not the way that it actually works today. Its like having lunch at The Dinosaur Club - they follow a process that is quickly becoming extinct. They invite a newsmaker to their club and then go out of their way to prevent news media from doing their job i.e. covering (interacting) with that same guest. How this is promoting excellence in journalism and news coverage baffles me.

Funny thing: I have discovered that a number of reporters on the space beat are inclined to skip the event (since no questions will be allowed) and just watch it back in their office. So much for fostering interaction between newsmakers and reporters. Bolden is not expected to make any "news" either since nothing about SLS etc. is included in his prepared remarks and questions will be screened/filtered in advance.

The food (money making) part of the event begins at 12:30 pm EDT. Bolden's remarks will begin just after 1:00 pm EDT, followed by a staged question-and-answer session. To submit a question in advance, type BOLDEN in the subject line and email president@press.org before 10 am EDT tomorrow. The luncheon program will be on C-SPAN, NASA Television and webcast live via NPC.

You can follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #NPCLunch and at @PressClubDC. You can also submit questions during the live event by sending them to @QNPCLunch. I will be live tweeting the event at @NASAWatch

Shielding Bolden From Unfiltered Questions, Earlier post

ORS-1 Launched From Wallops

Posted on by

Rocket Launch Completed From NASA Wallops

"A U.S. Air Force Minotaur 1 rocket carrying the Department of Defense Operationally Responsive Space Office's ORS-1 satellite was successfully launched at 11:09 p.m. EDT yesterday from NASA's Launch Range at the Wallops Flight Facility and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in Virginia. "We are very pleased to continue our support to the U.S. Air Force and the Operationally Responsive Space Office (ORS) with today's successful launch," said Bill Wrobel, director of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. "This is the fourth Minotaur 1 launch from Wallops since December 2006 and we look forward to collaborating with the Air Force and ORS on future projects."