Connect with us

Science

Amid tense clashes between NASA and Musk, two NASA science missions launch on SpaceX rocket

Published

on

Amid tense clashes between NASA and Musk, two NASA science missions launch on SpaceX rocket

After every federal employee received an email asking them to list their recent accomplishments, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk took to his social media platform X, warning any employee who didn’t respond would be terminated. NASA, instead, asserted that replying was optional and that its leadership would handle the matter.
Two weeks after the clash, the space agency hitched a ride to orbit on a SpaceX rocket.

It’s another indicator that, despite an aggressive push by the Trump Administration and Musk to significantly reduce government spending and the federal workforce that have led to some tense public disputes, NASA’s space science missions — and its relationship with SpaceX, the dominant launch provider in the U.S. — have so far remained relatively unscathed.

The space agency narrowly escaped the mass firing of its probationary employees and has stayed out of the political crosshairs of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is working to slash funding at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency.

It has also survived some strained squabbles with the SpaceX CEO, including Musk’s call to deorbit the International Space Station as soon as possible, before its scheduled 2030 decommissioning date.

Yet, tangible threats to the space agency’s status quo are looming on the horizon, space-policy experts say, including potentially significant budget cuts and staff reductions through the normal processes of government.

Advertisement

“There’s a lot of this highly disruptive, very symbolic culture war … that’s taking a lot of attention,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a Pasadena-based nonprofit advocating for space science and exploration. “But the bigger issue is the more quotidian of, will NASA get the money it needs to do the projects it’s told to do.”

SpaceX launched two NASA spacecraft Tuesday — both part of the agency’s Explorers Program, designed to provide frequent flight and funding opportunities for space science missions — on its Falcon 9 rocket.

It included a spacecraft from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge that will study the rapid expansion that occurred during the first split-second of the universe and a mission from the Southwest Research Institute, a private nonprofit organization based in Texas and Colorado, that will explore the dynamics of solar wind.

Despite the public clashes, a NASA spokesperson said the agency’s relationship with Musk’s company remains strong.

“NASA is working with partners like SpaceX to build an economy in low Earth orbit and take our next giant leaps in exploration at the Moon and Mars for the benefit of all,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “To date, NASA invested more than $15 billion in SpaceX for its work under numerous agency contracts.”

Advertisement

The Falcon 9 has become one of the U.S.’ most prolific and reliable rides to space (and unlike SpaceX’s developmental Starship rocket, it does not frequently explode). Much of the rocket’s success is thanks to a nearly two-decade partnership with NASA.

The space agency funded the development of the rocket in 2006 as part of a push to foster a burgeoning private launch industry ahead of the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Two years later, SpaceX was the first private company to reach space with a liquid-fueled rocket, using a scaled-down precursor to the Falcon 9.

In the years since, NASA has given SpaceX billions in contracts to shuttle supplies and, later, astronauts to and from the ISS; launch science missions far beyond Earth’s orbit; and now, develop a spacecraft to deorbit the ISS in 2030 and the Starship rocket to carry humans back to the moon.

As SpaceX excelled in rocket development, other private launch companies — and NASA itself — struggled to keep up.

In 2014, NASA awarded Boeing $4.2 billion and SpaceX $2.6 billion to develop capsules to launch astronauts to the ISS. But while SpaceX has launched 10 missions to the ISS with NASA astronauts to date, Boeing has managed only one botched crewed test flight that left two U.S. astronauts on the ISS without a ride back, until SpaceX agreed to take them home.

Advertisement

(Notably, that involved another incident pitting Musk against NASA, in which the former described the astronauts as “stranded,” despite the latter’s insistence that this was a mischaracterization.)

Meanwhile, NASA’s Space Shuttle successor, the Space Launch System, has accrued billions in cost overruns and years of delays. The rocket’s side boosters and engines were originally projected to cost $7 billion over 14 years of development and flights. That’s grown to at least $13.1 billion over 25 years, according to a report from the NASA Office of Inspector General.

The result: Over the years, America’s space agency has become increasingly dependent on SpaceX and Musk for access to space.

Then, the Trump administration created DOGE — a temporary organization in the executive office (and not an official government department) — and instated Musk as a special government employee to head it.

The administration began firing probationary employees — government workers in their first year of a new role, who are not yet considered full employees — across the federal government, including at the National Park Service, U.S. Agency for International Development, and most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Advertisement

On Feb. 18, NASA employees braced for a similar cut, but it never came. The agency announced it had worked with the Office of Personnel Management to avoid the firings and that about 5% of the workforce had resigned voluntarily as part of a separate program to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

Instead, the agency began undertaking a longer-term by-the-books reduction of staff mandated by an executive order. The agency, in a document outlining the process, stated it intends to proceed in a manner that “minimizes adverse impact on employees and limits disruption to critical Agency missions, programs, operations, and organizations.”

The agency is partnering with OPM and DOGE to carry out the reduction and does not have a specific percent reduction goal, a NASA spokesperson said in a statement.

At a Cabinet meeting, Musk said DOGE’s goal is not to be “capricious or unfair” and said the temporary organization has no target numbers. Instead, he wants to keep “everyone who is doing a job that is essential and doing that job well.”

NASA began the layoffs Monday with 23 employees in advisory science and policy offices, as well as a diversity, equity and inclusion branch.

Advertisement

Employees at JPL, a government contractor funded by NASA but managed by Caltech, are exempt from the reduction, both NASA and JPL confirmed. However, the laboratory remains at the whims of federal funding for its missions.

While, publicly, NASA’s science funding has not seen the same level of scrutiny or cuts as other science agencies, Congress has a quick-approaching March 14 budget deadline, and, in line with the White House, the Republican-controlled chambers are set on decreasing federal spending.

The implications for NASA’s science programs could be significant.

In an example budget proposal for the 2023 fiscal year, Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget proposed slashing NASA’s science budget in half — which would far outpace previous budget cuts to the agency’s science programs.

Typically, NASA’s science budget follows the trends of the rest of the discretionary budget, which doesn’t include mandatory spending like Medicare and Social Security that is managed outside the typical budget process.

Advertisement

“People love NASA, but in general, NASA’s budget doesn’t buck the trend of overall non-defense discretionary,” said Dreier. “If that pie gets bigger, NASA’s slice gets a little bigger, but if it gets smaller, NASA’s slice doesn’t stay big.”

When Congress has tough choices to make over which programs to fund, it’s often the science and technology side — and not the human spaceflight side — of the agency that sees the biggest cuts.

Notably — with representatives jockeying to bring funding to their own constituents — conservative-leaning states are home to NASA’s biggest human spaceflight centers, like the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the Johnson Space Center in Texas. More liberal states are home to many of the science-focused centers, like JPL and Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Explorers Program.

And within the science spending, it’s the big flagship science missions, like the James Webb Space Telescope, that survive, whereas smaller missions, like those in the Explorers Program, end up on the chopping block.

The bigger missions often have many more advocates across the country ready to defend the programs, and stir up backlash if they’re canceled.

Advertisement

The Senate has yet to hold hearings for Trump’s NASA administrator pick, Jared Isaacman, a Musk and SpaceX business partner who rode to space on a Falcon 9 rocket in 2021 as part of the first space mission with an all-civilian crew.

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Science

James Reason, Who Used Swiss Cheese to Explain Human Error, Dies at 86

Published

on

James Reason, Who Used Swiss Cheese to Explain Human Error, Dies at 86

The story of how James Reason became an authority on the psychology of human error begins with a teapot.

It was the early 1970s. He was a professor at the University of Leicester, in England, studying motion sickness, a process that involved spinning his subjects round and round, and occasionally revealing what they had eaten for breakfast.

One afternoon, as he was boiling water in his kitchen to make tea, his cat, a brown Burmese named Rusky, sauntered in meowing for food. “I opened a tin of cat food,” he later recalled, “dug in a spoon and dolloped a large spoonful of cat food into the teapot.”

After swearing at Rusky, Professor Reason berated himself: How could he have done something so stupid?

The question seemed more intellectually engaging than making people dizzy, so he ditched motion sickness to study why humans make mistakes, particularly in high-risk settings.

Advertisement

By analyzing hundreds of accidents in aviation, railway travel, medicine and nuclear power, Professor Reason concluded that human errors were usually the byproduct of circumstances — in his case, the cat food was stored near the tea leaves, and the cat had walked in just as he was boiling water — rather than being caused by careless or malicious behavior.

That was how he arrived at his Swiss cheese model of failure, a metaphor for analyzing and preventing accidents that envisions situations in which multiple vulnerabilities in safety measures — the holes in the cheese — align to create a recipe for tragedy.

“Some scholars play a critical role in founding a whole field of study: Sigmund Freud, in psychology. Noam Chomsky, in linguistics. Albert Einstein, in modern physics,” Robert L. Sumwalt, the former chairman of National Transportation Safety Board, wrote in a 2018 blog post. “In the field of safety, Dr. James Reason has played such a role.”

Professor Reason died on Feb. 4 in Slough, a town about 20 miles west of London. He was 86.

His death, in a hospital, was caused by pneumonia, his family said.

Advertisement

A gifted storyteller, Professor Reason found vivid and witty ways to explain complicated ideas. At conferences, on TV news programs and in consultation with government safety officials around the world, he would sometimes deploy slices of cheese as props.

In one instructional video, he sat at his dining room table, which was set for a romantic dinner, with a bottle of wine, two glasses and a cutting board layered with cheese.

“In an ideal world, each defense would look like this,” he said, holding up a slice of cheese without holes. “It would be solid and intact.”

Then he reached for another slice, one with quarter-size cutouts. “But in reality, each defense is like this,” he said. “It has holes in it.”

The metaphor was easy to understand.

Advertisement

“All defenses have holes in them,” Professor Reason continued. “Every now and again, the holes line up so that there can be some trajectory of accident opportunity.”

To explain how the holes develop, he put them in two categories: active failures, or mistakes typically made by people who, for example, grab the cat food instead of the tea leaves; and latent conditions, or mistakes made in construction, written instructions or system design, like storing two scoopable substances near each other in a cabinet.

“Nearly all organizational accidents involve a complex interaction between these two sets of factors,” he wrote in his autobiography, “A Life in Error: From Little Slips to Big Disasters” (2013).

In the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he identified latent conditions that had been in existence for years: a poorly designed reactor; organizational mismanagement; and inadequate training procedures and supervision for frontline operators, who triggered the catastrophic explosion by making the error of turning off several safety systems at once.

“Rather than being the main instigators of an accident, operators tend to be the inheritors of system defects,” he wrote in “Human Error” (1990). “Their part is that of adding the final garnish to a lethal brew whose ingredients have already been long in the cooking.”

Advertisement

Professor Reason’s model has been widely used in health care.

“When I was in medical school, an error meant you screwed up, and you should just try harder to not screw up,” Robert Wachter, the chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “And if it was really bad, you would probably get sued.”

In 1998, a doctor he had recently hired for a fellowship said he wanted to specialize in patient-safety strategy, to which Dr. Wachter replied, “What’s that?” There were no formal systems or methods in his hospital (or most others) to analyze and prevent errors, but there was plenty of blame to go around, most of it aimed at doctors and nurses.

This particular doctor had trained at Harvard Medical School, where they were incorporating Professor Reason’s ideas into patient-safety programs. Dr. Wachter, who began reading Professor Reason’s journal articles and books, said the Swiss cheese model was “an epiphany,” almost “like putting on a new pair of glasses.”

Someone given the wrong dose of medicine, he realized, could have been the victim of poor syringe design rather than a careless nurse. Another patient could have died of cardiac arrest because a defibrillator that was usually stored in the hallway had been taken to a different floor to replace one that had malfunctioned — and there was no system to alert anyone that it had been moved.

Advertisement

“When an error happens, our instinct can’t be to look at this at the final stage,” Dr. Wachter said, “but to look at the entirety of the system.”

When you do, he added, you realize that “these layers of protection are pretty porous in ways that you just didn’t understand until we opened our eyes to all of it.”

James Tootle was born on May 1, 1938, in Garston, a village in Hertfordshire, northwest of London. His father, Stanley Tootle, died in 1940, during World War II, when he was struck by shrapnel while playing cards in the bay window of his house. His mother, Hilda (Reason) Tootle, died when he was a teenager.

His grandfather, Thomas Augustus Reason, raised James, who took his surname.

In 1962, he graduated from the University of Manchester with a degree in psychology. He received his doctorate in 1967 from the University of Leicester, where he taught and conducted research before joining the faculty at the University of Manchester in 1977.

Advertisement

He married Rea Jaari, an educational psychologist, in 1964. She survives him, along with their daughters, Paula Reason and Helen Moss, and three grandchildren.

Throughout his career, Professor Reason’s surname was a reliable source of levity.

“The word ‘reason’ is, of course, widely used in the English language, but it does not describe what Jim is rightly famous for, namely ‘error,’” Erik Hollnagel, the founding editor of the International Journal of Cognition, Technology and Work, wrote in the preface to Professor Reason’s autobiography. “Indeed, ‘error’ is almost the opposite of ‘reason.’”

Still, it made sense.

“Jim has certainly brought reason to the study of error,” he wrote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

How to Watch the ‘Blood Moon’ Total Lunar Eclipse

Published

on

How to Watch the ‘Blood Moon’ Total Lunar Eclipse

From Thursday night into Friday morning, Earth’s shadow will swallow the moon, transforming the usually pearly orb into a striking red sphere.

It’s the first total lunar eclipse in more than two years. Also known as a blood moon, the event will be most visible across the Americas, western parts of Africa and Europe, New Zealand and some of Russia.

“It’s a lovely sight to see in the night sky,” said Amanda Bosh, the executive director of the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, who has seen more than 20 lunar eclipses in her lifetime.

“I love seeing the solar system, the universe, at work,” she added.

A lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, Earth and moon align, in that order. There are different types of lunar eclipses that depend on how deeply the moon crosses into Earth’s shadow, which is divided into an outer part, the penumbra and the umbra, the innermost section.

Advertisement

A total lunar eclipse, when the entire moon slips into the umbra, is by far the most dramatic variety. Earth’s shadow envelops the face of the moon, causing it to shine scarlet. This happens because sunlight spilling over the edges of Earth and lighting up the lunar surface must first travel through our atmosphere, which more readily scatters blue wavelengths of light. Redder wavelengths pass through, creating the blood-moon effect.

According to Dr. Bosh, the exact shade of red during a lunar eclipse can vary. Clouds and recent natural disasters — like dust storms or volcanic eruptions, which leave particles in the air — can make the moon appear more crimson.

Less visually striking is a penumbral eclipse, when the moon grazes through the outer part of Earth’s shadow. This causes the moon to dim so slightly that it can be difficult to notice.

When only a portion of the moon recedes into the innermost umbra, it creates a partial eclipse, which looks like a bite has been taken out of the lunar surface.

There are several phases of a total lunar eclipse. According to the United States Naval Observatory, the event will occur over about six hours across Thursday and Friday.

Advertisement

The moon will begin to creep into Earth’s penumbra at around 11:56 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday. At 1:09 a.m. on Friday, the moon will enter the umbra, during which a growing portion of its surface will be obscured from view. According to Dr. Bosh, the moon will appear more red as the partial phase elapses.

Totality, when the entirety of the moon is engulfed in the darkest part of Earth’s shadow, occurs at 2:25 a.m. and lasts for just over an hour.

Then the lunar surface will begin to brighten white again as the moon glides out of the umbra, a phase that lasts until 4:48 a.m. Eastern time. The final leg of its journey, through the penumbra, finishes at 6:01 a.m.

Anyone on the night side of Earth will have the opportunity to see the lunar eclipse, but how much you can see depends on your location.

Skywatchers in most of North America and the western half of South America can witness the entire event. But in other places, people may just catch the eclipsed moon rising or setting in the sky.

Advertisement

No special equipment is needed for this cosmic sight. “It’ll look just as beautiful with your eyes” than it would through a telescope, said Dylan Short, a telescope specialist at Lowell Observatory. Decent photographs can be taken with a cellphone, he said, or with a simple D.S.L.R. camera that uses a lens with a long focal length. Images of the moon can also be captured through the eyepiece of a telescope.

In many cities, local stargazing groups and planetariums are hosting watch parties. Another option is to view a live broadcast of the lunar eclipse online.

Although a winter storm is barreling across the United States, forecasters say sky viewers have a shot at seeing the eclipse in several areas, including portions of Florida, the central and southern Plains, West and South Texas, the Ohio Valley into the Appalachian Mountains, and a sliver of the desert Southwest.

But in other parts of the country, including the East and West Coasts, clear views may be more difficult to come by.

If you do see clouds in the sky during the eclipse, keep in mind that the event unfolds over several hours. It may be worth looking again later, especially if those clouds are thin or seem to be moving.

Advertisement

Lunar eclipses can happen several times a year, though not all of them reach totality. According to NASA, the next total lunar eclipse will occur in September, most visible in Asia and parts of Europe, Africa and Australia.

There will be another total lunar eclipse next March, followed by a partial lunar eclipse later in August.

Lunar eclipses also occur paired with solar eclipses. On March 29, this lunar eclipse’s partner, a partial solar eclipse, will be visible in parts of North America and Europe.

Amy Graff contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Bird flu-infected San Bernardino County dairy cows may have concerning new mutation

Published

on

Bird flu-infected San Bernardino County dairy cows may have concerning new mutation

Scientists are sounding alarms about a genetic mutation that was recently identified in four dairy cow herds, nearly one year after H5N1 bird flu was first reported in Texas dairy cattle.

Although not confirmed, scientists believe the infected herds are located in San Bernardino County, where health officials announced a dairy outbreak last week.

The genetic mutation is one that researchers have dreaded finding because it is associated with increased mammal-to-mammal transmission and disease severity.

“That is the mutation found in the first human case, which was extremely pathogenic in ferrets,” said Yoshihiro Kawaoka, an infectious disease expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Tokyo. “Finding the same mutation in cows is significant.”

Advertisement

The mutation is called PB2 E627K, and it was seen in a Texas dairy worker last March. It was not seen again until these sequences were uploaded late Tuesday. The data were uploaded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Veterinary Laboratory Services to a public access genetic repository known as the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data, or GISAID.

Henry Niman, an evolutionary molecular biologist and founder of Recombinomics Inc., a virus and vaccine research company in Pittsburgh, reviewed the sequence data and reported the results to The Times and on social media Wednesday.

Last summer, Kawaoka exposed ferrets in his laboratory to that viral strain. He found that the ferrets were able to transmit the virus to one another via respiratory droplets, and it killed all of the infected animals.

The Texas dairy worker who was exposed to a viral strain with the mutation complained only of conjunctivitis; he didn’t have a fever or show signs of respiratory dysfunction.

Richard Webby, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in Memphis, Tenn., said that the mutation “on its own is not a game changing worry for me.”

Advertisement

However, he said, if there is evidence that viruses with this mutation are actually spreading in cows “or any other host for that matter…. it’s not a stretch to think it could help enable more human infections, maybe with more disease.”

The data provided to GISAID don’t include location information, so scientists often use other ways to identify herds.

In this case, because the sequence data were added Tuesday, they probably came from herds that were only recently reported by the USDA. In the last week, herds from Idaho and California have been added to the USDA’s tally.

The new sequence data added on Tuesday — which were of the B3.13 variety — probably are from infected California herds, said several scientists the Times spoke with. And they pointed to a recently reported outbreak in four dairy herds from San Bernardino County as the likely source.

Since the outbreak was first reported in dairy cows last March, 70 people have been infected and one person has died. According to the USDA, 985 dairy herds have been infected, with 754 of them in California.

Advertisement

“The key now is for California public health officials and hospital systems to be watching for nasty upper respiratory infections,” said John Korslund, a veterinarian and former USDA researcher. “Especially in dairy workers and their families.”

The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending