Flu's days are numbered

This report by the media group UPI has news on a new, universal flu vaccine being developed in England. Unlike the typical flu vaccine we are inoculated with these days which protects against certain strains of flue, this would protect against all strains. The article states,

Current flu vaccines only work against a few kinds of flu and only for a short time, as seasonal flu evolves and changes to get around immunity provided by that year's vaccine, requiring constant research and re-vaccination, NewScientist.com reported Monday.

Several research groups, including one at Oxford University, are attempting to develop a flu vaccine out of proteins that are identical in all flu viruses in the hope this will protect people from all flu once and for all.

If science has enough time and resources dedicated to certain solvable problems, inevitably, many will have solutions appear. The key is dedication. We have this idea that by putting a bunch of smart people in a group and throwing a little money at them they will solve all of the world's problems. It does not work that way. The best example I can think of as a modern marvel is modern computing. We have more computational power on our desktop now than could be housed in 10 city blocks. What people often fail to acknowledge is the 40 years of innovation and billions of dollars invested.

We need to fund research and development in the US if we are to compete with rest of the world.

Next generation space flight takes orbit

I made a previous post on the topic about how dangerous the retiring Space Shuttle is to those who fly the craft. In that same post I mention about the military's potential future workhorse, the X-37, an unmanned orbiter that is launched by a traditional rocket and lands through gliding back in the Earth's atmosphere touching down on a runway just like the space shuttle. If I am correct, this is the idea behind the original Space Shuttle back in the 1970's before NASA's bureaucracy took over and made it the expensive, dangerous, manned orbiter. Good ideas are generally recycled in history, and this is another example.

The Associated Press reports that the X-37 recently took a flight starting in April 2010,

The U.S. Air Force's secrecy-shrouded X-37B unmanned spaceplane returned to Earth early Friday after more than seven months in orbit on a classified mission, officials said.

The winged craft autonomously landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles, base spokesman Jeremy Eggers said.

"It's very exciting," Eggers said of the 1:16 a.m. PST landing.

The X-37B was launched by an Atlas 5 rocket from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on April 22, 2010, with a maximum mission duration of 270 days.

That is what makes this technology advantageous over the shuttle and traditional rockets. It is launched cheaply (like a rocket), but has the capability of the shuttle in flexibility while in orbit. No need to worry about anyone getting injured or killed during operation either. The X-37 excels in the fact it can remain in orbit for long periods of time. This is a capability neither the rocket or shuttle possess.

Research and development of the system has not been cheap or quick,

The voyage culminated the project's long and expensive journey from NASA to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then on to the secretive Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the X-37 program, but the current total hasn't been released.

Compare the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the X-37 to the $500 million per Space Shuttle launch, it justifies the capital spent. To be fair, anything hi-tech, new and revolutionary like this craft will be expensive to get from idea to final, successful product. Personally, this is a concept many business and government leaders are missing by not funding significant research and development in our society today.

Vader in psychotherapy

This Yahoo! posting is funny. Darth Vader was analyzed for psychological disorders by a group of French researchers. This strikes me as being strange, because are we American's culturally inferior (according to the French) to Europeans? It appears they respect good American movies though. Moving on to subject at hand.

After analysis of Lord Vader's behavior in the six Star Wars episodes, their conclusion was Vader has borderline personality disorder (BPD). Their diagnosis of the Sith,

His enemies and underlings are painfully aware that Darth Vader is highly irritable and prone to bursts of anger. But until now, we don't think anybody knew that the Dark Lord of the Sith may have suffered from borderline personality disorder.

According to a popular blog over at CNN, French researchers have concluded that Mr. Vader (aka Anakin Skywalker) has, at various times, exhibited six of the nine criteria for borderline personality disorder. To be diagnosed with BPD, you need only showcase five of the behaviors.

They go onto address his unstable relationships with his son, wife and other family members. One may ask, what is BPD? Wikipedia defines it as in the link above (links do not work in quote below),

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a personality disorder defined in DSM-IV and described as a prolonged disturbance of personality function in a person (generally over the age of eighteen years, although it is also found in adolescents), characterized by depth and variability of moods.^[1] The disorder typically involves unusual levels of instability in mood; black and white thinking, or splitting; chaotic and unstable interpersonal relationships, self-image, identity, and behavior; as well as a disturbance in the individual's sense of self. In extreme cases, this disturbance in the sense of self can lead to periods of dissociation.^[2]

I am glad the French are doing cutting edge research. At least, it is entertaining.

Glass of wine for the brain?

Health studies are constantly being completed. The results are sometimes even surprising. This Spanish study links a delay in Alzheimer's disease to moderate drinking in women. The study took into lifestyle considerations while performing the research. Results were conclusive with the alcohol consumption benefiting nonsmoker women the most.

"Our results suggest a protective effect of alcohol consumption, mostly in non-smokers, and the need to consider interactions between tobacco and alcohol consumption, as well as interactions with gender, when assessing the effects of smoking and/or drinking on the risk of Alzheimer's disease," the study's lead author, Ana M. Garcia, from the University of Valencia's department of preventive medicine and public health, said in a news release.

This seems odd when initially thinking about the issue, but not really. Drinking effects the brain's function (ever had a conversation with a rational drunk?) and specially the chemistry. The study's authors point this out.

"Interactive effects of smoking and drinking are supported by the fact that both alcohol and tobacco affect brain neuronal receptors," Garcia explained.

The take home message from this study is scientists may know quite a few things about the human body, but a significant amount of study could still be completed on the things we don't know. The medical field has much to learn and research should be heavily funded.

Funding strikes back

In a previous post, Fuel cell energy, I debate a new product by Bloom Energy, the Bloombox. In a nut shell, it is a giant box full of fuel cells that run on natural gas operating as a small electrical generator. Online Fortune magazine has an update on the Bloom boxes' debut. Their view of the technology is similar to mine with many downfalls. Without 30 % state economic subsidiaries, the box would not compete with more traditional electrical sources on the grid. No surprise. In the end after the fanfare, it is all about the money and pleasing investors. Two patterns emerge from this story reflecting the current state of research and development towards product commercialization in the US. The cruel cycle of funding and the half truths concerning the current state of alternative energy.

To put the record straight, I like the concept of fuel cells generating electricity. The technology is NOT ready for prime time yet. It needs more development. We should have an army of scientists and engineers working on this technology. It will have twofold benefits:
1. Add to the US economy through employment
2. Viable product to sell in the end.
This is where the first ugly reality shows its face, the current state of research funding.

In a way I feel for the inventor, K.R. Sridhar, and the decision he was forced to make when founding his company. Venture capitalist (VC) invested in his company. VC have high expectations. Companies will demonstrate progress towards a product with an actual deliverable product by a certain date. What if the product is not ready in this time frame? The VC funding goes away. End of game. If Sridhar wanted his dream to come to fruition, he took the money with terms. In many cases, successful product development time is longer than allotted, the final product flops. Darn if you do, darn if you don't.

I propose investing more capital into long term research and development laboratories (national labs or corporate) to develop these technologies. Yes, I know over along time R&D loses money, but nothing significant will ever be developed again without extensive research. What about universities? Universities are in the business of producing researchers and most projects end with Ph D students graduating. The same short term issue as VC funded projects. Our technical competitive edge depends on long term research and development funding in appropriate venues.

Second, the development stage most alternative energy currently stands lacks commercial viability. Even with economic subsidiaries, most alternative energy sources will not eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. Click here for a more complete argument. One exception comes to mind, wind turbines. Wind turbines are commercially viable. They share the similar drawback of low energy density through. No one ever mentions another obvious problem, what happens when the wind stops? Solar, geothermal and various other alternative energy sources are just not at a development stage that will displace more conventional fossil fuel based technologies.

I repeat, this post's intention is not about bashing venture capitalists or alternative energy, it is to inform about the current reality. Venture capitalists have a vital role in the US economy in funding successful technology start ups. The VC success key is funding technologies that are close to production stage, not products that require a significant amount of engineering. As for alternative energy, I would love to see solar panels on every roof. Commercialized economically competitive versions of the fuel cells would be outstanding. The new technology has significant potential. As we currently stand though, the lack of funding and efforts to develop alternative energy sources will doom them to failure. We as a society need to accept the situation's reality.

Oil and water solar power

One main topic of this blog concerns energy and the issues facing our modern society. In a previous post, the real future energy crisis, I discuss how coal could supply the US electricity demand for the next 200 years. The downside to using coal are air pollution and the destructive effects of coal mining. This post will investigate a recent solar cell development that is promising and put it into context with the current overall solar power picture.

First of all, I am going to mention a few facts about solar power without giving citations giving an overall general view of the solar industry.

1. Solar power is relatively new in large scale implementation. It has been used in niche applications for decades, but using the technology for large scale applications is still experimental.

2. Solar power is truly an environmentally less destructive alternative in comparison to all fossil fuels generation methods.

3. Solar power is not a very dense energy source. If we put solar plants covering every square inch of available land and on top of roofs, we still would not have our energy demands satisfied.

4. Finally, solar systems do not generate energy consistently around the clock. The sun sets and generation stops. On cloudy days, the amount of electricity generated also drops significantly.

5. Even when solar systems are generating electricity using current technology, the cost per unit is significantly higher than all other traditional forms of generation including fossil fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear based systems.

Here is my beef with solar power, the amount of money and effort that a society would pour into solar power would not be beneficial with the current solar technology. No current technology commercially available (Si solar cells, thin film or concentrators) has high energy yield at low cost. The price per kiloWatt is significantly higher than conventional electricity production. Large scale solar implementation will end up bankrupting us, while failing to achieve our energy goals. For solar to be viable, the overall manufacturing and system construction costs will have to drop significantly. Construction is a fixed cost, but manufacturing could be significantly reduced. The only way to achieve a significant reduction in solar cost would be through the research and development of new solar technology resulting in high yield, low cost solar energy process.

One interesting solar technical development comes from the University of Minnesota with self-assembled solar cells. The BBC reports that researchers have used self-assembly to organize Si onto a substrate patterned with Au for electrical connections. Self-assembly is a process that uses hydrophilic (water compatible) and hydrophobic (water incompatible) substances like vinegar and oil. The two are immiscible with each other separating upon mixing. In the case of self-assembly, separates into desired patterns or configurations. It appears as if the scientists have devised a way to self-assemble working solar cells. One technical advantage is mentioned in the article.

"Self-assembly is probably the best method for integrating high-performance materials onto unconventional substrates," he told BBC News.

The method tackles what Dr Parviz said is the most challenging problem - the proper alignment of thousands of parts, each thinner than a human hair. But it also works with the highest-performance materials, he said.

"For example, this method allows one to use single-crystal silicon, which is far superior to other types of silicon for making solar cells."

High yield devices could be produced with greater electrical conversion than current Si solar cells. The other advantage comes from low cost substrates significantly reducing the overall manufacturing cost. Further development of this idea would result in a high yield, low cost solar system. Before we start dumping money into the professor's group, the article only briefly touches upon the amount of development before a final manufactured product will come to market. It will be years. Investing in that kind of development would be a good investment in our energy future.

Limitations of dreams

My scientific training is as an experimentalist surface scientist in a materials science related study. I spent a significant amount of time in the lab. It is one of my secondary homes. One bone of contention in the scientific world is the clash between experimentalist (us) versus theorist (what is a lab?). Both disciplines take large amounts training, rigorous work and deep thought. In an ideal world, theory should follow after experimental data. Occasionally, theory should predict a result like nuclear weapons is a great example. This post is going to cover a potential dark side associated with theory.

Theory is based upon experimental data sets and observations. Most experimental data fits into trends following mathematical relations. New data usually has previous bodies of work to support the new theoretical idea or concept. Over time, a story is built within a given area of study. It becomes easier to predict experimental outcomes ahead of time. New chapters in the story are written as evidence is presented with a theorist entering the wording.

One very basic concept that is the basis of all theory are assumptions. The theory holds true if for example in a chemistry experiment, the temperature, pressure and etc. are at certain levels. Note, these are serious limitations. All related conditions have to be met for the theory to be true. One assumption is not met, the theoretical framework fails. During initial theory development, many pieces are missing and often all assumptions are not yet known. This will often lead to semi-independent theories. In science and engineering fields, this learning process is benign. Trouble comes with other less easily quantifiable subjects such as sociology, psychology and history for several reasons. First, many subtle factors come into play. Second, not all of the necessary pieces are known. Finally, if a theory is not correct and taken by public policy makers as gospel, significant damage to society may occur. One of the worst historical outcomes from a theory comes from the false science (accepted in the past) known as Eugenics. Eugenics is the idea of keeping a genetic stock pure without undesired genes like genetic diseases. Sterilization of those with less than desirable traits was the main cure. Sometimes death was the their cure. Eugenics was one of the main driving forces behind the Nazi concentration camps.

Groupthink is when a group of individuals comes to a consensus without any serious debate leading to the suppression of all opposing ideas. This is not a fault of theory itself, but of those who are authorities on a given subject. It promotes continuation of false ideals and is a greater threat to any organization than an incomplete theory. Development of a theoretical framework requires legitimate questioning of an idea or concept. If the theory can not comprehensively address a proper inquiry, the theory has serious problems. The problem can often be fixed with a slight refinement. Other times, the theory is then disproven and a new concept is proposed. Groupthink suppresses all questioning, thus, faulty theories are allowed to live and often thrive. Some faulty theories cause serious damage if applied without any moderation to public venues touching us all.

Space travel in the 21st Century

Our best known and really only truly operating space agency currently in the world is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA. NASA is funded by the United States government through taxpayer money. The organization is well respected for its many achievements including its crown jewel, the Apollo program landing astronauts on the moon.

NASA's main orbital launch vehicle for satellites and humans at the moment is the Space Shuttle. The space shuttle was designed and developed during the 1970's with what is now 30+ year old technology. During the Space Shuttle's inception, the concept of a reusable craft capable of reaching orbit was revolutionary. Original plans called for a reusable unmanned orbiter utilized as a satellite launch vehicle. After several rounds of politics, an area was added that would support humans. This increased the overall project costs twofold through:
1) Building a larger spacecraft
2) Increased amount of fuel and supplies during launches.
Currently, it costs $450 million per launch. The Space Shuttle's large price tag annuls the original purpose of a cheap, reusable space craft intended for launching satellites.

The other serious issue the space shuttle faces is the overall reliability and safety. Within the 28 year Space Shuttle mission span, the Challenger and Columbia both failed with disastrous results taking all honorable lives on board. To put this in prospective, here are approximate probabilities of dying over a span of 1 year using various transportation methods from Reason Magazine:
Airlines crash = 1 in 400,000 or 0.00045 %
Walking across street = 1 in 48,500 or 0.0021 %
Automobile crash = 1 in 6,500 or 0.015 %
Space Shuttle crash = 1 in 1800 or 0.06 %.
Yes, to date an astronaut has an extremely high chance of dying if routinely flying shuttle missions.

The numbers speak for themselves, the space shuttle is both expensive and dangerous. Space flight is a relatively new phenomenon being around for little over 50 years. Loading multi-million dollar satellites and really brave souls onto oversize candles was at one time patriotic in the Cold War, but the Berlin Wall fell and it is time to move on. This is why the Obama Administration is reconsidering the program's future.

It looks like the future may not be NASA's (NASA is involved through), but through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and US Air Force as the X-37B. The exact details are being kept secret due to the military aspect, but some details have slipped out.

The vehicle itself is about 29 feet long with a roughly 15-foot wingspan and weighs in at over five tons at liftoff. Speeding down from space, the craft would likely make use of Runway 12/30 — 15,000 feet long by 200 feet wide — at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This vague description is more in line with the original idea behind the Space Shuttle. That was to build a cheap, reliable spacecraft. As with all X-class aircraft, they tend to be experimental in nature with technology development as the main intent.

Just last month, a U.S. Air Force fact sheet noted that the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), located in Washington, D.C. "is working on the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle to demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space platform for the United States Air Force."

It looks like the military is stepping into the forefront here. Hopefully, the technology will make its way into civilian hands through NASA.

"NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments," said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing."

I truly believe the ability to reliably launch satellites cheaply into orbit would prove to be extremely profitable. This may not be too far away. Other ventures such as economically practical research and human space flight for the masses could then follow.