Monday, August 23, 2021

We’re launching Australia’s first scratch-built satellite, and it’s a giant leap towards the Moon


August 22, 2021 


On August 28, a SpaceX rocket will blast off from Cape Canaveral in Florida, carrying supplies bound for the International Space Station. But also on board will be a small satellite that represents a giant leap into space for our research program here in Western Australia.

Our satellite, called Binar-1 after the Nyungar word for “fireball”, was designed and built from scratch by our team at Curtin University’s Space Science and Technology Centre.

We chose this name for two reasons: to acknowledge the Wadjuk people of the Noongar Nation, and to recognise the relationship between our satellite program and Curtin’s Desert Fireball Network, which has successfully searched for meteorites in the Australian desert.

Binar-1 is a CubeSat — a type of small satellite made from 10-centimetre cube-shaped modules. Binar-1 consists of just one such module, meaning it’s technically a 1U CubeSat.

Listen to ‘Don’t Call Me Resilient,’ a provocative new podcast about raceFind out more
The Binar-1 satellite is a 10cm cube. Curtin University, Author provided

Read more: Where do meteorites come from? We tracked hundreds of fireballs streaking through the sky to find out

Its main objective is to prove the technology works in space, thereby taking a first step towards future missions in which we hope ultimately to send CubeSats to the Moon.

Binar-1 is equipped with two cameras, with two objectives: first, to photograph Western Australia from space, thus testing the performance of our instruments and hopefully also capturing the imagination of young WA students; and second, to image stars. The star camera will precisely determine which way the satellite is facing — a crucial capability for any future Moon mission.
Bespoke build

Our centre is the largest planetary research group in the southern hemisphere, and we participate in space missions with agencies like NASA and the European and Japanese space agencies. To understand the various planets and other bodies in the Solar System, we need to build spacecraft to visit them. But for most of the space age, the costs of building and launching this technology have been a major barrier to participation for most nations.

In the meantime, the rise of consumer electronics has produced smart phones that are significantly more capable than Apollo-era computers. Combined with new launch options, the cost of launching a small satellite is now within reach of research groups and start-ups. As a result, the market for “COTS” (consumer off-the-shelf) satellite components has boomed over the past decade.

Like other Australian research groups, we began our journey into space with a specific mission in mind: to build instruments that can observe flaming meteors from orbit. But we quickly found the cost of buying the satellite hardware repeatedly for multiple missions would be huge.

But then we realised our research group had an advantage: we already had prior experience building space observatories for the remote outback, such as the Desert Fireball Network. This expertise gave us a head start in developing our own satellites from scratch.

The Binar-1 team testing their satellite in a vacuum chamber. Curtin University, Author provided

Outback observatories and orbital satellites have a surprising amount in common. Both need to monitor the skies, and operate in harsh conditions. Both depend on solar power and have to function autonomously — in space, just like in the desert, nobody is out there to fix things on the fly. They both also experience intense vibration while travelling to their destination. It is up for debate whether rocket launches or corrugated outback roads make for a bumpier ride.

So in 2018, we set to work building a bespoke satellite. For the first two and half years, we made prototype circuit boards and tested them to their limits, refining our design with each version. The testing took place in our space environment lab where we have vacuum chambers, liquid nitrogen and shaker tables, to simulate the different space environments the satellite will experience.

Onboard the International Space Station astronauts will unload Binar-1 and deploy it from an airlock in the Japanese Kibo module. To begin with the satellite will maintain a similar orbit to the station, about 400 kilometres above Earth. At that altitude there is enough atmosphere to cause a tiny amount of drag that will eventually cause the satellite to fall into the thicker part of the atmosphere.

In the end it will become a fireball, like its namesake, and if we are extremely lucky we will catch images of it on one of our ground-based observatories. We expect this to happen after about 18 months, but this time frame can vary because of many factors, such as solar weather. For as long as we can, we will gather data to help refine future missions, and we have already begun to look at ways to collect data as the next satellites crash into the atmosphere.

Jam-packed with cubesats


Launching on the same rocket with Binar-1 will be CUAVA-1, the first satellite built by the Australian Research Council’s CubeSat development program. But although the two satellites will share the same ride to space, their development paths have been completely different.

As was our original plan, the CUAVA team has focused on the development of instrument payloads, while buying navigation systems and other components from Dutch and Danish suppliers.

Our satellite was designed and built completely in-house, which means we can drive down costs by making multiple versions, while constantly testing and refining our hardware for future missions.

There are already six more 1U satellites scheduled in the Binar program, each representing a step towards our ultimate goal of a lunar mission.

Binar undergoing testing at the National Space Test Facility. Curtin University, Author provided

Shooting for the Moon

As part of the Australian government’s Moon to Mars initiative, we are carrying out a feasibility study for our Binar Prospector mission, which we hope will involve two six-unit CubeSats making close-up observations of the Moon while in low-altitude lunar orbit.

The earliest we expect this mission to launch is 2025, when NASA begins its commercial lunar payload service. There are multiple opportunities to launch CubeSats to the Moon by the end of this decade, so there will be plenty of options. Most of these questions are the subject of the feasibility study and are confidential at the moment.

Shooting for the Moon isn’t just scientifically fascinating — it will benefit Australia too. By developing completely home-grown technology, we can avoid relying on expensive imported components, meaning the Australian space industry can stand on its own two feet while reaching for the heavens.


Author
Ben Hartig
PhD Candidate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University
Disclosure statement
Ben Hartig works for Curtin University as a researcher in the Space Science and Technology Centre.
Partners







BOOKS ET AL.HISTORY OF PHYSICS

Before the Big Bang became scientific dogma


Simon Mitton
Flashes of Creation: George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and the Great Big Bang Debate Paul Halpern Basic Books, 2021. 304 pp.

See all authors and affiliations
Science 20 Aug 2021:
Vol. 373, Issue 6557, pp. 861
DOI: 10.1126/science.abj9479

PDF



The serendipitous detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 changed cosmology forever, settling a long-running debate about the origin of the Universe. The radio hiss hinted that the Universe had arisen from an instantaneous fiery beginning, a theory championed by cosmologist George Gamow, who sought to account for the origin of the chemical elements. His rival, Fred Hoyle, who developed the alternative steady-state theory, which posited an infinite Universe, had long insisted that the chemical elements formed continuously in the cores of massive stars. Both cosmic models were falsifiable by solving a simple puzzle: Has the Universe evolved? The feeble whisper detected in 1964 was an undeniable “Yes!”

In Flashes of Creation, Paul Halpern presents a scintillating account of the intellectual travails of Gamow and Hoyle, two animated, curious, provocative, and controversial figures in 20th-century physics. In this joint biography, the reader is introduced to the two physicists' theories and their efforts to explain the origin of elements.

Gamow, we learn, first encountered cosmology in the early 1920s while studying at the University of Leningrad under Alexander Friedmann, the Russian mathematician who pioneered the idea that the Universe is expanding. In Göttingen and Copenhagen, while a doctoral student in physics, he mingled with pioneers who were working on the new quantum theory. These interactions enabled his breakthrough in 1928, when he showed how an alpha particle could escape from an atomic nucleus by quantum tunneling.

Gamow's subsequent realization that quantum tunneling is reversible spurred two colleagues, Robert Atkinson and Fritz Houtermans, to demonstrate that sufficiently energetic protons could penetrate the atomic nuclei often enough to account for the source of stellar energy. Physicist Hans Bethe made the next advance, finding that proton-proton collisions in the cores of stars like the Sun fuse hydrogen to helium. For more-massive stars, he suggested a cycle of nuclear reactions in which carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen catalyze hydrogen to helium. This scheme left open the question that Gamow and Hoyle would confront head on: How did the elements from carbon to uranium come into existence?

Hoyle entered the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge in 1936 as a doctoral student supervised by Rudolf Peierls. As academics, including Peierls, later fled the Cavendish Laboratory to professorships elsewhere, Hoyle remained at Cambridge until the war years, working alone on extending Enrico Fermi's theory of beta decay. By peacetime, he had developed the steady-state theory and witheringly dismissed Gamow's cosmology as a mere “big bang.”


Fred Hoyle (left) and George Gamow disagreed about the origins of the Universe
.PHOTOS (LEFT TO RIGHT): A. BARRINGTON BROWN/SCIENCE SOURCE; GRANGER

Hoyle could perceive no merit in Gamow's notion that the elements were created in a flash by the eruption of a primeval atom—it violated the conservation laws of physics. His ageless steady-state approach envisaged that new matter trickled continuously into the empty space left by the expansion of the Universe. The buildup of chemical elements then arose as a consequence of the evolution of massive stars, he postulated. When the hydrogen fuel in a star's core became exhausted, it would implode gravitationally, thereby sparking the physical conditions conducive to the rapid assembly of heavier elements.

The Gamowian school had considered the role of neutrinos in core collapse, but Hoyle's powerful rebuttal of their model in 1946 was vastly more efficient at building heavy elements. By 1957, Hoyle's team had completed its brilliant synthesis of element building via neutron capture reactions. However, steady-state theory came under relentless attack as report after report by observational astronomers cemented Big Bang cosmology.

In 1964, Hoyle reluctantly conceded that “a small residue of Gamow's idea”—the synthesis of light elements in the Big Bang—had merit. Within months, news broke of the discovery of the cosmic microwave background. Hoyle never accepted this as evidence that “the entire cosmos had a start date.” By contrast, Gamow opportunistically seized the moment, claiming primary credit for a neglected prediction of the background temperature made in 1948 by his associates Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman.

In the book's closing pages, Halpern sensitively handles with commendable candor the tragic endgames of these two giants. Gamow's alcoholism, we learn, destroyed him and much of his reputation. And while Hoyle commanded great respect after resigning from Cambridge in 1972, his little tweaks to steady-state cosmology failed to find a following.

Gamow and Hoyle were friendly rivals who seldom interacted in person. Halpern nonetheless renders their contributions and clashes vividly in this expertly crafted biography of two contentious cosmologists who thrived on ingenious invention.
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse
Solar power in Australia outstrips coal-fired electricity for first time

For a fleeting moment on the weekend more than half the nation’s electricity generation came from solar power, but experts say Australia is still a long way from peak renewable energy

Solar briefly provided the majority of Australia’s electricity generation on the weekend, overtaking coal-fired power for the first time. Photograph: David Trood/Getty Images


Royce Kurmelovs
@RoyceRk2
Mon 23 Aug 2021

The national electricity market reached a new milestone on Sunday, with solar power outstripping energy generation from coal for the first time since the market was set up two decades ago.

The crossover point lasted for only a few minutes, as low demand and sunny skies on Sunday meant the contribution from coal dropped to a record low of 9,315MW just after noon, while solar provided the dominant share with 9,427MW.

Dylan McConnell, a research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s climate and energy college, said that for a brief moment renewable energy represented 57% of national electricity generation.

“This is what I unofficially call ‘record season’,” McConnell said. “It’s actually still pretty early in the season [to get these numbers] but in spring or the shoulder seasons you have the combination of low demand, because there’s no heating or cooling, and then nice weather on the weekend.


Energy commission dials back plan to charge households to send rooftop solar power to grid


“Those factors combine, and you get these giant shares of renewable energy that generally push out coal.”

While McConnell said it was only “fleeting” and that “Australia was a long way from peak renewable energy”, energy prices also went negative on Sunday from 8.30am through to 5pm.

Though the exact price differed by jurisdiction, it means producers were getting paid to consume, or energy producers were paying to keep running.

Unlike more nimble solar and wind producers, coal generators are particularly hurt when prices turn negative. The costs associated with shutting down and restarting coal generators are prohibitive, meaning operators will choose to keep running even at a loss.

According to datalogger NEMlog, South Australia had 100% of its energy needs met by wind and solar while Victoria would have met 102% of state demand had operators not been forced to switch off during the period of negative prices.

Energy analyst Simon Holmes à Court said the overall proportion of renewable energy – solar, wind and hydro – would have been higher in the energy mix but wind producers chose to shut down to avoid the price hit.
Advertisement


“There was a significant amount of curtailment,” he said. “What it shows is that there’s already more renewables that could have gone into the grid if the coal plants were more flexible and transmission was upgraded.”


Tomago, Australia’s largest aluminium smelter, vows to switch to renewable energy by 2029


The development coincides with calls from the Clean Energy Investor Group (CEIG) – an 18-member body that advocates for investors in large-scale renewable energy projects – for financial reforms to “align Australia with international markets” and “unlock” new investment.

Modelling conducted for the group by Rennie Partners found that Australia needs 51GW of renewable energy generation by 2042 if it is to meet its commitments under the Paris Climate Change agreement but that only 3GW of new wind and solar projects have been committed, leaving a 48GW shortfall.

Simon Corbell, the chief executive of CEIG, said governments and regulators should bring Australia’s investment guidelines into line with global markets.

“Clean energy investors currently face significant risks in the NEM, which is holding back the capital needed,’’ Corbell said.

“To unlock an investment pipeline worth $70bn we need effective market reforms and policy certainty, which could also save up to $7bn in capital costs, or up to 10% of the cost of Australia’s clean energy transition.”
Whatever happened to China’s revolutionary molten salt nuclear reactor program?


By Kurt Cobb
originally published by Resource Insights
August 22, 2021


Several years ago during a radio interview, the host told me that the Chinese were planning on deploying a commercial modular molten salt reactor (MSR) by 2020. For context, these nuclear reactors are based on existing technology demonstrated by previous operating prototypes, can use fuel that is hundreds of times more abundant than the only naturally occurring fissile isotope (uranium-235), are resistant to making bomb-grade material, and cannot suffer meltdowns. Modular design could allow them to be built in factories and shipped ready to install to any suitable location.

The host was confident about his prediction because it had come from one of the many books circulating at the time telling us how great the human future would be and that new technology would solve all the world’s major problems including hunger, climate change, environmental pollution and resource scarcity. This would happen in part due to abundant energy produced by MSRs even as human populations continued to grow.

Sticking to the narrow question of MSRs, I opined that development of complex technologies takes far longer than anticipated and that there are unique challenges in the utility industry. I guessed it would be 20 years before a viable commercial Chinese MSR would appear.

While the Chinese did recently begin construction of a demonstration modular nuclear reactor, this reactor is of the light-water variety—the kind that is already widely in use, that is subject to the catastrophic meltdowns that haunt the nuclear industry, that uses uranium as its fuel, and that can foster proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The pressurized water reactor mentioned in the news release linked above is a type of light-water reactor (LWR). The design is undoubtedly safer than previous LWRs. But it still suffers from the many drawbacks of LWRs and seems unlikely to be widely adopted.

Small, modular reactors have been touted by the nuclear industry as the solution for rapid deployment of nuclear electric generating capacity in order to address climate change by reducing fossil fuel dependency in electricity generation. But this latest entry by the Chinese seems unlikely to address that need both because of its limitations and drawbacks and the fact that the world seems to be moving away from nuclear power. For example, Germany and Sweden are leading the way in decommissioning and dismantling nuclear power plants.

So, what happened to the Chinese molten salt reactor that was supposed to revolutionize the nuclear industry and dramatically expand its reach? The World Nuclear Association reports that the Chinese are still working on it and expect to deploy it some time in the 2030s.

The radio interview mentioned above took place in 2015. We are, of course, already past 2020 when the Chinese MSR was predicted to appear by the show’s host. In the interview I explained that new energy technologies must go through the prototype stage for proof of concept. All the prototype stage answers is, “Does this particular configuration actually work?” Then, money permitting, a larger pilot plant is built to show that the design can be scaled and run for long periods with reliability.

With these two stages, we’re already many years down the road, probably 10 or more years. Finally, if all goes well and money is available, a full-scale demonstration plant that provides electricity to the grid is built. From start to finish—siting, design specifications, approvals, contracting, construction, fueling and finally start-up—this process can take years.

Once a demonstration plant is up and running, its performance comes under scrutiny. Can it remain running without excessive downtime? Is the all-in cost of producing electricity competitive with the alternatives over time, not just a week or a month, but years? How well does the plant work with the grid and the mix of other sources of electricity? And, can an outside party, an interested utility, for example, verify the information provided by the owner of the demonstration plant?

There is a key regulatory question, too: Will this particular design and configuration pass muster with regulatory officials in the country of the utility thinking about deploying it?

Assuming all the above steps go well, we have only just arrived at the stage where utilities are thinking about deploying such technology. Now those utilities have to decide to deploy it and then begin the processes already detailed above for the demonstration plant. Even if this new type of reactor in its modular form is destined to displace existing forms of electricity generation, it could take another 20 years for it to make significant inroads in the utility market. Electricity generating plants can last for 40 or 50 years. Not surprisingly, utilities are loathe to replace plants they have already paid for if those plants are still generating profits—unless the utilities are forced to do so by government regulations.

As I concluded in 2008, the nuclear-dominated energy future prophesied by governments and industry never arrived and probably never would. The advent of a Chinese modular nuclear reactor is unlikely to change that. And, the fact that modular MSRs—a far safer option with potentially far greater fuel resources—remain only a distant hope is more proof that nuclear power is not going to be able to address climate change in any relevant time frame.

The techno-uptopians keep promising us technological solutions to our myriad critical problems that either don’t appear, don’t solve the problem, create many new difficult problems, or keep getting delayed far into the future (fusion-based energy comes to mind). What they never seriously ask us to do is change the way we live. That must be a major reason their “solutions” find such a large audience of ready believers.

Photo: Top down view of the Moplten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE}. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US Dept of Energyy) via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MSRE_Reactor.JPG
Geothermal energy is on the verge of a big breakthrough

By digging deep, we could harness enough energy to power generations to come.

But it involves fracking.

AMANDA WINKLER21 August, 2021

Credit: Austin Farrington via Unsplash
This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink, and is an installment of The Future Explored, a weekly guide to world-changing technology

Geothermal energy may finally be on the cusp of its big breakthrough. The often-overlooked energy option has seen a big uptick in demand, investments, and new technologies this past year.

Why this matters


As concerns about climate change grow, we're looking for ways to decarbonize, and renewable energy sources — such as wind and solar — are all the rage. In fact, in 2019 the U.S. energy consumption from renewables exceeded that of coal for the first time since 1885.

Geothermal could make clean energy accessible to everyone.


There's just one teeny-tiny problem with solar and wind: they only work when the sun is out or the wind is blowing. So, if you're completely reliant on solar to generate electricity for your house, you're going to be stumbling around in the dark at night.

That's why we need other energy sources that can pinch-hit for solar and wind.

Battery storage is one proposed solution. Another solution could be geothermal power and — if it can be proven to work reliably — it could be a cheap, reliable, renewable energy source that could make clean energy accessible to everyone.

Tap, tap, tap

4,000 miles below you — the very center of the Earth — is an incredibly hot place…hotter than the surface of the sun. That heat drifts upward so that even the Earth's crust is hot — as Vox reports, just a few miles below the ground you're standing on, there's enough energy to "power all of human civilization for generations to come."

Geothermal energy, as the name suggests, is all about harnessing that power. The concept is nothing new; we've actually been using some geothermal energy for centuries, tapping into geysers and hot springs for bathing, cooking, etc.

But to make electricity, you've got to go deeper.


Just digging a few miles below the surface can provide enough energy to generate electricity. In fact, the first commercial geothermal plant opened in 1960 in California, and there are 64 in operation today. These plants are located in areas with hot pressurized water — like a hot spring. Then, wells are drilled. As the hot water rises through the well, the heat is extracted…and voila, you've got sustainable electricity. The cooled water is then returned to the ground to be reheated.

That's all great — the problem is, doing it this way is pretty location-dependent. It works best in places like California or Iceland, where there's a lot of moving tectonic plates or volcanic activity to create these reservoirs.

But what about the rest of us?

Deeper into the furnace


Conventional geothermal depends on natural reservoirs because that's the easiest. But Earth's energy is everywhere, including in the dry deserts. The next-level form of geothermal energy (called enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS) is all about drilling into dry rock and creating man-made reservoirs by injecting pressurized water into the well, which fractures the rocks around it. The water passes through the hot, fractured rock and is collected and drawn up through another well on the side of the fractured area.

In theory, these artificial underground furnaces could be made anywhere in the world.

While EGS plants do exist (the first experiment dates back to 1974), due to the enormous expense and rudimentary techniques, they haven't shown a lot of promise — until recently. Thanks to better technology and an increase in funding, several successful EGS reservoirs can now generate electricity at "close to commercial prices," according to Quartz.

But as we drill deeper into dryer land, the engineering obstacles get bigger.

Baggage


In order to transition from the conventional location-dependent geothermal to EGS, a little support from the public is needed. That can be tricky because technically EGS is "fracking" — shooting liquid into the ground in order to fracture a rock. And fracking has some baggage when it comes to public opinion — in fact, in some areas it's completely banned.

But as David Roberts at Vox points out, EGS fracking is safer than gas fracking — the fluids used here have no risk of contaminating the water.

Still, it remains a dicey political issue. But without public support, experts fear that geothermal energy will remain an overlooked energy source, limited to states with natural reservoirs and no fracking bans.
The upshot

If the technology continues to advance and the public support is won, geothermal energy could be a game-changer — we could technically harness this energy anywhere. The DOE estimates that geothermal could provide around 5,157 gigawatts of electricity — about five times the electricity generation capacity in the US, enough to sustain us for years.

Or, if geothermal was used for direct heat, the DOE writes that it would be "theoretically sufficient to heat every US home and commercial building for at least 8,500 years."


Costa Rica Has Achieved 100% Renewable Energy – But What's ... ›
Volcanoes to power bitcoin mining in El Salvador - Big Think ›
Charmed: sister witches juggle life and magic in this oddly relatable late-90s cult hit show

For too long this series starring some of the 90s’ biggest names has been relegated to the status of Buffy’s less sophisticated younger sibling

Prue (Shannen Doherty), Phoebe (Alyssa Milano) and Piper (Holly Marie Combs) in Charmed. Photograph: United Archives GmbH/Alamy

Isabelle Oderberg
@yodaberg
Sun 22 Aug 2021

I will tell anyone in the world I’m the biggest Buffy fan alive, but I’m far more reticent to disclose my other guilty (but equally passionate) pleasure: Charmed.

Charmed, the TV series that follows a coven of witches in San Francisco, has for far too long been relegated to the status of Buffy’s less sophisticated, more mainstream, younger sister. It’s time, friends, to elevate Charmed to its equal place next to Buffy in the cult TV hall of fame (not just my DVD collection).

Charmed first screened in 1998, hot on the heels of that other show, seeking to capitalise on a seemingly voracious appetite among viewers for supernatural high camp.

The conceit of the show is that it’s about sisters who happen to be witches. Other parts of their lives – their love for each other, their relationships, their kids, hopes and dreams – are equally as central. And the balancing act in making all the puzzle pieces fit together, the spinning plate endeavour that most women experience in this day and age, is central to the story.

It’s that relatability that really brings the magic to this show. The three main characters are the Halliwells: oldest sister Prue (Shannen Doherty), middle sister Piper (Holly Marie Combs) and Phoebe (Alyssa Milano).

Shannen Doherty directed several episodes of Charmed, including the last episode of the third season, which was not only the best episode of the whole show, but also ended up being Doherty’s last. Her character was replaced by half-sister Paige (Rose McGowan), and later an additional principal character was added in Billie (Kaley Cuoco).

Oldest sister Prue feels the burden of responsibility after the death of the two Halliwell family matriarchs, her mother and her grandmother. Piper wants a career and a life outside magic and constantly feels the weight of the family business on those desires. Phoebe struggles with a complicated and abusive relationship and later with her search for new love, while balancing the demands of her job with studying. With the introduction of half-sister Paige, we have the added complications of infidelity and family secrets.
The introduction of half-sister Paige (Rose McGowan, left) brings complications to the magical world of the Halliwell sisters. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc/Alamy

Each of the primary characters have distinctively different personalities and each face challenges that are all too familiar to any woman. It’s one of the core reasons that in 2008 the show became the longest-running hour-long-episode series in American television history featuring all female leads (later surpassed by Desperate Housewives).

The acting in Charmed can be patchy or completely outstanding, the scriptwriting can be funny and insightful or completely predictable and simplistic, and some of the special effects are a little, um, average. But the show shifts and changes, grows and matures, just like the sisters, who come to learn about themselves, what works for them and what doesn’t. This is a show with real heart and a lot of laughs. But you don’t have to scratch the surface too deep to realise that there are some really meaningful and resonant messages contained within, about gender roles, family conflict, parenting, work/life balance, abusive relationships, sex and more.

I’m not saying that Gloria Steinem would hold it up as an everlasting beacon for feminism, but there are some difficult issues tackled amid the schlock horror, campy giggles and skintight leather pants. It’s supposed to be accessible, and it is. The recent reboot, which first screened in 2018 and continues today, was cast with three women of colour, a nice balance to the overwhelming whiteness of the original.

These days it’s fun to take a stroll through any of the episodes of the original and partake in some cameo-spotting. Between the progressively more hilarious 00s fashion and a masterclass in the uber-creepy by Julian McMahon as Phoebe’s demon boyfriend, you can spot quite a few high profile names, like Billy Zane, Jon Hamm, Amy Adams, John Cho, David Carradine and Charisma Carpenter ... what was that show she was in again?

 Why Bill Gates Is Buying Up U.S. Farmland

Aug 21, 2021

Bill Gates made headlines for becoming the largest private farmland owner in the U.S. But he’s not the only one. Some of the wealthiest landowners including Jeff Bezos, John Malone and Thomas Peterffy are buying up forests, ranches and farmlands across the United States. Why? Watch the video to find out.

Investments in farmland are growing across the country as people, including the ultra-wealthy like Bill Gates, look for new ways to grow their money.

In 2020, Gates made headlines for becoming the largest private farmland owner in the U.S. He had accumulated more than 269,000 acres of farmland across 18 states in less than a decade. His farmland grows onions, carrots and even the potatoes that are used to make McDonald’s French fries.

“It’s an asset with increasing value,” American Farmland Trust CEO John Piotti said. “It has great intrinsic value and beyond that, it is a limited resource.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 30% of all farmland is owned by landlords who don’t farm themselves. Buyers often purchase land from farmers who have owned it for decades; many of whom may be asset rich but maybe cash poor.

“The economic realities for them are typical that they’ve spent their life farming,” said Holly Rippon-Butler, land campaign director at the National Young Farmers Coalition. “Their retirement, their equity is all in the land and tied up in selling land.”

Private landowners are also making a profit by utilizing the land in numerous ways. Approximately 39% of the 911 million acres of farmland across the U.S. is rented out to farmers, and 80% of that rented farmland is owned by landlords who don’t farm themselves data from the Agriculture Department shows.

“The young farmers are just as happy to lease the land because whether you are young or old, it’s a business, right?” said Thomas Petterfy, chairman of Interactive Brokers and owner of 581,000 acres.

“You go buy a farm and you put that cash rental lease in place, you’re going to be looking at about 2.5% return on your capital,” Peoples Company President Steve Bruere said.

 



Hubble Captures a Stunning 'Einstein Ring' Magnifying The Depths of The Universe

20 AUGUST 2021

Gravity is the weird, mysterious glue that binds the Universe together, but that's not the limit of its charms. We can also leverage the way it warps space-time to see distant objects that would be otherwise much more difficult to make out.

This is called gravitational lensing, an effect predicted by Einstein, and it's beautifully illustrated in a new release from the Hubble Space Telescope.

In the center in the image (below) is a shiny, near-perfect ring with what appear to be four bright spots threaded along it, looping around two more points with a golden glow.


(ESA/Hubble & NASA, T. Treu; Acknowledgment: J. Schmidt)

This is called an Einstein ring, and those bright dots are not six galaxies, but three: the two in the middle of the ring, and one quasar behind it, its light distorted and magnified as it passes through the gravitational field of the two foreground galaxies.

Because the mass of the two foreground galaxies is so high, this causes a gravitational curvature of space-time around the pair. Any light that then travels through this space-time follows this curvature and enters our telescopes smeared and distorted – but also magnified.

Illustration of gravitational lensing. (NASA, ESA & L. Calçada)

This, as it turns out, is a really useful tool for probing both the far and near reaches of the Universe. Anything with enough mass can act as a gravitational lens. That can mean one or two galaxies, as we see here, or even huge galaxy clusters, which produce a wonderful mess of smears of light from the many objects behind them.

Astronomers peering into deep space can reconstruct these smears and replicated images to see in much finer detail the distant galaxies thus lensed. But that's not all gravitational lensing can do. The strength of a lens depends on the curvature of the gravitational field, which is directly related to the mass it's curving around.

So gravitational lenses can allow us to weigh galaxies and galaxy clusters, which in turn can then help us find and map dark matter – the mysterious, invisible source of mass that generates additional gravity that can't be explained by the stuff in the Universe we can actually detect.


A bit closer to home, gravitational lensing - or microlensing, to be more precise - can help us find objects within the Milky Way that would be too dark for us to see otherwise, such as stellar-mass black holes.

And it gets smaller. Astronomers have managed to detect rogue exoplanets – those unattached from a host star, wandering the galaxy, cold and alone – from the magnification that occurs when such exoplanets pass between us and distant stars. And they've even used gravitational microlensing to detect exoplanets in other galaxies.

It's pretty wild what the Universe has up its gravitational sleeves.

You can download a wallpaper-sized version of the above image on ESA's website.


PHOTO (ESA/Hubble & NASA, T. Treu; Acknowledgment: J. Schmidt)


PAKISTAN
LNG terminals’ capacity to be increased to meet demand

Khalid Hasnain Published August 22, 2021 -
The country is importing 1,200mmcfd of LNG to meet the demands of Punjab
— Reuters/File

LAHORE: The increasing demand for gas in the country has forced the government to get the re-gasification capacity of the two private liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in Karachi increased to 1,500 million cubic feet of gas per day from 1,200mmcfd to ensure uninterrupted supply to domestic consumers on priority.

The situation may worsen in the upcoming winter, especially in Punjab, if agreements with the terminals are not signed for the purpose, Dawn has learnt. “At present, the Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) is providing 150mmcfd to K-Electric. The company is utilising another 150mmcfd to meet the demands of other sectors, which is leading to low supply of Re-gasified Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG) to Punjab from 1,200mmcfd to 900m­mcfd,” an official source in the petroleum ministry told Dawn on Saturday.

“If this situation persists and the re-gasification capacity of the existing two LNG terminals is not increased from 1,200mmcfd to 1,500mmcfd on time, the situation will be very disturbing, especially for domestic consumers, in the upcoming winter,” he warned.

The country’s total indigenous gas production is approximately 3,000mmcfd at present that includes over 2,600mmcfd from Sui (Baloc­histan) and parts of Sindh. Since Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s local gas production ranges from 300mmcfd to 400mmcfd, the country is importing 1,200mmcfd of LNG to meet the demands of Punjab, which generally remains in trouble owing to gas shortage.

Punjab likely to suffer a colder winter amid gas shortage


When the demand for gas increases manifold across the country in winters, Punjab fares the worst as its total demand jumps to 2,300mmcfd or so. Similarly, Sindh has also been experiencing shortages for the last couple of years due to a decline in indigenous gas exploration and consumption. Moreover, winter also leads to a massive increase in gas consumption in Quetta and other areas of Balochistan from 50mmcfd to more than 150mmcfd.

“Under the constitution, the province with indigenous gas reserves, exploration and production has the first right to use and meet its demand and then supply the rest to other provinces that have no such arrangements. So, the gas producing provinces of Balochistan, Sindh and KP first meet their demand and then provide the rest to Punjab,” the official explained, adding: “That is why Punjab gets a dedicated supply of 1,200mmcfd of RLNG.”


The official said if Punjab did not get the full supply of 1,200mmcfd of RLNG and around 1,300mmcfd of indigenous gas, it would not be able to fully meet the demand of domestic consumers in the upcoming winter.

According to an official source in the SSGC, although the government quarters are in touch with the LNG terminals in Karachi, it is yet to finalise arrangements for enhancement of their re-gasification capacity.

“The SSGC’s winter and summer demand is roughly 1,500mmcfd and 1,200mmcfd, respectively. But it receives up to 1,100mmcfd. In addition, it is also using 150mmcfd of RLNG and providing it to the K-Electric for power generation. So, there will be a shortfall of 300 to 400mmcfd of indigenous gas for the company in winter,” the official, requesting anonymity, told Dawn.

Another issue, he said, was the means to enhance re-gasification capacity of the terminals. “Recently, one of the terminals tried to increase its capacity through a large Floating Storage Re-gasification Unit but that violated certain clauses of the agreement with the government. So they have started replacing the bigger one with the smaller one as per the agreement to avert any complications,” he maintained.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2021

 

Manitoba Mennonite church group protests Enbridge pipeline outside TD Bank

The group protested through praying and writing messages on windows

Speeches were read during the protest. (Justin Fraser/CBC)

Members of a Mennonite church in Manitoba braved the rain outside TD Bank at 648 Notre Dame Ave. on Sunday afternoon to protest against the Enbridge Line 3 replacement project in Minnesota.

The group held a service outside the building and wrote prayers on the windows of TD Bank with washable chalk, calling on the corporation to divest money from the project. 

"We want to do our part here north of the colonial borders and hold banks like TD accountable, who have put billions of dollars into Line 3 specifically," said Allegra Friesen Epp, intern with Mennonite Church Canada. 

The event was organized by Hope Mennonite Church in the form of a church service, and garnered around more than two dozen people. It was also held at the same time as two other events: one on Zoom and the other in Gretna, Man. 

The group says they want TD bank to divest money from Enbridge and the Line 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota. (Justin Fraser/CBC)
More than two dozen people showed up for the event at 648 Notre Dame Avenue in Winnipeg. (Justin Fraser/CBC)

Friesen Epp said the non-violent demonstration was organized to invite members of faith communities to show solidarity with Anishinaabe communities in Minnesota who are protecting their land, water and treaty rights.

"[They're] literally putting their bodies on the line, chaining themselves to construction equipment because letters and negotiations and petitions have not been enough," said Friesen Epp.

"This is our small step in that direction. We're not bashing any windows. We're not doing any permanent damage, but we want our voices to be heard," she said. 

CBC requested comment from TD Bank Canada but has not yet received a response.

Members from the Hope Mennonite Church say Line 3 infringes on Indigenous sovereignty and they stand in solidarity with Anishinaabe land defenders. (Justin Fraser/CBC)
The protestors wrote their wishes for TD Bank on the company's windows. (Justin Fraser/CBC)