Archive for the ‘Science thingies’ Category

Rubbish in Space

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
(c) ESA

(c) ESA

It seems that it is not only the Earth that has been partly filled with junk and trash. Space has gotten its part too. There is so much debris going around in the orbit, that it is posing a real threat not only to another satellites but also to space shuttles and spacecraft, for example to the International Space Station (ISS). Therefore, Pentagon has requested ideas on any possible solutions how to clean the mess.

According to DARPA’s description, “Since the advent of the space-age over five decades ago, more than thirty-five thousand man-made objects have been cataloged by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network. Nearly twenty-thousand of those objects remain in orbit today [...]“. On top of that, “These figures do not include the hundreds-of-thousands of objects too small to be cataloged, but still large enough to pose a threat to approximately nine-hundred operational satellites in orbit around the Earth.”

The debris consists of a bit of everything, varying in size, form and material. It is an interesting mix of, among others, spent rocket stages and defunct satellites, explosion fragments, paint flakes, slag from solid rocket motors, coolant released by nuclear powered satellites and small needles. Apparently even the very small parts like paint flakes can be potentially harmful, as they can cause erosive damage (sandblasting-like) when in contact. Therefore, Pentagon is not only interested in cleaning the big parts, “The debris population of interest includes small (1-10mm) [and] medium (1-10 cm)” sized pieces as well.

Any collision or destructive measure will increase the amount of debris enormously, and for example in 2007 an anti-satellite missile test made by China created in addition to national pride a debris field of some 40,000 pieces. The USA could not wait try its own the next year (animation of how it all happened here). There was also a more natural collision earlier this year between an Iridium satellite and a retired Russian satellite. What ever the solution for the problem, destruction seems to be not one of them.

It is good that Pentagon has rolled up its sleeves in order to do something for the problem, even though it might have been a good idea to think twice before destroying satellites with missiles (then again, have not heard any possible interest to the issue on the part of China). I suppose one solution to the problem lies in the heart that we have not taken our space junk far enough. The problem is not that it is there, the problem is that it is too close.

Next time, when a satellite has done its job it should be directed towards outer space. Once you cannot see it the problem ceases to exist. For the stuff that is already there, well, I recommend small steps. From now on when the people at the ISS do their spacewalks etc. they could take a rubbish bag with them and collect a particle or two every time. Might take a while, but small deeds make big difference. That is at least what they told us when we were made to clean the local park at first grade.

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Lovely Statistics

Friday, July 17th, 2009
VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Having attended a few classes of social sciences myself I have become aware of the distinction of people favoring more the use of quantitive analysis and the ones of qualitative analysis. Both of them have their place though, and in many cases the best way to achieve meaningful results is to use both of them. In social sciences it often seems to mean the use of quantative analysis as a topic indicator, that is, it shows the topic worth researching for. However, to find out what has really happened or what are the real reasons behind different phenomenons qualitative analysis is needed, otherwise it might be difficult to get to the very root of the issue. Having said that, opinions vary, and ultimately it depends on what is it that the research is trying to find out.

I tend to be inclined more towards the qualitative research, and see for example the case of the “shocking” report by a young intern at Morgan Stanley more as one where, on the side of MS and its clients, there has been too much watching numbers and too little understanding on what is going on in the real world (all the credit to the report though).  However, the problems qualitative analysis often encounter are also numerous, at times it is a bit messy and there is always the question of generalisation. Furthermore, sometimes even the researcher does not know in the beginning what is it that he is actually researching, eventually the research question (and hopefully the answer) stems out of the research material.

That is why the clarity of quantative analysis can be so telling, useful and plain nice, with the condition that it is presented in a good and clear manner. That is also what Hans Rosling does in his Gapminder-website, and as a proof of that I place an example of one of his videos above (there is more on his website). By putting together few pieces of data he is able to bring up an interesting, and in certain way irrational, linkage between diseases and media coverage. The question on why so seems a rather typical one left to the qualitative side to answer, but then again, I would not be surprised if a little more statistical digging took this research topic a big leap forward as well. In any case, Rosling’s videos are almost addictive, which is something that statistics is not generally known to be.

VN:F [1.8.4_1055]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)