Science

why-is-elon-musk-talking-to-vladimir-putin,-and-what-does-it-mean-for-spacex?

Why is Elon Musk talking to Vladimir Putin, and what does it mean for SpaceX?


NASA chief says ties between SpaceX CEO and Putin should be investigated.

Elon Musk wears a black “Make America Great Again” ball cap while attending a campaign rally with Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, in October. Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

In a blockbuster story published Friday morning, The Wall Street Journal reports that Elon Musk has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin for about two years, with the discussions covering a range of issues from geopolitics to business to personal matters.

There are no on-the-record sources confirming the regular conversations between Musk and Putin, and Musk did not comment to the news organization. A Putin spokesperson said the Russian leader and Musk have had just one telephone call. However, the report is plausibly true, and the Journal cites “several current and former US, European, and Russian officials.” This is also not the first time there have been reports of contact between Musk and Putin.

The new story about Musk’s direct links to an avowed enemy of the United States immediately raised concerns among some prominent US officials who work with the billionaire entrepreneur, including NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.

“I don’t know if that story is true,” Nelson said in a conversation with Semafor on Friday morning. “If it’s true there have been multiple conversations with Elon Musk and the president of Russia, then that would be concerning, particularly for NASA and the Department of Defense.” Nelson added that the report should be investigated.

To Russia, with love

Musk’s motivations for speaking directly with Putin are not immediately clear. His largest companies, SpaceX and Tesla, do not do business directly with the Russian government. In fact, the rise of SpaceX as a dominant player has substantially harmed Russia’s space business in multiple ways: it helped force US rival United Launch Alliance to stop buying Russian rocket engines, it reduced demand for Russian commercial launch services, and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon vehicle allowed NASA to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year for Russian transportation to the International Space Station.

Unlike Tesla’s complicated interactions with China, which give that country some leverage over Musk’s finances, Russia has no such levers. The most plausible answer for why Musk is conversing with Putin is that he sees himself as a global power broker and wants to do bold things like solve the Ukraine crisis. Musk has ideas and views for how the world should be, and developing relationships with world leaders will help advance those ideas. Musk is also opportunistic and must believe that he can manage Putin in a way that is advantageous to his personal and business aims.

One concern for US policymakers is that this could represent a break in a long-running symbiotic relationship between Musk and America. For a couple of decades the United States’ and Musk’s ambitions—to build electric cars, reusable rockets, and solve the world’s big problems with technology—have moved forward more or less harmoniously. Musk thrived amid America’s ethos of freedom and capitalism. The nation benefited from world-leading technology and economic development.

Nowhere has this relationship borne more fruit than at SpaceX, which has almost singlehandedly assured US preeminence in space for at least the next decade and probably beyond. Musk builds the best rockets, operates the only proven US human spacecraft, and flies more than half of the active satellites in Earth orbit. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe turned to SpaceX to get its most valuable satellites into space, and Starlink provided essential communications in Ukraine. NASA’s lunar program only succeeds if SpaceX’s Starship vehicle succeeds.

But in the last two years, the same time frame in which Musk has reportedly been in contact with Putin, the once symbiotic relationship between Musk and the United States has begun to fray. This has also coincided with Musk’s purchase of Twitter and increasing alignment with conservative politics.

Musk goes MAGA

Many Americans are celebrating Musk’s bromance with Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump. They appreciate his embrace of Republican politics and the more than $100 million he has invested in Trump winning the presidency. In characteristic Musk fashion, he has gone all-in on a cause he deems essential to the future of his interests and those of humanity, even temporarily living in Pennsylvania.

But for many other Americans, the response to Musk’s activities has been revulsion. He has used social network X (formerly Twitter) to push an increasingly partisan viewpoint and peddled a stream of ideas and theories that can accurately be described as misinformation. These people are increasingly uncomfortable with Musk’s power over the US space program and the country’s electric vehicle industry, and ability to influence geopolitical affairs through the Starlink constellation for which there is no viable competitor at present. The idea that Musk is regularly conversing with Putin, an avowed foe of the United States and Western democracies, is deeply uncomfortable.

After nursing a libertarian streak for decades, Musk has become ultra-political. He is loved. He is hated. Because he is so personally embodied by the brands of his biggest companies—much of Tesla’s stock value is predicated on Musk’s perceived ability to steer into the future, and for all intents and purposes, Musk is SpaceX—there are bound to be consequences not just for the man, but for his brands.

Musk’s increasingly partisan positions have already affected Tesla, potentially reducing sales to Democratic-leaning voters. But until recently, SpaceX has largely flown above the fray. However, that could change. During Musk’s recent showdown with Brazil, for example, the Starlink Internet service was caught in the crosshairs.

Implications for SpaceX

At a minimum, in the wake of Friday’s report, Musk will likely face increased calls for the revocation of his national security clearance. As the launch provider for sensitive Department of Defense missions, Musk has access to privileged information about the capabilities of spy satellites and other national security assets. He also has critical contracts with the US military for Starlink communication services under the Starshield business unit.

In addition, Musk’s political activities are playing out as the US Space Force is beginning to award contracts as part of the latest round of national security launch missions, known as NSSL Phase 3. It is possible the US military could lean more into the Vulcan rocket and United Launch Alliance.

Some of the more ardent critics of Musk’s behavior have called for the US government to force Musk to divest his interest in SpaceX. Musk founded SpaceX more than 22 years ago and remains the dominant shareholder, with total autonomy to make decisions. This would be a nuclear option and, in reality, probably would do more harm than good to SpaceX, which for years has thrived on Musk’s audacious goals and relentless pressure to achieve remarkable feats. It seems unlikely to occur at this time.

What seems clear is that the publication of Friday’s article reflects the concerns of some people within the US intelligence community about Musk’s behavior, his ability to conduct Cowboy diplomacy, and the power his money and technologies give him as an individual.

What happens next will, undoubtedly, depend to some extent on the results of the US presidential election next month. A Trump victory would likely give Musk carte blanche to continue pursuing his interests, with the clear message to US agencies to enable his businesses rather than to restrict them for regulatory reasons. Musk would likely enjoy increased power to pursue his aims until the end of the Trump presidency or until falling out with Trump. Such a scenario certainly cannot be ruled out among two people who are accustomed to calling the shots and not being told no.

Should Kamala Harris win the presidency, a lot would hinge on how Musk responds to the election. He could say some mea culpas and probably move on, but if he goes the election-denier route, he and his businesses probably would face heightened scrutiny. US regulatory agencies could act with more zeal, and Musk’s activities could be more closely investigated for violation of US laws. And NASA and the US Space Force could do more to ensure that other US companies can emerge to challenge SpaceX’s dominance.

Photo of Eric Berger

Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston.

Why is Elon Musk talking to Vladimir Putin, and what does it mean for SpaceX? Read More »

boeing-is-still-bleeding-money-on-the-starliner-commercial-crew-program

Boeing is still bleeding money on the Starliner commercial crew program


“We signed up to some things that are problematic.”

Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft backs away from the International Space Station on September 6 without its crew. Credit: NASA

Sometimes, it’s worth noting when something goes unsaid.

On Wednesday, Boeing’s new CEO, Kelly Ortberg, participated in his first quarterly conference call with investment analysts. Under fire from labor groups and regulators, Boeing logged a nearly $6.2 billion loss for the last three months, while the new boss pledged a turnaround for the troubled aerospace company.

What Ortberg didn’t mention in the call was the Starliner program. Starliner is a relatively small portion of Boeing’s overall business, but it’s a high-profile and unprofitable one.

Mounting losses

Boeing has reported recurring financial losses on the program and added $250 million to the tally with Wednesday’s quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This brings the company’s total losses on Starliner to $1.85 billion, recorded in increments over the last few years as the program has faced technical problems and delays.

In its SEC filing, Boeing wrote: “Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods.”

Boeing runs the Starliner program under a fixed-price contract with NASA, meaning the government pays the contractor a set amount of money, and the company is on the hook for any cost overruns. These are favorable terms for the government because they divert financial risk to the contractor, usually resulting in lower costs if the program is successful.

Since the last Starliner test flight ended in a disappointing fashion, Boeing has released no updates on its plans for the future of the spacecraft. The company released a short written statement after Starliner landed in early September, saying managers would review data and “determine the next steps for the program.”

A week after Starliner landed, Boeing’s chief financial officer, Brian West, echoed that line. “There is important work to determine any next steps for the Starliner program, and we’ll evaluate that,” he said at a conference sponsored by Morgan Stanley.

A member of the Starliner recovery team removes cargo from the spacecraft after landing in New Mexico on September 6, without its two-person crew.

Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

A member of the Starliner recovery team removes cargo from the spacecraft after landing in New Mexico on September 6, without its two-person crew. Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Starliner concluded its third test flight a little more than six weeks ago, leaving behind the two astronauts the craft ferried to the International Space Station earlier in the year. This was the first time people flew into orbit on a Starliner spacecraft.

NASA, which partnered with Boeing to develop the Starliner spacecraft, decided the Boeing capsule should return to Earth without its crew after the test flight encountered problems with overheating thrusters and helium leaks. The spacecraft safely reached the space station with NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams in June, but agency officials were not comfortable with risking the crew’s safety on Starliner for the trip home. Instead, the duo will return to Earth on a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft early next year.

Boeing managers had a different opinion and lobbied for Starliner to return to Earth with Wilmore and Williams. Ultimately, the Starliner spacecraft parachuted to a successful landing at White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico, on September 6, but there’s a lot of work ahead for Boeing to fix the thruster problems and helium leaks before the capsule can fly with people again. This will take many months—potentially a year or more—and will cost Boeing hundreds of millions of dollars, as shown in Wednesday’s SEC filing.

Doing less

In response to questions Wednesday from Wall Street investment firms, Ortberg, who took the CEO job in August, suggested it’s time for Boeing to look at cutting some of its losses and recalibrate how it pursues new business opportunities. Boeing’s previous CEO, Dave Calhoun, said last year the company would no longer enter into fixed-price development contracts.

“I think that that we’re better off being doing less and doing it better than doing more and not doing it well,” Ortberg said. “So we’re in the process of taking an evaluation of the portfolio. It’s something a new CEO always does when you come into a business.”

Most of Boeing’s financial loss in the third quarter of this year came from the company’s commercial airplane business. Beset by safety concerns with its 737 Max aircraft and a labor strike that has halted production at many of its airplane factories, Boeing posted its worst quarterly performance since the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020.

Even before the strike, the Federal Aviation Administration capped Boeing’s production rate for the 737 Max, limiting revenue for the commercial airplane business.

Ortberg didn’t specify any programs that Boeing might consider trimming or canceling, but said the company’s “core” business of commercial airplanes and military systems will stay.

“There are probably some things on the fringe there that we can be more efficient with, or that just distract us from our main goal here. So, more to come on that,” Ortberg said. “I don’t have a specific list of things that we’re going to keep and we’re not going to keep. That’s something for us to evaluate, and the process is underway.”

Kelly Ortberg, Boeing’s new CEO, is pictured in 2016 during his tenure as chief executive of Rockwell Collins.

Kelly Ortberg, Boeing’s new CEO, is pictured in 2016 during his tenure as chief executive of Rockwell Collins. Credit: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Apart from technical execution, Ortberg identified Boeing’s errors in cost and risk estimation as other reasons for the company’s poor performance on several fixed-price government contracts, including Starliner.

“We’re not going to be able to just wave the wand and clean up these troubled contracts,” he said. “We signed up to some things that are problematic.”

Ortberg said he is reluctant to ditch all of Boeing’s troubled contracts. “Even if we wanted to, I don’t think we can walk away from these contracts,” he said. “These are our core customers that need this capability. We’ve got long-term commitments to them. So walking away isn’t an answer to this.”

However, Orberg added that Boeing could reassess programs as they shift from one contract phase to the next. NASA’s commercial crew contract with Boeing has a maximum value of $4.6 billion, but that assumes the agency gives Boeing the green light to fly six operational Starliner missions.

So far, NASA has only authorized Boeing to begin detailed preparations for three. The latter half of the commercial crew contract remains a question mark, and could be an opportunity for Boeing to reevaluate the Starliner program without breaking its obligations to NASA. This is especially salient because NASA plans to decommission the International Space Station in 2030, and it’s not clear Boeing could fly all six of its Starliner missions before then while still alternating with SpaceX for crew transportation duties.

“We do have to get into a position where we’ve got a portfolio much more balanced with less risky programs and more profitable programs, and we’re going to be working that,” Ortberg said. “But I don’t think a wholesale walkaway is in the cards.”

This statement makes it sound like Boeing isn’t going to pull the plug on Starliner immediately. Still, Boeing hasn’t laid out its specific plans for Starliner, or even confirmed its intention to keep working on the program. This is puzzling.

Saying nothing

Ortberg was not asked about Starliner in Wednesday’s investor call. After the call, Ars asked a Boeing spokesperson if the company still has a long-term commitment to the Starliner program. The spokesperson replied that the company has nothing to share on the topic.

The Starliner test flight this year was supposed to pave the way for NASA to officially certify the Boeing crew capsule to begin flying in a slate of up to six operational crew rotation flights to the space station. Once certified, Boeing will become NASA’s second crew transportation provider alongside SpaceX, which has now launched nine operational crew missions for NASA, plus a handful more all-private astronaut missions.

NASA still wants to certify Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft to provide the agency with a second commercial option for getting astronauts into orbit. A fundamental goal set out for NASA’s commercial crew program more than a decade ago was to develop two dissimilar human-rated transportation systems for access to low-Earth orbit. The idea here is competition will drive down costs, and NASA will have a backup option if one of the commercial crew providers runs into difficulties.

However, NASA has not announced whether it will require Boeing to complete another test flight to achieve the certification milestone with Starliner. NASA is looking at slots to fly an unpiloted Starliner spacecraft on a cargo mission to the space station next year, perhaps to verify modifications to the ship’s propulsion system really fix the problems discovered on the test flight this year.

NASA is making moves while assuming Boeing will stay in the game. Astronauts are still assigned to train for the first operational Starliner mission, although it’s not likely to happen until the end of next year or in 2026. Earlier this month, NASA announced SpaceX will launch a four-person crew to the International Space Station no earlier than July of next year, taking a slot that the agency once hoped Boeing would use.

Bill Nelson, NASA’s administrator, told reporters in late August that he received assurances from Ortberg that Boeing intends to “move forward and fly Starliner in the future.” At the time, Ortberg was just a couple of weeks into his tenure at Boeing.

Two months later, Nelson’s secondhand assertion is still all we have.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Boeing is still bleeding money on the Starliner commercial crew program Read More »

taco-bell,-kfc,-pizza-hut,-burger-king-pull-onions-amid-mcdonald’s-outbreak

Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King pull onions amid McDonald’s outbreak

On Thursday, Yum Brands—owner of KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell—followed that lead, saying it, too, would remove fresh onions from its chains’ menus at some locations, according to Reuters. Restaurant Brands International, owner of Burger King, also did the same.

“We’ve been told by corporate to not use any onions going forward for the foreseeable future,” Maria Gonzales, the on-duty manager inside a Burger King in Longmont, Colorado, told Reuters on Wednesday. “They’re off our menu.”

As of Thursday, the case count in the E. coli outbreak remained at 49 people in 10 states. Of those, 10 were hospitalized, including a child with a life-threatening complication. One older person in Colorado has died.

The states with cases include: Colorado (26 cases), Nebraska (9), Utah (4), Wyoming (4), and one case each in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

McDonald’s removed Quarter Pounders and slivered onions from restaurant menus in Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming, and portions of Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. In a statement, McDonald’s said that for these restaurants, its onions are “sourced by a single supplier that serves three distribution centers. The fast-food giant continues to serve other beef burgers and diced onions at impacted locations.

Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King pull onions amid McDonald’s outbreak Read More »

with-four-more-years-like-2023,-carbon-emissions-will-blow-past-1.5°-limit

With four more years like 2023, carbon emissions will blow past 1.5° limit

One way to look at how problematic this is would be to think in terms of a carbon budget. We can estimate how much carbon can be put into the atmosphere before warming reaches 1.5° C. Subtract the emissions we’ve already added, and you get the remaining budget. At this point, the remaining budget for 1.5° C is only 200 Gigatonnes, which means another four years like 2023 will leave us well beyond our budget. For the 2° C budget, we’ve got less than 20 years like 2023 before we go past.

An alternate way to look at the challenge is to consider the emissions reductions that would get us on track. UNEP uses 2019 emissions as a baseline (about 52 Gigatonnes) and determined that, in 2030, we’d need to have emissions cut by 28 percent to get onto the 2° C target, and by 42 percent to be on track for the 1.5° C target.

The NDCs are nowhere close to that, with even the conditional pledges being sufficient to only cut emissions by 10 percent. Ideally, that should be prompting participating nations to be rapidly updating their NDCs to get them better aligned with our stated goals. And, while 90 percent have done so since the signing of the Paris Agreement, only a single country has made updated pledges over the past year.

Countries are also failing to keep their national policies in line with their NDCs. The UNEP report estimates that current policies allow the world collectively to emit two Gigatonnes more than their pledges would see being released.

A limited number of countries are responsible for the huge gap between where we need to go and what we’re actually doing. Nearly two-thirds of 2023’s emissions come from just six countries: China, the US, India, the EU, Russia, and Brazil. By contrast, the 55 nations of the African Union are only producing about 6 percent of the global emissions. Obviously, this means that any actions taken by these six entities will have a disproportionate effect on future emissions. The good news is that at least two of those, the EU and US, saw emissions drop over the year prior (by 7.5 percent in the EU, and 1.4 percent in the US), while Brazil remained largely unchanged.

With four more years like 2023, carbon emissions will blow past 1.5° limit Read More »

bird-flu-hit-a-dead-end-in-missouri,-but-it’s-running-rampant-in-california

Bird flu hit a dead end in Missouri, but it’s running rampant in California

So, in all, Missouri’s case count in the H5N1 outbreak will stay at one for now, and there remains no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Though both the household contact and the index case had evidence of an exposure, their identical blood test results and simultaneous symptom development suggest that they were exposed at the same time by a single source—what that source was, we may never know.

California and Washington

While the virus seems to have hit a dead end in Missouri, it’s still running rampant in California. Since state officials announced the first dairy herd infections at the end of August, the state has now tallied 137 infected herds and at least 13 infected dairy farm workers. California, the country’s largest dairy producer, now has the most herd infections and human cases in the outbreak, which was first confirmed in March.

In the briefing Thursday, officials announced another front in the bird flu fight. A chicken farm in Washington state with about 800,000 birds became infected with a different strain of H5 bird flu than the one circulating among dairy farms. This strain likely came from wild birds. While the chickens on the infected farms were being culled, the virus spread to farmworkers. So far, two workers have been confirmed to be infected, and five others are presumed to be positive.

As of publication time, at least 31 humans have been confirmed infected with H5 bird flu this year.

With the spread of bird flu in dairies and the fall bird migration underway, the virus will continue to have opportunities to jump to mammals and gain access to people. Officials have also expressed anxiety as seasonal flu ramps up, given influenza’s penchant for swapping genetic fragments to generate new viral combinations. The reassortment and exposure to humans increases the risk of the virus adapting to spread from human to human and spark an outbreak.

Bird flu hit a dead end in Missouri, but it’s running rampant in California Read More »

for-the-strongest-disc-golf-throws,-it’s-all-in-the-thumbs

For the strongest disc golf throws, it’s all in the thumbs

When Zachary Lindsey, a physicist at Berry College in Georgia, decided to run an experiment on how to get the best speed and torque while playing disc golf (aka Frisbee golf), he had no trouble recruiting 24 eager participants keen on finding science-based tips on how to improve their game. Lindsey and his team determined the optimal thumb distance from the center of the disc to increase launch speed and distance, according to a new paper published in the journal AIP Advances.

Disc golf first emerged in the 1960s, but “Steady” Ed Hendrick, inventor of the modern Frisbee, is widely considered the “father” of the sport since it was he who coined and trademarked the name “disc golf” in 1975. He and his son founded their own company to manufacture the equipment used in the game. As of 2023, the Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) had over 107,000 registered members worldwide, with players hailing from 40 countries.

A disc golf course typically has either nine or 18 holes or targets, called “baskets.” There is a tee position for starting play, and players take turns throwing discs until they catch them in the basket, similar to how golfers work toward sinking a golf ball into a hole. The expected number of throws required of an experienced player to make the basket is considered “par.”

There are essentially three different disc types: drivers, mid-rangers, and putters. Driver discs are thin and sharp-edged, designed to reduce drag for long throws; they’re typically used for teeing off or other long-distance throws since a strong throw can cover as much as 500 feet. Putter discs, as the name implies, are better for playing close to the basket since they are thicker and thus have higher drag when in flight. Mid-range discs have elements of both drivers and putters, designed for distances of 200–300 feet—i.e., approaching the basket—where players want to optimize range and accuracy.

For the strongest disc golf throws, it’s all in the thumbs Read More »

shady-drugmaker-used-code-words-to-sell-knockoff-weight-loss-drug:-lawsuit

Shady drugmaker used code words to sell knockoff weight-loss drug: lawsuit

Starts with a T

Pivotal Peptides—which is not a licensed pharmacy or dispensary—did not respond to the letter. Instead, its website was modified to indicate that it was “down for maintenance,” and the company instructed customers to email directly. About 10 days later, Pivotal Peptides’ registered agent, Elizabeth Gately, then sent an email (which Lilly obtained) instructing customers to place tirzepatide orders using coded language.

“Good News,” the email read, “Pivotal Peptides … is still in business!”

“If a favorite product (starting with T) was your go-to, that name can’t be used in any correspondence with me or listed on my price sheet anymore,” Gately allegedly wrote. “Therefore, I need another identifier and decided (for now) to call this peptide ’11mg.'”

Gately went on to say that the codenamed product “is Pivotal Peptide’s [sic] bestseller,” and “it is the only T size available from PP right now except by special order.” The letter ended with: “Remember to order ’11 mg’ with the latest price to identify the product you want, if applicable, and no longer use T in our communication.”

Pivotal Peptides did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

In a statement emailed to Ars, a Lilly spokesperson said Pivotal Peptides and the other companies Lilly is suing are engaging in “conduct that poses serious risks to patient safety.” In the lawsuit, Lilly notes that even children could be ordering this DIY, research-grade drug.

“No one should ever be allowed to sell these untested, non-human grade or manipulated drugs to American consumers,” the statement continued.

Lilly’s lawsuits come amid a legal storm over compounded versions of the tirzepatide, which can be legally made by licensed pharmacies as long as tirzepatide is in shortage. On October 2, the Food and Drug Administration announced that the shortage had ended but then decided to reconsider the decision after being sued by compounding pharmacies.

On several occasions, the FDA has warned of safety concerns related to compounded versions of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs.

Shady drugmaker used code words to sell knockoff weight-loss drug: lawsuit Read More »

meet-the-winners-of-nikon’s-2024-photomicrography-contest

Meet the winners of Nikon’s 2024 photomicrography contest

This year’s winning entry arose from Cisterna’s research into a protein crucial for building brain cell structure (profilin 1, or PFN1); that structure is essential for functional cellular transport. He found that when the protein and related processes are disrupted, the microtubule highways can malfunction and cause damage to the cells. Capturing the actin, microtubules, and nuclei with photomicroscopy was a painstaking process that took about three months just to perfect the staining process. Cisterna and Vitriol paid particular attention to getting just the right field of view and got the image they were waiting for after three hours of observation.

“At 50 years, Nikon Small World is more than just an imaging competition—it’s become a gallery that pays tribute to the extraordinary individuals who make it possible,” said Nikon Instruments rep Eric Flem. “They are the driving force behind this event, masterfully blending science and art to reveal the wonders of the microscopic world and what we can learn from it to the public. Sometimes, we overlook the tiny details of the world around us. Nikon Small World serves as a reminder to pause, appreciate the power and beauty of the little things, and to cultivate a deeper curiosity to explore and question.”

Here are the remaining top 20 winners of this year’s contest, ranging from close-up views of octopus eggs, green crab spider eyes, and slime molds to capturing the electric arc between a pin and wire, and an insect egg that has been parasitized by a wasp. You can check out the full list of winners, as well as several honorable mentions, here.

And the winners are …

Second place: Electrical arc between a pin and a wire. Marcel Clemens/Nikon Small World

Meet the winners of Nikon’s 2024 photomicrography contest Read More »

after-seeing-hundreds-of-launches,-spacex’s-rocket-catch-was-a-new-thrill

After seeing hundreds of launches, SpaceX’s rocket catch was a new thrill


For a few moments, my viewing angle made it look like the rocket was coming right at me.

Coming in for the catch. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

BOCA CHICA BEACH, Texas—I’ve taken some time to process what happened on the mudflats of South Texas a little more than a week ago and relived the scene in my mind countless times.

With each replay, it’s still as astonishing as it was when I saw it on October 13, standing on an elevated platform less than 4 miles away. It was surreal watching SpaceX’s enormous 20-story-tall Super Heavy rocket booster plummeting through the sky before being caught back at its launch pad by giant mechanical arms.

This is the way, according to SpaceX, to enable a future where it’s possible to rapidly reuse rockets, not too different from the way airlines turn around their planes between flights. This is required for SpaceX to accomplish the company’s mission, set out by Elon Musk two decades ago, of building a settlement on Mars.

Of course, SpaceX’s cameras got much better views of the catch than mine. This is one of my favorite video clips.

The final phase of Super Heavy’s landing burn used the three center Raptor engines to precisely steer into catch position pic.twitter.com/BxQbOmT4yk

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 14, 2024

In the near-term future, regularly launching and landing Super Heavy boosters, and eventually the Starship upper stage that goes into orbit, will make it possible for SpaceX to achieve the rapid-fire launch cadence the company needs to fulfill its contracts with NASA. The space agency is paying SpaceX roughly $4 billion to develop a human-rated version of Starship to land astronauts on the Moon under the umbrella of the Artemis program.

To make that happen, SpaceX must launch numerous Starship tankers over the course of a few weeks to a few months to refuel the Moon-bound Starship lander in low-Earth orbit. Rapid reuse is fundamental to the lunar lander architecture NASA chose for the first two Artemis landing missions.

SpaceX, which is funding most of Starship’s development costs, says upgraded versions will be capable of hauling 200 metric tons of payload to low-Earth orbit while flying often at a relatively low cost. This would unlock innumerable other potential applications for the US military and commercial industry.

Here’s a sampling of the photos I captured of SpaceX’s launch and catch, followed by the story of how I got them.

The fifth full-scale test flight of SpaceX’s new-generation Starship rocket lifted off from South Texas at sunrise Sunday morning. Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

Some context

I probably spent too much time watching last week’s flight through my camera’s viewfinder, but I suspect I’ll see it many more times. After all, SpaceX wants to make this a routine occurrence, more common than the landings of the smaller Falcon 9 booster now happening several times per week.

Nine years ago, I watched from 7 miles away as SpaceX landed a Falcon 9 for the first time. This was the closest anyone not directly involved in the mission could watch as the Falcon 9’s first stage returned to Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, a few minutes after lifting off with a batch of commercial communications satellites.

Citing safety concerns, NASA and the US Air Force closed large swaths of the spaceport for the flight. Journalists and VIPs were kept far away, and the locations on the base where employees or special guests typically watch a launch were off-limits. The landing happened at night and played out like a launch in reverse, with the Falcon 9 booster settling to a smooth touchdown on a concrete landing pad a few miles from the launch site.

The Falcon 9 landing on December 21, 2015, came after several missed landings on SpaceX’s floating offshore drone ship. With the Super Heavy booster, SpaceX nailed the catch on the first try.

The catch method means the rocket doesn’t need to carry landing legs, as the Falcon 9 does. This reduces the rocket’s weight and complexity, and theoretically reduces the amount of time and money needed to prepare the rocket to fly again.

I witnessed the first catch of SpaceX’s Super Heavy booster last week from just outside the restricted zone around the company’s sprawling Starbase launch site in South Texas. Deputies from the local sheriff’s office patrolled the area to ensure no one strayed inside the keep-out area and set up roadblocks to turn away anyone who wasn’t supposed to be there.

The launch was early in the morning, so I arrived late the night before at a viewing site run by Rocket Ranch, a campground that caters to SpaceX fans seeking a front-row seat to the goings-on at Starbase. Some SpaceX employees, several other reporters, and media photographers were there, too.

There are other places to view a Starship launch. Condominium and hotel towers on South Padre Island roughly 6 miles from the launch pad, a little farther than my post, offer commanding aerial views of Starbase, which is situated on Boca Chica Beach a few miles north of the US-Mexico border. The closest publicly accessible place to watch a Starship launch is on the south shore of the mouth of the Rio Grande River, but if you’re coming from the United States, getting there requires crossing the border and driving off-road.

People gather at the Rocket Ranch viewing site near Boca Chica Beach, Texas, before the third Starship test flight in March.

People gather at the Rocket Ranch viewing site near Boca Chica Beach, Texas, before the third Starship test flight in March. Credit: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

I chose a location with an ambiance somewhere in between the hustle and bustle of South Padre Island and the isolated beach just across the border in Mexico. The vibe on the eve of the launch had the mix of a rave and a pilgrimage of SpaceX true believers.

A laser light show projected the outline of a Starship against a tree as uptempo EDM tracks blared from speakers. Meanwhile, dark skies above revealed cosmic wonders invisible to most city dwellers, and behind us, the Rio Grande inexorably flowed toward the sea. Those of us who were there to work got a few hours of sleep, but I’m not sure I can say the same for everyone.

At first light, a few scattered yucca plants sticking up from the chaparral were the only things between us and SpaceX’s sky-scraping Starship rocket on the horizon. We got word the launch time would slip 25 minutes. SpaceX chose the perfect time to fly, with a crystal-clear sky hued by the rising Sun.

First, you see it

I was at Starbase for all four previous Starship test flights and have covered more than 300 rocket launches in person. I’ve been privileged to witness a lot of history, but after hundreds of launches, some of the novelty has worn off. Don’t get me wrong—I still feel a lump in my throat every time I see a rocket leave the planet. Prelaunch jitters are a real thing. But I no longer view every launch as a newsworthy event.

October 13 was different.

Those prelaunch anxieties were present as SpaceX counted off the final seconds to liftoff. First, you see it. A blast of orange flashed from the bottom of the gleaming, frosty rocket filled with super-cold propellants. Then, the 11 million-pound vehicle began a glacial climb from the launch pad. About 20 seconds later, the rumble from the rocket’s 33 methane-fueled engines reached our location.

Our viewing platform shook from the vibrations for over a minute as Starship and the Super Heavy booster soared into the stratosphere. Two-and-a-half minutes into the flight, the rocket was just a point of bluish-white light as it accelerated east over the Gulf of Mexico.

Another burst of orange encircled the rocket during the so-called hot-staging maneuver, when the Starship upper stage lit its engines at the moment the Super Heavy booster detached to begin the return to Starbase. Flying at the edge of space more than 300,000 feet over the Gulf, the booster flipped around and fired its engines to cancel out its downrange velocity and propel itself back toward the coastline.

The engines shut down, and the booster plunged deeper into the atmosphere. Eventually, the booster transformed from a dot in the sky back into the shape of a rocket as it approached Starbase at supersonic speed. The rocket’s velocity became more evident as it got closer. For a few moments, my viewing angle made it look like the rocket—bigger than the fuselage of a 747 jumbo jet—was coming right at me.

The descending booster zoomed through the contrail cloud it left behind during launch, then reappeared into clear air. With the naked eye, I could see a glow inside the rocket’s engine bay as it dived toward the launch pad, presumably from heat generated as the vehicle slammed into ever-denser air on the way back to Earth. This phenomenon made the rocket resemble a lit cigar.

Finally, the rocket hit the brakes by igniting 13 of its 33 engines, then downshifted to three engines for the final maneuver to slide in between the launch tower’s two catch arms. Like balancing a pencil on the tip of your finger, the Raptor engines vectored their thrust to steady the booster, which, for a moment, appeared to be floating next to the tower.

The Super Heavy booster, more than 20 stories tall, rights itself over the launch pad in Texas, moments before two mechanical arms grabbed it in mid-air.

Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

The Super Heavy booster, more than 20 stories tall, rights itself over the launch pad in Texas, moments before two mechanical arms grabbed it in mid-air. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

A double-clap sonic boom jolted spectators from their slack-jawed awe. Only then could we hear the roar from the start of the Super Heavy booster’s landing burn. This sound reached us just as the rocket settled into the grasp of the launch tower, with its so-called catch fittings coming into contact with the metallic beams of the catch arms.

The engines switched off, and there it was. Many of the spectators lucky enough to be there jumped up and down with joy, hugged their friends, or let out an ecstatic yell. I snapped a few final photos and returned to his laptop, grinning, speechless, and started wondering how I could put this all into words.

Once the smoke cleared, at first glance, the rocket looked as good as new. There was no soot on the outside of the booster, as it is on the Falcon 9 rocket after returning from space. This is because the Super Heavy booster and Starship use cleaner-burning methane fuel instead of kerosene.

Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and CEO, later said the outer ring of engine nozzles on the bottom of the rocket showed signs of heating damage. This, he said, would be “easily addressed.”

What’s not so easy to address is how SpaceX can top this. A landing on the Moon or Mars? Sure, but realistically, those milestones are years off. There’s something that’ll happen before then.

Sometime soon, SpaceX will try to catch a Starship back at the launch pad at the end of an orbital flight. This will be an extraordinarily difficult feat, far exceeding the challenge of catching the Super Heavy booster.

Super Heavy only reaches a fraction of the altitude and speed of the Starship upper stage, and while the booster’s size and the catch method add degrees of difficulty, the rocket follows much the same up-and-down flight profile pioneered by the Falcon 9. Starship, on the other hand, will reenter the atmosphere from orbital velocity, streak through the sky surrounded by super-heated plasma, then shift itself into a horizontal orientation for a final descent SpaceX likes to call the “belly flop.”

In the last few seconds, Starship will reignite three of its engines, flip itself vertical, and come down for a precision landing. SpaceX demonstrated the ship could do this on the test flight last week, when the vehicle made a controlled on-target splashdown in the Indian Ocean after traveling halfway around the world from Texas.

If everything goes according to plan, SpaceX could be ready to try to catch a Starship for real next year. Stay tuned.

Photo of Stephen Clark

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

After seeing hundreds of launches, SpaceX’s rocket catch was a new thrill Read More »

studies-of-migraine’s-many-triggers-offer-paths-to-new-therapies

Studies of migraine’s many triggers offer paths to new therapies


One class of drugs has already found success in treating the painful, common attacks.

Displeased African American woman holding her head in pain.

For Cherise Irons, chocolate, red wine, and aged cheeses are dangerous. So are certain sounds, perfumes and other strong scents, cold weather, and thunderstorms. Stress and lack of sleep, too.

She suspects all of these things can trigger her migraine attacks, which manifest in a variety of ways: pounding pain in the back of her head, exquisite sensitivity to the slightest sound, even blackouts and partial paralysis.

Irons, 48, of Coral Springs, Florida, once worked as a school assistant principal. Now, she’s on disability due to her migraine. Irons has tried so many migraine medications she’s lost count—but none has helped for long. Even a few of the much-touted new drugs that have quelled episodes for many people with migraine have failed for Irons.

Though not all are as impaired as Irons, migraine is a surprisingly common problem, affecting 14 percent to 15 percent of people. Yet scientists and physicians remain largely in the dark about how triggers like Irons’ lead to attacks. They have made progress nonetheless: The latest drugs, inhibitors of a body signaling molecule called CGRP, have been a blessing for many. For others, not so much. And it’s not clear why.

The complexity of migraine probably has something to do with it. “It’s a very diverse condition,” says Debbie Hay, a pharmacologist at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. “There’s still huge debate as to what the causes are, what the consequences are.”

That’s true despite decades of research and the remarkable ability of scientists to trigger migraine attacks in the lab: Giving CGRP intravenously to people who get migraines gives some of them attacks. So do nitric oxide, a natural body molecule that relaxes blood vessels, and another signaling molecule called PACAP. In mice, too, CGRP and PACAP molecules can bring on migraine-like effects.

All these molecules act as “on” switches for migraine attacks, which suggests that there must be “off” switches out there, too, says Amynah Pradhan, a neuroscientist at Washington University in St. Louis. Scientists have been actively seeking those “off” switches; the CGRP-blocking drugs were a major win in this line of research.

Despite the insights gleaned, migraine remains a tricky disease to understand and treat. For example, the steps between the molecular action of CGRP and a person experiencing a headache or other symptoms are still murky. But scientists have lots of other ideas for new drugs that might stave off migraine attacks, or stop ongoing ones.

“It’s important to have an expanded toolbox,” says Pradhan.

Deciphering migraine mechanisms

Migraine is the second most prevalent cause of disability in the world, affecting mainly women of childbearing age. A person may have one migraine attack per year, or several per week, or even ongoing symptoms.

Complicating the picture further, there’s not just one kind of migraine attack. Migraine can cause headache; nausea; sensitivity to light, sound or smell; or a panoply of other symptoms. Some people get visual auras; some don’t. Some women have migraine attacks associated with menstruation. Some people, particularly kids, have “abdominal migraine,” characterized not so much by headaches as by nausea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

Initially, the throbbing nature of the head pain led researchers to suspect that the root problem was expansion of the blood vessels within the membranes surrounding the brain, with these vessels pulsing in time with the heartbeat. But, as it turns out, the throbbing doesn’t really match up with heart rate.

Then researchers noticed that many signs that presage migraine attack, such as light sensitivity and appetite changes, are all regulated by the brain, particularly a region called the hypothalamus. The pendulum swung toward suspicion of a within-brain origin.

Today, scientists wonder if both in-brain and beyond-brain factors, including blood vessels releasing pain-causing molecules, play a role, as may other contributors such as immune cells.

What all these proposed mechanisms ultimately point to, though, is pain created not in the brain itself but in the meninges—a multilayered “plastic bag around your brain,” as described by Messoud Ashina, a neurologist at the University of Copenhagen and director of the Human Migraine Research Unit at Rigshospitalet Glostrup in Denmark. These membranes contain cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain and holds it in place. They also support blood vessels and nerves that feed into the brain. The brain itself cannot feel pain, but nerves in the meninges, especially the trigeminal nerve between the face and brain, can. If they’re activated, they send the brain a major “ouch” message.

Physicians and pharmacists already possess a number of anti-migraine tools — some to prevent future attacks, others to treat an attack once it’s started. Options to stop a current migraine attack in its tracks include over-the-counter painkillers, such as aspirin and ibuprofen, or prescription opioids. Triptans, developed specifically to counter migraine attacks once they’ve begun, are drugs that tighten up blood vessels via interactions with serotonin receptors.

However, scientists later recognized that constricting blood vessels is not the main way triptans relieve migraine; their action to quiet nerve signals or inflammation may be more relevant. Ditans, a newer class of migraine drugs, also act on serotonin receptors but affect only nerves, not blood vessels, and they still work.

For migraine attack prevention, pre-CGRP-era tools still in use today include antidepressants, blood pressure medications, epilepsy drugs, and injections of botulinum toxin that numb the pain-sensing nerves in the head and neck.

Most of these medicines, except triptans and ditans, weren’t designed specifically for migraine, and they often come with unpleasant side effects. It can take months for some preventive medicines to start working, and frequent use of triptans or painkillers can lead to another problem, the poorly understood “medication overuse headache.

A powerful new player

The CGRP drugs provided a major expansion to the migraine pharmacopoeia, as they can both prevent attacks from happening and stop ones that have already started. They also mark the first time that clues from basic migraine research led to an “off” switch that prevents migraine attacks from even starting.

CGRP is a small snippet of protein made in various places in the body. A messenger molecule that normally clicks into another molecule, called a receptor, on a cell’s surface, CGRP can turn on activity in the receiving cell. It’s found in pain-sensing nerve fibers that run alongside meningeal blood vessels and in the trigeminal ganglia near the base of the skull where many nerves are rooted. The molecule is a powerful blood vessel dilator. It also acts on immune cells, nerve cells, and the nerve-supporting cells called glia.

All of these features—a location in the meningeal nerve fibers with several actions that might be linked to migraine, like expanding blood vessels—pointed to CGRP being a migraine “on” switch. Further research also showed that CGRP is often found at higher levels in the body fluids of people who get migraines.

In a small 2010 study, 12 out of 14 people with migraine did report a headache after receiving intravenous CGRP; four of them also experienced aura symptoms such as vision changes. Only two out of 11 people who don’t normally get migraine attacks also developed a headache after CGRP infusion.

CGRP also caused mice to be extra sensitive to light, suggesting it could have something to do with the light sensitivity in humans, too.

The steps between CGRP in the bloodstream or meninges as a trigger and migraine symptoms like light sensitivity aren’t fully understood, though scientists do have theories. Ashina is pursuing how CGRP, PACAP, and other substances might trigger migraine attacks. These molecules all stick to receptors on the surface of cells, such as the ones in blood vessel walls. That binding kicks off a series of events inside the cell that includes generation of a substance called cyclic AMP and, ultimately, opening of channels that let potassium ions out of the cell. All that external potassium causes blood vessels to dilate—but it might also trigger nearby pain-sensing nerves, such as the trigeminal cluster, Ashina hypothesizes.

It’s a neat story, but far from proven. “We still don’t really know what CGRP does in the context of migraine,” says Greg Dussor, a neuroscientist at the University of Texas at Dallas.

In one possible model for migraine, various molecules can activate blood vessel cells to release potassium, which activates nearby neurons that send a pain signal to the brain. Various strategies that seek to interfere with this pathway, including the anti-CGRP drugs, are of great interest to migraine researchers.

In one possible model for migraine, various molecules can activate blood vessel cells to release potassium, which activates nearby neurons that send a pain signal to the brain. Various strategies that seek to interfere with this pathway, including the anti-CGRP drugs, are of great interest to migraine researchers. Credit: Knowable Magazine

Uncertainty about CGRP’s precise role in migraine hasn’t stopped progress in the clinic: There are now eight different blockers of CGRP, or its receptor, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for migraine treatment or prevention. The American Headache Society recently released a statement saying that CGRP drugs should be considered first-line treatments for migraine. Despite CGRP’s widespread presence across the body, blocking it results in few and generally mild side effects, such as constipation.

“It’s a good drug,” says Dan Levy, a neurophysiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who recently described the role of the meninges in migraine for the Annual Review of Neuroscience.

Questions remain, though. One is whether, and how well, CGRP blockers work in men. Since three to four times as many women as men have migraine, the medicines were mostly tested in women. A recent review found that while CGRP blockers seem to prevent future headaches in both sexes, they haven’t been shown to stop acute migraine attacks in men as currently prescribed. (Notably, men made up less than a fifth of those included in the studies as a whole, making it more difficult to detect any low-level effects.)

More data may settle the question. Hsiangkuo Yuan, neurologist and director of clinical research at Thomas Jefferson University’s headache center in Philadelphia, says he’s been tracking the effects of CGRP blockers in his patients and hasn’t seen much difference between the sexes so far in terms of CGRP-blocking antibodies, though there may be a difference in how people respond to small molecules that block CGRP.

Access to CGRP inhibitors has also become an issue. Many insurers won’t pay for the new drugs until patients have tried and failed with a couple of other treatments first — which can take several months. This led Irons, the Florida patient, to try multiple medications that didn’t help her before she tried several CGRP blockers. In her case, one CGRP drug didn’t work at all; others worked for a time. But eventually they all failed.

Searching for new “off” switches

Her case illustrates the need for still more options to prevent or treat migraine attacks, even as the CGRP success story showed there’s hope for new medicines.

“CGRP has really paved the way,” says Andrew Russo, a neuroscientist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City who described CGRP as a new migraine target for the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology in 2015. “It’s a very exciting time for the field.”

Physicians have a number of therapies that can treat migraine — from familiar painkillers such as acetaminophen to the newer ditans and CGRP blockers. Yet, many patients still struggle to find consistent symptom relief, motivating scientists to continue to search for new medications.

Physicians have a number of therapies that can treat migraine — from familiar painkillers such as acetaminophen to the newer ditans and CGRP blockers. Yet, many patients still struggle to find consistent symptom relief, motivating scientists to continue to search for new medications. Credit: Knowable Magazine

Russo and Hay, of New Zealand, are interested in building on CGRP action with a potential novel therapy. It turns out CGRP doesn’t hit just one receptor on the surface of cells, like a key that matches only one lock. In addition to the traditional CGRP receptor, it also binds and activates the AMY1 receptor—which itself can be activated by another molecule, amylin.

AMY1 receptors are found at key sites for migraine pain, such as the trigeminal nerves. In a small study, Russo and Hay found that injecting a synthetic version of amylin creates migraine-like attacks in about 40 percent of people with migraine. The researchers also discovered that in mice, activating AMY1 causes sensitivity to touch and light.

Again, that sounds like a migraine attack “on” switch, and Russo believes there’s a good chance that researchers can develop a drug that acts as an “off” switch.

Another promising “on” switch contender is PACAP. Like CGRP, it’s a small protein and signaling molecule. PACAP also appears in the trigeminal nerves that transmit migraine pain and seems to be elevated in some people experiencing a migraine attack. In rodents, PACAP causes expansion of blood vessels, inflammation in the nervous system, and hypersensitivity to touch and light. In a little over half of people with migraine, intravenous PACAP kicked off a fresh, migraine-like attack.

But, Russo says, “PACAP is more than just a CGRP wannabe.” It appears to work at least somewhat differently. In mice, antibodies that block PACAP do nothing against the light aversion activated by CGRP, and vice versa. That suggests that PACAP and CGRP could instigate two alternate pathways to a migraine attack, and some people might be prone to one or the other route. Thus, PACAP-blocking drugs might help people who don’t get relief from CGRP blockers.

Clinical research so far hints that anti-PACAP treatments indeed might help. In 2023, the Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck announced results of a trial in which they dosed 237 people with an antibody to PACAP. Those who received the highest dose had, on average, six fewer migraine days in the four weeks following the treatment than they did before receiving the medication, compared to a drop by only four days in people who received a placebo.

Then there’s Ashina’s work, which unites many of the “on”-switch clues to suggest that PACAP, CGRP and other molecules all act by triggering cyclic AMP, causing blood vessel cells to spew potassium. If that’s so, then drugs that act on cyclic AMP or potassium channels might serve as “on” or “off” switches for migraine attacks.

Ashina has tested that hypothesis with cilostazol, a blood vessel dilator used in people who have poor circulation in their legs. Cilostazol boosts production of cyclic AMP and, Ashina found, it caused attacks in a majority of people with migraine.

He also tried levcromakalim, another blood vessel opener that lowers blood pressure. It’s a potassium-channel opener, and this, too, caused migraine attacks for all 16 people in the study.

To Ashina, these experiments suggest that medicines that turn off migraine-inducing pathways at or before the point of potassium release could be of benefit. There might be side effects, such as changes in blood pressure, but Ashina notes there are potassium-channel subtypes that may be limited to blood vessels in the brain. Targeting those specific channels would be safer.

“I personally really like the potassium-channel track,” says Russo. “I think if we can find drugs targeting the ion channels, the potassium channels, that will be fruitful.”

Hopeful for opioids

Russo is also upbeat about work on a new kind of opioid. Traditional opioids, whether from poppies or pharmacies, work on a receptor called mu. Along with their remarkable pain-dulling abilities, they often create side effects including constipation and itching, plus euphoria and risk for addiction.

But there’s another class of opioid receptors, called delta receptors, that don’t cause euphoria, says Pradhan, who’s investigating them. When delta-targeting opioid molecules are offered to animals, the animals won’t self-administer the drugs as they do with mu-acting opioids such as morphine, suggesting that the drugs are less pleasurable and less likely to be habit-forming.

Delta receptors appear in parts of the nervous system linked to migraine, including the trigeminal ganglia. Pradhan has found that in mice, compounds acting on the delta opioid receptor seem to relieve hypersensitivity to touch, a marker for migraine-like symptoms, as well as brain activity associated with migraine aura.

Encouraged by early evidence that these receptors can be safely targeted in people, two companies—PharmNovo in Sweden and Pennsylvania-based Trevena—are pursuing alternative opioid treatments. Migraine is one potential use for such drugs.

Thus, the evolving story of migraine is one of many types of triggers, many types of attacks, many targets, and, with time, more potential treatments.

“I don’t think there’s one molecule that fits all,” says Levy. “Hopefully, in 10, 15 years, we’ll know, for a given person, what triggers it and what can target that.”

This story originally appeared in Knowable Magazine.

Photo of Knowable Magazine

Knowable Magazine explores the real-world significance of scholarly work through a journalistic lens.

Studies of migraine’s many triggers offer paths to new therapies Read More »

to-the-astonishment-of-forecasters,-a-tiny-hurricane-just-sprang-up-near-cuba

To the astonishment of forecasters, a tiny hurricane just sprang up near Cuba

Satellites do not have the capability to directly measure wind speeds, so they make estimates based upon other observable variables, using instruments such as a scatterometer. Yes, that’s a real word. By these indirect estimates, Oscar had sustained winds between 48 mph and 63 mph (77 kph to 101 kph), which remains well below the threshold for a hurricane (74 mph, 119 kph).

The Air Force aircraft found sustained winds, in a tiny area to be sure, of 85 mph (137 kph). Hence, Hurricane Oscar.

How this happened

Oscar’s development shocked forecasters. There was only a modest indication from satellite imagery, as of Friday, that anything would form; and none of the major global models indicated development of any kind. It was thought that the area of low pressure would get swamped by vertical wind shear this weekend as it neared Cuba.

However, the tiny size of Oscar confounded those expectations. Weather models struggle with the development of small hurricanes, and this is largely because the micro-physics of the smallest storms occur below the resolution of these models. Additionally, tiny hurricanes organize much more quickly and efficiently.

In other words, small storms can more easily make quick changes. Which is what happened with Oscar. The storm will bring heavy rain and winds to the eastern half of Cuba on Sunday before it lifts to the northeast, and brings rainfall and some storm surge into the Bahamas early next week.

To the astonishment of forecasters, a tiny hurricane just sprang up near Cuba Read More »

spacex-prevails-over-ula,-wins-military-launch-contracts-worth-$733-million

SpaceX prevails over ULA, wins military launch contracts worth $733 million

These missions require medium-lift rockets, or smaller rockets capable of a high-rate launch cadence to match the capability of a larger launch vehicle. In June, the Space Force selected SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos’s space company, to compete for Lane 1 launch task orders.

Military officials will add more companies to the pool of available Lane 1 launch providers as they mature their rockets. These companies may include Rocket Lab, Firefly Aerospace, Relativity Space, Stoke Space, and others.

While Blue Origin is on the Space Force’s list of available launch providers, the company’s New Glenn rocket was not eligible for the contracts announced Friday. That’s because military officials require a rocket to complete at least one successful orbital launch to become qualified for a Lane 1 task order. New Glenn’s first test flight is scheduled some time later this year.

This rule left SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and ULA’s Vulcan rockets as the only launch vehicles eligible for the task orders, setting up a head-to-head competition between the rival rocket companies. SpaceX prevailed, winning all nine Lane 1 missions up for competition this year.

Lane 2 of the Space Force’s National Security Space Launch program covers more challenging military missions, typically larger, more expensive payloads destined for higher orbits. The Space Force is expected to soon select launch providers for Lane 2 missions. These launches will require the Space Force to certify the rockets, whereas the military is comfortable accepting a little more risk for the Lane 1 missions.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are currently certified for national security launches, and the Space Force is in the process of certifying ULA’s Vulcan launcher after two successful test flights. The Space Force and Blue Origin also have a certification plan for the New Glenn rocket, but it must first complete multiple successful test flights.

Updated October 19 with additional information about the launch task orders.

SpaceX prevails over ULA, wins military launch contracts worth $733 million Read More »