Enlarge/ Right now, the software doesn’t do arms, so don’t go taking on any aliens with it.
20th Century Fox
Exoskeletons today look like something straight out of sci-fi. But the reality is they are nowhere near as robust as their fictional counterparts. They’re quite wobbly, and it takes long hours of handcrafting software policies, which regulate how they work—a process that has to be repeated for each individual user.
To bring the technology a bit closer to Avatar’s Skel Suits or Warhammer 40k power armor, a team at North Carolina University’s Lab of Biomechatronics and Intelligent Robotics used AI to build the first one-size-fits-all exoskeleton that supports walking, running, and stair-climbing. Critically, its software adapts itself to new users with no need for any user-specific adjustments. “You just wear it and it works,” says Hao Su, an associate professor and co-author of the study.
Tailor-made robots
An exoskeleton is a robot you wear to aid your movements—it makes walking, running, and other activities less taxing, the same way an e-bike adds extra watts on top of those you generate yourself, making pedaling easier. “The problem is, exoskeletons have a hard time understanding human intentions, whether you want to run or walk or climb stairs. It’s solved with locomotion recognition: systems that recognize human locomotion intentions,” says Su.
Building those locomotion recognition systems currently relies on elaborate policies that define what actuators in an exoskeleton need to do in each possible scenario. “Let’s take walking. The current state of the art is we put the exoskeleton on you and you walk on a treadmill for an hour. Based on that, we try to adjust its operation to your individual set of movements,” Su explains.
Building handcrafted control policies and doing long human trials for each user makes exoskeletons super expensive, with prices reaching $200,000 or more. So, Su’s team used AI to automatically generate control policies and eliminate human training. “I think within two or three years, exoskeletons priced between $2,000 and $5,000 will be absolutely doable,” Su claims.
His team hopes these savings will come from developing the exoskeleton control policy using a digital model, rather than living, breathing humans.
Digitizing robo-aided humans
Su’s team started by building digital models of a human musculoskeletal system and an exoskeleton robot. Then they used multiple neural networks that operated each component. One was running the digitized model of a human skeleton, moved by simplified muscles. The second neural network was running the exoskeleton model. Finally, the third neural net was responsible for imitating motion—basically predicting how a human model would move wearing the exoskeleton and how the two would interact with each other. “We trained all three neural networks simultaneously to minimize muscle activity,” says Su.
One problem the team faced is that exoskeleton studies typically use a performance metric based on metabolic rate reduction. “Humans, though, are incredibly complex, and it is very hard to build a model with enough fidelity to accurately simulate metabolism,” Su explains. Luckily, according to the team, reducing muscle activations is rather tightly correlated with metabolic rate reduction, so it kept the digital model’s complexity within reasonable limits. The training of the entire human-exoskeleton system with all three neural networks took roughly eight hours on a single RTX 3090 GPU. And the results were record-breaking.
Bridging the sim-to-real gap
After developing the controllers for the digital exoskeleton model, which were developed by the neural networks in simulation, Su’s team simply copy-pasted the control policy to a real controller running a real exoskeleton. Then, they tested how an exoskeleton trained this way would work with 20 different participants. The averaged metabolic rate reduction in walking was over 24 percent, over 13 percent in running, and 15.4 percent in stair climbing—all record numbers, meaning their exoskeleton beat every other exoskeleton ever made in each category.
This was achieved without needing any tweaks to fit it to individual gaits. But the neural networks’ magic didn’t end there.
“The problem with traditional, handcrafted policies was that it was just telling it ‘if walking is detected do one thing; if walking faster is detected do another thing.’ These were [a mix of] finite state machines and switch controllers. We introduced end-to-end continuous control,” says Su. What this continuous control meant was that the exoskeleton could follow the human body as it made smooth transitions between different activities—from walking to running, from running to climbing stairs, etc. There was no abrupt mode switching.
“In terms of software, I think everyone will be using this neural network-based approach soon,” Su claims. To improve the exoskeletons in the future, his team wants to make them quieter, lighter, and more comfortable.
But the plan is also to make them work for people who need them the most. “The limitation now is that we tested these exoskeletons with able-bodied participants, not people with gait impairments. So, what we want to do is something they did in another exoskeleton study at Stanford University. We would take a one-minute video of you walking, and based on that, we would build a model to individualize our general model. This should work well for people with impairments like knee arthritis,” Su claims.
Enlarge/ Extreme sportsman Ross Edgley comes face to face with a great hammerhead shark in the waters of Bimini in the Bahamas.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Ultra-athlete Ross Edgley is no stranger to pushing his body to extremes. He once ran a marathon while pulling a one-ton car; ran a triathlon while carrying a 100-pound tree; and climbed a 65-foot rope over and over again until he’d climbed the equivalent of Mt. Everest—all for charity. In 2016, he set the world record for the world’s longest staged sea swim around the coastline of Great Britain: 1780 miles over 157 days.
At one point during that swim, a basking shark appeared and swam alongside Edgley for a day and a half. That experience ignited his curiosity about sharks and eventually led to his new National Geographic documentary, Shark vs. Ross Edgley—part of four full weeks of 2024 SHARKFEST programming. Edgley matches his athletic prowess against four different species of shark. He tries to jump out of the water (polaris) like a great white shark; withstand the G forces produced by a hammerhead shark‘s fast, rapid turns; mimic the extreme fasting and feasting regimen of a migrating tiger shark; and match the swimming speed of a mako shark.
“I love this idea of having a goal and then reverse engineering and deconstructing it,” Edgley told Ars. “[Sharks are] the ultimate ocean athletes. We just had this idea: what if you’re crazy enough to try and follow in the footsteps of four amazing sharks? It’s an impossible task. You’re going to fail, you’re going to be humbled. But in the process, we could use it as a sports/shark science experiment, almost like a Trojan horse to bring science and ocean conservation to a new audience.”
And who better than Edgley to take on that impossible challenge? “The enthusiasm he brings to everything is really infectious,” marine biologist and shark expert Mike Heithaus of Florida International University told Ars. “He’s game to try anything. He’d never been in the water with sharks and we’re throwing him straight in with big tiger sharks and hammerheads. He’s loving the whole thing and just devoured all the information.”
That Edgley physique doesn’t maintain itself, so the athlete was up at 4 AM swimming laps and working out every morning before the rest of the crew had their coffee. “I’m doing bicep curls with my coffee cup and he’s doing bicep curls with the 60-pound underwater camera,” Heithaus recalled. “For the record, I got one rep in and I’m very proud of that.” Score one for the shark expert.
(Spoilers below for the various shark challenges.)
Ross vs. the great white shark
Ross Edgley gets some tips on how to power (polaris) his body out of the water like a white shark from synchronized swimmer Samantha Wilson
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
The Aquabatix synchronized swim team demonstrates the human equivalent to a white shark’s polaris.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley tries out a mono fin to improve his polaris performance.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley propelling 3/4 of his body out of the pool to mimic a white shark’s polaris movement
National Geographic/Bobby Cross
For the first challenge, Edgley took on the great white shark, a creature he describes as a “submarine with teeth.” These sharks are ambush hunters, capable of propelling their massive bodies fully out of the water in an arching leap. That maneuver is called a polaris, and it’s essential to the great white shark’s survival. It helps that the shark has 65 percent muscle mass, particularly concentrated in the tail, as well as a light skeleton and a large liver that serves as buoyancy device.
Edgley, by comparison, is roughly 45 percent muscle mass—much higher than the average human but falling short of the great white shark. To help him try to match the great white’s powerful polaris maneuver, Edgley sought tips on biomechanics from the Aquabatix synchronized swim team, since synchronized swimmers must frequently launch their bodies fully out of the water during routines. They typically get a boost from their teammates to do so.
The team did manage to boost Edgley out of the water, but sharks don’t need a boost. Edgley opted to work with a monofin, frequently used in underwater sports like free diving or finswimming, to see what he could achieve on his own power. After a bit of practice, he succeeded in launching 75 percent of his body (compared to the shark’s 100 percent) out of the water. Verdict: Edgley is 75 percent great white shark.
Ross vs. the hammerhead shark
Edgley vs. a hammerhead shark. He will try to match the animal’s remarkable agility underwater.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
A camera team films a hammerhead shark making sharp extreme turns
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley prepares to go airborne in a stunt plane to try and mimic the agility of a hammerhead shark in the water.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
A standard roll produces 2 g’s, while pulling up is 3 g’s
YouTube/National Geographic
Edgley is feeling a bit queasy.
YouTube/National Geographic
Next up: Edgley pitted himself against the remarkable underwater agility of a hammerhead shark. Hammerheads are known for being able to swim fast and turn on a dime, thanks to a flexible skeleton that enables them to bend and contort their bodies nearly in half. They’re able to withstand some impressive G forces (up to 3 G’s) in the process. According to Heithaus, these sharks feed on other rays and other sharks, so they need to be built for speed and agility—hence their ability to accelerate and turn rapidly.
The NatGeo crew captured impressive underwater footage of the hammerheads in action, including Edgley meeting a 14.7 hammerhead named “Queenie”—one of the largest great hammerheads that visits Bimini in the Bahamas during the winter. That footage also includes shots of divers feeding fish to some of the hammerheads by hand. “They know every shark by name and the sharks know the feeders,” said Heithaus. “So you can safely get close to these big amazing creatures.”
For years, scientists had wondered about the purpose of the distinctive hammer-shaped head. It may help them scan a larger area of the ocean floor while hunting. Like all sharks, hammerheads have sensory pores called ampullae of Lorenzini that allow them to detect electrical signals and hence possible prey. The hammer-shaped head distributes those pores over a wider span.
But according to Heithaus, the hammer shape also operates a bit like the big broad flap of an airplane wing, resulting in excellent hydrodynamics. Moving at high speeds, “You can just tilt the head a tiny bit and bank a huge degree,” he said. “So if a ray turns 180 degrees to escape, the hammerhead can track with it. Other species would take a wider turn and fall behind.”
The airplane wing analogy gave Edgley an idea for how he could mimic the tight turns and high G forces of a hammerhead shark: take a flight in a small stunt plane. The catch: Edgley is not a fan of flying. And as he’d feared, he became horribly airsick during the challenge, even puking into a little airbag at one point. “It looks so cool in the clip,” he said. “But at the time, I was in a world of trouble.” Pilot Mark Greenfield finally cut the experiment short when he determined that Edgley was too sick to continue. Verdict: Edgley is 0 percent hammerhead shark.
Ross vs. the tiger shark
Shark expert Mike Heithaus holds a gelatin shark “lolliop” while Edgley flexes.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley and Heithaus underwater with a tiger shark, tempting it with a gelatin lollipop.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Success! A tiger shark takes a nice big bite.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley flexes with the giant gelatin lollipop with a large bite taken out of it by a tiger shark
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley gets his weight and body volume measured in the “Bodpod” before his tiger shark challenge.
National Geographic/Bobby Cross
Edgley fasted and exercised for 24 hours to mimic a tiger shark on a migration route. He dropped 14 pounds.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
After all that fasting and exercise, Edgley then gorged himself for 24 hours to put the weight back on. He gained 22 pounds.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
The third challenge was trying to match the fortitude of a migrating tiger shark as it makes its way over thousands of miles without food, only feasting at journey’s end. “I was trying to understand the psychology of a tiger shark because there’s just nothing for them to eat [on the journey],” said Ross. And once they arrive at their destination, “they can chow down on entire whale carcasses and eat just about anything. That idea of feast and famine is something we humans used to do all the time. We live quite comfortably now so we’ve lost touch with that.”
The first step was to figure out just how many calories a migrating tiger shark can consume in a single bite. Heithaus has been part of SHARKFEST for several years now and recalled one throwback show, Sharks vs. Dolphins, in which he tried to determine which species of of shark were attacking dolphins, and just how big those sharks might be. He hit upon the idea of making a dolphin shape out of gelatin—essentially the same stuff FIU’s forensic department uses for ballistic tests—and asked his forensic colleagues to make one for him, since the material has the same weight and density of dolphin blubber.
For the Edgley documentary, they made a large gelatin lollipop the same density as whale blubber, and he and Edgley dove down and managed to get an 11-foot tiger shark to take a big 6.2-pound bite out of it. We know how many calories are in whale blubber so Heithaus was able to deduce from that how many calories per bite a tiger shark consumed (6.2 pounds of whale meet is equivalent to about 25,000 calories).
Such field work also lets him gather ever mire specimens of shark bites from a range of species for his research. “The great thing about SHARKFEST is that you’re seeing new, cutting-edge science that may or may not work,” said Heithaus. “But that’s what science is about: trying things and advancing our knowledge even if it doesn’t work al the time, and then sharing that information and excitement with the public.”
Then it was time for Edgley to make like a migrating shark and embark on a carefully designed famine-and-feast regime. First, his weight and body volume were measured in a “Bodpod”: 190.8 pounds and 140.8 pints. Then Edgley fasted and exercised almost continuously for 24 hours with a mix of weight training, running, swimming, sitting in the sauna, and climate chamber cycling. (He did sleep for a few hours.) He dropped 14 pounds and lost twelve pints, ending up at a weight of 177 pounds and a volume of 128.7 pints. Instead of food, what he craved most at the end was water. “When you are in a completely deprived state, you find out what your body actually needs, not what it wants,” said Edgley.
After slaking his thirst, it was time to gorge. Over the next 24 hours, Edgley consumed an eye-popping 35,103 calories in carefully controlled servings. It’s quite the menu: Haribo mix, six liters of Lucozade, a Hulk smoothie, pizza, five slices of lemon blueberry cheesecake, five slices of chocolate mint cheesecake, fish and chips, burgers and fries, two cinnamon loaves, four tubs of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, two full English breakfasts, five liters of custard, four mars bars, and four mass gainer shakes.
When his weight and volume were measured one last time in the Bodpod, Edgley had regained a whopping 22 pounds for a final weight of 199 pounds. “I wish I had Ross’s ability to eat that much and remain at 0 percent body fat,” said Heithaus. Verdict: Edgley is 28 percent tiger shark.
Ross vs. the mako shark
In 2018, Edgely set the world record for longest assisted sea swim.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Edgley tries to match the speed of a mako shark in the waters of the Menai Strait in Wales.
National Geographic/Nathalie Miles
Finally, Edgley pitted himself against the mighty mako shark. Mako sharks are the speediest sharks in the ocean, capable of swimming at speeds up to 43 MPH. Edgley is a long-distance swimmer, not a sprinter, so he threw himself into training at Loughborough University with British Olympians coaching him. He fell far short of a mako shark’s top speed. The shape of the human body is simply much less hydrodynamic than that of a shark. He realized that despite his best efforts, “I was making up hundredths of a second, which is huge in sprinting,” he said. “That could be the difference between a gold medal at the Paris Olympics and not. But I needed to make up many kilometers per hour.”
So Edgley decided to “think like a shark” and employ a shark-like strategy of riding the ocean currents to increase his speed. He ditched the pool and headed to the Menai Strait in Wales for some open water swimming. Ultimately he was able to hit 10.24 MPH—double what an Olympic swimmer could manage in a pool, but just 25 percent of a mako shark’s top speed. And he managed with the help or a team of 20-30 people dropping him into the fastest tide possible. “A mako shark would’ve just gone, ‘This is a Monday morning, this isn’t an event for me, I’m off,'” said Edgley. Verdict: Edgley is 24 percent mako shark
When the results of all four challenges were combined, Edgley came out at 32 percent overall, or nearly one-third shark. While Edgley confessed to being humbled by his limitations, “I don’t think there’s anyone else out there who could do so as well across the board in comparison,” said Heithaus.
The ultimate goal of Shark vs. Ross Edgley—and indeed all of the SHARKFEST programming—is to help shift public perceptions of sharks. “The great Sir David Attenborough said that the problems facing us in terms of conservation is as much a communication issue as a scientific one,” Edgley said. “The only way we can combat that is by educating people.”
Shark populations have declined sharply by 70 percent or more over the last 50 years. “It’s really critical that we protect and restore these populations,” Heithaus said. Tiger sharks, for instance, eat big grazers like turtles and sea cows, and thus protect the sea grass. (Among other benefits, the sea grass sequesters carbon dioxide.) Sharks are also quite sophisticated in their behavior. “Some have social connections with other sharks, although not to the same extent as dolphins,” said Heithaus. “They’re more than just loners, and they may have personalities. We see some sharks that are more bold, and others that are more shy. There’s a lot more to sharks than we would have thought.”
People who hear about Edgley’s basking shark encounter invariably assume he’d been in danger. However, “We were friends. I’m not on its menu,” Edgley said. “There are so many different species.” He likened it to being chased by a dog. People might assume it was a rottweiler giving chase, when in fact the basking shark is the equivalent of a poodle. “Hopefully what people take away from this is moving from a fear and misunderstanding of sharks to respect and admiration,” Edgley said. “That’ll make the RAF fighter pilot plane worth it.”
And he’s game to take on even more shark challenges in the future. There are a lot more shark species out there, after all, just waiting to go head-to-head with a human ultra-athlete.
Shark vs. Ross Edgley premieres on Sunday, June 30, 2024, on Disney+.
Enlarge/ This aerial picture taken on December 8, 2023, shows the US-Mexico border wall in Sasabe, Arizona.
In a vast stretch of the Sonoran Desert, between the towns of San Luis Río Colorado and Sonoyta in northern Mexico, sits a modest building of cement, galvanized sheet metal, and wood—the only stop along 125 miles of inhospitable landscape dominated by thorny ocotillo shrubs and towering saguaro cactuses up to 50 feet high. It’s a fonda—a small restaurant—called La Liebre del Desierto (The Desert Hare), and for more than 20 years, owner Elsa Ortiz Ramos has welcomed and nourished weary travelers taking a break from the adjacent highway that runs through the arid Pinacate and Grand Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve.
But the dedication and care of this petite woman go beyond her simple menu. Every two weeks, she pays out of pocket for a 5,000-gallon tank of water to distribute to a network of water troughs strategically placed in the area. By doing so, she relieves the thirst of bighorn sheep, ocelots, pronghorn, coyotes, deer, and even bats that have been deprived of access to their natural water sources.
“The crows come to the house and scream to warn us that there is no more water … it’s our alarm,” says Ortiz Ramos in her distinct northern Mexico accent. Her words sound straight from an Aesop’s fable, but they take on stark realism in this spot. Covering large parts of Arizona, California, and the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora, the Sonoran Desert—along with the Lut Desert in Iran—was cataloged in 2023 as having the hottest surface temperature on the planet, at 80.8° Celsius (177° Fahrenheit).
Through narrow steel bollards 3.5 inches apart, I observe lush vegetation surrounding the Quitobaquito spring on the other side of the border. “This vital source supplies both humans and animals over an area of more than 1 million hectares,” Federico Godínez Leal, an agronomist from the University of Guadalajara, explains to me. But now this crucial water source is restricted to the US side due to the construction of the border wall, and I have come with him here to understand the consequences. Godínez Leal and his team have been documenting the stark difference between each side: Their poignant photographs show skeletons of wild boar, deer, and bighorn sheep lying on Mexican soil.
Between 2017 and 2021, the US government installed more than 450 miles of border barriers—steel structures between 18 and 29 feet high, spaced less than 4 inches apart—in the western end of the more than 1,900 miles of border between Mexico and the United States, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Of these 450 miles, 81 percent were replacements of existing vehicular or pedestrian barriers—but which, due to their design, allowed some passage of animals across the border. The rest were new barriers.
Before its construction, scientists on both sides of the border had warned about the impact that the wall could have on the animals of the area, and they are now working to understand the consequences. In turn, villagers in some spots on the Mexican side of the border have organized to try to alleviate the thirst of many animals that have been left without access to water.
Enlarge/ An artist’s conception of one of the last mammoths of Wrangel Island.
Beth Zaiken
A small group of woolly mammoths became trapped on Wrangel Island around 10,000 years ago when rising sea levels separated the island from mainland Siberia. Small, isolated populations of animals lead to inbreeding and genetic defects, and it has long been thought that the Wrangel Island mammoths ultimately succumbed to this problem about 4,000 years ago.
A paper in Cell on Thursday, however, compared 50,000 years of genomes from mainland and isolated Wrangel Island mammoths and found that this was not the case. What the authors of the paper discovered not only challenges our understanding of this isolated group of mammoths and the evolution of small populations, it also has important implications for conservation efforts today.
A severe bottleneck
It’s the culmination of years of genetic sequencing by members of the international team behind this new paper. They studied 21 mammoth genomes—13 of which were newly sequenced by lead author Marianne Dehasque; others had been sequenced years prior by co-authors Patrícia Pečnerová, Foteini Kanellidou, and Héloïse Muller. The genomes were obtained from Siberian woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), both from the mainland and the island before and after it became isolated. The oldest genome was from a female Siberian mammoth who died about 52,300 years ago. The youngest were from Wrangel Island male mammoths who perished right around the time the last of these mammoths died out (one of them died just 4,333 years ago).
Enlarge/ Wrangel Island, north of Siberia has an extensive tundra.
Love Dalén
It’s a remarkable and revealing time span: The sample included mammoths from a population that started out large and genetically healthy, went through isolation, and eventually went extinct.
Mammoths, the team noted in their paper, experienced a “climatically turbulent period,” particularly during an episode of rapid warming called the Bølling-Allerød interstadial (approximately 14,700 to 12,900 years ago)—a time that others have suggested might have led to local woolly mammoth extinctions. However, the genomes of mammoths studied through this time period don’t indicate that the warming had any adverse effects.
Adverse effects only appeared—and drastically so—once the population was isolated on that island.
The team’s simulations indicate that, at its smallest, the total population of Wrangel Island mammoths was fewer than 10 individuals. This represents a severe population bottleneck. This was seen genetically through increased runs of homozygosity within the genome, caused when both parents contribute nearly identical chromosomes, both derived from a recent ancestor. The runs of homozygosity within isolated Wrangel Island mammoths were four times as great as those before sea levels rose.
Despite that dangerously tiny number of mammoths, they recovered. The population size, as well as inbreeding level and genetic diversity, remained stable for the next 6,000 years until their extinction. Unlike the initial population bottleneck, genomic signatures over time seem to indicate inbreeding eventually shifted to pairings of more distant relatives, suggesting either a larger mammoth population or a change in behavior.
Within 20 generations, their simulations indicate, the population size would have increased to about 200–300 mammoths. This is consistent with the slower decrease in heterozygosity that they found in the genome.
Long-lasting negative effects
The Wrangel Island mammoths may have survived despite the odds, and harmful genetic defects may not have been the reason for their extinction, but the research suggests their story is complicated.
At about 7,608 square kilometers today, a bit larger than the island of Crete, Wrangel Island would have offered a fair amount of space and resources, although these were large animals. For 6,000 years following their isolation, for example, they suffered from inbreeding depression, which refers to increased mortality as a result of inbreeding and its resulting defects.
That inbreeding also boosted the purging of harmful mutations. That may sound like a good thing—and it can be—but it typically occurs because individuals carrying two copies of harmful mutations die or fail to reproduce. So it’s good only if the population survives it.
The team’s results show that purging genetic mutations can be a lengthy evolutionary process. Lead author Marianne Dehasque is a paleogeneticist who completed her PhD at the Centre for Palaeogenetics. She explained to Ars that, “Purging harmful mutations for over 6,000 years basically indicates long-lasting negative effects caused by these extremely harmful mutations. Since purging in the Wrangel Island population went on for such a long time, it indicates that the population was experiencing negative effects from these mutations up until its extinction.”
Enlarge/ A European ATV cargo freighter reenters the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean in 2013.
Since the beginning of the year, landowners have discovered several pieces of space junk traced to missions supporting the International Space Station. On all of these occasions, engineers expected none of the disposable hardware would survive the scorching heat of reentry and make it to Earth’s surface.
These incidents highlight an urgency for more research into what happens when a spacecraft makes an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere, according to engineers from the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research center based in El Segundo, California. More stuff is getting launched into space than ever before, and the trend will continue as companies deploy more satellite constellations and field heavier rockets.
“The biggest immediate need now is just to do some more work to really understand this whole process and to be in a position to be ready to accommodate new materials, new operational approaches as they happen more quickly,” said Marlon Sorge, executive director of Aerospace’s Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies. “Clearly, that’s the direction that spaceflight is going.”
Ideally, a satellite or rocket body at the end of its life could be guided to a controlled reentry into the atmosphere over a remote part of the ocean. But this is often cost-prohibitive because it would require carrying extra fuel for the de-orbit maneuvers, and in many cases, a spacecraft doesn’t have any rocket thrusters at all.
In March, a fragment from a battery pack jettisoned from the space station punched a hole in the roof of a Florida home, a rare instance of terrestrial property damage attributed to a piece of space junk. In May, a 90-pound chunk of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft that departed the International Space Station fell on the property of a “glamping” resort in North Carolina. At the same time, a homeowner in a nearby town found a smaller piece of material that also appeared to be from the same Dragon mission.
These events followed the discovery in April of another nearly 90-pound piece of debris from a Dragon capsule on a farm in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. NASA and SpaceX later determined the debris fell from orbit in February, and earlier this month, SpaceX employees came to the farm to retrieve the wreckage, according to CBC.
Pieces of a Dragon spacecraft also fell over Colorado last year, and a farmer in Australia found debris from a Dragon capsule on his land in 2022.
Enlarge/ Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft is seen docked at the International Space Station on June 13.
NASA and Boeing officials pushed back Friday on headlines that the commercial Starliner crew capsule is stranded at the International Space Station but said they need more time to analyze data before formally clearing the spacecraft for undocking and reentry.
Two NASA astronauts, commander Butch Wilmore and pilot Suni Williams, will spend at least a few more weeks on the space station as engineers on the ground conduct thruster tests to better understand issues with the Starliner propulsion system in orbit. Wilmore and Williams launched June 5 aboard an Atlas V rocket and docked at the station the next day, completing the first segment of Starliner’s first test flight with astronauts.
NASA managers originally planned for the Starliner spacecraft to remain docked at the space station for at least eight days, although they left open the possibility of a mission extension. The test flight is now likely to last at least a month and a half, and perhaps longer, as engineers wrestle with helium leaks and thruster glitches on Starliner’s service module.
Batteries on this Starliner spacecraft were initially only certified for a 45-day mission duration, but NASA officials said they are looking at extending the limit after confirming the batteries are functioning well.
“We have the luxury of time,” said Ken Bowersox, associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate. “We’re still in the middle of a test mission. We’re still pressing forward.”
Previously, NASA and Boeing officials delayed Starliner’s reentry and landing from mid-June, then from June 26, and now they have bypassed a potential landing opportunity in early July. Last week, NASA said in a statement that the agency’s top leadership will meet to formally review the readiness of Starliner for reentry, something that wasn’t part of the original plan.
“We’re not stuck on ISS”
Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s commercial crew program, said Friday that he wanted to clear up “misunderstandings” that led to headlines claiming the Starliner spacecraft was stuck or stranded at the space station.
“I want to make it very clear that Butch and Suni are not stranded in space,” Stich said. “Our plan is to continue to return them on Starliner and return them home at the right time. We have a little bit more work to do to get there for the final return, but they’re safe on (the) space station.”
With Starliner docked, the space station currently hosts three different crew spacecraft, including SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Russia’s Soyuz. There are no serious plans under consideration to bring Wilmore and Williams home on a different spacecraft.
“Obviously, we have the luxury of having multiple vehicles, and we work contingency plans for lots of different cases, but right now, we’re really focused on returning Butch and Suni on Starliner,” Stich said.
“We’re not stuck on the ISS,” said Mark Nappi, Boeing’s vice president in charge of the Starliner program. “It’s pretty painful to read the things that are out there. We’ve gotten a really good test flight that’s been accomplished so far, and it’s being viewed rather negatively.”
Stich said NASA officials should have “more frequent interaction” with reporters to fill in gaps of information on the Starliner test flight. NASA’s written updates are not always timely, and often lack details and context.
NASA officials have cleared the Starliner spacecraft for an emergency return to Earth if astronauts need to evacuate the space station for safety or medical reasons. But NASA hasn’t yet approved Starliner for reentry and landing under “nominal” conditions.
“When it is a contingency situation, we’re ready to put the crew on the spacecraft and bring them home as a lifeboat,” Bowersox said. “For the nominal entry, we want to look at the data more before we make the final call to put the crew aboard the vehicle, and it’s a serious enough call that we’ll bring the senior management team together (for approval).”
After weeks of reports of severe illnesses across the country, the maker of Diamond Shruumz microdosing chocolates, gummies, and candy cones has finally issued a recall. It covers all lots and all flavors of all the brand’s products.
The illnesses have been marked by several severe symptoms, which notably include seizures, loss of consciousness, and the need for intubation and intensive care. To date, there have been 39 people sickened, including 23 hospitalizations across 20 states, according to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The FDA first issued a warning on the brand’s chocolate bars on June 7, when there were reports of eight cases, including six hospitalizations, in four states.
Diamond Shruumz’s parent company, Prophet Premium Blends, said in the recall notice that it had received only two complaints about the products to date and, upon receiving those complaints, reviewed recent laboratory analyses (Certificates of Analysis) of its products. According to the company, those CoAs noted “higher than normal amounts of muscimol,” which is one of two key compounds found in hallucinogenic Amanita mushrooms. Muscimol “could be a potential cause of symptoms consistent with those observed in persons who became ill after eating Diamond Shruumz products,” the company said in the recall notice.
In a statement posted on Diamond Shruumz’s website, Prophet Premium Blends announced the recall and added that it has also ceased production and distribution of all of the brand’s products.
“Due to consumers becoming ill after consuming the entire chocolate bar and some products containing higher levels of Muscimol than normal, it is crucial that all of our consumers refrain from ingesting this product while we, alongside the FDA, continue our investigation as to what is the cause of the serious adverse effects,” Prophet Premium Blends wrote on its website.
Diamond Shruumz has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Ars. Prophet Premium Blends did not respond to a request for comment and a list of questions.
What’s normal?
It’s unclear what amounts of muscimol were found in the company’s products and which products were affected. While the company reported only “higher than normal” amounts, it’s also unclear what the “normal” amount is. Diamond Shruumz posts third-party lab reports on its website, most of which indicate that the products are tested for muscimol. For instance, the reports show muscimol testing for all flavors of Cones and Extreme Gummies. For the brand’s chocolate bars, which the FDA first linked to the illnesses, all the bars except for the dark chocolate flavor showed muscimol results. For the gummies, only the report for the Hawaiian Punch flavor shows muscimol results. Of all the reports that include results for muscimol, all indicate that the amounts are lower than the limit of quantitation, which suggests that they are not supposed to contain any amount of muscimol. All of the reports reviewed by Ars were dated at various times throughout 2023.
Muscimol, along with related ibotenic acid, are both key psychoactive components of some Amanita mushrooms. That includes the hallucinogenic toadstool mushroom A. muscaria var. muscaria, which is notable for its unique bright red-orange caps with white warts. Both muscimol and ibotenic acid resemble neurotransmitters, namely GABA and glutamate, respectively. Muscimol is associated with depression of the central nervous system, while Ibotenic acid is associated with excitation of the central nervous system.
Fuzzy findings
According to the recall notice, it’s possible that the muscimol could cause some of the symptoms in people sickened, which included seizures, agitation, involuntary muscle contractions, loss of consciousness, confusion, sleepiness, nausea and vomiting, abnormal heart rates, and hyper/hypotension. The FDA said in its own update that it was “evaluating this information.”
The totality of the ingredients in Diamond Shruumz’s products remains unclear. The company does not list the ingredients on its website, selling the products only with terms indicating they contain psychedelic compounds and the vague, buzzword-loaded description of having a “primo proprietary blend of nootropic and functional mushrooms.”
The CDC warns that such “edibles” are often sold as candies and snack food and might contain undisclosed ingredients, including illicit substances, adulterants, or potentially harmful contaminants. Common marketing terms to look out for include “microdosing,” “adaptogens,” “nootropics,” and “functional mushrooms,” the CDC warns.
Consumers should not eat, sell, or serve any Diamond Shruumz product. For those who have already purchased the products, they can be returned for a full refund to 1019 Arlington St., Orlando, Florida, 32805, according to Diamond Shruumz’s website.
Enlarge/ Stephen Ubl, president and chief executive officer of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), speaks during a Bloomberg Live discussion in Washington, DC, in 2017.
After a series of decisive court losses, the pharmaceutical industry appears to be taking its fight against Medicare drug price negotiations directly to the people—and the White House is not impressed.
This week, the high-powered industry group PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) released two eye-catching attacks on federal efforts to lower America’s singularly astronomical drug prices. In a press release Tuesday, PhRMA announced an analysis suggesting that the Medicare drug price negotiations—part of the Biden administration’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act—could actually cost some seniors and people with disabilities slightly more in out-of-pocket costs. The analysis, however, relies on a key—and questionable—assumption that the federal government will set price limits using the highest possible estimate for maximum fair prices in 2026.
Milliman, the consulting firm PhRMA commissioned to do the study, cautioned that the actual prices “will certainly vary due to differences in unit cost and utilization trend, 2026 benefit designs, and actual 2026 maximum fair prices.”
On Wednesday, PhRMA then announced an “educational campaign” on how the US intellectual property system “is actually the vehicle for lower [drug] costs.” The bold claim is likely jarring to the many critics of the pharmaceutical industry, who for years have noted how drug companies exploit double patenting or “patent thickets” to extend monopolies on drugs and hold off low-cost generics from entering the market.
“They’ll lose”
For instance, staunch drug pricing critic Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has railed against patent thickets in congressional reports, noting that companies often file dozens of patents for a single drug. Merck, for instance, has 168 patents on its cancer drug Keytruda, most of which were filed after the drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Johnson & Johnson, meanwhile, filed 57 patents on arthritis treatment Stelara, 79 percent of which were filed after FDA approval.
Merck and Johnson & Johnson are both members of PhRMA, along with many other big-name drug companies, including Pfizer, Bayer, GSK, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
A 2022 study in Nature Biotechnology found that of 179 patents covering nine biologic drugs that were the focus of patent infringement lawsuits, 94 percent of the patents covered minor or peripheral aspects of a drug, such as manufacturing techniques. Only 11 of the 179 patents, 6 percent, were related to the actual active ingredient in a drug. However, these tangles of secondary patents effectively allowed drug companies to extend market exclusivity well beyond the 12-year period provided by federal laws.
In an attempt to uproot some of those thickets, the US Patent and Trademark Office proposed a rule last month that would affect certain add-on patents, called terminal disclaimers. Under the proposed rule, if a drug company puts a terminal disclaimer on several patents, and one of those patents gets invalidated for any reason, the drug company would agree not to enforce any of the other patents linked by the terminal disclaimer.
On Wednesday, the Biden administration hit back at PhRMA’s attacks on drug pricing reforms. In a statement that provided links to PhRMA’s efforts this week, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates called Big Pharma’s pricing on drugs “corporate rip-offs.” He noted that the pharmaceutical industry spent an “unprecedented $372 million lobbying against” drug pricing reforms but lost the fight against the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
“Now that President Biden is delivering real savings for the families who have been overcharged by Big Pharma for medicines they desperately need, they’re continuing to fight tooth and nail against the financial interests of American seniors,” Bates said. “They’ll lose this fight, too.”
Enlarge/ The flight hardware core stage for Europe’s new rocket, Ariane 6, is moved onto the launch pad for the first time. A launch is due to occur on July 9, 2024.
ESA-M. Pédoussaut
In a shocking announcement this week, the European intergovernmental organization responsible for launching and operating the continent’s weather satellites has pulled its next mission off a future launch of Europe’s new Ariane 6 rocket. Instead, the valuable MTG-S1 satellite will now reach geostationary orbit on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket in 2025.
“This decision was driven by exceptional circumstances” said Phil Evans, director general of the organization Eumetsat. “It does not compromise our standard policy of supporting European partners, and we look forward to a successful SpaceX launch for this masterpiece of European technology.”
The decision, taken at a council meeting of Eumetsat’s 30 member nations on Wednesday and Thursday, comes less than two weeks before the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket, scheduled for July 9.
Stabbed in the back
Outwardly, at least, this decision reflects a lack of confidence in the reliability of the Ariane 6 rocket, the ability of European companies ArianeGroup and Arianespace to produce future versions of the Ariane 6, or both. It comes not just on the eve of the long-awaited debut of the Ariane 6, but also at a time when European officials are trying to close ranks and ensure that satellites built in Europe get launched on European rockets.
The retirement of the Ariane 5 rocket last July, and years of delays in the readiness for the Ariane 6 rocket, have led to a painful period in which European officials have had to come hat-in-hand to their longtime competitor and nemesis in the rocket industry, SpaceX, for launch services. As a result some of Europe’s most valuable missions, including the Euclid space telescope and several Galileo satellites, have already launched on the Falcon 9.
This has been embarrassing enough for European launch officials, who effectively created the concept of “commercial” space launch with the first Ariane rockets decades ago. For a long time, they, alongside Russia, were the kings of launching other people’s satellites. But now, on the eve of restoring European access to space, Eumetsat has effectively stabbed this industry in the back.
That is not too strong of language, either. In its release, Eumetsat described its new Meteosat Third Generation-Sounder 1 satellite as a “unique masterpiece of European technology.” The organization added, “This first European sounding satellite in a geostationary orbit will bring a revolution for weather forecasting and climate monitoring in Europe and Africa, and make it possible, for the first time, to observe the full lifecycle of a convective storm from space.” Critically, Eutmetsat was not willing to entrust this spacecraft to Europe’s new flagship rocket.
Philippe Baptiste, the chairman and chief executive of the French space agency CNES, certainly felt the sting, calling the decision a “brutal change” and saying it was a “disappointing day” for European space efforts.
“I am impatiently waiting to understand what reasons could have led Eumetsat to such a decision, at a time where all major European space countries as well as the European Commission are calling for launching European satellites on European launchers!” Baptiste wrote on LinkedIn. “Not mentioning the fact that we are 10 days away from the maiden flight of Ariane 6. How far will we, Europeans, go in our naivety?”
Why did they do this?
It is difficult to fully understand the motivations of Eumetsat in this decision. Most probably, there were some timing and reliability concerns. The MTG-S1 satellite was due to launch on the third flight of the Ariane 6 rocket, a mission nominally scheduled for early 2025. On this timeline the satellite very likely would have gotten to space more quickly than it otherwise would now on a Falcon 9.
However, because this 4-ton satellite is going to geostationary orbit, it would have been the first mission to require the use of a more powerful version of the Ariane 6 rocket. Instead of using two solid-rocket boosters, this “64” version of the rocket uses four solid-rocket boosters. It seems likely that Eumetsat officials had concerns that the timeline for this launch would drag out and perhaps some mission assurance concerns about being the first launch of an Ariane 64 rocket.
Whatever their reasons, the European satellite officials have thrown a massive turd into the punchbowl at festivities for the debut of the Ariane 6 rocket.
One of the most striking things about the explosion of renewable power that’s happening in the US is that much of it is going on in states governed by politicians who don’t believe in the problem wind and solar are meant to address. Acceptance of the evidence for climate change tends to be lowest among Republicans, yet many of the states where renewable power has boomed—wind in Wyoming and Iowa, solar in Texas—are governed by Republicans.
That’s partly because, up until about 2020, there was a strong bipartisan consensus in favor of expanding wind and solar power, with support above 75 percent among both parties. Since then, however, support among Republicans has dropped dramatically, approaching 50 percent, according to polling data released this week.
Renewables enjoyed solid Republican support until recently.
To a certain extent, none of this should be surprising. The current leader of the Republican Party has been saying that wind turbines cause cancer and offshore wind is killing whales. And conservative-backed groups have been spreading misinformation in order to drum up opposition to solar power facilities.
Meanwhile, since 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act has been promoted as one of the Biden administration’s signature accomplishments and has driven significant investments in renewable power, much of it in red states. Negative partisanship is undoubtedly contributing to this drop in support.
One striking thing about the new polling data, gathered by the Pew Research Center, is how dramatically it skews with age. When given a choice between expanding fossil fuel production or expanding renewable power, Republicans under the age of 30 favored renewables by a 2-to-1 margin. Republicans over 30, in contrast, favored fossil fuels by margins that increased with age, topping out at a three-to-one margin in favor of fossil fuels among those in the 65-and-over age group. The decline in support occurred in those over 50 starting in 2020; support held steady among younger groups until 2024, when the 30–49 age group started moving in favor of fossil fuels.
Among younger Republicans, support for renewable energy remains high.
Democrats, by contrast, break in favor of renewables by 75 points, with little difference across age groups and no indication of significant change over time. They’re also twice as likely to think a solar farm will help the local economy than Republicans are.
Similar differences were apparent when Pew asked about policies meant to encourage the sale of electric vehicles, with 83 percent of Republicans opposed to having half of cars sold be electric in 2032. By contrast, nearly two-thirds of Democrats favored this policy.
There’s also a rural/urban divide apparent (consistent with Republicans getting more support from rural voters). Forty percent of urban residents felt that a solar farm would improve the local economy; only 25 percent of rural residents agreed. Rural residents were also more likely to say solar farms made the landscape unattractive and take up too much space. (Suburban participants were consistently in between rural and urban participants.)
What’s behind these changes? The single biggest factor appears to be negative partisanship combined with the election of Joe Biden.
For Republicans, 2020 represented an inflection point in terms of support for different types of energy. That wasn’t true for Democrats.
Among Republicans, support for every single form of power started to change in 2020—fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear. Among Democrats, that’s largely untrue. Their high level of support for renewable power and aversion to fossil fuels remained largely unchanged. The lone exception is nuclear power, where support rose among both Democrats and Republicans (the Biden administration has adopted a number of pro-nuclear policies).
This isn’t to say that non-political factors are playing no role. The rapid expansion of renewable power means that many more people are seeing facilities open near them, and viewing that as an indication of a changing society. Some degree of backlash was almost inevitable and, in this case, the close ties between conservative lobbyists and fossil fuel interests were ready to take advantage of it.
In what may be the biological equivalent to getting struck by lightning, a very unlucky man in the Philadelphia area took a very rare bee sting directly to the eyeball—and things went badly from there.
As one might expect, the 55-year-old went to the emergency department, where doctors tried to extract the injurious insect’s stinger from the man’s right eye. But it soon became apparent that they didn’t get it all.
Two days after the bee attack, the man went to the Wills Eye Hospital with worsening vision and pain in the pierced eye. At that point, the vision in his right eye had deteriorated to only being able to count fingers. The eye was swollen, inflamed, and bloodshot. Blood was visibly pooling at the bottom of his iris. And right at the border between the man’s cornea and the white of his eye, ophthalmologists spotted the problem: a teeny spear-like fragment of the bee’s stinger still stuck in place.
(Images of the eye and stinger fragment are here for those who aren’t squeamish. The white arrow in Panel A shows the location of the stinger fragment while the asterisk marks the pooled blood.)
Get thee to an ophthalmologist
In a report published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, treating ophthalmology experts Talia Shoshany and Zeba Syed made a critical recommendation: If you happen to be among the ill-fated few who are stung in the eye by a bee, you should make sure to see an eye doctor specifically.
“I am not surprised that the ER missed a small fragment,” Shoshany told Ars over email. “They pulled out the majority of the stinger, but the small fragment was only able to be visualized at a slit lamp,” she said, referring to a microscope with a bright light used in eye exams. In this case, they visualized the stinger at 10X or 16X magnification with the additional help of a fluorescent dye. Moreover, after spotting it, the stinger fragment “needed to be pulled out with ophthalmic-specific micro-forceps.”
After finally getting the entirety of the wee dagger out, Shoshany and Syed prescribed a topical antibacterial and prednisolone eye drops (a steroid for inflammation). At a five-month follow-up, the patient had recovered and the vision in his right eye had improved to 20/25.
For those now in fear of eye stings, Soshany has some comforting words: “Ocular bee stings are very rare.” She noted this was the first one she had seen in her career. Although there are documented cases in the scientific literature, the incidence rate is unknown. The odds of getting struck by lightning, meanwhile, are 1 in 15,300, according to the National Weather Service.
But one troubling aspect of this case is that it’s unclear why the man was stung to begin with. According to Shoshany, the man worked on a property with a beehive, but he didn’t work with the insects himself. “He reports he was just walking by and several bees flew up to him; one stung him in the eye,” she said. It’s unclear what provoked them.
Enlarge/ A movable robotic face covered with living human skin cells.
In a new study, researchers from the University of Tokyo, Harvard University, and the International Research Center for Neurointelligence have unveiled a technique for creating lifelike robotic skin using living human cells. As a proof of concept, the team engineered a small robotic face capable of smiling, covered entirely with a layer of pink living tissue.
The researchers note that using living skin tissue as a robot covering has benefits, as it’s flexible enough to convey emotions and can potentially repair itself. “As the role of robots continues to evolve, the materials used to cover social robots need to exhibit lifelike functions, such as self-healing,” wrote the researchers in the study.
The study describes a novel method for attaching cultured skin to robotic surfaces using “perforation-type anchors” inspired by natural skin ligaments. These tiny v-shaped cavities in the robot’s structure allow living tissue to infiltrate and create a secure bond, mimicking how human skin attaches to underlying tissues.
To demonstrate the skin’s capabilities, the team engineered a palm-sized robotic face able to form a convincing smile. Actuators connected to the base allowed the face to move, with the living skin flexing. The researchers also covered a static 3D-printed head shape with the engineered skin.
Enlarge/ “Demonstration of the perforation-type anchors to cover the facial device with skin equivalent.”
Takeuchi et al. created their robotic face by first 3D-printing a resin base embedded with the perforation-type anchors. They then applied a mixture of human skin cells in a collagen scaffold, allowing the living tissue to grow into the anchors.
— 
