NASA’s Psyche mission to a metal world may reveal the mysteries of Earth’s interior

Jim Bell, Arizona State University

French novelist Jules Verne delighted 19th-century readers with the tantalizing notion that a journey to the center of the Earth was actually plausible.

Since then, scientists have long acknowledged that Verne’s literary journey was only science fiction. The extreme temperatures of the Earth’s interior – around 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit (5,537 Celsius) at the core – and the accompanying crushing pressure, which is millions of times more than at the surface, prevent people from venturing down very far.

Still, there are a few things known about the Earth’s interior. For example, geophysicists discovered that the core consists of a solid sphere of iron and nickel that comprises 20% of the Earth’s radius, surrounded by a shell of molten iron and nickel that spans an additional 15% of Earth’s radius.

That, and the rest of our knowledge about our world’s interior, was learned indirectly – either by studying Earth’s magnetic field or the way earthquake waves bounce off different layers below the Earth’s surface.

But indirect discovery has its limitations. How can scientists find out more about our planet’s deep interior?

Planetary scientists like me think the best way to learn about inner Earth is in outer space. NASA’s robotic mission to a metal world is scheduled for liftoff on Oct. 5, 2023. That mission, the spacecraft traveling there, and the world it will explore all have the same name – Psyche. And for six years now, I’ve been part of NASA’s Psyche team. https://www.youtube.com/embed/y__vwRQ3PVg?wmode=transparent&start=0 It’s a mission of ‘firsts.’

About the asteroid Psyche

Asteroids are small worlds, with some the size of small cities and others as large as small countries. They are the leftover building blocks from our solar system’s early and violent period, a time of planetary formation.

Although most are rocky, icy or a combination of both, perhaps 20% of asteroids are worlds made of metal, and similar in composition to the Earth’s core. So it’s tempting to imagine that these metallic asteroids are pieces of the cores of once-existing planets, ripped apart by ancient cosmic collisions with each other. Maybe, by studying these pieces, scientists could find out directly what a planetary core is like.

Psyche is the largest-known of the metallic asteroids. Discovered in 1852, Psyche has the width of Massachusetts, a squashed spherical shape reminiscent of a pincushion, and an orbit between Mars and Jupiter in the main asteroid belt. An amateur astronomer can see Psyche with a backyard telescope, but it appears only as a pinpoint of light. https://www.youtube.com/embed/TgVorJfM8BM?wmode=transparent&start=0 An artist’s rendition of Psyche, a spectacular metallic world.

About the Psyche mission

In early 2017, NASA approved the US$1 billion mission to Psyche. To do its work, there’s no need for the uncrewed spacecraft to land – instead, it will orbit the asteroid repeatedly and methodically, starting from 435 miles (700 kilometers) out and then going down to 46 miles (75 km) from the surface, and perhaps even lower.

Once it arrives in August 2029, the probe will spend 26 months mapping the asteroid’s geology, topography and gravity; it will search for evidence of a magnetic field; and it will compare the asteroid’s composition with what scientists know, or think we know, about Earth’s core.

The central questions are these: Is Psyche really an exposed planetary core? Is the asteroid one big bedrock boulder, a rubble pile of smaller boulders, or something else entirely? Are there clues that the previous outer layers of this small world – the crust and mantle – were violently stripped away long ago? And maybe the most critical question: Can what we learn about Psyche be extrapolated to solve some of the mysteries about the Earth’s core?

About the spacecraft Psyche

The probe’s body is about the same size and mass as a large SUV. Solar panels, stretching a bit wider than a tennis court, power the cameras, spectrometers and other systems.

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will take Psyche off the Earth. The rest of the way, Psyche will rely on ion propulsion – the gentle pressure of ionized xenon gas jetting out of a nozzle provides a continuous, reliable and low-cost way to propel spacecraft out into the solar system.

The journey, a slow spiral of 2.5 billion miles (4 billion km) that includes a gravity-assist flyby past Mars, will take nearly six years. Throughout the cruise, the Psyche team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and here at Arizona State University in Tempe, will stay in regular contact with the spacecraft. Our team will send and receive data using NASA’s Deep Space Network of giant radio antennas.

Even if we learn that Psyche is not an ancient planetary core, we’re bound to significantly add to our body of knowledge about the solar system and the way planets form. After all, Psyche is still unlike any world humans have ever visited. Maybe we can’t yet journey to the center of the Earth, but robotic avatars to places like Psyche can help unlock the mysteries hidden deep inside the planets – including our own.

Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

To steal today’s computerized cars, thieves go high-tech

Doug Jacobson, Iowa State University

These days, cars are computer centers on wheels. Today’s vehicles can contain over 100 computers and millions of lines of software code. These computers are all networked together and can operate all aspects of your vehicle.

It’s not surprising, then, that car theft has also become high-tech.

The ones and zeros of getting from A to B

The computers in a vehicle can be divided into four categories. Many computers are dedicated to operating the vehicle’s drive train, including controlling the fuel, battery or both, monitoring emissions and operating cruise control.

The second category is dedicated to providing safety. These computers collect data from the vehicle and the outside environment and provide functions like lane correction, automatic braking and backup monitoring.

The third category is infotainment systems that provide music and video and can interface with your personal devices through Bluetooth wireless communications. Many vehicles can also connect to cellular services and provide Wi-Fi connectivity. The final category is the navigation system, including the car’s GPS system.

Computers in one category often need to communicate with computers in another category. For example, the safety system must be able to control the drive train and the infotainment systems.

One difference between the network in your car and a typical computer network is that all devices in the car trust each other. Therefore, if an attacker can access one computer, they can easily access other computers in the car.

As with any new technology, some aspects of today’s cars make it harder for thieves, and some make it easier. There are several methods of stealing a car that are enabled by today’s technology.

Hijacking wireless keys

One of the high-tech features is the use of keyless entry and remote start. Keyless entry has become common on many vehicles and is very convenient. The fob you have is paired to your car using a code that both your car and fob know, which prevents you from starting other cars. The difference between keyless entry and the remotes that unlock your car is that keyless entry fobs are always transmitting, so when you get near your car and touch the door, it will unlock. You had to press a button for old fobs to unlock the car door and then use your key to start the car.

The first keyless fobs transmitted a digital code to the car, and it would unlock. Thieves quickly realized they could eavesdrop on the radio signal and make a recording. They could then “replay” the recording and unlock the car. To help with security, the newest fobs use a one-time code to open the door. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rx5mjOEixMY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Thieves can hijack your car’s wireless key fob even when it’s in your home.

One method of stealing cars involves using two devices to build an electronic bridge between your fob and your car. One person goes near the car and uses a device to trick the car into sending a digital code used to verify the owner’s fob. The thief’s device sends that signal to an accomplice standing near the owner’s home, which transmits a copy of the car’s signal. When the owner’s fob replies, the device near the house sends the fob signal to the device near the car, and the car opens. The thieves can then drive off, but once they turn the car off they cannot restart it. Carmakers are looking to fix this by ensuring the fob is in the car for it to be driven.

Hacking the network

The network used by all computers in a car to communicate is called a controller area network bus. It’s designed to allow the computers in a car to send commands and information to each other. The CAN bus was not designed for security, because all of the devices are assumed to be self-contained. But that presumption leaves the CAN bus vulnerable to hackers.

Car thieves often try to hack into the CAN bus and from there the computers that control the car’s engine. The engine control unit stores a copy of the wireless key code, and thieves can clone this to a blank key fob to use to start the victim’s car. One method is accessing a car’s onboard diagnostics through a physical port or wireless connection meant for repair technicians. Thieves who access the onboard diagnostics gain access to the CAN bus.

Another network hacking method is breaking through a headlight to reach the CAN bus via a direct wiring connection.

Throwback attack

Modern thieves also try the USB hack, which exploits a design flaw in Hyundai and Kia vehicles. This is more of an old-style hot-wiring of a car than a high-tech computer issue. It is named the USB hack because when thieves break into a car, they look for a slot in the steering column. It turns out that a USB connector fits into the slot, and this allows you to turn on the ignition.

So all someone has to do is break the window, insert a USB connector and start the car. This technique has become infamous thanks to a loose affiliation of young car thieves in Milwaukee dubbed the Kia Boyz who have gained notoriety on TikTok.

Hyundai and Kia have issued an update that closes the vulnerability by requiring the fob to be in the car before you can start it.

Limiting your car’s vulnerability

Given there are so many different car models, and their complexity is increasing, there are likely to continue to be new and creative ways for thieves to steal cars.

So what can you do? Some things are the same as always: Keep your vehicle locked, and don’t leave your key fob in it. What is new is keeping your vehicle’s software up to date, just as you do with your phone and computer.

Doug Jacobson, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Windbreaks have been around for well over 500 years, and they are a pretty simple technology. A wind break reduces the wind speed over a certain area, protecting crops/structures/livestock from wind. Windbreaks can be designed to shelter areas from winter or summer winds.

Design matters. A well designed wind break will reduce wind speeds around areas that need protection. A badly designed windbreak can do the opposite. Badly placed gaps in windbreaks (and arguably there is no good place to put a gap in a wind break) can actually increase the wind speeds in a given area.

Windbreaks are typically several rows of plants, each row varying somewhat in height. The simplest (though far from the most effective) windbreak is a single row of trees. More layers increases density and the longevity of the windbreak.

Height and density are the most important features of a windbreak. The taller the windbreak, the greater the area it can protect. The denser, the greater the protection. A windbreak cannot have 100% density, the way a solid fence can. Trees can only grow so close together before growth is impaired. Still, even a low density (~35%) can cut wind speeds by half.

How much area can a windbreak protect? 2 to 5 times the height on the leeward side (reducing wind by varying amounts- less reduction the further from the windbreak). Windbreaks can have one or two legs and should not have gaps. In order to avoid increasing the amount of wind at the ends, the length should be at least ten times the height.

Because windbreaks reduce soil erosion and provide wildlife habitat, they are viable conservation projects for ordering from the state conservation nursery, which is a very cost effective way of acquiring trees/shrubs.

For more information on how to design an effective windbreak, check out this pdf from Montana State University Extension service. Need more information in order to select plants? This pdf from the USDA discusses various trees for conservation purposes in montana, including information about drought tolerance, leaf scorch and frost cracking. Helpfully, it will also include 20 year height and full height, which is an essential aspect of windbreak design.

I saw a headline that read “One in Three Britons Are Really Stupid.”  My thoughts were, “OK, how is that surprising?  IQ Percentile Calculator 📊  makes it real easy to quantify these numbers – and the cutoff for an IQ rarity of  33% is somewhere between 93 and 94.  When 68% of the population is in the normal range, and half the population is above average, knowing the headline was wrong was easy:  50% plus 34% (half of 68) is 84%.  Statistically and by definition, only 16% of the population is below normal – so the headline should have read “One in Six Britons Is Below Normal.”  Come to think of it, the headline writer also screwed up the grammar – the subject was One, so the verb should have been singular – is, not are.

No matter what our IQ scores are, we all have the ability to make stupid decisions, to think stupid thoughts.  Thoughts that can defy reality, and really cost us. 

That thought, and a recent chat, brings back aspects of science, of research and analysis.  Taxonomy is the science, the practice, of classification.  I’m weak at taxonomy – I tend to see things in terms of similarities.  In terms of soil taxonomy – one of my wife’s strengths – my tendency is to see how it fits in with what I need to build.  She sees a much broader, more vivid group of traits – while my view is more limited, to the aspects I can quantify.  I group insects by similarities – while Jed easily notices the small differences, the distinctions that are needed for precise identifications.

It’s not that the end results are particularly different – I’d hit the same range condition that Jack Cloninger arrived at . . . but his analysis would have an elaborate web of plants identified, while mine would have a large category of miscellaneous forbs.    A forb is any non-woody flowering plant that isn’t a grass.  A lot of the scientists I have worked around are awesome at taxonomy.  Happy Jack was much more at home with plant identification than with the hydraulics and hydrology that were my focus at that time.

Evaluating grazing condition is a task that requires plant identification – taxonomy – and estimating population numbers or percentages.  It took many years before I realized that my abilities to estimate populations made up for my weaknesses in plant identification.  I basically understood that, like the Britons, I was in the bottom third.  I’m not sure that it is easy for our teachers to recognize that we have differing strengths – I know that the taxonomists who taught me must have despaired.  As an old man, it is easier to recognize that we have different strengths, different gifts, and that our teachers are more likely to teach their strengths than ours.  My plant ID prof, in frustration, announced, “McCurry, you sort by similarities and you have to sort by differences.”  Of course, I never did become a plant ID professor.

So I don’t believe that one Brit in three is really stupid.  On one hand, that population is too large to be an accurate estimate.  On the other hand, gifts differ.  I suspect that at least half that population that the author categorized as ‘stupid’ actually have gifts, strengths, that the author didn’t recognize. 

The article that governs impeachments never seemed particularly relevant to me – probably because impeachments seem more political than legal.  Article II, section 4 specifically says:  The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III, section 3 goes on to define Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Having watched a few impeachments – Clinton and Trump – I’ve learned that ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ means precisely what the largest political party in the house of representatives wants it to mean.  In Clinton’s case, his ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ were lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.’  Back when Andrew Johnson was impeached, his ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ were violating the tenure of office act (firing Edward Stanton), pardoning of traitors, and impeding ratification of the 14th amendment. 

Trump’s ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, collusion with Russia during the 2016 election, obstruction of justice (in the investigation of the collusion claim) and associating the presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred.   His second impeachment was grounded on inciting insurrection.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a mighty broad category.

As I read about the Chinese and Ukrainian payoffs, I’m beginning to appreciate Joe Biden – none of the creative ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ malarkey for Joe.  No constitutional demand for two witnesses.  Just a simple case of bribery.  It’s a refreshing change – if the House of Representatives decides to impeach this President they can use the simple listed offense of bribery.

Impeaching the President is no small thing.  In 1998, 17 Democrat votes kept Al Gore from becoming President.  Forget the hanging chads and the electoral college in the 2000 election – there were only 17 votes between Al Gore and the presidency in 1998 . . . and it’s essentially the same situation now – if Biden is impeached for bribery (or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors) another small number of Democrat senators will make the decision of whether Joe Biden continues as President, or if the job passes to VP Kamala Harris. 

Still, a Trump-Biden rematch might convince more people that an election just isn’t right if it doesn’t have a box to mark for ‘None of the Above’.  So impeach the bastards – all of them. 

I learned of the Pig War as a little kid in Washington, studying Washington history.  Much later, I learned the significance of a US Army captain named George Pickett and a second lieutenant named Henry Martyn Robert.  Pickett is best remembered for “Pickett’s Charge” at the Gettysburg battle.  Robert’s fame is for authoring Robert’s Rules of Order.”

In 1859 these two junior officers, at the extreme northwest corner of the United States, prepared for battle with the British Empire on San Juan Island.  To maintain a neutral stance, let’s see what the Canadian Encyclopedia has to say:  The Pig War | The Canadian Encyclopedia

“The Pig War is rooted in the Oregon boundary dispute. Throughout much of the early to mid-19th century, the United States and Great Britain disagreed over the exact location of the Oregon Territory’s northern boundary. The Anglo-American agreement of 1818 allowed citizens of both countries to share the disputed territory and provided both nations access to the region’s navigable waterways.

The Oregon Treaty of 1846 partly resolved the issue, but the wording was vague. The treaty stated that the border between the two countries would extend along the 49th parallel of latitude due west until the “middle of the channel that separates the continent from Vancouver Island” and then south along the channel to the Juan de Fuca Strait and then to sea. The problem was that there were two channels, Rosario Strait and Haro Strait, but the treaty did not specify which one; the San Juan Islands lay between the two channels. The British preferred to use Rosario Strait, which would leave the San Juan Islands in their territory. The Americans preferred Haro Strait, which left the islands in their territory.

British settlement of San Juan Island began in earnest when the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) set up a salmon-curing station in 1851; this was followed by a sheep farm in 1853, the same year the Americans made their claim to San Juan Island. By 1859, between 14 and 30 American settlers had also taken up residence there. British authorities considered the Americans illegal squatters.

Pig Shooting

On 15 June 1859, a pig wandered into the vegetable patch of an American farmer named Lyman Cutler (or Cutlar). This was not the first time the pig had been in Cutler’s patch, rooting for potatoes. Cutler decided he had had enough and shot the offending swine. The pig was owned by Charles Griffin, a British employee of the HBC, who confronted Cutler. Though Cutler offered $10 in compensation, Griffin demanded more money and ultimately reported Cutler to the British authorities, who threatened to arrest him.

Mounting Tension

In response, the local American military commander sent 64 troops to the island to defend the American settlers. This led James Douglas, governor of Vancouver Island, to send British frigate HMS Tribune to the island, with instructions to dislodge the American troops. It was soon joined by other warships. Tensions increased as the Americans requested additional reinforcements from the mainland. By mid-August, American forces comprised more than 400 soldiers and eight cannon; British forces in the area included five warships and more than 1,000 men. While the Americans constructed gun fortifications, the British conducted cannon drills. A major conflict seemed inevitable.”

Our Canadian source doesn’t get into the US officers present, explaining that war was averted because Rear Admiral Baynes explained that he wouldn’t bring “two great nations to war in a squabble about a pig.”  Still, the 64 US officers and men sent to the island included Captain Pickett and Lieutenant Roberts – and the “squabble about a pig” left Roberts his own immortality with a National Park:

“East of the American Camp Visitor Center and the Parade Ground is Robert’s Redoubt. This man-made fortification was the American army’s commanding position during the height of the Pig War. This was early in Henry M. Robert’s military career. He later authored “Robert’s Rules of Order”. 

Its construction showed the British that the Americans intended to remain on San Juan Island for as long as it took to claim the archipelago. Building the redoubt was no easy feat. At least 100 men used picks and shovels to alter the landscape, which included massive boulders. Though equipped to position guns, shots were never fired against the British while the redoubt was active.

Before military occupation, the area was heavily forested with Douglas Firs. The soldiers cleared out these trees to build the redoubt, and it’s still a prairie today. In the grass, you might see eagles or foxes. 

From the redoubt you have views of the Haro Strait and Griffins Bay. On clear days you can see Mount Baker, the Olympic Mountain Range, and Mount Rainier looming in the distance. This placement was advantageous for the Americans: they would be able to see and prepare for attacks coming from the water.”

The Redoubt – San Juan Island National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) 

“The American army officer knew that the odds against him were overwhelming. The three warships set at anchor in the bay below his camp mounted a total of 61 guns and carried nearly a thousand men, including a contingent of Royal Marines. Manned by just 66 soldiers, his own recently occupied position was fortified by earthworks and protected only by a single six-pounder gun and two mountain howitzers. The orders that Captain George Edward Pickett of the U.S. Army had received from his commanding general had been clear, however, and he was determined to hold his position.

Pickett had served with valor in the Mexican War right after his graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point, and he had subsequently seen duty at several frontier posts. Now, on August 3, 1859, the man whose name would be forever linked to the most famous of all Civil War charges was the American commander on the scene as the United States and Great Britain again stood on the brink of war. The issue dividing the two countries this time was the ownership of the often fog-shrouded San Juan Islands that dot the strait between what is today the state of Washington and British Columbia’s Vancouver Island.  .  .   .

Based at Fort Vancouver, Washington Territory, General Harney sailed to San Juan Island in July 1859 aboard the USS Massachusetts. Upon his arrival, he met some of the American residents of the island and learned about Indian attacks on the settlement and the incident with the pig, as well as the American islanders’ fear and dislike of the British. Harney immediately pledged his support and suggested that they draft a petition–for which he provided the wording–requesting that he station a military force on the island.

Without consulting either civil territorial authorities or his superiors in the War Department, Harney then ordered Captain Pickett and Company D of the Ninth Infantry to proceed from Fort Bellingham on the mainland to San Juan Island and establish a post, ostensibly to protect the inhabitants from hostile Indians and “to resist all attempts at interference by the British authorities residing at Vancouver’s Island, by intimidation or force….” Although he issued the order on July 11, Harney did not send a report of his action to the War Department in Washington, D.C., until July 19; that report did not arrive there until September.

When James Douglas heard of Harney’s action, he issued orders to Captain Geoffrey Phipps Hornby of the British man-of-war Tribune, which had been dispatched from Hong Kong to the Pacific coast of North America, to land a force of Royal Marines on the island. Although the governor was fully within his rights to issue these orders, he was approached on July 29 by British naval officers who advised him against this course of action because it was contrary to Royal Navy policy in the Pacific. Douglas then dispatched a second set of orders to Hornby, countermanding his original instructions. Nonetheless, Hornby decided to invite Pickett to parlay with him aboard the Tribune on August 3. The American officer suggested that they meet in the American camp instead.

Hornby acquiesced and came ashore accompanied by Captains James Prevost and G. H. Richards, the two British boundary commissioners. The meeting, held in Pickett’s tent, was polite, but not cordial. Hornby opened by producing an extract of Secretary of State Marcy’s communication of four years earlier, and Pickett countered by citing the age of the letter.

When Hornby asked on what terms Pickett had occupied the island, the American captain declared that he had done so on orders from the general commanding the territory in order to protect the lives of American citizens. Pickett added that he believed General Harney was acting under orders of the government in Washington. But such was not the case; news of General Harney’s orders to Pickett would not even reach the capital for more than a month.  .   .   .   .

On April 10, 1860, General Harney–furious that he had not been advised about the joint-occupation agreement and that his man, Pickett, had been replaced as commander on the island–committed a final act of insubordination. In spite of the agreement reached by General Scott and the British, and in violation of Scott’s direct orders, Harney sent Company D under Captain Pickett back to San Juan Island to relieve Captain Hunt’s Fourth Infantry company.

When this news–and the flurry of protests from the British government that it caused–reached Washington, reaction was swift and coordinated. The departments of state and war being of one mind, Secretary of State Cass reported to the president that, on June 8, the adjutant general sent a dispatch to Harney, ordering him to turn over command to the officer next in rank and to “. . . repair without delay to Washington City, and report in person to the Secretaries of State and War.”

Harney avoided court-martial but received a reprimand from Secretary of War Floyd for his actions “. . . which might have been attended by disastrous consequences.” Given command of the Department of the West, he traveled to St. Louis, but after reporting difficulties with his officers, he was recalled from that post in May 1861. He held no further command and was retired in 1863.

General Harney’s departure from the Northwest mollified the British, who withdrew their objection to Captain Pickett commanding on San Juan Island. Pickett, a Virginian, left that post on June 25, 1861, and soon after, he resigned his commission and traveled to Richmond, where he was appointed a colonel in the army being formed by the Confederate States of America.

The San Juan Island’s “Pig War”: February ’01 American History Feature

General Harney had the highest point east of the Rocky Mountains named after him – until 2016, when the name was changed to Black Elk Peak.  On his trip back to the US, he became the first US general captured by southern troops – but was given back without comment.  George Pickett went on to fame at Gettysburg, and General Roberts wrote the book that is essentially our bible of parliamentary procedure.

And Griffin’s pig is still dead.