Podcasts about hubble telescope

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Hubble's new 2.5 billion pixel image reveals Andromeda in unprecedented detail.In this video, we explore our closest neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda. Created from 10 years of observations by the Hubble Telescope, the latest mosaic image unveils 200 million stars in glorious resolution. We're zooming into the details and picking apart the clues with a fine-tooth comb. From star formation to galactic collisions, what does the new image reveal about Andromeda's violent past… and its terrifying future?▀▀▀▀▀▀Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months extra ➼ https://nordvpn.com/astrum. It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!▀▀▀▀▀▀Astrum's newsletter has launched! Want to know what's happening in space? Sign up here: ⁠https://astrumspace.kit.com⁠A huge thanks to our Patreons who help make these videos possible. Sign-up here: ⁠https://bit.ly/4aiJZNF

We look at this new and interesting book by Jim Baggott. See more about Discordance The Troubled History of the Hubble Constant here. Discordance The Troubled History of the Hubble Constant, reviewed We are living in interesting times for studies about our universe. It looks like it is still expanding, fair enough if the big bang did it's thing, and exploded out from an incredibly small amount of space and matter. But, as the data increasingly suggests, the rate of the expansion is not only continuing, but also increasing the rate at which it does so. Baggott takes us on an interesting, well informed and clearly explained journey around the important developments and discoveries, especially over the last century or so. At some points the maths and the physics naturally left us behind, but, overall this is an accessible and comprehensible book for the wider reader. Time and time again it seems like our best and deepest thinkers have to conceive theoretical ideas and then often wait decades, often beyond their own lifetimes, before humanity has built sufficient tools to then test them. Often then, such was the brilliance of Einstein and others, their concepts turned out to be right. The clear example of the concept of black holes, long, long before it was ever possible to definitively proof their existence. This has repeatedly been the process, which the Hubble Telescope, Cern and the Higgs boson, and now with the James Watt Telescope, have all helped us to then conclusively prove or disprove concepts. All of this of course a massive riposte to the recent insane cuts in scientific research, and evidence based concepts. It is an exciting time new massive arrays coming online, and the far great capacity of JW and more to scan more of the sky, in higher resolution. Faster methodologies are also emerging to analyse what is being captured too. All of which means that new discoveries are being made near daily too. Baggot helps to communicate an interesting overview of these developments, and captures the enthusiasm that is out there in terms of sharing of ideas and robustly testing previously held ideas. Naturally dark matter and dark energy can still seem slightly questionable, as they are, by their nature, currently impossible, or at least extremely difficult to measure, observe or capture. At the same time, something has to be there to account for the fact that we can see, and measure so little of what must be around us. It does show we still have a long way to go in terms of understanding how the universe works and what is happening around us. Books like this help to communicate why this is important, interesting and well worth studying and investment. Check it out. More about the book Discordance The troubled history of the Hubble constant: a story littered with crises of confidence, astonishing discoveries, and extraordinary personalities, which still continues today. From the award-winning science-writer and author of Quantum Drama. In 1927 Georges Lemaître argued that our universe is expanding, a conclusion rendered more startling by the astronomical data that backed it up, presented two years later by Edwin Hubble. The speed of this expansion is governed by Hubble's constant, and Discordance tells its troubled history. This unpredictable and fascinating story begins with the first tentative steps to measure the distances to nearby stars and galaxies. It traces the extraordinary interplay between cosmological theory and astronomical observation which has given us the standard Big Bang theory. It was not all plain sailing, and the narrative takes us through the discovery of dark matter, the Hubble Wars of the 1970s, the invention of cosmic inflation, and other crucial scientific moments. Further satellite missions were expected to add to the clarity of our measurements. But from about 2009 onward, the results began to diverge and complicate our understanding of this expansion. This is the Hubble tension and perhaps even a cr...

SpaceX's Starship Flight 11: NASA spaceflight has reported that SpaceX is gearing up for Starship Flight 11, marking the final launch from Pad 1A in its current configuration. This mission will transition SpaceX to the advanced Block 3 designs, utilizing booster 152 and ship 38 to test engine redundancy and heat shield performance.Terraforming Mars Feasibility: A recent workshop summary suggests that advancements in launch costs, synthetic biology, and climate modeling have made the dream of terraforming Mars more feasible than ever. The proposed process includes warming the planet, introducing extremophiles, and eventually creating an oxygen-rich atmosphere for complex life.Discovery of Betel Buddy: Researchers have confirmed the existence of a companion star to Betelgeuse, affectionately named Betel Buddy. This discovery, utilizing advanced instruments like the Hubble Telescope, sheds light on the mysterious dimming cycles of Betelgeuse and challenges existing binary star formation theories.Microbial Resilience in Space: A groundbreaking study from RMIT University reveals that Bacillus subtilis spores can survive the extreme conditions of spaceflight, demonstrating resilience that could support astronaut health and sustainable life support systems on long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars.Mysterious Sounds in Space: The Daily Galaxy revisits the eerie knocking sounds reported by China's first astronaut, Jingle during his 2003 mission. These sounds, described as akin to a wooden hammer, have been echoed by other astronauts and remain an unsolved mystery in the realm of space exploration.For more cosmic updates, visit our website at astronomydaily.io. Join our community on social media by searching for #AstroDailyPod on Facebook, X, YouTubeMusic, TikTok, and our new Instagram account! Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.Thank you for tuning in. This is Anna and Avery signing off. Until next time, keep looking up and exploring the wonders of our universe.✍️ Episode ReferencesStarship Flight 11 Details[NASA Spaceflight](https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/)Terraforming Mars Insights[Universe Today](https://www.universetoday.com/)Betel Buddy Discovery[Carnegie Mellon University](https://www.cmu.edu/)Microbial Resilience Study[RMIT University](https://www.rmit.edu.au/)Mysterious Sounds in Space[The Daily Galaxy](https://www.dailygalaxy.com/)Astronomy Daily[Astronomy Daily](http://www.astronomydaily.io/)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/astronomy-daily-space-news-updates--5648921/support.Sponsor Details:Ensure your online privacy by using NordVPN. To get our special listener deal and save a lot of money, visit www.bitesz.com/nordvpn. You'll be glad you did!Become a supporter of Astronomy Daily by joining our Supporters Club. Commercial free episodes daily are only a click way... Click Here

The James Webb Space Telescope and Hubble Telescope are exploring our universe, finding spiral galaxies, comets and where stars are born. Plus, a look at SpaceX's fandom and how space enthusiasts feel about Elon Musk.

The gang discusses several topics including the story that the Pentagon operates its own top-secret Hubble telescope, a space-based instrument so powerful, it can look back into time itself.  Also, a report on the Two Harbors Monster, Top 5 unexplainable military mysteries, the bizarre secrets behind sweat lodge ceremonies and an update on the 31/Atlas interstellar object that has been detected in our solar system. Plus, a report that Mothman has retired to a condo in Florida, and Susan's K's cat gives Mack the stink eye.

The gang discusses several topics including the story that the Pentagon operates its own top-secret Hubble telescope, a space-based instrument so powerful, it can look back into time itself. Also, a report on the Two Harbors Monster, Top 5 unexplainable military mysteries, the bizarre secrets behind sweat lodge ceremonies and an update on the 31/Atlas interstellar object that has been detected in our solar system. Plus, a report that Mothman has retired to a condo in Florida, and Susan's K's cat gives Mack the stink eye.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/paranormal-uk-radio-network--4541473/support.

From Jono Zalay: Snake Oil! https://www.comedydynamics.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

June 25, 2025: Hubble Telescope Glasses

When Albert stepped out his front door that morning, or really, joined that My Space group that was created by his college, he could have no idea how his life was going to change. And that's the way it works, right? Every day is a new beginning, full of potential adventure and new friends! (and sometimes, love, but that's another story!) But anyway, back to Albert! His story this week, powerful and devastating, is all about seizing the day, understanding what is precious, and how a single person can change worlds! To read up about Albert and his splendid work, click here! To check out my website, for some secret info, click here! Remember when life was simpler and My Space didn't exist? I do, and sometimes I hanker for those days. The days when people looked eachother in the eye, didn't have their eyes on their phones 24/7, and when humans actually noticed the world. BECAUSE, there's a whole lotta beauty happening out there, you just have to actually notice it! So here, your bit of beauty- and I've made no secret of my love of the heavens, and the Hubble Telescope. I think it behooves us to look up every once in awhile, and understand just how small we are. Until then, here is a collection of exquisite Hubble images, just to wet your whistle!

When Albert stepped out his front door that morning, or really, joined that My Space group that was created by his college, he could have no idea how his life was going to change. And that's the way it works, right? Every day is a new beginning, full of potential adventure and new friends! (and sometimes, love, but that's another story!) But anyway, back to Albert! His story this week, powerful and devastating, is all about seizing the day, understanding what is precious, and how a single person can change worlds! To read up about Albert and his splendid work, click here! To check out my website, for some secret info, click here! Remember when life was simpler and My Space didn't exist? I do, and sometimes I hanker for those days. The days when people looked eachother in the eye, didn't have their eyes on their phones 24/7, and when humans actually noticed the world. BECAUSE, there's a whole lotta beauty happening out there, you just have to actually notice it! So here, your bit of beauty- and I've made no secret of my love of the heavens, and the Hubble Telescope. I think it behooves us to look up every once in awhile, and understand just how small we are. Until then, here is a collection of exquisite Hubble images, just to wet your whistle!

Kieran was joined by Danielle Wilcox, Resident Astronomer and Telescope Operator at MTU Blackrock Castle Observatory.

What happens when you put Captain Kirk, a NASA astronaut, and Neil deGrasse Tyson on a ship to Antarctica? Recorded on board with William Shatner and Scott Kelly, this episode explores the thrill of discovery — from rough seas to deep space — and what it means to boldly go.This episode of StarTalk, recorded live from Drake Passage during the Space2Sea Voyage of Legends to Antarctica, is presented in collaboration with FUTURE of SPACE.https://futureofspace.io/space2sea-antarctica/Follow or Subscribe to FUTURE of SPACEhttps://futureofspace.ioAbout FUTURE of SPACE:FoS is a media company that produces innovative content, programs, and experiential events that embrace new frontiers, celebrate the human experience, and elevate the conversation, engaging audiences in meaningful and transformative ways.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/risk-is-our-business-with-william-shatner-scott-kelly/Thanks to our Patrons John Shipe, Kenneth Kapptie, Dan Lee, Mark Randolph, Steven Green, David Pearson, Marius P, Sean Kershaw, Marc Bode, Jon Pulli, Sean Wins, Bessie Comer, alextravaganza, Matt in L.A., brian oakes, Tyler Carpenter, Stephan Spelde, Seymour buttz, Jeff Burton, Micheal Chinnici, stuart kim, Kathleen Ziegelgruber, Karl ryan, Fabio Later, Lorna Leigh, Abi Cats, Anthony Charlier, Zane White, Jonathan Plumb, Matthew Hinterlong, Danny K. , Muhammad Laiq Khan Rind, Khadeer Ahmed, Kathy Ziegelgruber, Bryan Smith, Shawn Nirdlinger, empty0vessel, Ruben Suarez, Jeffrey Roche, James Williams, Jules Victor, livingston ex, and Kora Celine for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.

At 3.7 billion miles away, a “3-body problem” is discovered in the Kuiper Belt which could rewrite history. Plus, on This Day in History, we look at the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. Hubble Telescope discovers a new '3-body problem' puzzle among Kuiper Belt asteroids (video) | Space 3.7 Billion Miles Away: Hubble Uncovers a Hidden Trio That Could Rewrite Kuiper Belt History | SciTechDaily Beyond Point Masses. IV. Trans-Neptunian Object Altjira Is Likely a Hierarchical Triple Discovered through Non-Keplerian Motion - IOPscience Quiz Show Scandals | Television Academy Interviews Contact the show - coolstuffcommute@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I really hate it when a five-year-old makes me feel dumb, especially when it's my grandson. I mean, he didn't mean to make me feel dumb. He didn't know he was making me feel dumb. But he is really smart, and he knew a lot about a lot! Like the solar system. He had the planets down cold along with all kinds of facts about the universe. Things I either have forgotten or never knew. Another thing our grandson was really mastering was numbers. Man, could he count! He was working on thousands, millions, billions, and his favorite quantity, a google! When it comes to our universe, he was never going to be able to count that high! I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "God of Galaxies, God of Our Grief." With the discoveries of new high-tech explorers like NASA's New Horizons spacecraft, and the Hubble Telescope, we are learning some absolutely staggering new things about the universe we live in. They counted at one point over 200 billion galaxies and I think it's maybe a couple trillion now. When we look up in the sky at night, it's estimated that we can see maybe 9,000 stars. But it's estimated that the average number of stars in a single galaxy is actually 200 billion stars! Let's see: 200 billion stars times 200 billion galaxies... oh for heaven's sake, that's a mental meltdown. If you think that the vastness of the universe is amazing, fasten your seatbelt for something much more amazing. It's in Psalm 147:4, our word for today from the Word of God. It says of God, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name." What? I can't even remember the names of all the people I've met! But God calls each of the 200 billion stars in 200 billion galaxies by name! Isaiah 40:26 says, "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing." Not only does He number all the stars and name all the stars, but He knows when any star goes out! In the verse just before the one that says God numbers and names the stars, the Bible shows something else amazing about Him. It says, "He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds." Wow! This God who gives personal attention to countless billions of stars cares about your broken heart! He stands ready to heal what's broken in your life with the power that rules this mighty universe. Wow! You may have felt very unnoticed and very insignificant in your life, but not to the most powerful person in the universe. He knows you, He cares about your wounds, He deeply, deeply loves you. For this awesome God left the throne room of heaven to come here to this little dirtball called earth on a rescue mission for you, to actually die on a cross for the sin you've done against Him, the sin that has cut you off from Him all these years. The sin no religion can remove. The Bible says of Him, He is "the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20). And this very day, this awesome God may be knocking on the door of your heart. He's offering to come into your life with His infinite love, His infinite power - the power that raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Why would you wait one more day to open up your heart to a Savior like this? Tell Him, "Jesus, it makes no sense for me to try to run my life any longer. I'm sorry for running a life you were supposed to run. I believe my only hope is your death for my sin on the cross. I turn from my sin today. I am yours, Lord Jesus!" If you want to make this day your "Jesus day," will you experience the greatness of His love in your heart, the greatness of His power in your life, would you just reach out to Him today? We'd love to help you do that. That's why we're here. Go to our website ANewStory.com. He's who you were made by. He's who you were made for, and this very day, my friend, you can belong to Him!

How much money is a matchmaker worth? Also, will the new Fantastic 4 movie be any good? We talk about the military ban on almost all nail polish, Hubble Telescope discovering a 9 ring galaxy, and lots more!

Space Nuts Episode 486: James Webb's First Image and Cosmic Mysteries UnveiledJoin Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson as they delve into the latest astronomical marvels in this exciting episode of Space Nuts. From the groundbreaking first image captured by the James Webb Space Telescope to intriguing listener questions about galaxy sizes and cosmic mysteries, this episode is packed with stellar insights.Episode Highlights:- James Webb's First Image: Discover the breathtaking first image from the James Webb Space Telescope, revealing a cluster of galaxies in stunning detail. Learn how this new tool surpasses the Hubble Telescope's capabilities and what it means for the future of space exploration.- Galaxy Size Anomalies: Explore the fascinating question from Alex in New South Wales about why galaxies appear to change size at different distances. Fred Watson Watson explains the peculiar properties of our expanding universe that lead to this phenomenon.- Dark Matter Discoveries: Anna from Astronomy Daily shares groundbreaking research into the GD1 Stellar Stream, suggesting a new understanding of dark matter involving self-interacting subhalos. Discover how this could revolutionise our knowledge of the universe's fundamental structure.- China's Rocket Advancements: Learn about China's impressive technological strides with successful tests of multiple rocket engines in a single day. Understand how these developments could impact future lunar and Mars missions.For more Space Nuts, including our continually updating newsfeed and to listen to all our episodes, visit our website. Follow us on social media at SpaceNutsPod on Facebook, X, YouTube Music, Tumblr, Instagram, and TikTok. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favourite platform.For more Space and Astronomy News Podcasts, visit our HQ at www.bitesz.com.If you'd like to help support Space Nuts and join our growing family of insiders for commercial-free episodes and more, visit spacenutspodcast.com/aboutStay curious, keep looking up, and join us next time for more stellar insights and cosmic wonders. Until then, clear skies and happy stargazing.00:00 - Andrew Dunkley welcomes Professor Fred Watson to Space Nuts02:53 - The James Webb Space Telescope has released its first deep field image10:32 - Fred and Andrew welcome Alex from Bellingen, New South Wales11:00 - It's common understanding that distance reduces apparent size of galaxies15:31 - Astronomers may have finally cracked a long standing cosmic mystery about GD117:57 - China conducted tests of five different rocket engines in a single day✍️ Episode ReferencesJames Webb Space Telescopehttps://www.jwst.nasa.gov/Hubble Space Telescopehttps://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/main/index.htmlSMACS 0723https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMACS_J0723.3%E2%80%937327Abel clustershttps://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abell/frames.htmlAstronomy Dailyhttps://astronomydaily.io/China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporationhttp://www.spacechina.com/n25/n2014789/English/index.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts--2631155/support.

Usually a total eclipse of the moon seems to happen when I'm counting sheep in the middle of the night. But this one started about 9:00 at night, and this one I got a chance to see. It's a pretty amazing sight to watch that shadow slowly move across the moon until it eventually covers it completely. I said to the friend who was assisting us with ministry that weekend, "I just wish we had binoculars." "Me, too," he said. Then it dawned on him, he said, "Hey, I do have binoculars in my truck!" All of a sudden we moved from seats near the back to something like front row seats on this eclipse. Those binoculars revealed the craters and all the fascinating details of that disappearing moon. What a difference it made to see it up close! I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "Knowing You, Seeing God." Whether it's watching the heavens or watching some faraway wildlife right here on earth, binoculars really do make a difference. They make it big by bringing it close, which is exactly what you're supposed to be doing with the God you belong to - making Him big to the people around you by bringing Him close. I guess that would make you binoculars for God. The famed Westminster Catechism of the Christian faith opens with this powerful summary of why we're all here: "The chief end of man is to glorify God." That's really clear in our word for today from the Word of God in Ephesians 1, beginning with verses 5 and 6. Like the Hubble Telescope, this passage shows us things about our spiritual universe that we could never see without it. Like the purpose for our lives, for example. The Bible says: "He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." Before there was a world, before there was a you, God had a plan for you to rescue you through His Son, so you could live as it says, for "the praise of His glorious grace." Verses 11 and 12 talk about His plan, "the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..." And what is His purpose that guides His plan? "...that we might be for the praise of His glory." Later, it says He bought us with blood to be for this ultimate outcome: "To the praise of His glory." Okay, God believes in what management consultants call MBO - Management By Objective. Since before there was a world, right up to you and me this day and right on through to eternity, God's running His plan by one objective, "the praise of His glory." Since God's the source of everything that exists, our life makes sense and makes a difference when we bring people back to that source. So, what does it mean to "glorify God"? Well, think binoculars. It's making Him look as big as He really is to the people we meet. They have no idea what an awesome, loving, totally powerful Father He is. We're to live in such a way that we draw attention to the greatness of our Father. And how do we do that? By living in such a way that we bring Him close to people who otherwise might never see Him or never touch Him. Jesus said we were to be a light shining so "people will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16). So here's one good way to see if you're carrying out the purpose you were made for: When people are around you, do they end up being impressed with your God? If not, you must be filling their view with something else, like with you...how great you are, or how many problems you have, or how stressed you are, or just the trivia of your life. They may know you as a happy person, a caring person, a strong person, but have you ever told them it's because of what Jesus has done for you? Have you ever prayed with them when they share a need with you so they can taste that relationship with a miracle-working God? Do you ask in every situation, "Lord, how can you use this to draw people to you?" That's the mind and heart of someone who knows why they're here. God's looking for some human binoculars - like you - that will bring Him close so people can see how very big and how very close He really is.

The Hubble Telescope orbits our planet, looking out at the big unknown universe. Since it's out of our atmosphere, the Hubble can see way further than telescopes on land. No clouds up there. This guy helped us confirm the theory about supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. It also discovered a whole bunch of new galaxies, including the world's oldest one, which is about 8 billion years older than our Milky Way! But let's travel 25 light-years away to another special star. Fomalhaut. It's almost twice as big and heavy as the Sun. If you look at it from far away, you can see a bright yellow disk around it. It's a debris disk, full of bits of space rock, and it's huge. Scientists were curious about it, was all this space dust gonna get smooshed together and become a planet one day? But then they saw something else! Right there, through all that debris, was a massive mysterious object... #brightside Music by Epidemic Sound https://www.epidemicsound.com/ Subscribe to Bright Side : https://goo.gl/rQTJZz ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Social Media: Facebook:   / brightside   Instagram:   / brightgram   5-Minute Crafts Youtube: https://www.goo.gl/8JVmuC Stock materials (photos, footages and other): https://www.depositphotos.com https://www.shutterstock.com https://www.eastnews.ru ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more videos and articles visit: http://www.brightside.me/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Could life hitchhike across planets? What color is the sky on Mars? Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, the current CEO of The Planetary Society, team up to discuss the science and advocacy that goes into space exploration, unraveling the threads of discovery that define humanity's quest to understand the cosmos.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here:https://startalkmedia.com/show/journey-to-the-stars-with-bill-nye/Thanks to our friends at The Planetary Society for partnering with us on this episode! To support their mission and the future of space advocacy, head over to https://Planetary.org/StarTalkThanks to our Patrons Edwin Strode, Mathew M, Micheal McDonough, Evan Fenwick, Trvis Knop, David Hardison, Sarah Kominek, Saulius Alminas, Rob Lentini, Eric Williams, Billy, John Buzzotta, Jeremy Hopcroft, Christian Harvey, Bob Cobourn, Jeremy ALford, Brandon Cortazar, James Finlay, Anastine2020, Rebecca Valenti, jordan battleson, Timothy Jarvis, and Gleb Mpakopuc for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Hello to you listening in Laxa, Sweden!Coming to you from Whidbey Island, Washington this is Stories From Women Who Walk with 60 Seconds for Wednesdays on Whidbey and your host, Diane Wyzga.The other night I was watching Episode 16 of Season 3 of the TV series The West Wing. Sam Seaborn is visited by his former physics professor, Dr. Dalton Millgate, who wants Sam to put in a good word for the funding of the superconducting supercollider - a controversial scientific project that would cost billions. Senator Enlow from Illinois is holding up the project for political reasons. A short exchange happens in Sam's office between Dalgate, Enlow and Seaborn about what this costly project “does":   Sen. Jack Enlow, D-IL: If we can only say what benefit this thing has. No one's been able to do that.Dr. Dalton Millgate: That's because great achievement has no road map. The X-Ray is pretty good, and so is penicillin, and neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And now we have an entire world run by electronics. Haydn and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them.Sam Seaborn: Discovery.Dr. Dalton Millgate: What?Sam Seaborn: Discovery is what. That's what this is used for. It's for discovery!Practical Tip: When we lose hope or direction or get discouraged about what we're about, about what our project does or is good for, remember this: it's for discovery!  And that's the road map to great achievement.Click HERE to watch the scene on YouTubeYou're always invited: “Come for the stories - stay for the magic!” Speaking of magic, would you subscribe and spread the word with a generous 5-star review and comment - it helps us all - and join us next time!Meanwhile, stop by my Quarter Moon Story Arts website to:✓ Check out Services I Offer,✓ For a no-obligation conversation about your communication challenges, get in touch with me today✓ Stay current with me as “Wyzga on Words” on Substack and on LinkedInStories From Women Who Walk Production TeamPodcaster: Diane F Wyzga & Quarter Moon Story ArtsMusic: Mer's Waltz from Crossing the Waters by Steve Schuch & Night Heron MusicAll content and image © 2019 to Present Quarter Moon Story Arts. All rights reserved.

Alan Lowe sits down with the renowned Dr. Asad Madni. Dr. Madni shares his extraordinary journey as an engineer, inventor, and entrepreneur, detailing his groundbreaking contributions to fields like digital signal processing, MEMS technology, and artificial intelligence. From revolutionizing the Naval fleet with the Transline Analyzer to advancing automotive safety with MEMS gyroscopes, Dr. Madni's innovations have left an indelible mark on modern technology. Listen in as he discusses career insights, the future of AI, and the importance of creativity, ethics, and continuous learning in engineering and beyond.     Guest Bio Dr. Asad Madni is an internationally renowned engineer, inventor, and entrepreneur. A native of India, Asad studied electronics at the RCA Institutes in New York, and then electrical engineering at UCLA, where he obtained his bachelor's and master's degrees.     He then received his PhD from California Coast University, and the senior executive program postgraduate credential from the MIT Sloan School of Management.  He quickly rose up to leadership roles in engineering and business, serving as the CEO of Systron-Donner Corporation, and CEO and President of BEI Technologies. In 2011, he began serving as a distinguished adjunct professor and distinguished scientist at UCLA.   Throughout his career, Asad has invented several devices that have had a tremendous impact on our world. He holds 28 patents and has received many prestigious honors including the 2022 Royal Academy of Engineering Prince Philip medal, the 2023 John Fritz medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2024.     Show Notes (2:13) What drew Dr. Madni to science and engineering (4:44) Art, engineering, and how they're connected (7:14) How Dr. Madni created the first standalone communications systems analyzer (12:44) When Dr. Madni realized he could make that system into reality (19:55) The gyroscope and revolutionizing the auto industry (31:21) Contributions to the Hubble Telescope from Dr. Madni (34:03) Dr. Madni's thoughts on the development of AI (44:12) Dr. Madni's path to financial success and business advice for aspiring scientists and engineers (54:22) Virtues that should be instilled into bright, young minds

This week we're replaying some of our favorite shows about planets and stars and galaxies and the people who have studied them. In this episode from May 2020, the story of an important if not technically perfect image: the first picture ever taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. Plus: an Irish bee enthusiast spends time at home building a beehive out of LEGO. How Fixing the Hubble Spacecraft Works (How Stuff Works) 30 years of Hubble: Three decades of space wonder began with an underwhelming image that proved extremely important (Independent UK) Un-bee-lievable! Beekeeper builds fully functioning beehive entirely out of LEGOs (Fox 6 Now) Our Patreon backers are like the Hubble Space Telescope of backers: the best --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/coolweirdawesome/support

Looking into space can be pretty daunting. How do we make sense of the vast expanse above our heads, the millions of stars we might be able to see, and the billions more we can't?Now, what about listening to space? That's the task that Sam Harnett and Chris Hoff gave themselves, for their series “Cosmic Visions.” They're the team behind “The World According to Sound,” a podcast that's brought our listeners close to the sounds of science over the last few years.This new series takes listeners through the history of astronomy and the study of the cosmos, from ancient Babylon to the Hubble Telescope. Harnett and Hoff join guest host John Dankosky to talk about why different ways of knowing are helpful for scientists, how images of nebulae share a striking resemblance to photos of the American West, and what their favorite space sounds are.Universe of Art is hosted and produced by D. Peterschmidt, who also wrote the music and produced the original segment. Our show art is illustrated by Abelle Hayford. And support for Science Friday's science and arts coverage comes from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.Do you have science-inspired art you'd like to share with us for a future episode? Send us an email or a voice memo to universe@sciencefriday.com.

Chicago author/writer with an interest in Astronomy Ron Voller talks about his latest “Hubble, Humanson & The Big Bang: The Race to Uncover the Expanding Universe” about a 30-year old janitor Milton Humanson at an observatory and at 40 is known as the greatest astronomical observer of the 20th century co-discovering the Big Bang Theory with Edwin Hubble of the Hubble Telescope! Ron earned his undergraduate degree in music & literature from Univ. of Denver, moved to NYC in '99 earning his Masters in Interdisciplinary studies at James Hopkins University, hosts a podcast on cosmic origins and serves as executive producer on a documentary about a Michigan disabled law student and his mission to make 24/7 care affordable across the economic sector, plus discusses The Big Bang Theory as “The Theory of Everything”, special skills Milton Humanson possessed plus going from janitor to astronomer, and Edwin Hubble using the telescope test one of Einstein's theories! Check out the amazing Ron Voller and latest release plus “The Muleskinner and the Stars” on many major platforms and www.ronvoller.com today! #ronvoller #chicago #author #writer #astronomy #hubblehumansonandthebigbang #miltonhumanson #edwinhubble #hubbletelescope #thebigbang #podcast #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnerronvoller #themikewagnershowronvoller   --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/support

Chicago author/writer with an interest in Astronomy Ron Voller talks about his latest “Hubble, Humanson & The Big Bang: The Race to Uncover the Expanding Universe” about a 30-year old janitor Milton Humanson at an observatory and at 40 is known as the greatest astronomical observer of the 20th century co-discovering the Big Bang Theory with Edwin Hubble of the Hubble Telescope! Ron earned his undergraduate degree in music & literature from Univ. of Denver, moved to NYC in '99 earning his Masters in Interdisciplinary studies at James Hopkins University, hosts a podcast on cosmic origins and serves as executive producer on a documentary about a Michigan disabled law student and his mission to make 24/7 care affordable across the economic sector, plus discusses The Big Bang Theory as “The Theory of Everything”, special skills Milton Humanson possessed plus going from janitor to astronomer, and Edwin Hubble using the telescope test one of Einstein's theories! Check out the amazing Ron Voller and latest release plus “The Muleskinner and the Stars” on many major platforms and www.ronvoller.com today! #ronvoller #chicago #author #writer #astronomy #hubblehumansonandthebigbang #miltonhumanson #edwinhubble #hubbletelescope #thebigbang #podcast #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnerronvoller #themikewagnershowronvoller   --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/support

Chicago author/writer with an interest in Astronomy Ron Voller talks about his latest “Hubble, Humanson & The Big Bang: The Race to Uncover the Expanding Universe” about a 30-year old janitor Milton Humanson at an observatory and at 40 is known as the greatest astronomical observer of the 20th century co-discovering the Big Bang Theory with Edwin Hubble of the Hubble Telescope! Ron earned his undergraduate degree in music & literature from Univ. of Denver, moved to NYC in '99 earning his Masters in Interdisciplinary studies at James Hopkins University, hosts a podcast on cosmic origins and serves as executive producer on a documentary about a Michigan disabled law student and his mission to make 24/7 care affordable across the economic sector, plus discusses The Big Bang Theory as “The Theory of Everything”, special skills Milton Humanson possessed plus going from janitor to astronomer, and Edwin Hubble using the telescope test one of Einstein's theories! Check out the amazing Ron Voller and latest release plus “The Muleskinner and the Stars” on many major platforms and www.ronvoller.com today! #ronvoller #chicago #author #writer #astronomy #hubblehumansonandthebigbang #miltonhumanson #edwinhubble #hubbletelescope #thebigbang #podcast #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnerronvoller #themikewagnershowronvoller  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-mike-wagner-show--3140147/support.

https://www.ronvoller.com Sponsors: https://skylum.evyy.net/c/3290446/179... https://invideo.sjv.io/c/3290446/1543... https://tracysdog.sjv.io/c/3290446/16... https://mindbloom.sjv.io/c/3290446/15... https://www.blueprint-for-success.com... https://shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=195113... https://naked-wines.pxf.io/c/3290446/... https://daily-high-club-affiliate-pro... https://apply.fundwise.com/mattnappo 

Dr. Richard Ellis has been a major part of astronomy since he was an undergrad in the 1960s when he served on committees for the creation of the Hubble Telescope. Since then, he has worked in observatories across the globe and published a book titled When Galaxies Were Born: The Quest for Cosmic Dawn, which explores the moment in the history of the universe when galaxies first emerged from darkness. In this episode Alan talks with Dr. Ellis about his experiences and what he hopes the future will bring for the field of astronomy. Dr. Richard Ellis is a professor of astrophysics at University College London where he studied before earning his doctorate at Oxford. His career includes roles at the University of Durham, Royal Greenwich Observatory, Cambridge, Caltech, and the European Southern Observatory, and as director of the Palomar Observatory. He has received numerous awards, such as the Michael Faraday Gold Medal, the Royal Medal, and the Gruber Cosmology Prize. Dr. Ellis was also made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire. His recent book is When Galaxies Were Born: The Quest for Cosmic Dawn.

Join Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson for another enlightening episode of Space Nuts Q&A. This week, we tackle a variety of listener questions that delve into the fascinating intricacies of space science and astronomy.First, we revisit a question from Alan about the detectability of light at one candle power of an LED in space. Fred breaks down the calculations and assumptions, providing insights into how far such a light source would be visible, even with the Hubble Telescope.Next, Nate from Queensland asks about bolometric luminosity and its implications for predicting changes in stars, such as supernovae. Fred explains the concept of bolometric measurements, the use of bolometers, and whether there's a standard way to predict changes in a star's luminosity.David from Melbourne brings up Hawking radiation and its potential connection to dark matter and dark energy. Fred clarifies the nature of Hawking radiation and discusses recent research linking black holes to dark energy, albeit without involving Hawking radiation.Martin from Maryland poses a question about the hazards of near-light-speed travel for spacecraft and their biospheres. Fred explores the potential dangers, including nuclear interactions and radiation, that could arise from such high-speed travel.Finally, Ryan from Delaware inquires about the feasibility of refuelling or repairing the James Webb Space Telescope. Fred explains the challenges due to its location at the L2 point and the economic considerations that make such missions unlikely.Tune in to this episode of Space Nuts for these intriguing discussions and more. Your questions drive the conversation, so keep them coming!00:00:00 Professor Fred Watson answers questions on this episode of Space Nuts00:01:54 How far away could you see one candle power led with the Hubble telescope00:06:00 Nate from Queensland asks some questions about volumetric luminosity00:07:20 Bolometric brightness is the brightness of something measured over its whole spectrum00:13:50 Is hawking radiation anything to do with dark matter or dark energy00:15:54 What are the major hazards to spacecraft as they approach relativistic speeds00:21:10 Ryan from Delaware has a question about the James Webb space telescope00:27:58 Andrew: Thanks to everybody who contributed this week to Space Nuts q and a00:29:15 This podcast is available on iTunes, Spotify and iHeartRadioSupport Space Nuts and join us on this interstellar journey by visiting our website support page. Your contributions help us continue our mission to explore the wonders of the universe. Clear skies and boundless exploration await on Space Nuts, where we make the cosmos your backyard.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts--2631155/support.Visit our website: www.spacenuts.ioCheck out our sponsor: [Nordpass](https://www.bitesz.com/nordpass)

Sam Horn is the CEO of the Intrigue Agency, a positioning/messaging consultancy, which helps people design and deliver TEDx talks, keynotes, funding pitches and one-of-a-kind brands.She is also the CEO of the Tongue Fu! Training Institute, a trade-marked communication skills approach, that teaches how to give and get respect at work, at home, online and in public.Sam is the author of 10 books including Tongue Fu!®, POP!, SOMEDAY is Not a Day in the Week, IDEApreneur, and Wash Post bestseller Got Your Attention?Her newest book Talking on Eggshells received a glowing Publishers Weekly review and endorsements from Marie Forleo, Jack Canfield, Lynn Twist, JJ Virgin, Dr. Ivan Misner (founder of BNI) and Whole Foods founder John Mackey who calls it “The course-correct for today's cancel culture.” Sam's work has been featured in dozens of publications including NY Times, Forbes, Fast Company and, Harvard Business Review. She has been interviewed on every major network including NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, NPR and MSNBC.Fun Fact: Sam Horn and her Tongue Fu! team stumped the panel on the TV Show To Tell the Truth.Sam has had the privilege of speaking to more than half a million people worldwide from China to Chicago, Ireland to England, and for clients like Intel, Oracle, Accenture, American Bankers Assn.Sam co-founded the Business Book Festival (held at USA Today headquarters) and served as the Emcee and Executive Director of the world-renowned Maui Writers Conference for 17 years.She also served as the Pitch Coach for Springboard Enterprises which has helped entrepreneurs generate $27.8 billion (yes, that's a B) in funding – and has been brought in by NASA, TED FELLOWS and Richard Branson's NEW NOW LEADERS to teach public speaking/media training. Sam's LinkedIn Learning course has been translated into 6 languages and is used by organizations around the world, (e.g., Amazon, KPMG, Walmart,) as part of their communication – customer service – leadership training.As a consultant, Sam helps clients - including Terry Jones, Founder of Travelocity and Charlie Pellerin, Project Manager of the Hubble Telescope - get their books out of their head and into the world. Sheri Salata (Former Executive Producer of The Oprah Winfrey Show, Pres. of Harpo Productions and OWN) calls Sam “one of the bright lights and most accessible wisdom-sharers in our culture today.”Website: https://samhorn.com/LinkedIn: Sam Horn FB: Sam Horn's Intrigue Agency Insta: Sam Horn @samhornintrigueYoutube: Sam Horn Enjoy the visual here on Youtube

Join Mary Jo (Pines) and Kellie (Pluto) as they discuss the eleventh episode of the Pinky and The Brain spin-off, "Fly"! This episode follows the mice as they venture off into space to enact Brain's most devious plan so far: to use the Hubble Telescope to melt the Polar Ice Caps so he could flood the Earth up to the thirty-ninth floor. Contact Us!Email: thepoitcast@gmail.comTwitter: @poitcastTumblr: poitcast.tumblr.comCover Art by @mygames19Opening Theme Song  arranged by ComposerrClosing Theme Song arranged by Ian Knowles

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has caught a stunning image of a newly forming star whizzing across space in a spectacular burst of light. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Space telescopes don't just observe space, they're located in space. The Hubble Telescope (1990) and the James Webb Space Telescope (2021) marked major turning points in our quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe. So just how big, how far, how powerful can the next telescopes go?Host Roma Agrawal zooms into this topic with the help of:Garth Illingworth, recipient of the 2016 American Astronomical Society Lancelot M. Berkeley New York Community Trust Prize for his work on the most-distant galaxies viewed with Hubble.Jonathan Lunine, part of the science team for the James Webb Space Telescope.New episodes - conversations about how to rebuild the world better - every other Friday.Follow @QEPrize on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook for more info. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What drives us to pursue impossible dreams, fail repeatedly, and keep trying?Our guest, former NASA astronaut Mike Massimino, truly embodies the spirit of never giving up.Despite a fear of heights, bad eyesight, multiple rejections from NASA, and other setbacks, Mike's unwavering determination led him to perform heroic spacewalks to repair the Hubble Telescope and to send the first-ever Tweet from beyond Earth's atmosphere.But how did he maintain his persistence? What psychological skills did Mike need to master to face down failure after failure and keep reaching higher?This conversation isn't just about outer space; it's about the space within us all that holds the power of persistence, teamwork, and awe.Mike's journey from New York neighborhood to NASA is a testament to the extraordinary feats we're all capable of achieving. His story is a beacon of hope for anyone who's ever been told they can't. And he's here to share the wisdom gained from a lifetime of looking up and stepping forward into the unknown.So, as we embark on this journey with Mike Massimino, prepare to be inspired, to learn, and to see our own challenges a little differently. Because sometimes, reaching for the stars teaches us more about ourselves than we ever imagined.I'm excited for you to apply what Mike has to teach us!With Fire,Mike-----WATCH this episode on our YouTube channel.Connect with us on our Instagram.Order my book, "The First Rule of Mastery" HERE!For more information and shownotes from every episode, head to findingmastery.com.To check out our exclusive sponsor deals and discounts CLICK HERESee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Apollo 8, which launched on December 21, 1968, was the first mission to take humans to the moon and back. While the crew did not land on the moon's surface, the flight was an important prelude to a lunar landing, testing the flight trajectory and operations getting there and back. Capt. James A Lovell, Apollo 8 astronaut, shared his memories of that historic mission: “Then, looking up I saw it, the Earth, a blue and white ball, just above the lunar horizon, 240,000 miles away…I put my thumb up to the window and completely hid the Earth. Just think, over five billion people, everything I ever knew was behind my thumb…I began to question my own existence. How do I fit in to what I see?” Inspired by this wonderment and interest in perspective, glass artist Josh Simpson embarked on his own exploration of the cosmos. Born on August 17, 1949 and educated at Hamilton College, in Clinton, New York (1972), much of Simpson's career in glass has been dedicated to communicating his fascination with the earth and its role as our planet, first through entertaining demonstrations for middle schoolers, then with art lovers worldwide. He has enthusiastically shared his glass art in much the same way the astronauts shared their experiences – with any man, woman or child whose heart fills with excitement just thinking of the possibilities. Since the 1980s, Simpson has been hiding his glass Planets all over our Earth. In 2000 he launched the Infinity Project, which invites people around the world to hide Planets in exotic, mysterious, and sometimes even seemingly mundane – but personally meaningful – locations. Simpson's space-inspired glass art includes Planets, vases, platters, and sculpture. The artist has dedicated more than 50 years to inventing new glass formulas and making unique objects that embody his fascination with color, form, light, pattern, complexity, and the working of the universe. His iconic Planets evoke imaginary worlds that might exist in distant undiscovered galaxies. His New Mexico Glass suggests star-filled night skies and swirling blue seas, while Corona Glass evokes deep-space images captured by the Hubble Telescope.  Simpson's work has been exhibited in the White House and numerous international museums. Select pieces are currently on permanent display at the Corning Museum of Glass, the Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian Museum, Yale University Art Museum, Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and many more. Says Simpson: “I am moved by the beauty of the night sky and other astronomical phenomena. Physics and cosmology fascinate me, as does high temperature chemistry, powered flight, and all things mechanical. I am mesmerized by color, form, contrast, iridescence, tessellating patterns, and complexity.” Located in the rural hills of Western Massachusetts, Simpson's studio can be found in a converted dairy barn beside his home. Every night, the last thing he does is walk from the house to his studio to check the furnaces. Seeing an aurora borealis, watching a storm develop down the valley, or looking at the sky on a perfect summer night, compels him to translate some of the wonder of the universe into his glass. This process doesn't happen in any planned way, but gradually and unpredictably. He never tries to replicate what he sees around him, and in fact often doesn't recognize the source of inspiration until someone points it out later.  Simpson states: “Molten glass consists of sand and metallic oxides combined with extraordinary, blinding heat. The result is a material that flows like honey. When it's hot, glass is alive! It moves gracefully and inexorably in response to gravity and centripetal force. It possesses an inner light and transcendent radiant heat that make it simultaneously one of the most rewarding and one of the most frustrating materials for an artist to work with. Most of my work reflects a compromise between the molten material and me; each finished piece is a solidified moment when we both agree.” In his most recent book, Josh Simpson 50 Years of Visionary Glass, 500 beautiful photos and informative (and humorous) narration by the artist, reveals the evolution of Simpson's evocative glass art over the past 50 years. In-depth looks at his several signature series and experimental works illustrate how the artist has continually explored new ways to express—in glass—his fascination with outer space, the natural world, and the workings of the universe. Text and photo spreads narrate the story of Simpson's glass, details of his life and process, and his contributions within the craft world. Text by experts in the glass world, including William Warmus, Tina Oldknow, Nezka Pfeifer, and others, supplies additional views. In addition, strategically placed comments from numerous museum curators, along with insights from astrophysicists and space flight professionals, present a unique perspective on the meanings and broad appeal of his unique glass. From playing the spoons, to winning story slams and flying high performance planes to the wrong number that resulted in him marrying astronaut Cady Coleman – enjoy this fascinating conversation with Josh Simpson.    

This week Modya presents solo on what we can learn about the middah of cleanliness (nekiut) from the Hubble telescope! Specifically, there are steps we can take to further develop physical and spiritual cleanliness and reduce confusion and suffering in the world. The week's Torah portion of Terumah teaches us not only how to build a mishkan (tabernacle) but how to live life with a pure heart. Modya Silver is an author and psychotherapist based in Toronto.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This week Modya presents solo on what we can learn about the middah of cleanliness (nekiut) from the Hubble telescope! Specifically, there are steps we can take to further develop physical and spiritual cleanliness and reduce confusion and suffering in the world. The week's Torah portion of Terumah teaches us not only how to build a mishkan (tabernacle) but how to live life with a pure heart. Modya Silver is an author and psychotherapist based in Toronto.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Looking into space can be pretty daunting. How do we make sense of the vast expanse above our heads, the millions of stars we might be able to see, and the billions more we can't?Now, what about listening to space? That's the task that Sam Harnett and Chris Hoff gave themselves, for their series “Cosmic Visions.” They're the team behind “The World According to Sound,” a podcast that's brought our listeners close to the sounds of science over the last few years.This new series takes listeners through the history of astronomy and the study of the cosmos, from ancient Babylon to the Hubble Telescope. Harnett and Hoff join guest host John Dankosky to talk about why different ways of knowing are helpful for scientists, how images of nebulae share a striking resemblance to photos of the American West, and what their favorite space sounds are.Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

The Hubble Telescope has detected water molecules in the atmosphere of a relatively small exoplanet located 97 light-years away from Earth.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Astronomers have found massive cyclones swirling on a blazing planet the size of Jupiter.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

We celebrate the 30th anniversary of a daring Space Shuttle mission that fixed the Hubble Space Telescope by chatting about the experience with astronaut Jeff Hoffman.

PREVIEW Conversation in part with Bob Zimmerman of the last three gyros of the Hubble telescope, and what happens as the gyros wear down and wil not, cannot, be replaced: the Last of Hubble. 1879 Herscel

Mike Massimino, serving as a NASA astronaut until 2014, has a slew of accomplishments: the first human to tweet from space, the last astronaut to work inside the Hubble Telescope and the speculated inspiration for George Clooney's role in “Gravity.” He's now out with a book, titled Moonshot, with the greatest lessons learned from his experiences. Massimino joins Morgan Brennan to discuss the book and the what experiences in space can bring to daily living on earth.

Mike Massimino, serving as a NASA astronaut until 2014, has a slew of accomplishments: the first human to tweet from space, the last astronaut to work inside the Hubble Telescope and the speculated inspiration for George Clooney's role in “Gravity.” He's now out with a book, titled Moonshot, with the greatest lessons learned from his experiences. Massimino joins Morgan Brennan to discuss the book and the what experiences in space can bring to daily living on earth.

In the early 1990s—a mere thirty years ago— America Online was launched into cyberspace and the Hubble Telescope was launched into outer space. These have changed our lives. And it's an odd parallel to two technological advancements from the Middle Ages—one from 1436 and another from 1608. In 1436, German goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press with movable type. In 1608, an unknown person invented the telescope, an idea that spread as a result of printing and was quickly picked up by Galileo who built his own, studied the heavens, and had his revolutionary findings printed by printing press. At the Wyoming School of Catholic Though this past June, adult learner listened to this introduction to Early Modern science by Dr. Paul Giesting. Readings: C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, Chapter 1 Johannes Trithemius, De laude scriptorum, extracts Francis Bacon, Novum organum, Aphorism 129 of Book I Galileo Galilei, Sidereus nuncius, abridged Johannes Kepler, Dioptrics extract from the preface Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, pages 206-212

00:45 The role of serine in diabetic neuropathyNerve damage is a common complication of diabetes, and can even lead to limb amputation. Thus far, the only way for people to slow its onset is by managing their diet and lifestyle. Now though, research in mice shows how the amino acid serine may be key to this nerve damage, suggesting a potential role for the molecule in future therapeutics.Research article: Handzlik et al.News and Views: Serine deficiency causes complications in diabetes06:47 Research HighlightsDNA from chickens is spreading to their wild relatives, and a hidden magma chamber is revealed beneath an underwater volcano.Research Highlight: Chickens' DNA is fouling the genomes of their wild relativesResearch Highlight: Underwater volcano near Greece is a sleeping menace09:05 Briefing ChatWe discuss some highlights from the Nature Briefing. This time: how the Hubble Telescope is still helping scientists, and the multimillion-dollar trade of paper authorships.Nature News: Why the Hubble telescope is still in the game — even as JWST wowsNature News: Multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships alarms publishersNature Video: Drowning in seaweed: How to stop invasive SargassumSubscribe to Nature Briefing, an unmissable daily round-up of science news, opinion and analysis free in your inbox every weekday. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NASA Program Director Gregory Robinson discusses the advancements the James Webb Space Telescope has compared to the Hubble Telescope, and how these space missions reveal important information about our earth, the sun, and the galaxies around us. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inflation continues to run rampant, and the Democrats continue to try to normalize it. The U.S. is now starting to get baby formula shipments from Germany. Target is preparing its stores for potential energy issues. ESPN has gone political again and has spoken out against the Tampa Bay Rays' not wearing LGBTQ patches on their uniforms. A California legislature wants to require students to attend drag events in response to pending Texas and Florida legislation that would ban children from attending them. Al Gore returns for his famous song about fish in the street. Montana is experiencing a population surge due to the popularity of the show "Yellowstone." The Hubble Telescope takes a new photo of the aurora borealis on Saturn. NASA designs some space suits that won't be ready until 2034. The Department of Homeland Security is suggesting that there may be mass casualties if Roe v. Wade is overturned? If we have so many accounts of UFOs, then why is there no good video footage of them by now? The Biden administration is going to have to get back to us about how bad inflation will be during the rest of 2022. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The astrophysicist Mario Livio spent 24 years at the Space Telescope Science Institute working with the Hubble Telescope, which has revealed the reality and beauty of the Universe to scientists and citizens in whole new ways. The Hubble's successor, the James Webb Telescope, will become fully operational in 2022, and will further some of the questions about the early formation of the Universe and the origins of life to which Mario Livio has been devoted. Krista spoke with him in 2010, and this conversation has become an On Being Classic, imparting a thrilling sense of all we are learning about the cosmos in this generation in time, our terrible earthly woes notwithstanding. Also: how scientific advance always meets recurrent mystery, from the emergence of life in the Universe to the very heart of mathematics and the puzzle of dark matter and dark energy.Mario Livio is the author of seven books, including Galileo: And the Science Deniers, The Golden Ratio, and Is God a Mathematician? His current research centers on the emergence of life in the Universe.This interview is edited and produced with music and other features in the On Being episode "Mario Livio — Mathematics, Mystery, and the Universe" Find the transcript for that show at onbeing.org.