Looking down at the planet from 200 miles in space

The station is sometimes described as an object: “The International Space Station is the most expensive object ever created.” “The ISS is the only object whose components were manufactured by different countries and assembled in space.” That much is true. But when you live inside the station for days and weeks and months, it doesn’t feel like an object. It feels like a place, a very specific place with its own personality and its own unique characteristics. It has an inside and an outside and rooms upon rooms, each of which has different purposes, its own equipment and hardware, and its own feeling and smell, distinct from the others. Each module has its own story and its own quirks.

From the outside the ISS looks like a number of giant empty soda cans attached to each other end to end. Roughly the size of a football field, the station is made up of five modules connected the long way—three American and two Russian. More modules, including ones from Europe and Japan as well as the United States, are connected as offshoots to port and starboard, and the Russians have three that are attached “up” and “down” (we call these directions zenith and nadir). Between my first time visiting the space station and this mission, it has grown by seven modules, a significant proportion of its volume. This growth is not haphazard but reflects an assembly sequence that had been planned since the beginning of the space station project in the 1990s.

Whenever visiting vehicles are berthed here for a time, there is a new “room,” usually on the Earth-facing side of the station; to get into one of them I have to turn “down” rather than left or right. Those rooms get roomier as we get the cargo unpacked, then get smaller again as we fill them with trash. Not that we need the space—especially on the U.S. side, the station feels quite spacious, and in fact we can lose each other in here easily. But the appearance of extra rooms—and then their disappearance after we set them loose—is a strange feature most homes don’t have.

Since before the space shuttle was retired, NASA has been contracting with private companies to develop spacecraft capable of supplying the station with cargo and, at some point in the future, new crews. The most successful private company so far has been Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, which produces the Dragon spacecraft. Yesterday a Dragon launched from a pad at Cape Canaveral. Since then Dragon has been in orbit a safe 10 kilometers from us. This morning our aim is to capture it with the space station’s robot arm and attach it to the docking port on the station. The process of grappling a visiting vehicle is a bit like playing a video game that tests hand-eye coordination, except that it involves real equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only could an error cause us to lose or damage the Dragon and the millions of dollars’ worth of supplies on board, but a slip of the hand could easily crash the visiting vehicle into the station. An accident with a resupply ship has happened before, when a cargo spacecraft struck the old Russian space station Mir, though its crew was lucky enough not to have been killed by decompression when the Progress crashed into its hull.

These uncrewed spacecraft are the only way we can get supplies from Earth. The Russian Soyuz spacecraft has the capability to send three humans to space, but there is almost no room left over for anything else. SpaceX has had a lot of success so far with their Dragon spacecraft and Falcon rocket, and in 2012 they became the first private company to reach the ISS. Since then they have become one of our regular suppliers, along with the Russian Progress and Orbital ATK’s Cygnus, and they hope to be ready to fly astronauts on the Dragon in the next few years. If they can pull that off, they will be the first private company to carry human beings to orbit, and that launch will be the first time astronauts leave Earth from the United States since the space shuttle was retired in 2011.

Right now Dragon is carrying 4,300 pounds of supplies we need. There is food, water, and oxygen; spare parts and supplies for the systems that keep us alive; health care supplies like needles and vacuum tubes for drawing our blood, sample containers, medications; clothing and towels and washcloths, all of which we throw away after using them as long as we can. Dragon will also be carrying new science experiments for us to carry out, as well as new samples to keep the existing ones going. Notable among the science experiments is a small population of live mice for a study we will be carrying out on how weightlessness affects bone and muscle. Each resupply spacecraft also carries small care packages from our families, which we always look forward to, and precious supplies of fresh food that we enjoy for just a few days, until it runs out or goes bad. Fruits and vegetables seem to rot much faster here than on Earth. I’m not sure why, and seeing the process makes me worry that the same thing is happening to my own cells.

We are especially looking forward to this Dragon’s arrival because another resupply rocket exploded just after launch back in October 2014. That one was a Cygnus flown by another private contractor, U.S.-based Orbital ATK. The station is always supplied far beyond the needs of the current crew, so there was no immediate danger of running out of food or oxygen when those supplies were lost. Still, this was the first time a rocket to resupply the ISS had failed in years, and it destroyed millions of dollars’ worth of equipment. The loss of vital supplies like food and oxygen made everyone think harder about what would happen if a string of failures were to occur. A few days after the explosion, an experimental space plane being developed by Virgin Galactic crashed in the Mojave Desert, killing the copilot. These failures were unrelated, of course, but the timing made it feel as though a string of bad luck might be catching up with us after years of success.

VIEW

Are Aliens Plentiful, But We’re Just Missing Them?

A little over 80 years ago, humanity first began broadcasting radio and television signals with enough power that they should leave Earth’s atmosphere and progress deep into interstellar space. If someone living in a distant star system were keeping a vigilant eye out for these signals, they would not only be able to pick them up, but immediately identify them as created by an intelligent species. In 1960, Frank Drake first proposed searching for such signals from other star systems by using large radio dishes, giving rise to SETI: the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Yet over the past half-century, we’ve developed far more efficient ways to communicate across the globe than with broadcast radio and TV signals. Does searching for aliens in the electromagnetic spectrum even make sense anymore?

This question, of course, is extraordinarily speculative, but gives us a chance to look at our own technological progress, and to consider how that might play out elsewhere in the Universe. After all, if someone from a culture that was versed only in smoke signals and drum beats found themselves deep inside the heart of a forest, they might conclude that there was no intelligent life around. Yet if you gave them a cellphone, there’s a good chance they could get reception from right where they stood! Our conclusions may be as biased as the methods we apply.

The mechanism of electricity only began to be understood in the late 18th century, with the work of Ben Franklin. The power of electricity only began to be harnessed to run electric circuits and other powered devices during the 19th century, and the phenomena associated with classical electromagnetism only became understood through the latter half of that century. The first transmissions of electromagnetic signals for communication didn’t take place until 1895, and the power of radio broadcasts to extend far out into interplanetary and interstellar space wasn’t achieved until the 1930s.

The speed of light is quite a limiting thing as well: if our radio signals have been traveling through interstellar space for 80 years, that means that only civilizations within 80 light years of us would have had an opportunity to receive those signals, and that only civilizations within 40 light years would have had the opportunity to receive those signals and send something back to us that we would’ve received by now. If the Fermi Paradox is the question of “where is everyone,” the answer is, “not within 40 light years of us,” which doesn’t tell us very much about intelligent life in the Universe at all.

While there might be hundreds of billions of stars within our galaxy alone, and around two trillion galaxies in the observable Universe, there are less than 1,000 stars within 40 light years of Earth.

And to make matters worse, electromagnetic signals going out from Earth into interstellar space are decreasing, not increasing. Television and radio broadcasts are increasingly being run through cables or via satellite, not from transmission towers here on Earth. By time another century passes, it’s very likely that the signals we sent out (and hence, began looking for) during the 20th century will cease to be emitted from Earth altogether. Perhaps an alien civilization, making note of these observations when the signals do arrive, would draw the conclusion that this blue, watery planet orbiting our star in the great distance actually achieved intelligent, technologically advance life for a short while, and then wiped ourselves out as the signals gradually stopped.

Or, perhaps, drawing conclusions from what is or isn’t present in any form of electromagnetic signal is altogether wrongheaded.

The Earth at night emits electromagnetic signals, but it would take a telescope of incredible resolution to create an image like this from light years away. Image credit: NASA’s Earth Observatory/NOAA/DOD.

If we were to look at Earth from a nearby distance in visible light, there would be no doubts about the fact of whether or not it’s inhabited: the great glow of cities at night is unmistakably a sign of our activity. Yet this light pollution is relatively new, and is something we’re finally learning how to manage and control if we put the effort (i.e., time, money, manpower and resources) into it. There’s no reason not to be optimistic that by the end of the 21st or 22nd centuries, the Earth at night will look no different than it did for billions of years: dark, except for the occasional aurora, lightning storm or erupting volcano.

But if we weren’t looking for electromagnetic signals, what would we look at? Indeed, everything in the known Universe is limited by the speed of light, and any signal created on another world would necessitate that we be able to observe it. These signals — in terms of what could reach us — fall into four categories:

1. Electromagnetic signals, which include any form of light of any wavelength that would indicate the presence of intelligent life.
2. Gravitational wave signals, which, if there is one unique to intelligent life, would be detectable with sensitive enough equipment anywhere in the Universe.
3. Neutrino signals, which — although incredibly low in flux at great distances — would have an unmistakable signature dependent on the reaction that created them.
4. And finally, actual, macroscopic space probes, either robotic, computerized, free-floating or inhabited, which made its way towards Earth.

How remarkable that our science-fiction imaginations focus almost exclusively on the fourth possibility, which is by far the least likely!

When you think about the vast distances between the stars, how many stars there are with potentially habitable planets (or potentially habitable moons), and how much it takes, in terms of resources, to physically send a space probe from one planet around one star to another planet around another star, it seems literally crazy to consider that method to be a good plan. Far more likely, you’d think, it would be smart to build the right type of detector, to survey all the various regions of the sky, and seek out the signals that could unambiguously show us the presence of intelligent life.

In the electromagnetic spectrum, we know what our living world does in response to the seasons. With winters and summers, there are seasonal (and hence, orbital) changes in what electromagnetic signals our planet emits. As the seasons change, so do the colors on various parts of our planet. With a large enough telescope (or array of telescopes), perhaps the individual signs of our civilization could be seen: cities, satellites, airplanes and more. But perhaps the best thing we could look for is alterations of the natural environment, consistent with something that only an intelligent civilization would create.

We haven’t yet done these things, but perhaps large-scale modifications of a planet would be the exact thing we should be looking for, and should be the large-scale projects we’d aspire towards. Remember, any civilization that we find is unlikely to be in their technological infancy like we are. If they survive it and thrive through it, we’ll likely encounter them in a state tens or hundreds of thousands of years more advanced than we are. (And if that doesn’t boggle your mind, consider how much more advanced we are than we were just a few hundred years ago!) But this brings up two other possibilities, too.

Perhaps — as our gravitational wave technology becomes set to detect the first signals from the Universe — we’ll discover that there are subtle effects that lend themselves to detection across the cosmos. Perhaps there’s something to be said for a world with tens of thousands of satellites orbiting it, something unique that a gravitational wave detector could spot? We haven’t worked it out in great detail because this field is in its infancy and not yet developed to the point where it could detect such a small signal. But these signals don’t degrade the way electromagnetic ones do, nor is there anything that shields them. Perhaps this new branch of astronomy will be the way to go, hundreds of years from now. But my money’s on the third options, if you want an out-of-the-box thought.

What’s likely to be the power source for a sufficiently advanced civilization? Perhaps it’s nuclear power, most likely fusion power, and most likely a specific type of fusion that’s proven to be efficient, abundant, different from what occurs in the cores of stars, and that emits a very, very specific neutrino (or antineutrino) signature as a by-product. And those neutrinos should come with a very specific, explicit signature as far its energy spectrum goes: one that isn’t produced by any natural process.

If we can predict what that signature is, understand it, build a detector for it and measure it, we can find a fusion-powered civilization anywhere, and not have to worry about whether they’re broadcasting or not. So long as they’re making power, we can find them. With SETI focusing solely on electromagnetic signatures, we may, at present, be looking for the cosmic equivalent of smoke signals in a cellphone-filled world. But this likely won’t be the case for long. As our technology continues to advance, our knowledge of what to look for will advance along with it. And perhaps someday — perhaps even someday soon — the Universe may have the most pleasant surprise of all in store for us: the news that we aren’t alone, after all.

GOP Rep. warns against overselling developments in North and South Korea

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) on Friday cautioned against overselling the seemingly successful meeting between North and South Korean leaders on Friday, during which the two nations pledged to denuclearize.

"I'm very cautious here,” Hill told The Hill, adding that denuclearization "is the goal, and what a remarkable achievement it would be, but let's make sure that we can get there. Let's not over oversell it.” 

“It's a hopeful situation, I was so pleased with what I heard yesterday,” Hill added. 

Other lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), also noted that denuclearization would be an "incredible foreign-policy success if indeed it comes together.” 

Asked if President Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize if denuclearization happens, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said "to be able to get it done — that's going to be amazing.” 

The pledge on Friday between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in to formally end the Korean War and to achieve full denuclearization of the Korean peninsula has led many to suggest President Trump should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. 

While the leaders did not include details as to how they plan to denuclearize, the summit between the two nations has been touted by many as a success. 

how to close update windows 7 working 100%, khmer

How China can manage its global risks, by Cambodian knowledge

How China can manage its global risks

The world economy and international system are now characterized not only by deep interconnectedness, but also by intensifying geopolitical rivalries. For China, the situation has been complicated further by US President Donald Trump's evident view of the country as a strategic competitor, rather than a strategic partner, not to mention massive domestic social change and rapid technological disruption. The only way to mitigate the risks that China faces is with a tough, continuous and comprehensive reform strategy.

A key risk is financial. At least four "mismatches" lay at the root of past global financial crises, and three of them plague China today. First, with its bank-dominated financial system, China (along with Europe and many emerging economies) suffers from a maturity mismatch, owing to short-term borrowing and long-term lending. Yet, unlike many emerging economies, China does not struggle with a currency mismatch thanks to its large foreign exchange reserves and persistent current-account surpluses, which make it a net lender to the rest of the world.

But China has not avoided the third mismatch, between debt and equity: The credit-to-GDP ratio doubled over the last decade highlighting China's underdeveloped long-term capital and equity markets. Nor can policymakers afford to ignore the fourth mismatch－between ultra-low nominal interest rates and the relatively higher risk-adjusted return on equity (ROE) for investors－which has contributed to speculative investment and widening wealth and income inequality.

Industrial strategies key to economic transformation

These structural risks are largely a result of China's transformation from an agriculture-led economy to one driven by manufacturing exports. As technology continues to progress, with robotization becoming more accessible, companies that once relied on cheap labor and manufacturing exports increasingly need to produce goods and services closer to domestic consumers in open and globally competitive markets.

In this context, China's only option is to abandon its low-cost manufacturing export model and move up the global supply chain. To that end, the government has already introduced industrial strategies－Made in China 2025 and Internet Plus－to support technological development, adoption and innovation. The United States, however, has taken these industrial policies as evidence of mercantilist state intervention that justifies punitive trade tariffs and other sanctions.

Complicating matters further for China, the rush to create an open, market-oriented economy has fueled corruption and rent seeking. And, as recent European post-crisis experience has shown, it is politically very difficult to carry out structural reforms when vested interests have captured the regulatory system. That is why President Xi Jinping has engaged in a comprehensive anti-corruption campaign since assuming office in 2012.

Yet China's problems extend beyond structural imbalances to two types of cyclical macroeconomic risks. The first risk stems from the business cycles in advanced, market-based economies, where interest rates, inflation rates and growth rates rise and fall together.

The second type of risk reflects the cycle experienced in underdeveloped, non-market-based economies as they make the transition to a market-oriented economy. In this fast-moving cycle, housing and fixed-asset prices (as well as the currency's value) will increase faster than productivity growth in the tradable sector, owing to supply constraints. As households and investors borrow cheaply to invest in rapidly appreciating housing and fixed assets, bubbles form and then burst, spurring crises. Yet since the usual response－socialization of bank losses, with a privileged few keeping the profits and bonuses they accrued while the bubble was growing－creates moral hazard, the cycle is likely to be repeated.

Need to rein in 'gray rhinos'

Abandoning the distorted and imbalanced incentive structure, and ensuring that both creditors and debtors share and manage risks, would help break the cycle. China could create a system in which broad equity stakes－held by pension, social security or sovereign wealth funds－are professionally managed, thereby guaranteeing not only that the long-term risk-adjusted ROE is higher than the real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth rate and the nominal interest rate, but also that the gains are shared widely among the population.

A widely shared positive real ROE would mean less financial repression and a fairer income and wealth distribution. And with more skin in the game, venture capital would be more accountable to investors and savers.

In addition to structural and cyclical risks, China must address the "gray rhinos" (highly likely, but often ignored) strategic risks arising from the intensifying Sino-American geopolitical rivalry. Here, the emerging trade war is just the tip of the iceberg. The US and China are set to become immersed in a long-term competition for technological and strategic supremacy. To stay ahead, they will use every kind of leverage and instrument at their disposal. If this competition is left unchecked, it will surely have far-reaching spillover effects.

Risks are normally mitigated through avoidance, hedging, insurance and diversification. But the Chinese and US economies are both too big and too interconnected to fail, making avoidance and hedging far too dangerous and costly. Insurance would also be impossible, owing to the lack of markets. Diversification may work, if both countries pursue a variety of low-cost, high-return, cooperative win-win options. These include technological innovation that addresses social problems and promotes inclusive growth; further market opening; tough measures against rent-seeking speculators and interest groups; and tax reforms to improve income and wealth distribution.

The fact that trade negotiations are being pursued in tandem with talks over the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's nuclear program suggests that China and the US understand that, in today's interconnected global system, cooperation is necessary for managing multiple global risks. But if China is truly to build a balanced, resilient, and robust real economy and financial system, it will need to go further, developing a comprehensive set of risk-sharing mechanisms. It is a task that can no longer be ignored or postponed.

copy from :https://twitter.com/ 

how to download windows 7 ,8,8 1, 10 free

how to set up corel x 7 and download free, how to download corel draw la...