ReportWire

Tag: humanities

  • NASA’s mightiest rocket lifts off 50 years after Apollo

    NASA’s mightiest rocket lifts off 50 years after Apollo

    [ad_1]

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA’s new moon rocket blasted off on its debut flight with three test dummies aboard early Wednesday, bringing the U.S. a big step closer to putting astronauts back on the lunar surface for the first time since the end of the Apollo program 50 years ago.

    If all goes well during the three-week, make-or-break shakedown flight, the rocket will propel an empty crew capsule into a wide orbit around the moon, and then the capsule will return to Earth with a splashdown in the Pacific in December.

    After years of delays and billions in cost overruns, the Space Launch System rocket thundered skyward, rising from Kennedy Space Center on 8.8 million pounds (4 million kilograms) of thrust and hitting 100 mph (160 kph) within seconds. The Orion capsule was perched on top, ready to bust out of Earth orbit toward the moon not quite two hours into the flight.

    The moonshot follows nearly three months of vexing fuel leaks that kept the rocket bouncing between its hangar and the pad. Forced back indoors by Hurricane Ian at the end of September, the rocket stood its ground outside as Nicole swept through last week with gusts of more than 80 mph (130 kph). Although the wind peeled away a 10-foot (3-meter) strip of caulking high up near the capsule, managers gave the green light for the launch.

    NASA expected 15,000 to jam the launch site, with thousands more lining the beaches and roads outside the gates, to witness NASA’s long-awaited sequel to Project Apollo, when 12 astronauts walked on the moon from 1969 and 1972.

    Crowds also gathered outside NASA centers in Houston and Huntsville, Alabama, to watch the spectacle on giant screens.

    Cheers accompanied the rocket as it rode a huge trail of flame toward space, with a half-moon glowing brightly and buildings shaking as though hit by a major quake.
    “For the Artemis generation, this is for you,” launch director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson called out, referring to all those born after Apollo.

    The liftoff marked the start of NASA’s Artemis lunar-exploration program, named after Apollo’s mythological twin sister. The space agency is aiming to send four astronauts around the moon on the next flight, in 2024, and land humans there as early as 2025.

    “You have earned your place in history,” Blackwell-Thompson told her team following liftoff. “You’re part of a first. Doesn’t come along very often. Once in a career maybe. But we are all part of something incredibly special: the first launch of Artemis. The first step in returning our country to the moon and on to Mars.”

    The 322-foot (98-meter) SLS is the most powerful rocket ever built by NASA, with more thrust than either the space shuttle or the mighty Saturn V that carried men to the moon. A series of hydrogen fuel leaks plagued the summertime launch attempts as well as countdown tests. A fresh leak erupted at a new location during Tuesday night’s fueling, but an emergency team managed to tighten the faulty valve on the pad. Then a U.S. Space Force radar station went down, resulting in another scramble, this time to replace an ethernet switch.

    Orion should reach the moon by Monday, more than 230,000 miles (370,000 kilometers) from Earth. After coming within 80 miles (130 kilometers) of the moon, the capsule will enter a far-flung orbit stretching about 40,000 miles (64,000 kilometers) beyond.

    The $4.1 billion test flight is set to last 25 days, roughly the same as when crews will be aboard. The space agency intends to push the spacecraft to its limits and uncover any problems before astronauts strap in. The mannequins — NASA calls them moonequins — are fitted with sensors to measure such things as vibration, acceleration and cosmic radiation.

    “There’s a fair amount of risk with this particular initial flight test,” said mission manager Mike Sarafin.

    The rocket was supposed to have made its dry run by 2017. Government watchdogs estimate NASA will have spent $93 billion on the project by 2025.

    Ultimately, NASA hopes to establish a base on the moon and send astronauts to Mars by the late 2030s or early 2040s.

    But many hurdles still need to be cleared. The Orion capsule will take astronauts only to lunar orbit, not the surface.

    NASA has hired Elon Musk’s SpaceX to develop Starship, the 21st-century answer to Apollo’s lunar lander. Starship will carry astronauts back and forth between Orion and the lunar surface, at least on the first trip in 2025. The plan is to station Starship and eventually other companies’ landers in orbit around the moon, ready for use whenever new Orion crews pull up.

    Reprising an argument that was made during the 1960s, Duke University historian Alex Roland questions the value of human spaceflight, saying robots and remote-controlled spacecraft could get the job done more cheaply, efficiently and safely.

    “In all these years, no evidence has emerged to justify the investment we have made in human spaceflight — save the prestige involved in this conspicuous consumption,” he said.

    NASA is waiting until this test flight is over before introducing the astronauts who will be on the next one and those who will follow in the bootsteps of Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

    Most of NASA’s corps of 42 active astronauts and 10 trainees were not even born yet when Apollo 17 moonwalkers Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt closed out the era, 50 years ago next month.

    “We are jumping out of our spacesuits with excitement,” astronaut Christina Koch said Tuesday.

    After a nearly yearlong space station mission and all-female spacewalk, Koch, 43, is on NASA’s short list for a lunar flight. So is astronaut Kayla Barron, 35, who finally got to witness her first rocket launch, not counting her own a year ago.

    “It took my breath away, and I was tearing up,” Barron said. “What an amazing acccomplishment for this team.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What NASA knows about soft landings that the Federal Reserve doesn’t

    What NASA knows about soft landings that the Federal Reserve doesn’t

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Reserve still has a chance to meet both of its main goals — strong economic growth and stable prices — but time is running out to achieve a soft landing.

    The problem is that Fed officials are fixated on raising interest rates
    FF00,
    +0.00%

    several more times, including another supersize increase at their meeting Tuesday and Wednesday. They don’t seem to notice that inflation is already retreating significantly, while growth is dangerously close to stalling out.

    They have a blind spot because they are looking at the past.

    Greg Robb: Another jumbo Fed rate hike is expected this week — and then life gets difficult for Chairman Powell

    Fed officials ought to reach out to another government agency that has had remarkable success in achieving soft landings: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    NASA’s scientists know something the Fed has forgotten: It takes a long time to send and receive messages from space, so they need to account for those delays when sending instructions to their spacecraft so they can land safely on Mars, or orbit Saturn or the moons of Jupiter.

    Compounding errors

    It’s the same way with the economy. The signals that the Fed receives from the economy are often delayed, sometimes by months. Unfortunately, one of the main signals the Fed is relying upon right now to decide how much to raise interest rates is delayed by a year or more.

    I’m talking about inflation in the price of putting a roof over our heads. Shelter prices are now the leading contributor to increases in the consumer price index (CPI) and the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index. But because of the way the CPI for shelter is constructed — for very good reasons — the inflation reported today reflects conditions as they were 12 to 18 months ago.

    The error is compounded because shelter prices are by far the largest component of the CPI, at more than 30%.

    The Fed is disappointed that inflation hasn’t declined more since it began raising interest rates in March, but how could it when the signals about shelter prices were sent last summer and fall, long before the housing market began to cool in response to higher interest rates
    TMUBMUSD10Y,
    4.049%

    and the reductions in the Fed’s holdings of mortgage-backed securities?

    According to real-time data, shelter prices are no longer rising at a near-10% annual rate as the CPI and PCE price index claim. Growth in rents and house prices has slowed since the first rate hikes in March. House prices are actually falling in most regions of the country, and private-sector measures of rents show that landlords are now dropping rents in many cities.

    Just like a radio signal from Jupiter, it takes time for that message to be received by the CPI. It will be received and incorporated into the CPI eventually, but by then it may be too late for the Fed to react. The Fed might crash the spacecraft because it mistakenly believes the messages it gets are in real time.

    Growth is slowing

    The Fed’s blind spot puts the economy in peril. Recent data show that growth is naturally slowing from the breakneck pace following the pandemic shutdowns but also from the Fed’s relentless squeeze on financial conditions.

    It’s very hard to argue that the economy is still overheating. Domestic demand has stalled out since the spring. Final sales to domestic purchasers — which covers consumer spending and business investment — has grown at a 0.3% annual pace over the past two quarters.

    Real disposable incomes are growing at less than 1% annualized. Household wealth has fallen off a cliff, with the stock market
    SPX,
    -0.41%

    DJIA,
    -0.24%

    in a bear market and home equity beginning to fall. Wage growth is beginning to slow. Supply chains are improving.

    And the CPI excluding shelter has gone from rising at a 14% annual pace in the spring when the tightening began, to falling at a 1% annual pace over the past three months. Rate hikes are working!

    This benign picture on inflation may not persist. Inflation is still worrisome, particularly for essentials such as food, health care, new vehicles and utilities.

    But the Fed should adopt a more balanced view of the economy, no matter what the signals from the past say. No one wants a hard landing.

    Just ask NASA.

    More reported analysis from Rex Nutting

    Everybody is looking at the CPI through the wrong lens. Inflation fell to the Fed’s target in the past three months, according to the best measure.

    The Federal Reserve risks driving the economy into a ditch because it’s not looking at where inflation is heading

    Americans are feeling poorer for good reason: Household wealth was shredded by inflation and soaring interest rates

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Stock market bulls have a new story to sell you. Don’t believe them — they’re just in the ‘bargaining’ stage of grief

    Stock market bulls have a new story to sell you. Don’t believe them — they’re just in the ‘bargaining’ stage of grief

    [ad_1]

    Might the bear market’s losses at its recent low have gotten so bad that it was actually good news?

    Some eager stock bulls I monitor are advancing this convoluted rationale. The outline of their argument is that when things get bad enough, good times must be just around the corner.

    But their argument tells us more about market sentiment than its prospects.

    At the market’s recent closing low, the S&P 500
    SPX,
    +1.19%

    had dropped to 25% below its early-January high. According to one version of this “so-bad-it’s-good” argument, the stock market in the past was a good buy whenever bear markets fell to that threshold. Following those prior occasions, they contend, the market was almost always higher in a year’s time.

    This is not an argument you’d normally expect to see if the recent low represented the final low of the bear market. On the contrary, it fits squarely within the third of the five-stage progression of bear market grief, about which I have written before: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

    With their argument, the bulls are trying to convince themselves that they can survive the bear market, rationalizing that the market will be higher in a year’s time. As Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross put it when creating this five-stage scheme, the key feature of the bargaining stage is that it is a defense against feeling pain. It is far different than the depression and eventual acceptance that typically come later in a bear market.

    Though not all bear markets progress through these five stages, most do, as I’ve written before. Odds are that we have two more stages to go through. That suggests that the market’s rally over the past couple of weeks does not represent the beginning of a major new bull market.

    Numbers don’t add up

    Further support for this bearish assessment comes from the discovery that the bulls’ argument is not supported historically. Only in relatively recent decades was the market reliably higher in a year’s time following occasions in which a bear market had reached the 25% pain threshold. It’s not a good sign that the bulls are basing their optimism on such a flimsy foundation.

    Consider what I found upon analyzing the 21 bear markets since 1900 in the Ned Davis Research calendar in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA,
    +1.34%

    fell at least 25%. I measured the market’s one-year return subsequent to the day on which each of these 21 bear markets first fell to that loss threshold. In seven of the 21 cases, or 33%, the market was lower in a year’s time.

    That’s the identical percentage that applies to all days in the stock market over the past century, regardless of whether those days came during bull or bear markets. So, based on the magnitude of the bear market’s losses to date, there’s no reason to believe that the market’s odds of rising are any higher now than at any other time.

    This doesn’t mean that there aren’t good arguments for why the market might rise. But the 25%-loss concept isn’t one of them.

    Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • WSJ News Exclusive | Bio-Rad Laboratories in Talks to Combine With Qiagen

    WSJ News Exclusive | Bio-Rad Laboratories in Talks to Combine With Qiagen

    [ad_1]

    Bio-Rad Laboratories is in talks to combine with fellow life-sciences company Qiagen NV in a deal that would be worth more than $10 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The talks have been going on for a while but any agreement isn’t likely for another few weeks or more—and there may not be one.

    [ad_2]

    Source link