​SpaceX faces federal investigation after Starship rocket launch ● How, when and why we started blinking ● We’re moving in the right direction, but not at the right speed

SpaceX is the subject of a federal investigation after the launch of the Starship rocket

After kissing and celebrating with champagne during a Starship rocket test flight that ended in an explosion just over three minutes after launch, Elon Musk and other SpaceX officials must bow to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) panel. In addition, they have also blocked all future government-ordered releases until the investigation is complete.

The fact is that SpaceX engineers and all company representatives made certain miscalculations. Some resulted in not only a crater under the launch pad, but toxic waste washed up on a beach in the Boca Chica region of Texas where the launch took place. And since these beaches are the nesting grounds of several endangered species of birds and turtles, that means SpaceX is paying pretty well.

According to preliminary reports, the launch of the largest Starship rocket in history also resulted in broken windows in a radius of about ten kilometers, as well as ash particles covering the roofs of houses and schools in Port Isabel. As for the pieces of red-hot concrete that, like shrapnel, hit the nearby fuel tanks, damaging the entire cosmelia, it really could have ended in disaster.

According to data provided by the FAA, SpaceX did not prepare the platform to absorb the impact, flames and debris from such a launch. And the Boca Chico base, compared to other similar bases, does not have such security measures. So the blame and future costs fall on SpaceX.

In any case, don’t expect the Americans to shut down SpaceX just for the sake of it. The company is moving forward according to plans. All Elon Musk and his ilk need to do is give clear assurances that such incidents will not happen again, pay damages, apologize to the turtles and birds before reapplying for the license. As evidence, just yesterday, April 25, SpaceX received permission to use a base for launching rockets in California in the future. This is the fifth base that Musk’s company is allowed to use.

How, when and why we started blinking

Blinking is an involuntary action that you rarely notice. Like breathing. You can’t abstain too much from one or the other, no matter how much you want to, because your body won’t let you. But the problem is different. Namely, this act of blinking is much older and more important than you imagine.

This discovery was shared by several American researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a study they published in the journal PNAS. And, scientists say, flickering comes from fish and was passed on to all four-leggeds (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) yesterday and today.

At first glance, this statement seems a little strange, because, as a child knows, a fish does not blink. They simply do not have the necessary eyelids for such a thing. Yes, but there are some who have taken this evolutionary step. In addition, they also took another important step in the evolution of life, namely the step from water to land. In fact, these two steps are kind of combined.

In short, about 400 million years ago, during the Devonian period, some fish thought to venture out and see what life was like in an environment other than water. Here they discovered something. Namely, that the eyes, organs that evolution has already managed to invent under water, no longer function in the same way on land, in the sense that they need to be kept moist. This time.

Then, in this new environment, all kinds of pollution risked getting into the eyes. Last but not least, how they played there, how they ran and jumped, could hit their heads against a stone, a stick, etc., hit their eyes. So we had to defend ourselves somehow. Thus arose primitive eyelids and, implicitly, the act of blinking, which performed all the functions mentioned earlier.

How do American scientists know about all this? Because even today there are species of fish that make the transition from water to land, look at the case of climbing fish. The difference is that these fish do not have eyelids, but they can retract their bulbous eyes into sockets where they are temporarily covered by a membrane that acts as an eyelid. Since they also lack tear glands, fish use the mucus that covers their skin along with water to keep their eyes moist.

After all, American scientists, after observing fish for a long time and subjecting them to various tests, discovered that they only blink when they are on land. For what reasons? From all of the above. Hence the conclusion that this reaction arose with the first steps outside the water environment, somewhere around 400 million years ago. Also as a conclusion, no matter how trivial the blink is, without it you wouldn’t be here, but you still wandered through seas, oceans and puddles without even realizing how beautiful it is on land.

We are going in the right direction, but not at the right speed

The Paris Agreement, ratified in 2015, required signatory nations (196) to make every effort to stop the rise in global temperatures to around 1.5 degrees Celsius, ideally. That is, until the middle of the 21st century. So far so good.

An important first step was to move away from fossil fuels, especially coal. Since humanity emits about 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, and since 40% of that amount is just burning coal, the solution is simple and logical. And many signatory countries have taken action in the aforementioned sense. Or at least on a declarative level.

A study by researchers from the Universities of Gothenburg and Lund, recently published in the journal IOPscience, shows that, unfortunately, only The Gambia is on the chart. Absolutely all other countries either remained at the stage of promises or moved too slowly along the path of reducing coal consumption. Like, we are going in the right direction, but at a completely different speed than we should.

And this, in the most realistic scenario, means an increase in the average global temperature of about 3 degrees Celsius by the middle of the century. This is twice the acceptable limit. There is no point in saying what 3 degrees more means. It’s been said in years past, and it won’t be good. Not at all

The problem is that, on the contrary, against the background of the conflict in Ukraine, coal consumption increased by 1.2% in 2022 alone and continues to grow. This follows a 3.1% drop in 2020. And in this waltz rhythm, with one step forward and two steps back, the future sounds worse and worse.

Follow our Facebook page, HotNews Science, to be able to receive live information and curiosities from the world of science in real time!

Photo source: profimedimages.ro