Skywatch: Crowded space
A little over 240 years ago, birds were the only things that could fly above the ground untethered without eventually falling. That all changed in 1783 when Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent d'Arlandes made the first successful hot-air balloon flight over Paris. Just think about what must have been going through their heads when they saw the Earth from above. No humans had ever had a bird's-eye view like that before and lived to tell about it!
It took until 1903 for the next major aviation feat to be accomplished when the Wright brothers flew the first airplane in the skies just south of Kitty Hawk, N.C. Fifty-four years later, the Soviet Union put the first human-made satellite, Sputnik 1, in orbit around the Earth, and four years after that, the Russians launched the first human-occupied satellite, Vostok 1, with astronaut Yuri Gagarin aboard.
Since that time over 11,000 satellites have been launched into orbit, with and without people aboard. Many of those satellites have long since burned up in the Earth's atmosphere because of orbital decay. Others, mainly occupied by humans, have successfully re-entered the atmosphere to either land on the ground or splash down in the ocean. There is a fantastic website, www.N2YO.com, that tracks objects in the sky. If you go to their search engine and type in Vanguard 1, you can see that it is in the first position of one of the first U.S. satellites launched in 1958 and is still in orbit 67 years later! When you explore N2YO, you can get orbital data on thousands in orbit. However, many of those satellites have stopped functioning, and many are actually spent rocket stages that boosted satellites into orbit. It's crowded above the Earth, but there's still a lot of room left.
The really cool thing is that stargazers can see many of these satellites. If you're intently studying the night sky looking for constellations and observing with binoculars or a telescope, it's hard to go more than a half-hour without seeing a satellite zipping along. Most satellites move from west to east, but some are in polar orbits. The best time to see them is in the early evening for a couple of hours after evening twilight or a couple of hours before the start of morning twilight. That's because satellites have to reflect sunlight to be visible. Even if satellites had huge spotlights mounted on them, you'd never see them. They're just too high up. Just before morning twilight, and for a little while after evening twilight, there's no direct sunlight available to us on the ground, but high in space there's still enough sunlight to bathe satellites, sending secondhand sunshine our way. During the middle of the night the sun is entirely behind the Earth, so all satellites pass over in total darkness.
By far, the easiest satellite to spot is the International Space Station. It's as bright as a jetliner passing over. Because of that many people see it all the time and figure it's a jet. Its first component or module was launched in 1998, and the station was completed in 2011. It's longer than a football field! What makes it so bright are the eight solar panels that are over 100 feet long and nearly 40 feet wide! They bounce a heck of a lot of secondhand sunshine our way!
The ISS orbits the Earth about every 90 minutes, traveling at almost 5 miles a second. It moves in a general direction from west to east across the dome of the sky. The ISS doesn't pass over the same location each orbit. That's because of the nature of its orbit and the fact that Earth is rotating. There can be stretches of nights when it doesn't pass over at all. That's why you need to have an app or a website that will let you know where and when to look. Some apps will even alert you when the ISS is expected to pass over your location on Earth.
My favorite website for keeping up with the travels of the ISS is www.heavensabove.com. With Heavens-Above all you have to do is configure it for your location with their massive database. Among many of its features, it'll provide a schedule for ISS flyovers and even a sky map to track it. You can also find out when other bright satellites will be passing over. My favorite free app for tracking the ISS is ISS Tracker. Allow that app to know your location, and you're good to go.
Depending on where it's crossing your sky, the ISS can take up to around five minutes to pass. It resembles a super bright star. Depending on when you're watching it, in the early morning or early evening, it can suddenly disappear in the sky as it enters the Earth's shadow, or it can pop into view coming out of the shadow in the early morning.
As much fun as it can be to observe satellites in the night sky, I'm afraid that in the future the skies may become too crowded. I'm worried that it's already beginning to happen. In particular I'm referring to Starlink satellites launched by the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, otherwise known as SpaceX, a private space transportation enterprise founded in 2002 by South African native Elon Musk.
Starlink satellites can provide much more available access to the internet throughout the world, even in remote areas. Already, there are hundreds and hundreds of Starlinks in orbit, and it's very easy to see them, sometimes in groups or lines, especially after they are first launched. As it is with the International Space Station, you can keep up with all of them on the Heavens-Above website, as well as other sites and apps.
The big fear is that the natural beauty of the night sky could be ruined with too many satellites. Earth-based astronomical observations, both done by professionals and by amateur astronomers, are going to be interfered with significantly. I believe, and so do many others, that there must be some international regulations to keep this from happening. I can tell you as an astrophotographer that it's getting tougher and tougher to get time-exposure images that aren't marred by satellite streaks.
Watching satellites is a lot of fun but let's not get the heavens too congested!
Mike Lynch is an amateur astronomer and retired broadcast meteorologist for WCCO Radio in Minneapolis/St. Paul. He is the author of 'Stars: a Month by Month Tour of the Constellations,' published by Adventure Publications and available at bookstores and adventurepublications.net. Mike is available for private star parties. You can contact him at mikewlynch@comcast.net.
Skywatch: Dippers and bears flying high
Skywatch: A crow, a cup and a water snake
Skywatch: The two brightest stars, and a guest star
Skywatch: Celestial twins proudly sharing Orion's shoulders
Skywatch: Out with the hunter. In with the Lion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Intelligence Illusion: What Apple's AI Study Reveals About Reasoning
Concept of the diversity of talents and know-how, with profiles of male and female characters ... More associated with different brains. The gleaming veneer of artificial intelligence has captivated the world, with large language models producing eloquent responses that often seem indistinguishable from human thought. Yet beneath this polished surface lies a troubling reality that Apple's latest research has brought into sharp focus: eloquence is not intelligence, and imitation is not understanding. Apple's new study, titled "The Illusion of Thinking," has sent shockwaves through the AI community by demonstrating that even the most sophisticated reasoning models fundamentally lack genuine cognitive abilities. This revelation validates what prominent researchers like Meta's Chief AI Scientist Yann LeCun have been arguing for years—that current AI systems are sophisticated pattern-matching machines rather than thinking entities. The Apple research team's findings are both methodical and damning. By creating controlled puzzle environments that could precisely manipulate complexity while maintaining logical consistency, they revealed three distinct performance regimes in Large Reasoning Models . In low-complexity tasks, standard models actually outperformed their supposedly superior reasoning counterparts. Medium-complexity problems showed marginal benefits from additional "thinking" processes. But most tellingly, both model types experienced complete collapse when faced with high-complexity tasks. What makes these findings particularly striking is the counter-intuitive scaling behavior the researchers observed. Rather than improving with increased complexity as genuine intelligence would, these models showed a peculiar pattern: their reasoning effort would increase up to a certain point, then decline dramatically despite having adequate computational resources. This suggests that the models weren't actually reasoning at all— they were following learned patterns that broke down when confronted with novel challenges. The study exposed fundamental limitations in exact computation, revealing that these systems fail to use explicit algorithms and reason inconsistently across similar puzzles. When the veneer of sophisticated language is stripped away, what remains is a sophisticated but ultimately hollow mimicry of thought. These findings align perfectly with warnings that Yann LeCun and other leading AI researchers have been voicing for years. LeCun has consistently argued that current LLMs will be largely obsolete within five years, not because they'll be replaced by better versions of the same technology, but because they represent a fundamentally flawed approach to artificial intelligence. The core issue isn't technical prowess — it's conceptual. These systems don't understand; they pattern-match. They don't reason; they interpolate from training data. They don't think; they generate statistically probable responses based on massive datasets. The sophistication of their output masks the absence of genuine comprehension, creating what researchers now recognize as an elaborate illusion of intelligence. This disconnect between appearance and reality has profound implications for how we evaluate and deploy AI systems. When we mistake fluency for understanding, we risk making critical decisions based on fundamentally flawed reasoning processes. The danger isn't just technological—it's epistemological. Perhaps most unsettling is how closely this AI limitation mirrors a persistent human cognitive bias. Just as we've been deceived by AI's articulate responses, we consistently overvalue human confidence and extroversion, often mistaking verbal facility for intellectual depth. The overconfidence bias represents one of the most pervasive flaws in human judgment, where individuals' subjective confidence in their abilities far exceeds their objective accuracy. This bias becomes particularly pronounced in social and professional settings, where confident, extroverted individuals often command disproportionate attention and credibility. Research consistently shows that we tend to equate confidence with competence, volume with value, and articulateness with intelligence. The extroverted individual who speaks first and most frequently in meetings often shapes group decisions, regardless of the quality of their ideas. The confident presenter who delivers polished but superficial analysis frequently receives more positive evaluation than the thoughtful introvert who offers deeper insights with less theatrical flair. This psychological tendency creates a dangerous feedback loop. People with low ability often overestimate their competence (the Dunning-Kruger effect), while those with genuine expertise may express appropriate uncertainty about complex issues. The result is a systematic inversion of credibility, where those who know the least speak with the greatest confidence, while those who understand the most communicate with appropriate nuance and qualification. The parallel between AI's eloquent emptiness and our bias toward confident communication reveals something profound about the nature of intelligence itself. Both phenomena demonstrate how easily we conflate the appearance of understanding with its substance. Both show how sophisticated communication can mask fundamental limitations in reasoning and comprehension. Consider the implications for organizational decision-making, educational assessment, and social dynamics. If we consistently overvalue confident presentation over careful analysis—whether from AI systems or human colleagues—we systematically degrade the quality of our collective reasoning. We create environments where performance theater takes precedence over genuine problem-solving. The Apple study's revelation that AI reasoning models fail when faced with true complexity mirrors how overconfident individuals often struggle with genuinely challenging problems while maintaining their persuasive veneer. Both represent sophisticated forms of intellectual imposture that can persist precisely because they're so convincing on the surface. Understanding these limitations—both artificial and human—opens the door to more authentic evaluation of intelligence and reasoning. True intelligence isn't characterized by unwavering confidence or eloquent presentation. Instead, it manifests in several key ways: Genuine intelligence embraces uncertainty when dealing with complex problems. It acknowledges limitations rather than concealing them. It demonstrates consistent reasoning across different contexts rather than breaking down when patterns become unfamiliar. Most importantly, it shows genuine understanding through the ability to adapt principles to novel situations. In human contexts, this means looking beyond charismatic presentation to evaluate the underlying quality of reasoning. It means creating space for thoughtful, measured responses rather than rewarding only quick, confident answers. It means recognizing that the most profound insights often come wrapped in appropriate humility rather than absolute certainty. For AI systems, it means developing more rigorous evaluation frameworks that test genuine understanding rather than pattern matching. It means acknowledging current limitations rather than anthropomorphizing sophisticated text generation. It means building systems that can genuinely reason rather than simply appearing to do so. The convergence of Apple's AI findings with psychological research on human biases offers valuable guidance for navigating our increasingly complex world. Whether evaluating AI systems or human colleagues, we must learn to distinguish between performance and competence, between eloquence and understanding. This requires cultivating intellectual humility – the recognition that genuine intelligence often comes with appropriate uncertainty, that the most confident voices aren't necessarily the most credible, and that true understanding can be distinguished from sophisticated mimicry through careful observation and testing. To distinguish intelligence from imitation in an AI-infused environment we need to invest in hybrid intelligence, which arises from the complementarity of natural and artificial intelligences – anchored in the strength and limitations of both.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Imaging Satellites Can Protect Ceasefire, Peacekeeper Lives In Ukraine
Images captured by futuristic satellites circling the globe—of Russian tanks crashing the border with democratic Ukraine—were blasted out to iPhone screens across the continents. Spectators stretching from elite EU campuses to the Elysée Palace were captivated when Ukraine's outgunned defenders began launching miniature weaponized drones that halted the armored battalions, whose retreat was imaged in technicolor by spacecraft hundreds of kilometers above the Earth. These robotic photographers, whizzing through orbit at 28,000 kilometers per hour, seemed to change the world—and the war—overnight. Their sensational imagery of the lightning invasion of Ukraine, and its remarkable defense, generated allies for the embattled nation around the world. Yet these celestial imagers might also aid a future peacemaking coalition deployed to help halt the conflict, predicts Valerie Sticher, a renowned scholar on peace initiatives and conflict resolution at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich. Imaging satellites often provide the sole means to safely monitor the most dangerous war zones, and could play a pivotal role in supporting peacekeepers sent to observe a future ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, says Dr. Sticher. One of the globe's top experts on the use of remote sensing technology, including imaging satellites, in ceasefire monitoring, Sticher tells me in an interview that photographs of conflict zones captured by orbiting spacecraft have already been used to help observers steer clear of high-risk hotspots. As satellite-based cameras and radar imaging tech become more advanced and extensive, she says, they could become essential tools in observing truces in war-torn regions like Ukraine. 'I don't think the use of satellite images and other remote sensing technology (such as cameras mounted on drones) can directly replace human ceasefire monitors,' she says. 'But they can play an important role in expanding monitoring to areas where human monitors cannot go for safety reasons.' Ceasefire monitoring teams can now use satellite-based photographers as avatars to chronicle trenches, tanks, troops and other dangers. Satellite 'imagery can also provide photographic evidence that is harder to dispute than witness accounts—an important advantage in the context of potential disinformation campaigns,' Sticher says. This transformation of imaging sats into surrogate truce observers began during an earlier ceasefire operation in Ukraine mounted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE deployed its 'Special Monitoring Mission' team of hundreds of unarmed observers as part of a ceasefire agreement that Moscow only haltingly signed onto after its troops led the surprise takeover of the Ukrainian region of Crimea, and then started arming Moscow-backed militias along the nearby borderlands. Yet the terms of the truce provided no enforcement mechanisms for ceasefire violations, much less for punishment of any party breaking the agreement. As a result, violations exploded, sometimes endangering the patrols of the peacekeepers. In 2017, after a surreptitiously planted landmine killed peacekeeper Joseph Stone, an American paramedic, the ceasefire contingent ramped up reliance on satellites to monitor especially hazardous sectors surrounding the 400-kilometer-long 'line of contact' separating the two sides in the conflict. U.S. Senator Roger Wicker said at the time that he lamented Joseph Stone's 'tragic death' while carrying out peacekeeping duties 'in territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists.' Wicker, who is now the powerful chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee, added: ''Russian-led separatist forces continue to commit the majority of ceasefire violations' in Ukraine, and said OSCE observers were likely deliberately targeted by the Russian-supported militants. Sticher, who has headed a series of leading studies on ceasefire monitoring aided by advanced satellite technologies, says in one paper: 'The war in Ukraine has pushed the role of satellite imagery in armed conflicts into the spotlight.' During the first space race, the superpowers began launching super-secret spacecraft to detect the firing of nuclear missiles and map enemy military installations. But with the new-millennium NewSpace race, expanding constellations of independent satellites outfitted with sophisticated cameras, she says, are being 'employed by a wide range of human rights, humanitarian, and peacekeeping actors to mitigate the impact of violence or support the resolution of armed conflicts.' The peacekeeping operation in Ukraine has been lauded worldwide for its leading-edge use of satellites and uncrewed aerial vehicles, or drones, equipped with cameras to provide real-time detection of troop movements, missile batteries and the flow of refugees away from battlefronts. But the makeshift ceasefire agreement, riddled with breaches, sometimes placed the monitors in high-risk situations. 'OSCE staff reported that the risk of UAVs being shot down was a serious impediment to monitoring,' Sticher and her colleague Aly Verjee, a scholar at Sweden's University of Gothenburg, say in one study. The ceasefire operation lost dozens of drones blasted by belligerents, partly due to 'resistance to being monitored.' And while satellites that passed overhead every 90 minutes provided staggered snapshots of changes along the frozen battlefront, they add, 'Over time, the parties became apt at camouflaging their heavy weapons systems' to hide from these high-altitude scouts. Sticher lauds the peacekeepers who served in the earlier ceasefire operation, which ended with Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. She adds that a colleague at ETH Zurich, Alexander Hug, co-led that mission and penned a captivating first-hand account on his team and their satellite backup. Hug says in his chronicles on the conflict that his peacekeeping contingent relied on satellite cameras to track an ever-changing labyrinth of dangers produced by the smoldering war. Satellites helped his ceasefire observers track major changes on the battlefield, including 'the positions of the forces, damage to critical infrastructure, [and] the presence of weapon systems and other military-type installations.' 'If satellite imagery revealed newly placed anti-tank mines on a patrolling route,' he says, 'the Mission first deployed a UAV in the area to verify the facts and could, if the mines were still in place, re-route the patrol.' In a preface to Hug's report, Philippe Étienne, former French ambassador to the U.S., says although the ceasefire endeavor 'could not prevent Russia's aggression against Ukraine, it helped to contain violence during the phase it was active.' And while the truce was pummeled by outbreaks of violence, 'predominantly by Russian troops and affiliated armed group troops in eastern Ukraine,' Ambassador Étienne says, the peacekeeping team 'managed to negotiate temporary pauses in the fighting, to enable the evacuation of civilians caught in the middle of the war.' Yet Étienne, who also served as chief diplomatic adviser to French President Emmanuel Macron, suggests the peacekeeping mission, its next-generation satellite wingmen, and even the house-of-cards ceasefire pact should all be studied in advance of crafting any future truce arrangement for Ukraine. France has been the major global power to press the Kremlin to enter ceasefire talks with Ukraine, and co-shaped a new round of EU sanctions against Russia until it does so. So far, the White House has failed to match the new European sanctions or the stepped-up pressure on Vladimir Putin to suspend the fighting during peace negotiations. Yet French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said during a recent roundtable with journalists and scholars, hosted by the Atlantic Council think tank, that Paris and Washington might still join forces to cajole Moscow into joining a ceasefire summit. 'Right now, the main obstacle to peace is Vladimir Putin,' said Minister Barrot. During his stopover in Washington, Barrot added, he praised 'Senator Lindsey Graham, who put together a massive package of sanctions … aimed at threatening Russia into accepting a ceasefire.' Senator Graham has already amassed a veto-proof majority in the Senate backing the bill, and Minister Barrot said the centuries-old allies could coordinate to quickly push for truce talks. At the same time, there has been a rush of global peace advocates offering to host ceasefire negotiations. During the very first mass he celebrated to mark his out-of-the-blue election as the new Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo XIV lamented: 'Martyred Ukraine awaits negotiations for a just and lasting peace.' Building on the anti-war legacy of Pope Francis, who was a prime force behind the promulgation of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Pope Leo also met privately with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and proposed the world's smallest nation—Vatican City—could help stage a first round of peace talks with the holder of the globe's biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons, Russia. Switzerland, which hosted a 'Summit on Peace in Ukraine' last year, could play a key role in brokering and monitoring a future ceasefire, says Dr. Sticher. The quest to end wars and promote peace across the continents is such a central element in Switzerland's identity that it is enshrined in the Swiss constitution. Halting the barrage of bullets and missiles that is decimating Ukraine could draw on a wealth of scholarship and experience across Switzerland, Sticher says: 'Switzerland can play a role, there is Swiss expertise in both ceasefire mediation and ceasefire monitoring.' Any new ceasefire agreement, Dr. Sticher adds, must avoid repeating the mistakes of the earlier pact. 'The new ceasefire should be clear and strong in outlining strategies for dealing with violations,' she says. The truce should also 'explicitly provide for the incorporation of technology such as satellite imagery into a future ceasefire observation mission.' 'If the two sides reach an agreement on a ceasefire with a demilitarized zone, and agreement on what types of weapons can be in what proximity of this zone,' she says, 'then satellite imagery could be used to verify that the parties comply with this agreement.' In ceasefires of the future, Sticher adds, expanding use of satellite imagery 'can be an invaluable tool to support human monitors'—by helping document the ever-changing dangers of battle zones and by providing crystal-clear evidence of truce violations.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
CRISPR Is Direct Result of Federal Funding: Doudna
President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to divert billions in grant dollars away from Harvard University and give those funds to trade schools across the US, escalating his clash with the elite institution. Jennifer Doudna, a winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry for development of CRISPR gene editing said that federal funding is essential for search like hers to start. (Source: Bloomberg)
