Ethiopian fossil Lucy leaves for her first exhibition in Europe

Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base

The Hill

21 hours ago

The Hill

Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base

Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Yahoo

a day ago

Yahoo

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Ancient, fossilized teeth, uncovered during a decades-long archaeology project in northeastern Ethiopia, indicate that two different kinds of hominins, or human ancestors, lived in the same place between 2.6 million and 2.8 million years ago — and one of them may be a previously unknown species. The discovery provides a new glimpse into the complex web of human evolution. Ten of the teeth, found between 2018 and 2020, belong to the genus Australopithecus, an ancient human relative. Meanwhile, three teeth, found in 2015, belong to the genus Homo, which includes modern humans, or Homo sapiens. The results were published Wednesday in the journal Nature. Such an overlapping of two hominins in the fossil record is rare, which had previously led scientists to believe that Homo appeared after Australopithecus, rather than the two being contemporaries. Australopithecus species walked upright much like modern humans, but had relatively small brains, closer in size to those of apes. The emergence of Homo species, with their larger brains, is easy for people today to view as some sort of evolutionary upgrade on a path to modern humanity. But the coexistence of the two demonstrates that hominins developed, and lived, in multiple varieties at once. 'This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn't work like that,' said study coauthor Kaye Reed, research scientist and president's professor emerita at the Institute of Human Origins and emeritus professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University, via email. 'Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear, it's a bushy tree, there are life forms that go extinct.' Since 2002, Reed has been a codirector of the Ledi-Geraru Research Project, which is focused, in part, on searching for evidence of early Homo species. In 2015, the team announced the discovery of the oldest known Homo jawbone at 2.8 million years old. It has also searched for later evidence of Australopithecus afarensis, which first appeared 3.9 million years ago, but there is no sign of these ancient human relatives in the fossil record after 2.95 million years ago — suggesting they went extinct before Homo's first appearance. Australopithecus afarensis is best represented by the famed fossilized remains of Lucy, discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy was shorter than an average human, reaching about 3.3 feet (1 meter) in height, had an apelike face and a brain about one-third the size of a human brain. Her fossil showcased a mixture of humanlike and apelike traits and provided proof that ancient human relatives walked upright 3.2 million years ago. When the team discovered the Australopithecus teeth during two separate digs in 2018 and 2020, it compared them with species such as afarensis and another hominin group known as garhi, but they didn't match up. Instead, the scientists believe the teeth belong to a previously unknown species of Australopithecus that walked the Earth after Lucy — and alongside an early Homo species. 'Once we found Homo, I thought that was all we would find, and then one day on survey, we found the Australopithecus teeth,' Reed said. 'What is most important, is that it shows again, that human evolution is not linear. There were species that went extinct; some were better adapted than others, and others interbred with us — we know this for Neanderthals for sure. So anytime that we have another piece to the puzzle of where we came from, it is important.' Cracks in Earth's surface The teeth were found in Ethiopia's Afar region, a key place for researchers seeking answers about human evolution. A variety of preserved fossils have been found there as well as some of the earliest stone tools, Reed said. The Afar region is an active rifting environment — the tectonic plates beneath its earth are actively pulling apart and exposing older layers of sediment that shed light on almost 5 million years of evolution, Reed said. 'The continent is quite literally unzipping there, which creates a lot of volcanism and tectonics,' said study coauthor Christopher Campisano, associate director and associate professor at the Institute of Human Origins and associate professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State, in a video the school released. 'At 2 1⁄2, 3 million years ago, these volcanoes spewed out ash that contain crystals called feldspars that allow us to date the eruptions that were happening on the landscape when they're deposited.' The Australopithecus teeth documented in the new study were dated to 2.63 million years ago, while the Homo teeth are from 2.59 million and 2.78 million years ago. But the team is cautious about identifying a species for any of the teeth until it has more data and more fossils. 'We know what the teeth and mandible of the earliest Homo look like, but that's it,' said Brian Villmoare, lead study author and associate professor in the department of anthropology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in a statement. 'This emphasizes the critical importance of finding additional fossils to understand the differences between Australopithecus and Homo, and potentially how they were able to overlap in the fossil record at the same location.' The Australopithecus teeth broadly resembled those of the afarensis species in contour and the size of the molars, but features of the cusps and canine teeth had not been previously seen in afarensis or garhi teeth, Villmoare said. The teeth were also different in shape than those of any Homo species, or of the ancient human relative Paranthropus, known for its large teeth and chewing muscles. 'Obviously these are only teeth,' Villmoare said, 'but we are continuing field work in the hopes of recovering other parts of the anatomy that might increase resolution on the taxonomy.' Even just finding the teeth was a complicated task, according to Campisano. 'You're looking at little teeth, quite literally, individual teeth that look just like a lot of other of the little pebbles spread on the landscape,' he said in the video. 'And so, we have a great team of local Afars that are excellent fossil hunters. They've seen these things their entire lives walking around the landscape.' A blip for evolution The new study is important because it provides insight into a time frame from 3 million to 2 million years ago, a mysterious period in human evolutionary studies, said Dr. Stephanie Melillo, paleoanthropologist and assistant professor at Mercyhurst University in Pennsylvania. Melillo was not involved in this research, but she has participated in the Woranso-Mille Paleontological Research Project in the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia. Part of the problem in learning about this stretch of prehistory is how ancient layers of dirt were deposited over the course of history in eastern Africa. 'Erosion in rivers and lakes were at a low level and only a little bit of dirt was deposited in the Afar,' Melillo wrote in an email. 'That deposited dirt contains the fossils — of our ancestors and all the animals that lived with us. When there is little deposition, there are few fossils.' A key feature helping archaeologists to understand humanity's evolution are structural basins, or 'bowls' on Earth's surface that naturally collect layers of sediment better than the surrounding landscape does — like the Turkana Basin stretching across southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya, Melillo said. Previous research has found evidence to suggest that Homo and Paranthropus coexisted there 1.5 million years ago. The new study focuses on the Afar Depression, a basin to the north of the Turkana. 'This contribution by Villmoare and colleagues demonstrates that in the Afar there was also some other species around with Homo — but it isn't Paranthropus,' Melillo said. 'Instead, they identify this 'non-Homo' genus as Australopithecus. They do a very convincing job of demonstrating why the new fossils are not Paranthropus.' The study adds to growing evidence that Australopithecus was not roaming the Afar Depression alone, she said. A mysterious coexistence When Australopithecus and Homo were alive, the Afar Region, now mostly a semidesert, had much more seasonal variation in rainfall than it does today, Reed said. Millions of years ago, the environment there was still dominated by a dry season, but it was interrupted by a brief wet season. Rivers that carried water across the landscape existed for only part of the year. Few trees grew near the river, and the environment nearby was largely wetlands and grasslands. 'We have a fossil giraffe species that was eating grass, which probably indicates they were stressed as they eat trees and bushes almost every place else,' Reed said. 'Were the hominins eating the same thing? We are trying to find out by examining isotopes in their teeth and microscopic scratches on their teeth.' Understanding whether or not Homo and Australopithecus had the same food sources could paint a portrait of how our ancient ancestors shared or competed for resources, Reed said. The team also wants to try to identify which hominin made the stone tools found at the site. At the moment it's impossible to tell exactly how the two hominins coexisted, but Reed said she is hoping that future findings will provide more answers. 'Whenever you have an exciting discovery, if you're a paleontologist, you always know that you need more information,' Reed said. 'You need more fossils. More fossils will help us tell the story of what happened to our ancestors a long time ago — but because we're the survivors we know that it happened to us.' Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.

Yahoo

a day ago

Yahoo

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Ancient, fossilized teeth, uncovered during a decades-long archaeology project in northeastern Ethiopia, indicate that two different kinds of hominins, or human ancestors, lived in the same place between 2.6 million and 2.8 million years ago — and one of them may be a previously unknown species. The discovery provides a new glimpse into the complex web of human evolution. Ten of the teeth, found between 2018 and 2020, belong to the genus Australopithecus, an ancient human relative. Meanwhile, three teeth, found in 2015, belong to the genus Homo, which includes modern humans, or Homo sapiens. The results were published Wednesday in the journal Nature. Such an overlapping of two hominins in the fossil record is rare, which had previously led scientists to believe that Homo appeared after Australopithecus, rather than the two being contemporaries. Australopithecus species walked upright much like modern humans, but had relatively small brains, closer in size to those of apes. The emergence of Homo species, with their larger brains, is easy for people today to view as some sort of evolutionary upgrade on a path to modern humanity. But the coexistence of the two demonstrates that hominins developed, and lived, in multiple varieties at once. 'This new research shows that the image many of us have in our minds of an ape to a Neanderthal to a modern human is not correct — evolution doesn't work like that,' said study coauthor Kaye Reed, research scientist and president's professor emerita at the Institute of Human Origins and emeritus professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University, via email. 'Here we have two hominin species that are together. And human evolution is not linear, it's a bushy tree, there are life forms that go extinct.' Since 2002, Reed has been a codirector of the Ledi-Geraru Research Project, which is focused, in part, on searching for evidence of early Homo species. In 2015, the team announced the discovery of the oldest known Homo jawbone at 2.8 million years old. It has also searched for later evidence of Australopithecus afarensis, which first appeared 3.9 million years ago, but there is no sign of these ancient human relatives in the fossil record after 2.95 million years ago — suggesting they went extinct before Homo's first appearance. Australopithecus afarensis is best represented by the famed fossilized remains of Lucy, discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy was shorter than an average human, reaching about 3.3 feet (1 meter) in height, had an apelike face and a brain about one-third the size of a human brain. Her fossil showcased a mixture of humanlike and apelike traits and provided proof that ancient human relatives walked upright 3.2 million years ago. When the team discovered the Australopithecus teeth during two separate digs in 2018 and 2020, it compared them with species such as afarensis and another hominin group known as garhi, but they didn't match up. Instead, the scientists believe the teeth belong to a previously unknown species of Australopithecus that walked the Earth after Lucy — and alongside an early Homo species. 'Once we found Homo, I thought that was all we would find, and then one day on survey, we found the Australopithecus teeth,' Reed said. 'What is most important, is that it shows again, that human evolution is not linear. There were species that went extinct; some were better adapted than others, and others interbred with us — we know this for Neanderthals for sure. So anytime that we have another piece to the puzzle of where we came from, it is important.' Cracks in Earth's surface The teeth were found in Ethiopia's Afar region, a key place for researchers seeking answers about human evolution. A variety of preserved fossils have been found there as well as some of the earliest stone tools, Reed said. The Afar region is an active rifting environment — the tectonic plates beneath its earth are actively pulling apart and exposing older layers of sediment that shed light on almost 5 million years of evolution, Reed said. 'The continent is quite literally unzipping there, which creates a lot of volcanism and tectonics,' said study coauthor Christopher Campisano, associate director and associate professor at the Institute of Human Origins and associate professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State, in a video the school released. 'At 2 1⁄2, 3 million years ago, these volcanoes spewed out ash that contain crystals called feldspars that allow us to date the eruptions that were happening on the landscape when they're deposited.' The Australopithecus teeth documented in the new study were dated to 2.63 million years ago, while the Homo teeth are from 2.59 million and 2.78 million years ago. But the team is cautious about identifying a species for any of the teeth until it has more data and more fossils. 'We know what the teeth and mandible of the earliest Homo look like, but that's it,' said Brian Villmoare, lead study author and associate professor in the department of anthropology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in a statement. 'This emphasizes the critical importance of finding additional fossils to understand the differences between Australopithecus and Homo, and potentially how they were able to overlap in the fossil record at the same location.' The Australopithecus teeth broadly resembled those of the afarensis species in contour and the size of the molars, but features of the cusps and canine teeth had not been previously seen in afarensis or garhi teeth, Villmoare said. The teeth were also different in shape than those of any Homo species, or of the ancient human relative Paranthropus, known for its large teeth and chewing muscles. 'Obviously these are only teeth,' Villmoare said, 'but we are continuing field work in the hopes of recovering other parts of the anatomy that might increase resolution on the taxonomy.' Even just finding the teeth was a complicated task, according to Campisano. 'You're looking at little teeth, quite literally, individual teeth that look just like a lot of other of the little pebbles spread on the landscape,' he said in the video. 'And so, we have a great team of local Afars that are excellent fossil hunters. They've seen these things their entire lives walking around the landscape.' A blip for evolution The new study is important because it provides insight into a time frame from 3 million to 2 million years ago, a mysterious period in human evolutionary studies, said Dr. Stephanie Melillo, paleoanthropologist and assistant professor at Mercyhurst University in Pennsylvania. Melillo was not involved in this research, but she has participated in the Woranso-Mille Paleontological Research Project in the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia. Part of the problem in learning about this stretch of prehistory is how ancient layers of dirt were deposited over the course of history in eastern Africa. 'Erosion in rivers and lakes were at a low level and only a little bit of dirt was deposited in the Afar,' Melillo wrote in an email. 'That deposited dirt contains the fossils — of our ancestors and all the animals that lived with us. When there is little deposition, there are few fossils.' A key feature helping archaeologists to understand humanity's evolution are structural basins, or 'bowls' on Earth's surface that naturally collect layers of sediment better than the surrounding landscape does — like the Turkana Basin stretching across southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya, Melillo said. Previous research has found evidence to suggest that Homo and Paranthropus coexisted there 1.5 million years ago. The new study focuses on the Afar Depression, a basin to the north of the Turkana. 'This contribution by Villmoare and colleagues demonstrates that in the Afar there was also some other species around with Homo — but it isn't Paranthropus,' Melillo said. 'Instead, they identify this 'non-Homo' genus as Australopithecus. They do a very convincing job of demonstrating why the new fossils are not Paranthropus.' The study adds to growing evidence that Australopithecus was not roaming the Afar Depression alone, she said. A mysterious coexistence When Australopithecus and Homo were alive, the Afar Region, now mostly a semidesert, had much more seasonal variation in rainfall than it does today, Reed said. Millions of years ago, the environment there was still dominated by a dry season, but it was interrupted by a brief wet season. Rivers that carried water across the landscape existed for only part of the year. Few trees grew near the river, and the environment nearby was largely wetlands and grasslands. 'We have a fossil giraffe species that was eating grass, which probably indicates they were stressed as they eat trees and bushes almost every place else,' Reed said. 'Were the hominins eating the same thing? We are trying to find out by examining isotopes in their teeth and microscopic scratches on their teeth.' Understanding whether or not Homo and Australopithecus had the same food sources could paint a portrait of how our ancient ancestors shared or competed for resources, Reed said. The team also wants to try to identify which hominin made the stone tools found at the site. At the moment it's impossible to tell exactly how the two hominins coexisted, but Reed said she is hoping that future findings will provide more answers. 'Whenever you have an exciting discovery, if you're a paleontologist, you always know that you need more information,' Reed said. 'You need more fossils. More fossils will help us tell the story of what happened to our ancestors a long time ago — but because we're the survivors we know that it happened to us.' Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. Solve the daily Crossword

Ethiopian fossil Lucy leaves for her first exhibition in Europe

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Ethiopian fossil Lucy leaves for her first exhibition in Europe

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Fossils show two types of ancient human ancestors lived at the same place and time. One was possibly an unknown species

Get Started Now: Download the App