SciSchmooze
| Bob Siederer 6 April 2026 |
Hello again Science Fans!
I’ve been thinking about the Artemis missions for a while. I’ve been wondering why we’re going back to the moon, somewhere we already visited several times, instead of going somewhere more challenging and uncharted, like Mars. If you think about it, the challenges of the Apollo program were greater than those today, given the technology limits of the time. The flight computers were rather basic back then, requiring programming at a machine language level. They were small, with limited interfaces, and relatively slow. But they got us to the surface of the moon!
Then I read Tuesday’s New York Times science newsletter about the Artemis II mission, which also posed this question. Here’s a quote from it:
Friends, family and readers often ask: NASA already sent men to the moon a half-century ago. Why are we doing this again? These astronauts aren’t even going to land on the moon, so why bother?
When Timothy Bella, a contributor to Science Times, spoke to the astronauts about this, they had a variety of interesting answers. But one of them really stuck with me.
Victor Glover, the mission’s pilot, talked about the political conflict and division that was racking America in the lead-up to NASA’s Apollo 8 mission in 1968. Space exploration has always seemed to be something that united people. With similar divisions in the country today, he said that he hoped Artemis II would “create a touch point for our generation that’s equal to, or maybe there’s a path to be even greater than, because it’s current and it’s ours.”
“It’s ours.” Those words spoke to me as a person born too late for Apollo. My memories of spaceflight start with the Challenger space shuttle tragedy in 1986 and work up to the triumph of NASA’s Cassini mission to Saturn. I vividly recall my dad once driving us to a park on Chicago’s North Side late on a school night to watch a different space shuttle pass overhead.
But like some 70 percent of Americans born after 1972, I’ve never experienced people being sent to the moon.
Now I understand, at least partially, why people are so excited about this. To them, probably to many of you, this is a great, new achievement, not a repeat of something we did 50 years ago. The Apollo landings are something abstract to read about that happened before their time, not something they actually experienced.
The newsletter contained profiles of the four astronauts, and other details about the flight. Here’s a link, if you’re interested.
This mission is more than just a test flight of the equipment. There’s a bone marrow study to examine health risks to the astronauts, known as AVATAR. Another experiment is ARCHeR that will examine how the astronauts cope with the tight quarters of the Orion capsule. Another investigation focuses on the immune system, comparing samples of saliva and blood from before, during, and after the flight to measure changes due to radiation and isolation, as well as monitoring of dormant viruses such as those related to shingles.
Each astronaut will carry radiation sensors, known as dosimiters, to track exposure to space radiation since this journey takes them out of the planet’s magnetosphere.
I still think a more challenging mission objective would have given this generation as much or more to cheer about, but I understand why they are so excited about returning to the moon.
BTW, for those of you old enough to “get” the reference in the newsletter’s title this week, good for you. For the rest of you, search “The Honeymooners”, a TV series from the mid-1950s.
NASA is doing much more than the Artemis program. They recently released a map of the Earth’s seafloor, using the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellite to measure gravitational deflections caused by terrain differences on the seafloor.
Speaking of mapping things
A new study is shedding light on the complex nerve endings in the clitoris. Amsterdam University Medical Center has produced a detailed 3D map of the nerve structure, 30 years after a similar study was completed for the penis in the late 1990s. This research will have a direct effect on pelvic surgeries which can unintentionally damage these nerves, as well as provide a broader understanding of a portion of the female anatomy not even mentioned in anatomy textbooks until the 20th century!
A good female friend of mine suggested an environmental topic for this newsletter that I had never thought about, and it deals with the same general area of anatomy. She was surprised to learn that in the US, around 88% of tampons have single use plastic applicators. During an average menstrual period, a woman may use 30 tampons. These applicators take over 100 years to decompose, and then they do, they release microplastics, causing further polution. They can’t be recycled through conventional recycling programs due to their biological contamination. So most go in the trash. In Europe, where she lives, the vast majority are sold without plastic applicators. Do the math and you’ll quickly see how tons and tons of plastic single-use waste are generated as a result of this normal bodily function.
In Poland, where she lives, a new law took effect last October instituting a nationwide deposit-refund system for plastic and glass bottles, as well as metal cans. While California has had such a deposit system for years, in Poland this is new. Stores larger than 200 square meters in size are required to provide a way for consumers to return the items for a refund.
Only 10 US states have similar programs, California being one of them. But in California, few stores offer redemption facilities. Only recycling centers are required redeem containers in California. CalRecycle has an online search page to find a recycle facility near you. I had no idea where to take my CRV recycleables, so entered my zip code and found an Olyns machine outside a Safeway a few miles away. That’s the only one in Campbell, where I live. Why don’t we have a requirement such as Poland has, where stores have to provide a machine to accept containers and give refunds?
So thank you Yulia, for bringing both of these environmental issues to our readers’ (and my) attention!
Apple turns 50
Fifty years ago, Apple came into being, a three-person company selling one product, the Apple I, for $666.66. It was just a circuit board; you had to build your own system with a monitor, keyboard, and power supply to make it do anything.
Now, Apple has more than 150,000 worldwide employees. Apple created one of the most lucrative consumer products in history, the iPhone, in 2007. Currently, iOS devices hold 31% of the market, with a 68% lead going to Android worldwide. But in the US, iOS holds a 55% lead. I suspect, given that Apple is headquartered in Cupertino, the lead in the Bay Area is even greater.
Chris Espinosa is Apple employee #8, the longest tenured. He was 14 when he started working for Apple, demonstrating the Apple I. Here are his thoughts on those 50 years.
The End of the World
That phrase means different things to different people. Researchers wanted to know about this, and how individual’s outlooks affect there here and now. Would you be surprised to learn that 1/3 of those surveyed felt the world will end (as they defined it) in their lifetimes?
Then there’s the story of one researcher who almost saw his world end when he got caught in the center of a tornado in Kansas.
Your Health
Interviews with 43 current and former Centers for Disease Control employees shed light on the damage being done by Robert F Kennedy, secretary of Health and Human Services, as he instituted changes replacing science-backed policy with ideology. This directly affects our individual health, leaving decisions up to us without the science to base them on.
Have you wondered what the administration considers a “win” in health achievements? Dr Jessica Knurick looked at the list published by HHS in February to see what works, and what doesn’t.
Do you have blue eyes? I do. Somewhere between 8 and 10 percent of the population have blue eyes. The cause is a genetic mutation that occurred somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. All blue-eyed people are believed to be related that one individual.
A.I.
Regular readers of the SciSchmooze know I’m not a big fan of AI. It has potential to be world changing, but not necessarily in a good way, and has a tendency to halucinate (make things up). Many people are now using AI to assist them in health diagnosis, research, mental health, and general queries. When you used to ask the search engines a question, the answers came back as a list of sites for you to read. Now, the default is an AI summary, with a disclaimer that “AI can make mistakes.” Isn’t that reassuring?
I recently turned to AI to compare some options I was researching and was pleasantly surprised at the responses. I was able to taylor them from a generic-sounding answer to something more specific to my situation. I tried two different AI engines, and the answers I got weren’t exactly the same. One of them kept trying to steer me to consider issues that didn’t apply to me, even after I’d explained that was the case, so I stopped using it.
I was reminded of this while reading this article on research looking at feedback from different AI models on social situations. Many of the models continued to push their solution, even when presented with facts that negated their response. Something to keep in mind if you are using an AI model to help you decide something.
In Memorium
Lastly, Biruté Galdikas, one of the “trimates”, three researchers of the great apes, has died at age 79. She, along with Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey, spent their lives living with and studying primates. Dr. Galdikas studied orangutans, mostly in Borneo.
Have a great week in Science!
Bob
Upcoming Events:
Click to see the next two weeks of events in your browser.