Hubble made space beautiful for all of us

By Joseph Price • June 29, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

The Pillars of Creation

When you look up at the sky at night, you see the moon, stars and the occasional red-beacon of a plane flying over head. But also up there, close to Earth but just out of sight are hundreds, if not thousands, of man-made satellites, man-made debris, a couple of space stations and dozens of space telescopes.

The most famous of those space telescopes, as far as Americans are concerned at least, is the Hubble Space Telescope, which has now been in orbit for 26 years. That’s longer than 33 percent of the U.S. population has been alive.

I was close to the end of seventh grade when Hubble was launched April 25, 1990. Of course, being 12, I wasn’t interested in the news too much back then, but I remember some coverage of it. Much of it due to Arsenio Hall deriding it for “taking the same picture” of some far off object which I forget the name of, that looked identical to one taken by a terrestrial telescope.

But unlike the Arsenio Hall Show, the Hubble telescope is still around.

Aside from a few issues in the beginning, particularly that with a flawed mirror, the Hubble telescope has helped turn space into something more than a few bright ambiguous lights in the sky.

Through the Hubble, we learned more about the age of the universe, that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, learned about black holes in neighboring galaxies and discovered the evidence for exoplanets around other stars.

But its biggest impact on the public has probably been its images. From the cosmic fireworks of the Tarantula Nebula to the Pillars of Creation 7,000 light years away, the universe became an amazing and beautiful place again. Now when we look at the night sky, we know there’s more up there than the white light of distant stars. Instead we can look up an imagine the millions of suns being born out of the clouds within a nebula at this moment, the terrific power of a supernova exploding and wiping out entire solar systems and galaxies colliding to become one … including our own which is on a crash course with the Andromeda Galaxy which will rock us in about 4 billion years.

It is also one of the most egalitarian projects by a space agency that I know of. Use of the telescope is open to the public, regardless of nationality or academic institution. It is accessible to amateur astronomers, who can file to use it for a few hours each cycle. It opened the door to space wide open for everyone.

And in short, it helped show us how awesome and how crowded space actually is.

With it becoming such an integral part of bringing space to the public, it’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t supposed to be up there this long.

Originally, it was expected Hubble would have a lifespan of 15 years and its last service mission was in 2009. But, showing its resilience, it continues on its mission, traveling more than 3 billion miles since it was launched almost a generation ago.

Earlier this week, NASA said that the Hubble will stay in operation for the next five years. The agency extended its contract with the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy to support its operation at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. The extension has moved the end of its operation from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021.

But inevitably, the end will come. 

The James Webb Space Telescope is set to replace the Hubble in 2018. Where the Hubble stays in low earth orbit, about 354 miles away, the JWST will be in the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point, 932,000 miles away. A Lagrangian point is the position in orbital configuration between two large bodies is affected only by the gravity it can maintain a stable position. The L2 is on the other side of the moon, putting the JWST somewhere between Earth and Mars most of the time. Imagine what the view will be like way out there.

JWST will also operate in the infrared spectrum, which will allow it to study the earliest parts of the universe in more detail. The Hubble observes the universe in visible and ultraviolet light.

So what happens in 2021?

Well, the Hubble will stay in orbit for a while, years probably. Based on solar activity and lack of atmospheric drag a natural atmospheric reentry for Hubble will occur between 2030 and 2040. Around the time I’m 60 years old, probably. As it re-enters, most of it will burn away, leaving just a few parts surviving the fall, which will probably be into an ocean somewhere.

It’s kind of melancholic thinking about something that has been a fixture of the sky so long falling to the sky and burning into nothingness. But I guess that’s ultimately how the Earth will turn out eventually when it’s consumed by the sun as it expands into a red giant in a few billion years. Of course, one could consider that better than the big freeze which many scientist theorize will happen when all the energy generated by suns is finally exhausted.

It’s a frightening thing to contemplate and maybe that won’t be the case. Who knows what we’ll find next, it seems some new discovery changes everything we thought we knew before before on a pretty constant basis now.

For now though, instead of thinking of where everything will go, I think it’s just better to look at the sky and appreciate that there’s more than any of us will ever see out there. And what wonder is there to life if you’ve seen everything that there is to see?

Primaries test endurance, patience

By Joseph Price • June 22, 2016

You could say the worst is over.

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

General election season is upon us. Pretty soon, we’ll be bombarded by nonstop advertisements — not only from the Clinton and Trump campaigns, but also the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, state, county and municipal campaigns.

Sure, we’ll get a short break once the election is over with, but probably not for long. It seems that campaigns start earlier and earlier every cycle. This time around, we had candidates forming exploratory and political action committees as soon as November 2014 for this election.

The first official candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz, declared his candidacy on March 23, 2015. That’s 596, or 1.6 years, before the election! That early start didn’t pay off for him as no one is bothering to talk about him since he ended his campaign in May.

Of the remaining major party candidates, Hillary Clinton has been at it the longest, declaring her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on April 12, 2015, or 436 days ago, and Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16, 2015. I might as well mention Sanders because he’s not officially ended his campaign; he’s been in it since April 30, 2015.

Of the two larger, so-called minor parties, Gary Johnson declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party on Jan. 6, 2016, and Jill Stein declared hers for the Green on June 22, 2015.

Before this action, if that’s what you want to call debates and speeches, kicked off, potential candidates were busy behind the scenes trying to round up donors and support. Our system of election still relies on money, like most other developed countries, so we’re not unique in that. What sets us apart is that we have a system that limits donation limits but not spending limits.

Of course, there are loopholes in regards to that spending, best known as Super PACS which raise and spend as much money as they want as long as they don’t give it directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate.

But that’s behind the scenes. The money exchanging and handshakes aren’t really that interesting to people, unless of course, somebody shines a light on some excess or finds contributors with some particularly interesting baggage.

I really lay a lot of blame on the broadcast media for making these election seasons feel so long. They’re holding the first of their numerous debates earlier and earlier every year. This year, Fox News kicked off the debate season on Aug. 6, 2015, with its Republican debate. There was so many candidates that they divided it into an opening act, featuring lower-polling candidates and a main event featuring the Top 10.

With 16 total candidates, it was the equivalent of a mosh pit where any new arrivals would find the circle too crowded to push their way to the spotlight, being shoved to the peripheral instead.

The Democrats were able to avoid much of this. They still had room on the stage when they held their first debate on Oct. 3, 2016, with just five candidates. Within just a couple of months, it was down to just two.

For me, the debates were one of the most excruciating parts of the process. Honestly, I’m hard-pressed to find one debate interesting enough to watch, let alone five or six. But, big media and political pundits love sound bytes and they got plenty of them by digging out a few minutes from each of these snoozers.

And finally, the big culprits are the primaries themselves. It seems that the states that are not Iowa, New Hampshire, Carolina and Nevada keep trying to one up each other for who can be earliest, though they can’t ever be scheduled before March. The earlier your primary, the more influence your state has after all.

So instead of having these primaries arranged in some orderly fashion that makes sense, they’re held on different days of the week, are sometimes caucuses, sometimes open or closed — just all over the place. All that seems to be for sure is that California is the last one for Republicans and Washington, D.C., is the last for Democrats.

After all, it’s pretty rare that you hear, “It’s down to what California decides!”

But admit it, by the time it’s over in June, you probably stopped paying attention. Your state primary was in March after all.

Personally, I’m not a fan of primaries. This year was a primary example (yuk yuk) of why that’s the case. It’s one of the examples of where I’d prefer either reform or things go back to the “good old days.”

By the “good old days” I’m referring to those smoke-filled back rooms where deals were made between party bosses or those battles on the convention floors between delegates who were actually members of the party.

Sure, the open primaries may be more democratic, but it’s become pretty obvious that often what the voters who turn out want and what party leaders want are often different.

It was not more obvious this year. The establishment by and large wanted someone that was not Donald Trump, while the people who turned out for primaries, who were not all card-carrying Republicans, did. There was a similar story with Clinton, the establishment wanted her, the primary voters made it not-so-clear cut.

So I often want to ask party leaders “if you don’t want these candidates then why do you let them run? If you’ve already got your preference, then why bother with a primary?”

Looking ahead, do we want this same endurance challenge in 2020 and 2024? Instead of this exhausting and boring primary season, can’t we just let the parties battle it out at their respective convention?

Maybe we can talk about that before the 2020 primary season starts Nov. 9.

Now isn’t that bad

By Joseph Price • June 16, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

We’re in an amazing age, that’s for sure.

Within the last 25 years, we’ve gone from communicating by letters, radio and landlines to instantaneous texts and conversations anywhere (except the valleys and the deserts) via mobile phones.

This has given us a great amount of freedom (not considering service contracts and batteries), which allows us to be able to communicate almost anywhere at any time. No longer do we have to walk to payphones or bang on strangers’ doors when our cars break down in the middle of nowhere nor do we have to wait for the evening news or morning paper to know what happened in the world. Almost everything we need to communicate and receive information is at our fingertips and we’re able to carry it around in a nice, pocket-sized wonder box aka a smartphone.

But, not everyone sees it that way.

There remains a strong current of technophobia and anti-technology sentiment in the world.

We all know at least one person. A person who believes in the “good old days” and how things were better when people entertained themselves by playing with rocks. These people condemn technology and swear to (eventually) live a life free of it. They declare that mankind has gone downhill and become dependent on technology and the next generation is missing what the world really has to offer.

And sure, there are some things to be missed.

For example, when I was younger, and also as an adult, I really liked heavy metal music. Unfortunately, the Ozarks were not the optimal place logistically to be a fan of that genre. Aside from Walmart, which sold almost only Top 40 and pop classics, there wasn’t much of anywhere to get music.

Not to mention you’d never hear any of it on the radio. Even today, it seems that most radio stations are stuck playing the same track list they were playing in 1996.

So this meant learning about new music through magazines and making special trips at least an hour away to just buy music.

It sounds frustrating, for sure. But some of my fondest memories are of those trips, mostly to Hastings in Jonesboro. They were great because we got to spend a day with our friends, socializing with other fans of the same style of music at the store. The music store culture was great.

We also had to take chances with what we bought. We didn’t have YouTube to give us a sample of the music that was on it. Sometimes sampler cassettes would be released locally at Rebel Records, but at less than 20 songs, you were pretty limited.

So most often, you’d have to rely on either reviews or the quality of the previous album to make a decision. A lot of times, you’d just go by the album’s cover art. Sometimes you’d spend $15 on a bomb you’d play once and never listen to again or you sometimes got something that you’re still listening to today.

They were great times and I wouldn’t exchange them for anything.

But, times change and the music culture has changed.

Yes, I am kind of sad that my son will miss out on a lot of the things I enjoyed in my teenage years.

On the bright side, if he wants to hear a new band, he no longer has to spend $5 on a magazine to read a music review or take the risk of losing $15 on a bad CD. Now he can get online and go to any number of sites and listen to a few samples. He doesn’t even have to leave the house to buy the CD. He can order it, receiving it in just a couple of days, or download it, being able to carry it around on his wonder box.

Sure, he may not have the hangout that was the music store, but he’ll have the ability to communicate with millions of people, across the globe. There are countless forums, social media groups and websites that’ll put him in connection with people who share the same interest right away.

It’s that communication ability that has been one of the real boons of this age. Before the advent of the internet, the rest of the world was a far away place for most people. We knew about it, but most of us didn’t interact with it or the people there unless we were willing to make the effort to write a letter every week or pay for long-distance phone calls.

The kids coming up now, many of them are growing up with a world perspective. It’s nothing to them to have local friends that they hang out with at school during the day and then come home and communicate with friends on the other side of the world. 

Kids today have a different sense of place than many of us did. We grew up waiting to see the world, the kids today are growing up seeing themselves as citizens of it. Sure, they’re still American and other nationalities, but a new borderless layer has been added to that. They can now link up with people in other countries who have similar beliefs, interests and experiences — bonds that can be tighter than simply being born in a geographical spot.

Of course, there’s many people who believe that’s a bad thing. Go online and you’ll have no trouble finding people who live in fear of a world government, promoting any number of conspiracy theories about people behind the curtain trying to destroy all borders and convert the world to a police state. 

There’s a kernel of truth to that sort of talk; that’s why it thrives. But, maybe they should think about our future with technology instead of outright ditching it. I’m sure many people will disagree, though, and they’ll voice their opinion via a post on Facebook.

Churchill didn’t say that

By Joseph Price • June 2, 2016

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

"I said what?"

It’s a pet peeve of mine: Misattributed quotes.

The most common example of this I have seen is the misattribution of the following quote to Winston Churchill:

“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”

According to the Churchill Centre, which was founded in 1968 and dedicated to preserving the historic legacy of Sir Winston Churchill, there is no record of Churchill ever saying such a thing — written, heard or otherwise.

That’s easily found out when someone takes a few seconds to do some online fact checking. But that pesky human trait of confirmation bias always seems to get in the way. 

It’s understandable. Churchill has gone down in history as one of the 20th century’s greatest wartime political leaders. He’s got semi-divine status as far as politics goes, so his issuing such a statement gives validation for many people. 

Of course, the reality is that Churchill was like most people — he held a mixed-bag of views, both liberal and conservative. According to historian John Luckas, Churchill was a “statesman and not an ideologue.” 

Churchill is not the only figure to be incorrectly attributed with this quote. It has also been borrowed by or attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Georges Clemenceau, Otto von Bismarck, Aristide Briand, Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Wendell Willkie and William J. Casey, to name a few.

The earliest evidence for this particular quote goes back to 1875 and originates with the French in a book by Jules Claretie in a section where he quoted jurist and academic Anselme Polycarpe Batbie.

The quote goes:

Celui qui n’est pas républicain à vingt ans fait douter de la générosité de son âme; mais celui qui, après trente ans, persévère, fait douter de la rectitude de son esprit.

In English it translates to: 

“He who is not a républicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.”

Batbie was allegedly speaking of something called the “Burke Paradox.” The name comes from Sir Edmund Burke, a British statesman, who was known as a supporter of the American Revolution but took an opposite view of the French Revolution.

Of course, there’s even a conflict with attributing to Batbie as François Pierre Guillaume Guizot, a French statesman and historian, is also attributed with the original quote about républicains.

By “republican” the quote is referring to anti-monarchists, who overthrew and executed the French Monarchy during that country’s revolution that lasted from 1789 to 1799. The bloody mess terrified the rest of Europe, especially the monarchs, for decades to come.

If taken in that context, the quote itself doesn’t seem to apply to modern ideology at all. After all, the French and American republicans, who were inspired by Enlightenment ideals, shared the same core goal of throwing off the yoke of monarchies because of taxes and perceived oppression. The legacy of those revolutions is still claimed by people of all political stripes in both countries today.

So taking this into account, it doesn’t sound like it is really meant to apply to the narrow “liberal versus conservative” debate that defines American politics.

So what does it really mean?

It’s difficult to ascertain considering both alleged original authors have been long dead, as has Burke. But it sounds like it’s speaking of radicalism. Young people who are politically active from the first are expected to be idealistic and unwavering while older people are expected to be more skeptical and pragmatic. We have seen this pattern repeated throughout history. It doesn’t mean that radicalism is for the young and left-leaning; we’ve also seen the same unbending idealism from many who are older and right-leaning. Radicalism doesn’t have a political preference.

When put into that context, it sounds as if they’re expected to become more moderate in regards to pursuing their political objectives.

Which makes sense, at least to me. The unwillingness to iron out differences and make deals doesn’t result in much getting done in politics. This is generally accepted by most people with a sigh and shaking of the head in times that aren’t so bad. Life is

able to go on, after all.

But when times are bad, which is to say people starving on the streets, citizens fear secret police and when significant numbers of people feel powerless — that is when radicals begin gaining traction. One only has to look at the French Revolution itself, Germany post-World War I and the Russian Revolution for examples of this. And often, in that situation, the cure can be almost as bad, if not worse, than the disease. 

That’s just my perception of it and that doesn’t make it a fact. I can’t really say what a guy who spoke a different language and that’s been dead more than a century meant. It could just mean that républicains are just républicains and nothing more.