Too Many Scientific ‘Discoveries' Get Discredited
Among the more spectacular cases were claims that a team of scientists had discovered fossilized Martian life in a meteorite, and that spores found in amber and salt crystals had been revived after lying dormant for millions of years. Last week, the research journal Science finally retracted a headline-grabbing study published in 2010, which claimed scientists had found arsenic-based life. NASA had promoted the discovery as bolstering the case for the existence of extraterrestrials and a new tree of earthly life known as the 'shadow biosphere.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
16 minutes ago
US should put nuclear reactors on moon before other countries do, acting NASA administrator says
Nuclear power on the moon is critical to the United States' space exploration and national security goals, and the U.S. government should "move quickly" to build reactors there before its terrestrial rivals, according to a directive issued by Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, which was obtained by ABC News. One full "day" on the moon is two weeks of light followed by approximately two weeks of darkness (in Earth time). Nuclear energy, referred to as fission surface power, or FSP, in the directive, is a "sustainable" and "high-powered" energy source that can survive through the lunar night and be deployed on other celestial bodies, like Mars, according to Duffy. "Since March 2024, China and Russia have announced on at least three occasions a joint effort to place a reactor on the Moon by the mid-2030s," Duffy said in the directive. "The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first." When reached for comment by ABC News, NASA said, "We'll let these directives speak for themselves." The directive, dated July 31, calls for a "Fission Surface Power Program Executive" to be named within 30 days who will implement and oversee the project and will report directly to the NASA administrator. It does not say what exactly the nuclear reactors would power on the moon. Politico was the first to report on this directive. A second directive, issued on the same day by Duffy, aims to speed up the development of replacements for the International Space Station, which is set to retire by 2030. While NASA has never used a fission nuclear reactor in space, it has been using nuclear material to power spacecraft since the 1960s. Known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, these systems use the heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238, a nuclear element, to create electricity for powering spacecraft and rovers. Currently, NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars is using an RTG system for its power. In recent years, billions of dollars have been spent developing a new kind of nuclear reactor called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These reactors produce less power than traditional reactors, but are significantly smaller in size. SMRs are still being developed in the U.S. and there are no units currently in operation.
The Verge
16 minutes ago
- The Verge
Former X CEO Linda Yaccarino has a new job.
Posted Aug 5, 2025 at 4:09 PM UTC Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates. Jay Peters Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Jay Peters Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Health Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Science Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Twitter - X
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
NASA's Plan for a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon Could Be a Lunar Land Grab
NASA could soon go nuclear on the moon. The space agency's acting administrator, Sean Duffy, has issued a directive to expedite building a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface. Duffy, a former Fox News host, is also head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and he took over leadership of NASA in July after the Trump administration pulled its nomination of the private astronaut and businessman Jared Isaacman. The directive, first reported by Politico, would accelerate NASA's long-simmering —and, to date, largely fruitless—efforts to develop nuclear reactors to support space science and exploration. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The space agency has pursued various projects over the years, most recently in 2022, when it by awarded three $5 million contracts to companies crafting designs for small, space-ready reactors meant for lunar operations in the mid-2030s. Inspired in part by a space policy directive issued by President Trump during his first term, those were intended to produce 40 kilowatts of power—enough to sustain a small office building—and would weigh less than six metric tons. Duffy's directive is more ambitious, calling for NASA to solicit proposals for reactors that would yield at least 100 kilowatts of power and be ready for launch by late 2029. The space agency is tasked with appointing an official to oversee the effort within 30 days, and to issue its solicitation within 60 days. Lunar nights are very long—two Earth weeks—and perilously cold, making nuclear power desirable for surface operations. But according to the directive the greater impetus for the fast-tracked plan is a burgeoning partnership between China and Russia to build a nuclear-powered outpost near the moon's south pole by the mid-2030s. The sun never crests high above the horizon there, leaving some craters in permanent shadow—and valuable deposits of water ice lacing their eternally dark floors. Despite its cryogenic chill this lunar region is hotly contested, with NASA's Artemis program also targeting crewed landings there as early as 2027 as part of the Artemis III mission. Besides providing abundant electricity for surface operations, a nuclear reactor on the moon could also allow for a strategic lunar land grab. Ownership of otherworldly territory is prohibited according to the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, but the treaty also obliges spacefaring powers to exercise 'due regard' in their activities, meaning that they should not encroach on or interfere with sensitive infrastructure built there by others. A nuclear reactor placed on the lunar surface, therefore, could allow the declaration of what Duffy's directive calls a 'keep-out zone.' Although the Trump administration's acceleration of NASA's nuclear-power efforts may be welcomed by many space-exploration advocates, it comes alongside other proposals from the White House that seek to radically reshape the space agency and could be at cross purposes. These include plans for extraordinarily deep cuts to NASA's science programs, as well as an active and ongoing culling of the space agency's work force. The president's budget request for fiscal year 2026 notably zeroes out funding for a joint program between NASA and the Department of Defense to develop nuclear rocketry; it would also wind down the space agency's ability to build and deploy radioisotope power sources, which offer nuclear-derived heat and electricity sans complex and heavy reactors for robotic missions to the outer planets and other sunlight-sparse parts of the solar system. The biggest question facing NASA's latest nuclear foray, however, may be what these notional new reactors would actually power. Many experts say a 2027 launch for Artemis III is unlikely, citing factors such as the ongoing difficulties of developing a requisite lunar lander based on SpaceX's Starship rocket. With each logistical misstep or schedule delay, additional Artemis missions that would put more meaningful and power-hungry infrastructure on the moon slip further over the horizon, potentially making the entire program more vulnerable to additional rounds of budget cuts—or even outright cancellation by future administrations. It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
