In an exciting milestone for lunar scientists around the globe, India’s Chandrayaan-3 lander touched down 375 miles (600 km) from the south pole of the Moon on Aug. 23, 2023.

In just under 14 Earth days, Chandrayaan-3 provided scientists with valuable new data and further inspiration to explore the Moon. And the Indian Space Research Organization has shared these initial results with the world.

While the data from Chandrayaan-3’s rover, named Pragyan, or “wisdom” in Sanskrit, showed the lunar soil contains expected elements such as iron, titanium, aluminum and calcium, it also showed an unexpected surprise – sulfur.

Planetary scientists like me have known that sulfur exists in lunar rocks and soils, but only at a very low concentration. These new measurements imply there may be a higher sulfur concentration than anticipated.

Pragyan has two instruments that analyze the elemental composition of the soil – an alpha particle X-ray spectrometer and a laser-induced breakdown spectrometer, or LIBS for short. Both of these instruments measured sulfur in the soil near the landing site.

Sulfur in soils near the Moon’s poles might help astronauts live off the land one day, making these measurements an example of science that enables exploration.

Geology of the Moon

There are two main rock types on the Moon’s surface – dark volcanic rock and the brighter highland rock. The brightness difference between these two materials forms the familiar “man in the moon” face or “rabbit picking rice” image to the naked eye.

Scientists measuring lunar rock and soil compositions in labs on Earth have found that materials from the dark volcanic plains tend to have more sulfur than the brighter highlands material.

Sulfur mainly comes from volcanic activity. Rocks deep in the Moon contain sulfur, and when these rocks melt, the sulfur becomes part of the magma. When the melted rock nears the surface, most of the sulfur in the magma becomes a gas that is released along with water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Some of the sulfur does stay in the magma and is retained within the rock after it cools. This process explains why sulfur is primarily associated with the Moon’s dark volcanic rocks.

Chandrayaan-3’s measurements of sulfur in soils are the first to occur on the Moon. The exact amount of sulfur cannot be determined until the data calibration is completed.

The uncalibrated data collected by the LIBS instrument on Pragyan suggests that the Moon’s highland soils near the poles might have a higher sulfur concentration than highland soils from the equator and possibly even higher than the dark volcanic soils.

These initial results give planetary scientists like me who study the Moon new insights into how it works as a geologic system. But we’ll still have to wait and see if the fully calibrated data from the Chandrayaan-3 team confirms an elevated sulfur concentration.

Atmospheric sulfur formation

The measurement of sulfur is interesting to scientists for at least two reasons. First, these findings indicate that the highland soils at the lunar poles could have fundamentally different compositions, compared with highland soils at the lunar equatorial regions. This compositional difference likely comes from the different environmental conditions between the two regions – the poles get less direct sunlight.

Second, these results suggest that there’s somehow more sulfur in the polar regions. Sulfur concentrated here could have formed from the exceedingly thin lunar atmosphere.

The polar regions of the Moon receive less direct sunlight and, as a result, experience extremely low temperatures compared with the rest of the Moon. If the surface temperature falls, below -73 degrees C (-99 degrees F), then sulfur from the lunar atmosphere could collect on the surface in solid form – like frost on a window.

Sulfur at the poles could also have originated from ancient volcanic eruptions occurring on the lunar surface, or from meteorites containing sulfur that struck the surface and vaporized on impact.

Lunar sulfur as a resource

For long-lasting space missions, many agencies have thought about building some sort of base on the Moon. Astronauts and robots could travel from the south pole base to collect, process, store and use naturally occurring materials like sulfur on the Moon – a concept called in-situ resource utilization.

In-situ resource utilization means fewer trips back to Earth to get supplies and more time and energy spent exploring. Using sulfur as a resource, astronauts could build solar cells and batteries that use sulfur, mix up sulfur-based fertilizer and make sulfur-based concrete for construction.

Sulfur-based concrete actually has several benefits compared with the concrete normally used in building projects on Earth.

For one, sulfur-based concrete hardens and becomes strong within hours rather than weeks, and it’s more resistant to wear. It also doesn’t require water in the mixture, so astronauts could save their valuable water for drinking, crafting breathable oxygen and making rocket fuel.

While seven missions are currently operating on or around the Moon, the lunar south pole region hasn’t been studied from the surface before, so Pragyan’s new measurements will help planetary scientists understand the geologic history of the Moon. It’ll also allow lunar scientists like me to ask new questions about how the Moon formed and evolved.

For now, the scientists at Indian Space Research Organization are busy processing and calibrating the data. On the lunar surface, Chandrayaan-3 is hibernating through the two-week-long lunar night, where temperatures will drop to -184 degrees F (-120 degrees C). The night will last until September 22.

There’s no guarantee that the lander component of Chandrayaan-3, called Vikram, or Pragyan will survive the extremely low temperatures, but should Pragyan awaken, scientists can expect more valuable measurements.

Jeffrey Gillis-Davis, Research Professor of Physics, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NASA’s independent study team released its highly anticipated report on UFOs on Sept. 14, 2023.

In part to move beyond the stigma often attached to UFOs, where military pilots fear ridicule or job sanctions if they report them, UFOs are now characterized by the U.S. government as UAPs, or unidentified anomalous phenomena.

Bottom line: The study team found no evidence that reported UAP observations are extraterrestrial.

I’m a professor of astronomy who has written extensively on astrobiology and the scientists who search for life in the universe. I have long been skeptical of the claim that UFOs represent visits by aliens to Earth.

From sensationalism to science

During a press briefing, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson noted that NASA has scientific programs to search for traces of life on Mars and the imprints of biology in the atmospheres of exoplanets. He said he wanted to shift the UAP conversation from sensationalism to one of science.

With this statement, Nelson was alluding to some of the more outlandish claims about UAPs and UFOs. At a congressional hearing in July, former Pentagon intelligence officer David Grusch testified that the American government has been hiding evidence of crashed UAPs and alien biological specimens. Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the Pentagon office charged with investigating UAPs, has denied these claims.

And the same week NASA’s report came out, Mexican lawmakers were shown by journalist Jaime Maussan two tiny, 1,000-year-old bodies that he claimed were the remains of “non-human” beings. Scientists have called this claim fraudulent and say the mummies may have been looted from gravesites in Peru.

Conclusions from the report

The NASA study team report sheds little light on whether some UAPs are extraterrestrial. In his comments, the chair of the study team, astronomer David Spergel stated that the team had seen “no evidence to suggest that UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin.”

Of the more than 800 unclassified sightings collected by the Department of Defense’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office and reported at the NASA panel’s first public meeting back in May 2023, only “a small handful cannot be immediately identified as known human-made or natural phenomena,” according to the report.

Many of the recent sightings can be attributed to weather balloons and airborne clutter. Historically, most UFOs are astronomical objects such as meteors, fireballs and the planet Venus.

Some sightings represent surveillance operations by foreign powers, which is why the U.S. military considers this a national security issue.

The report does offer recommendations to NASA on how to move these investigations forward.

Most of the UAP data considered by the study team comes from U.S. military aircraft. Analysis of this data is “hampered by poor sensor calibration, the lack of multiple measurements, the lack of sensor metadata, and the lack of baseline data.” The ideal set of measurements would include optical imaging, infrared imaging, and radar data, but very few reports have all these.

The NASA study team described in the report the types of data that can shed more light on UAPs. The authors note the importance of reducing the stigma that can cause both military and commercial pilots to feel that they cannot freely report sightings. The stigma stems from decades of conspiracy theories tied to UFOs.

The NASA study team suggests gathering sightings by commercial pilots using the Federal Aviation Administration and combining these with classified sightings not included in the report. Team members did not have security clearance, so they could look only at the subset of military sightings that were unclassified. At the moment, there is no anonymous nationwide UAP reporting mechanism for commercial pilots.

With access to these classified sightings and a structured mechanism for commercial pilots to report sightings, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office – the military office charged with leading the analysis effort – could have the most data.

NASA also announced the appointment of a new director of research on UAPs. This position will oversee the creation of a database with resources to evaluate UAP sightings.

Looking for a needle in a haystack

Parts of the briefing resembled a primer on the scientific method. Using analogies, officials described the analysis process as looking for a needle in a haystack, or separating the wheat from the chaff. The officials said they needed a consistent and rigorous methodology for characterizing sightings, as a way of homing in on something truly anomalous.

Spergel said the study team’s goal was to characterize the hay – or the mundane phenomena – and subtract it to find the needle, or the potentially exciting discovery. He noted that artificial intelligence can help researchers comb through massive datasets to find rare, anomalous phenomena. AI is already being used this way in many areas of astronomy research.

The speakers noted the importance of transparency. Transparency is important because UFOs have long been associated with conspiracy theories and government cover-ups. Similarly, much of the discussion during the congressional UAP hearing in July focused on a need for transparency. All scientific data that NASA gathers is made public on various websites, and officials said they intend to do the same with the nonclassified UAP data.

At the beginning of the briefing, Nelson gave his opinion that there were perhaps a trillion instances of life beyond Earth. So, it’s plausible that there is intelligent life out there. But the report says that when it comes to UAPs, extraterrestrial life must be the hypothesis of last resort. It quotes Thomas Jefferson: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That evidence does not yet exist.

Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When you hear about the abundance of life on Earth, what do you picture? For many people, it’s animals – but awareness of plant diversity is growing rapidly.

Our planet has nearly 300,000 species of flowering plants. Among animals, only beetles can compete with that number. There are more species of ferns than birds, more mints than mammals, and more beans than butterflies. Measured in total mass, plants make up 82% of all life on land across the globe.

We are plant scientists and co-founders of Let’s Botanize, an educational nonprofit that uses plant life to teach about ecology, evolution and biodiversity. In the past several years we have witnessed a botanical boom, with participation in plant-based hobbies surging. From cultivating houseplants to foraging for wild foods and outdoor gardening, plant appreciation is on the rise.

Botanizing is spending time alongside plants in order to observe and appreciate them as living organisms – like birding, but with subjects that stay in place. When you botanize, a simple walk in the woods becomes an immersive experience shared with many species. Getting to know your nonhuman neighbors is a way to engage with a changing planet.

Plant collecting and colonialism

Botanizing has a deep and checkered history. Humans have been analyzing and classifying plants for thousands of years, often to figure out what they can safely eat or cultivate.

When Europeans began exploring and colonizing other parts of the world, they were interested in finding plants that were useful as food, medicine or for other purposes. For example, in the early 17th century, the Dutch East India Company forcibly colonized the Banda Islands in what is now Indonesia in order to monopolize the cultivation and lucrative trade of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans).

In 19th-century England, Victorians became obsessed with plants, especially ferns. This craze came to be known as pteridomania, or fern fever. It coincided with the height of European imperialism across the globe, which included widespread collection of valuable plants from faraway places.

Today, however, many botanic gardens and arboreta – gardens that focus on trees and shrubs – have shifted their mission to public education, scientific research and biodiversity conservation. They can be good resources for learning to botanize.

Why botanize?

Plants provide raw materials for the homes we live in, the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. Without them, life as humans know it could not exist.

Nonetheless, many people think of plants more as a backdrop to life, rather than as a central part of it. Scientists and educators call this phenomenon plant awareness disparity – a widespread cognitive bias that leads people to underestimate the diversity and importance of plants.

Research has shown the value of being outside in natural green areas or around plants indoors. Even traditional western doctors are starting to prescribe nature walks to reduce stress and improve physical well-being. Botanizing can provide a reason to get outdoors, and spending time closely observing plants’ minute structures is a great mindfulness practice.

We also see botanizing as a valuable alternative to spending time on social media. As many experts have observed, online platforms have become so individually tailored by algorithms that each user participates in their own version of reality, a trend that has enabled increasingly combative and antisocial behavior. Botanizing is an opportunity to take a break from these tailored worlds and deeply engage with local human and nonhuman communities.

Finally, since plants form the foundation of life on Earth, caring for plants is a way of caring for our planet. Botanizing is one simple way to inspire change in other aspects of our lives that prioritizes sustainability.

Tools of the trade

There are many ways to botanize. Typically it involves trying to identify a plant species, observing its form and structure or assessing how it survives in the landscape. Plants are everywhere and don’t move, so this can be done in virtually any setting, including your windowsill or sidewalk.

So, how do you start? You can focus on plant structure, ecology, interactions, colors, textures or scents – or tastes, if you’re bold. You don’t need to travel far or spend a lot of money. There’s much to learn from your houseplants, the food you cook, the wood grain of your furniture, the plants growing in your sidewalks, gardens or local green spaces.

Here are a few essential tools:

– A hand lens is a window into the minutia of the botanical world. It’s as essential for a botanist as binoculars are for a birder. We recommend one with 10x magnification – that is, one that magnifies what you’re looking at by a factor of 10.

– A local field guide is your reference textbook. A good field guide to your local plants will have images and detailed text that you can use to cross-reference your identifications.

– A plant identification app can help confirm your identifications. Machine learning algorithms are getting increasingly good at matching plant images with species. One popular choice is the Seek app, which is powered by iNaturalist, an online social network where people share information about living species and get help with identifications.

– Almost every region of the U.S. has local botanical clubs that typically hold regular meetings and organize workshops, online groups, botanizing days and more. Joining one is a great way to meet and learn from people with similar interests.

To germinate your initial interest, we recommend searching for a spark plant – one that excites, engages or is meaningful to you. It can be a plant that you are familiar with but haven’t seen growing in real life, one that is totally new to you, or one that you associate with a special moment.

If botanizing is to reclaim its place as a nature-based hobby, we believe it is important to reimagine it as a critically evolved 21st century pastime. That means looking at plants with appreciation – not simply as products for human use but as foundational and interconnected members of life on Earth.

Jacob S. Suissa, Assistant Professor of Plant Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee and Ben Goulet-Scott, Higher Education & Laboratory Coordinator at Harvard Forest, Harvard University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The 2022-23 school year was a particularly violent year for educators.

In Florida, a high school student beat a paraprofessional unconscious. A 15-year-old in Georgia left her teacher with difficulty walking. And a group of students in Texas sent their assistant principal to the hospital after an assault.

Recent headlines suggest the 2023-24 school year may not be much different.

Such violence at school disrupts teaching and learning and has elicited calls to reform school discipline policies.

As a policy researcher who studies school safety and discipline, I have seen two camps form with polarized and politicized views on school discipline. On the one side are those who seek more restorative responses to misconduct that emphasize building relationships with students and discipline policies that keep kids in school. On the other are calls for greater use of exclusionary and punitive practices like suspension.

In my view, making schools safe requires school leaders not to get caught up in this either/or debate. Instead, I believe it requires recognizing a shared goal of safe schools and the need for a comprehensive approach to achieving it.

Behavior and the pandemic

Recent reports suggest these high-profile incidents of violence in schools are part of a general increase in student misconduct over the past couple of years. This contrasts with a decline over the prior decades.

For example, the National Center for Education Statistics found that 84% of public school leaders felt the pandemic negatively affected student behavior. Another survey found two out of three teachers and leaders perceived more student misbehavior in 2021 than in 2019.

Studies have shown that students who feel unsafe going to school have worse attendance rates than those attending schools with less violence and misbehavior. They also score lower on standardized tests, particularly when classroom instruction is disrupted.

What’s more, teachers who experience threats or physical violence from students are more likely to leave their positions, according to a study I co-authored in 2017.

Restorative justice experiences backlash

Over the past couple of decades, states and school districts nationwide have adopted school discipline reforms that prioritize relationships between peers and with teachers, positive incentives for good behavior and prevention of misconduct.

These policies, often implemented as part of restorative justice initiatives, focus on building community and a positive school climate instead of removing kids from school.

But as school violence persists, these restorative justice reforms are being called into question.

In Nevada, teachers union representatives from the Clark County Education Association sought to revise laws to immediately remove students for violence against school staff. The state legislature there passed legislation scaling back restorative justice and making it easier to suspend students. In San Diego, the superintendent promised to revisit restorative discipline policies after parent complaints about student safety. Policy advocates have claimed discipline reform has contributed to school shootings.

While restorative practices and other positive interventions can improve student outcomes, prior research has found many of these less punitive disciplinary reforms to be poorly implemented or less effective than hoped.

In some cases, this has meant students have been allowed to stay in school despite posing a threat to the safety of others.

Suspensions and expulsions aren’t the solution

The limitations of restorative practices have resulted in calls for a return to greater use of suspensions and other punitive discipline. In one of the most high-profile displays, a Florida sheriff announced in front of a jail plans for a return to more punitive discipline, suggesting a need for more use of detentions and suspensions. He lamented that students were no longer afraid of suspensions or having “the cheeks of their a– torn off for not doing right in class.”

In some cases, removing students who are disruptive to the classroom has had positive effects on other students’ achievement. But exclusionary school discipline like suspension and expulsion can have their own unintended consequences on students. For example, suspensions are related to lower academic test scores for those suspended as well as increased delinquency, such as criminal activity and arrest.

Additionally, schools suspend a disproportionately high number of kids who aren’t white – particularly Black students. In addition, males and students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended.

Ultimately, there is little evidence that suspensions and expulsions improve behavior. In fact, a recent national survey found that only 13% of principals agreed that suspensions reduce future misbehavior.

A path forward

Proponents of progressive discipline reform and those advocating for “get-tough,” exclusionary policies share a desire for safe schools. The sheriff speaking in front of the jail as well as his critics both want to prevent kids from ending up incarcerated.

How do policymakers and educators see past these divides to achieve safer schools?

First, it may help to acknowledge that effective school discipline policies can include both restorative and exclusionary practices. It is true that there is a need to reduce the disproportionate use of suspension for minor offenses. But it is also true that students who pose an immediate danger to others may need to be temporarily removed to settings where they can receive additional support.

Next, schools can focus on strengthening their school climate through excellent instruction and positive relationships between students and teachers. Welcoming schools where students are engaged in learning may preempt many behavioral situations.

Finally, policymakers can recognize that school safety is affected by the experiences of students outside of school. Addressing the trauma, violence and social disruptions experienced in homes and neighborhoods through broader public policy holds potential to improve safety inside schools.

All of this takes resources and support for schools, educators and students. I believe these are resources well spent, though, to achieve the shared goal of school safety.

F. Chris Curran, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.