Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Never mind the election, let's talk about GIANT LASERS

Over the last few days I have seen several posters at TPM comment that they're getting burnt out on all election news, all the time, and a couple people have commented they'd even be interested in hearing about something other than politics for once.



The obvious solution to this, as I see it, is to talk about GIANT SCIENCE LASERS.




So let's do that for a minute. This is actually the perfect time to talk about giant science lasers, because we are very close to the completion of something called the Large Hadron Collider, an enormous science experiment that thousands of people have been working on for years and which finally-- after years of delays-- appears to be on track to get the "on" switch flipped sometime in July. 




The experiment works like this: Dig a 17-mile-long circular concrete tunnel under a mountain in Switzerland. Pump all the air out and freeze the insides to 1.9 degrees above absolute zero, colder than deep space. Then, put two giant particle beams inside, and fire them at each other




Why on earth are they doing this? Well, the LHC is a kind of experiment called a "particle accelerator", which works on the principle of blowing things up and seeing what comes out. This isn't a very accurate way of describing how it works, but: you know that "E = MC^2" equation, the one that explains energy and mass are really the same thing? Well, the basic idea is that if you put enough energy in one place, that energy can slosh over to the right side of the equation and turn into matter. A slightly more accurate way of putting this is that everything in the universe-- matter, light, everything-- is made of particles, and each particle has a certain energy (which is the same thing as mass) associated with it. When you put a bunch of energy in one place, this energy turns into a collection of randomly picked particles, whose combined energies are equal to the energy you put in. 




This is incredibly useful for physicists, because it means that if you want to know what kinds of particles exist in the universe, all you have to do is do something that releases a bunch of energy, and you'll get a randomly selected batch of particles flying out of nowhere. Then all you have to do is catch the particles and see what they were. This simple trick has basically been the driving force behind particle physics for seventy years: the experimentalists keep building more powerful particle accelerators, giving them the ability to see particles with higher energies than they could before; then the theorists try to come up with a theory that explains why that set of particles exists; and the theories they come up with usually wind up predicting other particles, particles that haven't been seen yet, which means the experimentalists have to go back and build another particle accelerator to look for them. This game of experimentalist/theorist leapfrog has become so central to physics that physicists barely know what to do without it-- so much so that after the particle accelerator that was supposed to have been built in the 90s, the Superconducting Supercollider, got cancelled, the theorists all started getting cabin fever and raving about "11-dimensional membranes" and "the anthropic multiverse".




But now we've got the Large Hadron Collider, so that's okay. The LHC has about 7 times more energy than the last particle accelerator to get built (the "Tevatron" in Illinois, finished in the early 80s) and about 100 times the "luminosity". The LHC makes its energy by taking protons-- which, by the way, are "Hadrons", large ones-- accelerating them to incredible speed, and then smashing them into each other; so here "energy" refers to how much energy released is in each collision, and "luminosity" refers to how often the collisions occur. Luminosity is important because the higher your luminosity the more quickly you can gather lots of data. 




And you need lots of data, because the collisions in particle accelerator don't necessarily spit out the particles you want to see: the particles that come out are, again, random. Worse, you don't actually get to look at the particles themselves, because most of the interesting particles are horribly unstable and only exist for incredibly short amounts of time before falling apart or turning into something else (which kind of makes sense, because if the particles were stable and long-lived they'd just be hanging out all over the place and you wouldn't need a particle accelerator to look for them, right?). So the particle detectors that analyze the aftermath of the collisions don't actually get to look at the particles that were generated, just their aftermath-- the unstable interesting particles instantly fall apart into slightly less interesting but still unstable particles,  which then fall apart into boring stable particles. The detectors then pick up the shotgun spray of thirdhand boring particles that are left over.




So let's say that you get this spray of particles, and the spray of particles is consistent with the spray of particles you'd get from the decay of, I don't know, a top quark. You're then left with the question: Is this the aftermath of a top quark? Or is it just a random spray of particles, noise that coincidentally happens to look like the remnants of an exploding top quark? You can't really tell. The only way to figure out what you're looking at is to gather lots and lots of these little particle sprays and do statistical model fitting to shake the coincidences out.




The main thing the LHC is hoping to detect in its statistical model fitting is something called the "Higgs Boson". The Higgs Boson is the one outstanding item in the physicists' eternal game of leapfrog, the very last thing that the theorists are certain exists but the experimentalists have never found. The Higgs is part of what's called the "Standard Model", which is a collection of different known "fields" that show up in nature and are what particles are made out of-- like there's a field for electrons, and a field for each kind of neutrino and quark. There's one field, though, the Higgs field, that doesn't normally make particles-- instead it's just kind of this flat ocean of Higgsness, identical everywhere. Although the Higgs field doesn't ever do anything itself, though, the fact it's there has a huge impact on things-- particles would act completely different, and in fact wouldn't even have mass, if it wasn't for the Higgs field permeating everything and interfering with how all the particle fields operate.




Although the Higgs field doesn't normally form particles, one of the possible outcomes of a particle collider collision is that the collision could cause a ripple in the normally flat ocean that is the Higgs field, and that ripple would look just like a particle. This ripple is the "Higgs Boson" physicists at the LHC want to find, and if they can trap the Higgs Boson and measure what it's like then a lot of stuff about the Standard Model will start to make a lot more sense. There's also some other, speculative stuff that people are hoping the LHC might find-- like "supersymmetric superpartners" (don't ask) or "WiMPs" (which are the particles that a lot of people think are the cause of "dark matter"). But nobody's sure whether the other stuff even exists, so the Higgs is target #1.




All this LHC stuff is being done by CERN, who are incidentally the people who invented the World Wide Web (which just in case the giant concrete fortress under a mountain in switzerland didn't tip you off, that should prove-- yes, they are supervillains).




So, when's all this going to happen? Well, everything's actually ready to go already except the particle beams. The detectors have actually been running since the end of last year; since there aren't any collisions going on, they've just been sitting there measuring the cosmic rays from outer space that sometimes pass through the LHC's mountain. (Incidentally, if you hear anyone in the news claiming the LHC might somehow create tiny black holes or strangelets or something and destroy the earth, this is how you know to ignore them-- cosmic ray collisions are actually more energetic than the LHC, and those happen all the time in the upper atmosphere. If anything that could happen at the LHC was capable of destroying the earth, it would have happened millions and millions of years ago.)




The particle beam, according to the most recent reports I'm aware of, is set to switch on for the first time in early July; but once they turn it on, the first few months are going to be spent just testing it. So the assumption would be that the first "physics collisions" will be happening in September; again though they have to gather a lot of data before they can actually understand what any of it means, so we probably shouldn't expect published results for at least a year after the data starts coming in, probably even longer. But, nevertheless, after years of waiting, the collisions themselves are not far away.




So as the marathon primary finally winds to a close and the general election begins in earnest, as the election itself approaches and we move deeper and deeper into "silly season", remember this, and perhaps it will provide some comfort: Somewhere on the France-Switzerland border, underneath a mountain, things are blowing up.




FURTHER READING: IF ANY OF THIS ACTUALLY INTERESTED YOU, YOU MAY WANT TO TRY FOLLOWING THESE:




The USLHC blog -- This is a group blog where the U.S. contingent among the scientists at the LHC intermittently post about their experiences there




Not Even Wrong -- This blog normally exists just for this guy who works at Columbia University to complain about String Theory, but sometimes he gets distracted and writes startlingly in-depth analyses of up-to-the-minute science news instead




Dorigo -- This is actually a blog by a scientist working at the Tevatron, the LHC's predecessor in Illinois. Although it's not about the LHC, the author's experience with the particle accelerator he works for often allows him to give useful (although perhaps a bit pessimistic) insight into what to expect of the LHC


Comments (44)

Hey. This is a bit of an experiment. I don't know if anyone's actually interested in this stuff, but I figured it was worth a shot. This is the first time I've ever posted a blog on TPM (any idea how to make the big gaps between paragraphs not happen)?

As always, if you actually liked this, give the "recommend" button a click-- FOR SCIENCE!

avatar

well say... that's a very advanced bunch of degrees you got yerself there, son.

good job.

I'm not a big one for complaining about string theory, but I have to say this was refreshing.

See, this is a great example of the democratizing influence of the internets. My understanding of giant science lasers isn't getting filtered through the MSM anymore. I'm tired of them continuing to dissect 11-dimensional membranes like they're news.

But just wait a sec while I finish up this advanced physics degree and then let the free flow of information begin!

See, this is a great example of the democratizing influence of the internets. My understanding of giant science lasers isn't getting filtered through the MSM anymore.

You know, I'm not sure I take altogether always seriously the promises about the promise of the blogosphere that blog journalists make. But it's kind of interesting-- oddly I think the science blogosphere actually turns out to be fulfilling those promises better than almost anyone else is. I think this is because normal science journalism is so absolutely horrid to an extent that even mainstream political journalism is not, whereas with the science blogosphere much more often than other cases the blogging is being done by people who are legitimately primary sources-- almost all of the best science blogs are people who are actually science researchers or college professors or whatnot.

Thanks for the info, mcc! I doubt a regular series on laser would work very well here, but one such post is very cool. And I had heard those comments about possible black holes; glad to had that debunked!

avatar

I'm a geeky/nerd type. I liked this "sciencey" post. My father is a physicist as are two of my much younger cousins. One worked on the dark matter project in Utah and at the Ferme Lab in Chicago.

I may not know a lot about physics, but I do know that Obama is both a wave and a particle.

Homework: Shoot him through a piece of paper with two slits. Observe diffraction pattern.

He's a wavicle!

Ich weiss nicht, was soll das bedeuten.

I may not know a lot about physics, but I do know that Obama is both a wave and a particle.

Only in America is a story like this possible.

Why this silly claim concerning American exceptionalism?

All this LHC stuff is being done by CERN, who are incidentally the people who invented the World Wide Web (which just in case the giant concrete fortress under a mountain in switzerland didn't tip you off, that should prove-- yes, they are supervillains).

For a great sci-fi novel set in 2039 that features accelerating environmental problems, Swiss supervillains in WWIII, CERN, and much much more, check out Earth by David Brin

It's about a 600 page novel, and Brin put a lot of good work in the late 80's into writing it; it's a 50-year forward prediction of what the world will be like. And it lives up to his title; it's certainly about the whole earth, and people from all over its surface. There's something in it for everyone, geologists, environmentalists, and physicists especially.

mcc,

incidentally, in Earth, the "jap" or "gerry" derogatory term for the Swiss is "gnomes." Does this have something to do with your avatar, perhaps...? are you a Swiss supervillain too?

Good grief! I ran into a poster that had a very involved, detailed and meticulously researched conspiracy theory about the Swiss.

LOL

Along the lines of the illuminati.

Nice article. I always got the shivers driving along SLAC....

Hi,

I haven't read any David Brin novels. Thanks for the recommendation though.

The avatar is actually something else.

thanks. old video games rock. i'm playing a SNES emulator right now.

Recommended

Genghis, you've read Earth?

Tell me. Is that not the first novel you thought of after reading this post?

Uh, it was the first novel that I thought of after your comment reminded me of it. But yeah, between the artificial black hole and the swiss mountains, the whole thing is very Earth-esque. Though I never really understood how Switzerland got itself in a nuclear war.

Apropos of very little, my favorite lesser known sci-fi novel is Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow. If you like Brin, I recommend.

I think it had something to do with the banking system, and the world demanding back all of the dirty (graft, drug, embezzled, illegal arms, etc.) money that had ever been hidden away in Swiss bank accounts so that they could pay some of the massive costs involved with the environmental problems, population relocation, and land use changes that occur between now & 2039.

I think he misreads Swiss psyche; I think they would cow before they fought the losing side of a World War - no offense to their martial spirit, but they are a tiny little country. Easily defensible, but landlocked and, I'm guessing, lacking in air power.

Thanks mmc, that was refreshing. There are number of ways to write about LHC or science in general that most people find horribly boring, but goes into too rare category of "fun, exciting and easily understandable science articles".

I guess many researchers feel like they're scratching a lottery ticket every time they turn the thing on and start observing. Get three Higgs Bosons in a row and you win this bag of... I don't know what, but I'm sure keeping my thumbs up now.

Emphatic, second! Great most mcc. You should be a science writer if you're not already.

ARGH!

WENCH HILLARY IS AGAINST BIG PHALLIC SCIENCE!

MOVE ALL COLLIDERS TO THE COWBOYS IN TEXAS LIKE IN THE 1980S!

ACQUIRE! MERGE! DILUTE! DILUTE!

ARGH!

Great, remind me that we're all gonna die from miniature black holes.

Right. Sounds like the world is going to end in September. The up side of that, of course, is that we can stop worrying about swing voters in the goddam general election. Might as well do what we enjoy, and come out with our real agenda.

Socialized medicine! Gun control!
High-speed trains running from New York to Chicago!

Guaranteed minimum income! 100% estate tax!

A Prius in every garage!

Incidentally, if you hear anyone in the news claiming the LHC might somehow create tiny black holes or strangelets or something and destroy the earth, this is how you know to ignore them--cosmic ray collisions are actually more energetic than the LHC, and those happen all the time in the upper atmosphere. If anything that could happen at the LHC was capable of destroying the earth, it would have happened millions and millions of years ago.

Not necessarily. The argument put forth by the critics is that micro black holes created naturally are not stationary--unlike the ones that could be created by the LHC.

The problem for CERN is that the critics in this case aren't crackpots. They're physicists who know what they're talking about. A lawsuit has been filed in Federal court, and the LHC may have to wait until this is decided (although how they would find a judge qualified to preside over the case is beyond me).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23844529/
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29

Incidentally, I think a more convincing argument against micro black holes is that if these things existed, neutron stars would not.

The LHC's blogs have a pretty funny comment to all of the hoopla the nervous nellies are projecting:

But speaking of (not being) funny, physicists’ attempts at being wry often misfire. Michio Kaku, whom Boyle seems to have used as a source, provides a reasonable, if blustery, dismissal of strangelets — “We see no evidence of this bizarre theory” — but then trips up: “Once in a while, we trot it out to scare the pants off people. But it’s not serious.” Unfortunately, this comes across as insulting to people who are seriously concerned about the effect of science on the environment, and does nothing to inspire their trust in us. If we keep making “jokes” like this to reporters, then we deserve to waste all of the energy that we do fending off folks like Wagner. So let’s stop intentionally scaring people, even in jest.

http://uslhc.us/blogs/?p=152

avatar

heh. i got a better idear.

let's edumacate our people to the point where they get physics humor.

then all the asshats will go away for lack of a rapt audience...

Im glad you posted this....although I cant believe I was following the entire post with the drunken debauchery I got into last night. :) Very easy and nice read.

It is very refreshing to see something a little different from here.
This gives me ideas of perhaps pushing some other materials or an entire site all together.

Nice work, and thanks for educating me.

Crap, I know the drill on CERN and LHC. I wanted to hear about giant lasers, chemical behemoths that can melt the Moon, or other cool stuff. And then there are those mythic nuke-driven X-ray lasers Teller was pushing. (Too bad about that, Eddie.)

I don't know if this has anything with what you posted but I have always been interested in up-quarks and down-quarks and neutrinos.

Want to know more about particles? Don't know a quark from a lepton? Check this out.

A great non-scientist intro to particle physics with great graphics:
The Particle Adventure
http://particleadventure.org/

I found it fun and informative :)

Thanks for this post, which I avoided at first because I knew it would suck me in. I have some questions:

1. Why do they assume concrete will hold this massive reaction?

2. How does String Theory fit into this, if it does at all?

3. Am I right in thinking that this may have implications for non-carbon fuel sources?

Thanks again for a fantastic post. I still have to read all your links, but this was great! The thing I love about physics is that, no matter how hard it is to wrap your brain around a concept, every concept makes PERFECT SENSE! (Except astrophysics, which require too many assumptions for me to understand)

1. The explosion is massive, but tiny. The machinery that creates the particle beam is enormous, and the energy of the collision is kind of ridiculously high, but remember, this is two protons colliding. Fiddling with google calculator for a minute I find that the amount of energy released when a gram of TNT detonates is about a billion times more energy than is represented in a single LHC collision. The thing that makes the LHC energy considered to be ridiculously large is that it's dense, condensed to the space of a single proton. (Whereas a gram of TNT would contain... checking google calc again, about 10^21 molecules? And TNT molecules are big beastly things to begin with.)

This said, concrete doesn't exactly hold the explosion-- but not for the reason you think. A lot of the particle debris from the collision is so tiny they just go right through concrete. From the perspective of a neutrino, concrete is mostly made of empty space...

2. The main way string theory fits into this is "supersymmetry". Supersymmetry is a theory that was developed in the 70s, and a lot of physicists like it because if supersymmetry is true, a whole bunch of math in physics gets a lot easier. Without getting too far into it, basically there's two kinds of particles: bosons, which are the carriers of forces (like photons, gravitons, etc), and fermions, which are "matter" (electrons, the quarks that make up protons, etc). Supersymmetry says that every single particle that exists has an evil twin, a "superpartner", that is in some way the same thing only on the other side of the boson/fermion line. So like the electron, which is a fermion, would have a superpartner which is a boson. We've never seen one of these superpartners, but that's not surprising because there's some terribly good reason (which is over my head) why we ought to expect that all the superpartners are heavier than the Higgs Boson-- so, we shouldn't expect to start finding superpartners until after we find the Higgs. (There's incidentally a lot of hope that the mysterious dark matter particle, the "Wimp", will turn out to be a superpartner.)

The thing is, String Theory absolutely NEEDS supersymmetry to be true. If supersymmetry isn't true, String Theory as we know it just falls apart. And there are specific reasons why if supersymmetry can't be seen by the LHC, then a lot of physicists will probably be inclined to conclude it's not true at all, or at least more of a longshot then it's currently considered to be. So if the LHC DOESN'T see supersymmetry, then String Theory is in big trouble. On the other hand, if the LHC DOES find supersymmetry to be true, then this is an enormous coup FOR string theory and many string theory critics will look silly.

Beyond supersymmetry the main hope string theorists have about the LHC, as far as I can tell, is that they hope that the LHC will randomly reveal something very strange and mysterious that will turn out to require string theory to explain. This is maybe a slightly too optimistic approach to take. For example, sometimes discussion of "mini black holes" being created at the LHC comes up; this is discussed mainly because there is a specific obscure variation on string theory which if true might mean that mini black holes could be made at the LHC, maybe. If we see mini black holes at the LHC, then this is *HUGE* for string theory, much better than just finding supersymmetry, and string theory would be practically confirmed. But this is INCREDIBLY unlikely to happen even if string theory is true, and if no mini black holes are found then this will not be a strike against string theory at all.

3. No, not in any way I can think of. The thing to watch if that's what you're interested in is ITER, the international fusion project. If you're interested in that here is a good article about the long-term ITER schedule, it is very long but also very interesting:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2164

Plase undersand that I am not a scientist, but I am very interested in this topic, and so my questions will probably seem pedestrian, but they go back to my orignial questions:

If concrete is a lame "holding tank" -- you describe it as such -- why bother with that (especially for an experiment that the whole world is waiting to hear about?

And I know I embarass myself here -- why make it circular? Why not create this experiment within a fortress of solidified rock that already exists?

Secondly, and this comes back to my complaint about astro physics -- why are you guys debunking String Theory when it makes so much sense?

Again, I am a complete amateur, but I do keep up!

But may I remind you; you opened this Pandora's Box to get us out of the PRIMARY ELECTION CYCLE!

Hi,

1. The particles actually aren't held in place by the concrete; they are held in place by extremely powerful magnets. The concrete tunnel is not to hold the particles, but rather the physicists :) If you look at pictures from the LHC tunnel, it looks like there's some kinda pipe looking thing. (Note my original post contains an inaccuracy, as looking it implies the concrete enclosure is what has the air and heat pumped out; it's rather going to be the pipe which contains the near-absolute-zero vacuum).

2. The reason it has to be circular is that that's how it's easiest to get the particles up to a high speed. You basically set up the particle to go in a circle, and you put an accelerator at one point on the track. This architecture means that the particle gets to get accelerated multiple times-- it loops around the track again and again, and each time it does so it speeds up.

There also exist "linear accelerators" that do not do this trick with the circles, and you just shoot the particles in a straight track. But this is MUCH harder to do, and usually linear accelerators can't reach as high energies. "Cyclotrons" like the LHC and linear accelerators have different advantages and disadvantages though, so if the LHC produces really amazing results, they may build a linear accelerator (the "ILC") to pair up with it.

3. So, I actually didn't mean to be negative toward String Theory in my writing here; I linked Peter Woit's blog above not because of the anti-String-Theory stuff, but because he's a great source of information about physics and the LHC status and he's where I learned much of what I say here about the LHC. I think I should have been clearer about why I was linking him, sorry about that.

This aside though I would personally say that whether String Theory "makes sense" is less important than whether it is supported by experiment. There are a lot of ideas out there that are very intellectually satisfying and "make sense" to a great degree, but which simply aren't true. I think we need to judge String Theory the way we judge any other theory-- is it supported by evidence? Is it useful? For all I know the answers to these questions will eventually turn out to be "yes", but I don't think we can say we have clear answers yet.

Thanks. Yes, It was helpful.

avatar

Good summary. I didn't know the detectors were measuring the stable remnants of the unstable particles, and not the unstable particles themselves.

I can't wait for Silly Particle Season.

Your post reminded my politically-minded self of Science Debate 2008. It's a long shot to happen, but we really need it to.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

Thank you mcc. I will never underestimate my Higgs field again. I knew something was holding me together, but I thought it might be dark matter. As for de-bunking the black whole theory, well. I always knew that they would never be able to create the sufficient density, and that it had to be some kind of simplistic MSM ploy for attention to the project. Secretly, I had hoped that there would be world-wide benefits for aiming man-made black holes, but that gets us into politics, and we promised not to go there by reading your thoughtful diversion.

Check out Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" watch online on PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Hopefully the LHC will confirm (or at least circumstantial evidence of) some of the predictions made by String Theory.

avatar

I was expecting a giant laser cat joke. Accidental enlightenment.

This simple trick has basically been the driving force behind particle physics for seventy years: the experimentalists keep building more powerful particle accelerators, giving them the ability to see particles with higher energies than they could before; then the theorists try to come up with a theory that explains why that set of particles exists; and the theories they come up with usually wind up predicting other particles, particles that haven't been seen yet, which means the experimentalists have to go back and build another particle accelerator to look for them. This game of experimentalist/theorist leapfrog has become so central to physics that physicists barely know what to do without it-- so much so that after the particle accelerator that was supposed to have been built in the 90s, the Superconducting Supercollider, got cancelled, the theorists all started getting cabin fever and raving about "11-dimensional membranes" and "the anthropic multiverse".

I'll assume that the first part of the sentence is an oversimplification for the readers here, but the last part is misleading.

Physics, like any other field, is not a monolithic thing. There are many subdisciplines and they all compete with each other for funding.

The Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) was the plum of the experimental high-energy physics community. It was a very, very expensive project and would benefit a small number of physicists. Most of the money would go to building a 21-mile diameter ring to have the particles race around before smashing together to look at the sub-subatomic particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Supercollider

It was basically a huge construction project and most money would be going to contractors and builders and engineers! To give you a further idea of what the project really was, the site of it was determined in Nov 88 to be in Texas. The same month that GWH Bush was elected president.

Theorists were getting little money from this project -- and whole branches of physics were being denied money (including optics, solid state, and a variety of other subdisciplines). To say nothing of other types of science funding.

While they were vocal about making the US have a financial commitment to science, most physicists weren't upset to see the SSC go away.

String theory was around long before the cancellation of the project -- it was considered a "real" discipline by the 1970s. It has a poor predictive power and requires very difficult experiments to verify anything. Today, the theory has fallen from favor as it isn't that tied to experiment.

There were lots of other things going on, however, for high-energy physics. Because of people like Alan Guth and others, the inflationary model of the universe was worthy of study. The problem there is you only have one universe to observe, so it's a little hard to apply theory.

Lastly, there is an interesting cultural divide between those doing this type of high-energy physics and others in other disciplines. They are competing for the same small pot of money.

Much of what people consider science in this country is really engineering -- and flashy engineering at that. It strikes the public's imagination but the knowledge bang/buck is actually small. Perhaps the most famous case for this is how NASA divides up it's budget -- the manned space program has delivered little in the way of science, but it gets far more dollars than the robotic and observational side of NASA. Ironically, Earth Science receives very little money at all within NASA.



Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address