Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

Statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.

Due to a seemingly random series of events, the wiser and more benevolent side of Andy’s internal self has acquiesced with the over inquisitive and but danger-to-itself “curious child” part of his brain and managed to sign the whole of Andy up for the Xtreme Everest expedition; a medical study aiming to see how the human body reacts at altitude.

Expedition

The expedition are hoping to help understand the effect of hypoxia (low blood oxygen) on supposedly healthy adults. This is relevant in the field of intensive care as patients almost universally suffer from hypoxia so understanding how to get more oxygen into people’s bloodstream is how you keep them alive. Or so the doctors on the project say anyway.

The upshot is 3 weeks trekking at altitude, interspersed with tests involving needles, physical jerks, general prodding, putting different shaped blocks in holes (apparently you get stupid at altitude) and whatever other weird things the doctors can dream up.

Carbon Gilt

For some reason, Andy decided that just a single act of (uncharacteristic) philanthropy wasn’t enough and figured that he might as well raise some money for a good cause while he was up there; and decided to offset the guilt of flying long haul to Nepal by choosing a charity dedicated to the environment – namely Friends of the Earth.

He then asked me to “use my colossal internet presence to spread the word and put forth the metaphorical cap of pleading for donations to this cause“. How could I refuse? Donate, donate, donate! Now, now now!

Turn the screw

If anyone thinks of any tests that might inspire the doctors to find inventive, painful or (preferably) embarrassing ways to prod Andy in the name of medical science, do speak up!

I’m wondering if hypoxia affects the time taken for a tongue to become stuck to a frozen metal pole.

However, when I do return to the kitchen a recurring question bounces around my head: how much sugar is absorbed by the teabag before it is removed from the pot? i.e. exactly how much is the taste affected and how much energy is lost?

I recall from GCSE science that one way to test this would be to take sample teabags that have been percolating themselves in teapots with differing amounts of sugar, then once dried, burn them in a controlled environment and measure the energy given off.

Perhaps different teas have different absorption qualities too. Perhaps different bag shapes and materials also affect absorption. Who knows…

Anyhow, it strikes me that:

1. there are probably better ways to do it than I can think of, so what are they? and
2. someone’s possibly already done the experiments, so are any results published?

So I’ll let the web do it’s thing, no doubt the answer will one day arrive with a knowledgeable reader (hello you), and in the mean time, I can stop wondering because I know the answer is on it’s way.

High costs result in only the smallest error margins being afforded, so in mitigation, any part of a space mission that can be automated, is automated, and the use of commodity items helps. Whenever possible, human tasks are removed from the equation, but sometimes they’re a necessary part of the machine. There are times when a problem cannot be analysed without having a dynamic flexible and adaptable tool (the human) on board.

The Human within The Machine

The first astronauts (Gagarin, Shepard, Grissom, Titov, etc.) were all military pilots (often test-pilots) shortlisted because of their proven abilities in extreme flight conditions. The Apollo & Soyuz missions that those pilots undertook were real journeys into the unknown, not just testing unknown machinery, but journeys into an unknown environment where their vehicle would behave in uncertain ways.

Such was the success of those missions that journeys into Earth orbit appear to have become fairly routine. The first few Shuttle missions were televised live, but after that, they were relegated to an “and finally…” item on the news, and often not covered at all. The loss of Challenger and it’s seven crew refocused press attention on space travel and the fact that one-shot right-first-time problems can fail catastrophically.

If things do go wrong, the crew needs to be informed and focused, taking in a lot of information, filtering out the irrelevant and acting instinctively. When warnings and malfunctions are day-to-day events, intensive training aids the cognition process, helping complex tasks to become routine; keeping the human a part of the machine focused on the mission, to the exclusion of all else.

Mission Focus, No Deviation

In 2005, we had the opportunity to meet the Commander of Apollo 15, Col. David Scott, when he presented a lecture at the University of Portsmouth. Something occurred during his presentation that was, unintentionally, quite revealing about the astronaut mindset.

Speaking for an hour can be quite hard on the voice, so the university had provided a glass of water.

Midway through explaining something quite complex (he covered things like trans-lunar injection) Col. Scott caught the glass with the back of his hand and it fell from the podium, smashing on the carpeted floor, quietly but audibly.

There was no pause, not even a glance at the debris, not even the slightest break in sentence or paragraph.

Afterwards several of us commented about the glass, one person remarked “it was like it didn’t happen; he knew the it was lost before it hit the ground, so continued without falter”.

Col. Scott was not diverted from his task of delivering the lecture, and as a result, the audience were not diverted in their reception of it, nobody felt embarrassed for him, nobody rushed to clear it up, everything continued at full pace. There was absolutely no deviation.

The Human without The Machine

Singular focus on a goal is beneficial in an otherwise automated one-shot project, but what about afterwards, back on earth? When it’s combined with personal & emotional issues it can result in extreme and startling actions.

Yesterday, an astronaut was arrested at Orlando International Airport and charged with attempting to kidnap a love rival. The suspect had driven 900 miles non-stop from Texas to Florida wearing disposable nappies (to avoid having to stop for a wee). She then donned a wig and trench coat and followed her target to the car park, carrying the following: pepper spray, a BB gun, a steel mallet, a 4-inch folding knife, rubber tubing, rubbish bags and $600 in cash. She’s a married mother of three, and could face a life sentence if convicted.

So it seems nobody’s perfect, not even astronauts. Astronauts do things that would make the rest of us feel clumsy. Astronauts fall in love with the wrong people and go to extreme lengths in order to “just talk to” their love rival. Perhaps the unseen problem of being an astronaut is that you have to keep getting it right even after your last mission. An astronaut is put on a pedestal and expected not to screw up, ever. Right first time, right every time, no deviation.

Wikipedia has some interesting quotes from NASA spokespeople who are stunned and perplexed by the incident.