Japanese scientists successfully tested a 'space cannon' this week

Not content with merely breaking the bonds of gravity and touching the face of God, now we want to fire plastic explosive into it.

A reminder there are some damned exciting space plans being worked on right now - in Japan, scientists report that a “space cannon” they have been building is armed and fully operational, and has been tested successfully (albeit not actually yet in space).

Hayabusa-2, designed and built by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA for short) will be launched into space next year, and head off to intercept the orbit of an asteroid called 1999JU3. It’s the successor probe to Hayabusa-1, which landed on the asteroid Itokawa in 2005, collected some samples, and returned home. It was the first such sample-and-return mission, one which Hayabusa-2 will build on.

1999JU3 is roughly a kilometre in diameter, and is an Apollo asteroid. That’s a class of asteroid that orbits the Sun within the orbit of Mars, in between the innermost three plants of Mercury, Venus and Earth. They occasionally cross into our orbit, making them a threat - that’s what the Chelyabinsk meteor was - but 1999JU3 isn’t. It is an interesting one, though, because it’s assumed to be made up of material similar to those found on the early Earth, and thus carry some of the organic compounds that we assume, on our planet, become life.

But you’re here for the space cannon, right? Here’s how it’s going to work.

After arriving at the asteroid sometime in 2018, and after taking 18 months’ worth of readings, Hayabusa-2 will deploy its cannon on one side of the asteroid (plus a camera so it can watch) before heading over to the opposite side. That way, nothing from the explosion should damage it.

Then, the space cannon will drift in. As it gets close to the surface it’ll detonate, firing a bullet containing 4.5kg of plastic explosive into the asteroid’s surface, blowing a crater into the asteroid’s side. Hayabusa-2 will emerge from hiding on the far side, swoop down to the exposed wound, and scoop up some samples. Then it’ll fly home, returning by 2020.

Alas, it is not quite as cool as Nasa’s awesome plan to capture an asteroid and pull it into orbit around the Moon. If we did that, we could send astronauts to it as practice for tricky things like landing on Mars or even distant moons. We might be watching footage of humans setting foot on another tiny alien world as soon as 2021, as long as funding can be found.
 

Artist's Concept of Hayabusa-2. (Image: Akihiro Ikeshita/JAXA)

Ian Steadman is a staff science and technology writer at the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @iansteadman.

exseada/DeviantArt
Show Hide image

Why Twitter is dying, in ten tweets

It's ironic that the most heated discussions of the platform's weaknesses are playing out on the platform itself. 

Twitter has been dying since 2009, and commentators have pre-emptively declared it deceased pretty much every year since. To declare that it's on the downturn has become a bit of a cliché. But that doesn't mean that it isn't also, well, true.

Grumbling among users and commentators has grown to a roar over the past few days, thanks in part to a Buzzfeed report (refuted by Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO) claiming the service will move away from a chronological timeline and towards an algorithmic one. Users coined the hashtag #RIPTwitter in response, and, tellingly, many of their complaints spanned beyond the apparently erroneous report. 

They join a clutch of other murmurings, bits of data and suggestions that things are not as they should be in the Twitter aviary. 

Below is one response to the threat of the new timeline, aptly showing that for lots of users, the new feed would have been the straw that broke the tweeters' backs:

Twitter first announced it was considering a new 10,000 character limit in January, but it's yet to be introduced. Reactions so far indicate that no one thinks this is a good idea, as the 140 character limit is so central to Twitter's unique appeal. Other, smaller tweaks – like an edit button – would probably sit much more easily within Twitter's current stable of features, and actually improve user experience: 

While Dorsey completely denied that the change would take place, he then followed up with an ominous suggestion that something would be changing:

"It'll be more real-time than a feed playing out in real time!" probably isn't going to placate users who think the existing feed works just fine. It may be hard to make youself heard on the current timeline, but any kind of wizardry that's going to decide what's "timely" or "live" for you is surely going to discriminate against already alienated users.

I've written before about the common complaint that Twitter is lonely for those with smaller networks. Take this man, who predicts that he'll be even more invisible in Twitter's maelstrom if an algorithm deems him irrelevant: 

What's particularly troubling about Twitter's recent actions is the growing sense that it doesn't "get" its users. This was all but confirmed by a recent string of tweets from Brandon Carpenter, a Twitter employee who tweeted this in response to speculation about new features:

...and then was surprised and shocked when he received abuse from other accounts:

This is particularly ironic because Twitter's approach (or non-approach) to troll accounts and online abusers has made it a target for protest and satire (though last year it did begin to tackle the problem). @TrustySupport, a spoof account, earned hundreds of retweets by mocking Twitter's response to abuse:

Meanwhile, users like Milo Yiannopolous, who regularly incites his followers to abuse and troll individuals (often women and trans people, and most famously as part of G*merg*te), has thrived on Twitter's model and currently enjoys the attentions of almost 160,000 followers. He has boasted about the fact that Twitter could monetise his account to pull itself out of its current financial trough:

The proof of any social media empire's decline, though, is in its number and activity of users. Earlier this month, Business Insider reported that, based on a sample of tweets, tweets per user had fallen by almost 50 per cent since last August. Here's the reporter's tweet about it:

Interestingly, numbers of new users remained roughly the same – which implies not that Twitter can't get new customers, but that it can't keep its current ones engaged and tweeting. 

Most tellingly of all, Twitter has stopped reporting these kinds of numbers publicly, which is why Jim Edwards had to rely on data taken from an API. Another publication followed up Edwards' story with reports that users aren't on the platform enough to generate ad revenue:

The missing piece of the puzzle, and perhaps the one thing keeping Twitter alive, is that its replacement hasn't (yet) surfaced. Commentators obsessed with its declining fortunes still take to Twitter to discuss them, or to share their articles claiming the platform is already dead. It's ironic that the most heated discussions of the platform's weaknesses are playing out on the platform itself. 

For all its faults, and for all they might multiply, Twitter's one advantage is that there's currently no other totally open platform where people can throw their thoughts around in plain, public view. Its greatest threat yet will come not from a new, dodgy feature, but from a new platform – one that can actually compete with it.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.