Thermal control surfaces experiment flight system performance

The Thermal Control Surfaces Experiment (TCSE) is the most complex system, other than the LDEF, retrieved after long term space exposure. The TCSE is a microcosm of complex electro-optical payloads being developed and flow by NASA and the DoD including SDI. The objective of TCSE was to determine the effects of the near-Earth orbital environment and the LDEF induced environment on spacecraft thermal control surfaces. The TCSE was a comprehensive experiment that combined in-space measurements with extensive post flight analyses of thermal control surfaces to determine the effects of exposure to the low earth orbit space environment. The TCSE was the first space experiment to measure the optical properties of thermal control surfaces the way they are routinely measured in a lab. The performance of the TCSE confirms that low cost, complex experiment packages can be developed that perform well in space

Dark citizen science

Citizen science is often celebrated. We interrogate this position through exploration of socio-technoscientific phenomena that mirror citizen science yet are disaligned with its ideals. We term this ‘Dark Citizen Science’. We identify five conceptual dimensions of citizen science – purpose, process, perceptibility, power and public effect. Dark citizen science mirrors traditional citizen science in purpose and process but diverges in perceptibility, power and public effect. We compare two Internet-based categorisation processes, Citizen Science project Galaxy Zoo and Dark Citizen Science project Google’s reCAPTCHA. We highlight that the reader has, likely unknowingly, provided unpaid technoscientific labour to Google. We apply insights from our analysis of dark citizen science to traditional citizen science. Linking citizen science as practice and normative democratic ideal ignores how some science-citizen configurations actively pit practice against ideal. Further, failure to fully consider the implications of citizen science for science and society allows exploitative elements of citizen science to evade the sociological gaze

The continuing materials analysis of the thermal control surfaces experiment (S0069)

The long term effects of the natural and induced space environment on spacecraft surfaces are critically important to future spacecraft - including Space Station Freedom. The damaging constituents of this environment include thermal vacuum, solar ultraviolet radiation, atomic oxygen, particulate radiation, and the spacecraft induced environment. The behavior of materials and coatings in the space environment continues to be a limiting technology for spacecraft and experiments. The Thermal Control Surfaces Experiment (TCSE) was flown on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) to study these environmental effects on surfaces-particularly on thermal control surfaces. The TCSE was a comprehensive experiment that combined in-space measurements with extensive pre- and post-flight analyses of thermal control surfaces to determine the effects of exposure to the low Earth orbit space environment. The TCSE is the first space experiment to directly measure the total hemispherical reflectance of thermal control surfaces in the same way they are routinely measured in the laboratory. The trend analyses of selected coatings performed as part of the continuing post-flight analysis of the TCSE are described. A brief description of the TCSE and its mission on LDEF are presented. There are several publications available that describe the TCSE, it's mission on LDEF, and initial results in greater detail. These are listed in the TCSE Bibliography

A National Survey Of Managed Honey Bee 2012-2013 Annual Colony Losses In The USA: Results From The Bee Informed Partnership

For the past six years in which overwintering mortality of honey bee colonies has been surveyed in the USA, estimates of colony loss have fluctuated around one-third of the national population. Here we report on the losses for the 2012-2013 seasons. We collected data from 6,482 US beekeepers (6,114 backyard, 233 sideline, and 135 commercial beekeepers) to document overwintering mortality rates of honey bee colonies for the USA. Responding beekeepers reported a total 30.6% (95% CI: 30.16-31.13%) loss of US colonies over the winter, with each beekeeper losing on average 44.8% (95% CI: 43.88-45.66%) of their colonies. Total winter losses varied across states (range: 11.0% to 54.7%). The self-reported level of acceptable winter loss was 14.6%, and 73.2% of the respondents had mortality rates greater than this level. The leading self-identified causes of overwintering mortality were different according to the operation type; backyard beekeepers generally self-identified “manageable” factors (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall), while commercial beekeepers generally identified non-manageable factors (e.g., queen failure, pesticides) as the main cause of losses. For the first time in this series of surveys, we estimated mortality during the summer (total loss = 25.3% (95% CI: 24.80-25.74%), average loss = 12.5% (95% CI: 11.92-13.06%)). The entire 12-months period between April 2012 and April 2013 yielded a total loss of 45.2% (95% CI: 44.58-45.75%), and an average loss of 49.4% (95% CI: 48.46-50.43%). While we found that commercial beekeepers lost fewer colonies than backyard beekeepers in the winter (30.2% (95% CI: 26.54-33.93% vs 45.4% (44.46-46.32%) respectively), the situation was reversed in the summer where commercial beekeepers reported higher average losses than backyard beekeepers (21.6% (95% CI: 18.4-24.79%) vs 12.1%(11.46-12.65%)). These findings demonstrate the ongoing difficulties of US beekeepers in maintaining overall colony heath and survival

A National Survey Of Managed Honey Bee 2013–2014 Annual Colony Losses In The USA

Honey bee colony losses are a major concern in the USA and across the globe. Long-term data on losses are critical for putting yearly losses in context. US colony loss surveys have been conducted yearly since the winter of 2006–2007. Here, we report the results from the eighth annual survey on winter losses and the second annual survey of summer and annual losses. There were 7425 valid respondents (7123 backyard, 190 sideline, and 112 commercial beekeepers) managing 497,855 colonies, 19 % of the total US colonies. Total losses reported were 19.8 % [95 % CI 19.3–20.3 %] over the summer, 23.7 % [95 % CI 23.3–24.1 %] over the winter, and 34.1 % [95 %CI 33.6–34.6 %] for the whole year. Average losses were 15.1 % [95 % CI 14.5–15.7 %] over the summer, 44.8 %[95 % CI 43.9–45.7 %] over the winter, and 51.1 % [95 % CI 50.2–51.6 %] for the whole year. While total winter loss was one of the lowest reported in 8 years, 66 % of all beekeepers had higher losses than they deemed acceptable

Building a Business Analytics Platform For Enhancing Commercial Beekeepers’ Performance

This project defines and builds a comprehensive data platform that records data for bee management actions and natural world inputs and the performance results flowing from those actions and conditions. The collection and management of this data will allow for the application of advanced data analytics techniques that will lead to a better understanding and evaluation of the economic and best management practices for commercial beekeepers and growers of pollinated crops. Together these will lead to a better design and utilization of smart hive technologies for hive management and the development of an intelligent hive management system

The Impact Of Technology In Commercial Beekeeping (Abstract only)

We survey the current state of software and hardware solutions available to the commercial beekeeping industry based on ten years of experience with the Bee Informed Partnership in the United States and with Hive Tracks.Apiary management software, hive monitoring through a variety of sensors, hive and super identification, Varroa, nosema, and virus sampling data, and secondary digital data sources offer potential economic value to a commercial beekeeping operation, but factors such as cost, reliability, and ease of use influence the adoption of these technologies. Each of these factors provide a framework for evaluating technology feasibility based on the specific circumstances and needs of a commercial beekeeping operation. Case study examples illustrate the experience of current commercial beekeeping operations adopting these technology solutions and how they handle the challenges and obstacles of integrating technology into the fast paced and often chaotic commercial beekeeping workflow. While digital technologies directly impact commercial beekeeping operations internally, a number of new economic opportunities are being created at the intersection of beekeeping operations and various stakeholders including honey buyers, pollinator dependent growers, government agencies, and survey takers. A beekeeping operation supported by data can leverage that information to command higher honey and pollination contract prices, meet regulatory and compliance requirements, and participate in ongoing research and development projects. In addition, reliable and trusted beekeeping data will foster the development of new insurance products and smart contracting options that foster commercial beekeeping business security and continuity

A National Survey Of Managed Honey Bee 2010-11 Winter Colony Losses In The USA: Results From The Bee Informed Partnership

This study records the fifth consecutive year that winter losses of managed honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies in the USA have been around 30%. In April 2011, a total of 5,441 US beekeepers (an estimated 11% of total US beekeepers) responded to a survey conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership. Survey respondents reported that they had lost an average of 38.4% of their colonies, for a total US colony loss of 29.9% over the winter of 2010-11. One-third of respondents (all classified as backyard beekeepers, i.e. keeping fewer than 50 colonies) reported no winter loss. There was considerable variation in both the average and total loss by state. On average, beekeepers consider acceptable losses to be 13.2%, but 68% of all responding beekeepers suffered actual losses in excess of what they considered acceptable. Of beekeepers who reported losing at least one colony, manageable conditions, such as starvation and a weak condition in the fall, were the leading self-identified causes of mortality. Respondents who indicated that varroa mites (Varroa destructor), small hive beetles (Aethinatumida), poor wintering conditions, and / or Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) conditions were a leading cause of mortality in their operations suffered a higher average loss than beekeepers who did not list any of these as potential causes. In a separate question, beekeepers who reported the symptom “no dead bees in hive or apiary” had significantly higher losses than those who did not report this symptom. In addition, commercial beekeepers were significantly more likely to indicate that colonies died with this symptom than either backyard or sideliner beekeepers