Word has it that the X-37 seems to be moving down the road from the Mojave Spaceport in California to neighboring Palmdale.

The robotic X-37 spaceplane is a project of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Space and Intelligence division of the Boeing Company, with limited support from NASA.

On April 7, after lots of testing at Mojave, the craft was finally dropped at high altitude from the White Knight carrier aircraft. For more details, check out:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060407_x37_drop.html

The auto-landing of the unpiloted X-37, however, ran into a bit of a problem by unexpectedly rolling off the end of the runway. There was minor damage to the vehicle, with its nose landing gear heavily damaged. However, the craft’s main landing gear and superstructure appeared structurally intact – that was the word at the time.

Rumor has it that the X-37 project folks have vacated the Mojave hangar and are headed for Palmdale under a May 1 deadline.

Geologists are all over the ballpark on their estimates for when the finite supply of oil will put a crimp in our industrial lifestyle. Some say we’ve got decades before a real oil shortage will be a problem, and that’s time enough to gradually develop other ways of fueling the world’s economies. Other researchers say crunch time could come much sooner, that perhaps peak production has already been reached and supplies will flatten and then dwindle just as China and India are ramping up their own imports.

Whatever, rising gas prices right now could mean you’ll pay more for pizza delivery, flower delivery and other goods and services (but maybe you’ll get that nifty little $100 federal gas rebate to offset your pain).
Whatever happens, how are gas prices today affecting you? Europeans have long dealt with higher prices than Americans; they tend to think a lot before they pull the car out of the garage. Have you changed your driving habits? Would you at $5 per gallon if it gets there? And do you fear how all of this migh affect the economy? One last question: Are higher prices in the long run maybe good for us, forcing the kind of changes in habits and technological innovation that would set us on a course for sustainable fuel and a stronger economy?

As of this writing, three readers have written in to complain about my article today discussing four recent polls that together reveal significant discontent among voters. That’s not a groundswell, but LiveScience exists for it readers, so I take the concerns seriously. Excerpts of the complaints:

Dan: I am extraordinarily disappointed to see the blatantly political article “Americans are mad as..” on LiveScience.com. The only purpose of the article, as far I can discern, seems to be to demonstrate your editor’s own political biases.
Walter: I keep looking at the LiveScience header to see if a new category has been added labeled “Politics” or “Opinion”…I don’t see one. Please stick to what you do best (I love the website), i.e.,SCIENCE.

Gibbons: LiveScience.com is a great science site. Please don’t pollute it with politics.

I can see how the article generated this concern. We have not heretofore covered politics extensively. We do report on polls, and you’ll find many in our archives. And we do report on politics when there is some interesting science (including polls) that provides insight we find compelling. While polling is imprecise, good ones are done scientifically and often offer the best and only way to find out what segments of the population are thinking.

All realms of science are imprecise at times and to varying degrees, and researchers frequently speculate on what their findings mean. We try to point out fact vs. speculation in our stories. Ultimately, politics and science can’t be artificially separated as some would like. Politicians make decisions that affect how science is done, how much money goes to research, and how businesses and individuals affect the environment. Some of the discontent right now that shows up in the polls is related to high gas prices, an issue that has many scientific and technological aspects.

In this case, I didn’t report on a single poll, but rather found four that together indicate a pretty strong sentiment out there. Regardless of my political views, I find that interesting and thought many of our readers would, too.

All that said, trust that LiveScience will continue to focus on new discoveries and fascinating scientific endeavors. That will always be our main mission. And keep the emails coming. There is no better way to contribute to LiveScience’s continued improvement than by telling us what you love and what you don’t.

Lawmakers again peppered NASA chief Michael Griffin Tuesday on whether there can be any cooperation between the space exploration efforts of the U.S. and China, prompted – no doubt – by the recent diplomatic visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao and conference appearances by high-ranking Chinese space officials.

“Where do you see us going with China?” Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, asked Griffin during a Senate subcommittee hearing Tuesday. “Competitor or colleague?”

Griffin, for his part, seems open to cooperation, else he – and President George W. Bush – would not have opted to take up China’s invitation to visit the China National Space Administration facilities during a future trip.

But there is a perception among some U.S. lawmakers that the U.S. and China are locked in an unspoken space race that Americans are losing, a concern that prompted officials like Congressmen Tom Delay and Frank Wolf to call on Griffin to produce by month’s end an official NASA assessment of China’s space ambitions.

Admittedly, the ingredients of a space race akin to the Cold War-era competition between the U.S. and former Soviet Union seem to be there:

Both the U.S. and China want to put astronauts back on the Moon and both national space programs face major challenges over the next few years.

China must demonstrate ever-greater capabilities such as spacewalks, orbital rendezvous and docking, and space station construction…not the least of which is the development of its heavy-lift Long March 5 rocket and launching more than two astronauts at a time.

NASA, meanwhile, must contend with a retirement-bound shuttle fleet, funding limits, major commitments to complete the International Space Station, and a potential Hubble servicing mission. Oh and don’t forget the development of a brand new space transportation system that blends shuttle era, Apollo era and current technology into a functional Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle…no small task, for sure.

China’s space program is a symbol of technological pride for the Communist nation, but two manned launches in two years - with another two-year gap expected - hardly a space race makes. Neither do NASA’s two shuttle flights since January 2003 (China’s first manned spaceflight Shenzhou 5 launched in October of that year) now that the U.S. agency knows – post-Columbia accident - that its orbiters are much more fragile machines than previously thought.

I’m not trying to discount the space accomplishments of either China or NASA – which are considerable, as human spaceflight is complex and risky - and a joint U.S.-China spaceflight could be every bit as significant as 1975’s Apollo-Soyuz mission, especially given the political chasm between the two. But to me the definition of a space race is two entities vying for the same goal – say the Moon – at a particular point in history when they not only are forging new territory, but have also caught the national interest of their respective citizens.

That what made the Cold War-era space race The Space Race, and today’s China-U.S. space activities largely a game of catch up for both nations. China is racing across 45 years of manned spaceflight to build up its own expertise, while NASA is racing with itself to try and reach a lost Moon.

Set to launch in 2008 with NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS). It’s a bare-bones suicide probe that will witness its rocket booster’s upper stage slam into hydrogen-rich Shackleton Crater before plowing into the lunar terrain itself.

But the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 lunar probe, already in Moon orbit, will beat LCROSS to the punch, so to speak. SMART-1 is being readied for a controlled crash into the Moon this September.

Indeed the SMART-1 team is congratulating the LCROSS team.

SMART-1’s grazing impact opportunity can help define and refine possible telescopic diagnostics from Earth, and rehearse a worldwide observations campaign. SMART-1’s crash can also study the signature of mineral ejecta as a blank control experiment before searching for water ice tossed up by LCROSS.

Lastly, impact modelers for ESA’s SMART-1 can help refine prediction tools for LCROSS.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talks show host, proves that science can be twisted to support any viewpoint. He found LiveScience’s Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth and, after reading much of the presentation (hurl our planet into a black hole, blow it up with antimatter, and other pretty difficult schemes), rightly concludes that it’s virtually impossible for us to annihilate this world. He goes on to say that this is reason enough to go ahead driving your SUV and running your air conditioner, because you can’t destroy the planet by your actions.

That’s funny. And one assumes Limbaugh knows it is just humor. The Top 10 Ways to Destroy Earth, by the creative ponderer Sam Hughes, lays out incredibly difficult but theoretically plausible ways to render Earth entirely gone, as in no longer here. Dust, vapor, food for a blackhole.

People who worry about global warming and the effect humans have on climate are, however, not arguing that we will obliterate the planet, but rather simply that we are contributing to a dangerous trend that will cause seas to rise and swamp coastal communities, might render many species of animals extinct, and that could generate a host of other ill effects for society and life as we know it.

Limbaugh can make you laugh, but encouraging gas guzzling just because it won’t literally destroy the planet is a sad recommendation even from someone who doesn’t worry about global warming. Should we not also be concerned about American dependence on foreign oil, the limited supply of oil, and our eroding ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace as the cost of oil skyrockets while we fail to robustly encourage investment in new technologies and sustainable energy sources? Those seem like reasonable concerns for a conservative, but perhaps I’ve just twisted the science to fit my views.

Thomas Friedman’s runaway bestseller The World is Flat bemoans the declining competitiveness of the U.S. versus emerging economic powerhouses like China and India.  He attributes much of this decline to our woeful lack of educational emphasis on math and science.  The U.S. government has initiated the No Child Left Behind program in part to address this problem.

Is there hope for the U.S.?  I believe so.

In the seven year history of Imaginova, parent company of science related brands like LiveScience, SPACE.com, Starry Night, Space News and Orion, we observed that our readers and customers comprised much more than just the hardcore science enthusiasts.  So we commissioned a study by OMD, the global media & communications agency, to size and profile the market of adults who are “intellectually curious” about science.   The study determined that 60 million adults 25-54 fall into the “intellectually curious” category—but only about 20 million of these are the hard core enthusiasts (which we affectionately call ‘geeks’).  That means there are 40 million adults who define themselves in other ways—i.e., by their careers or social status– but are, in varying degrees, just as fascinated and intrigued by science.

The 60 million “intellectually curious” adults is just the start.  Many of these adults have children to whom they promote math and science interest and send their kids to schools who nurture this interest as well.

Part of the problem in converting this broad interest to passion and science-oriented career choices have been the role models of success.  Despite the mind boggling advances in scientific research over the last 30 years, the heroes of our day have too often been entertainers and athletes and the measure of career success has been defined by investment bankers and lawyers.  By their very nature, scientists are humble and shun the spotlight—becoming somewhat inaccessible to the youth.  Photogenic, entertaining physicists like Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson have been few and far between.

But there is hope. 

The internet boom beginning in the mid-90s is now over 10 years old.  Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, etc. are ‘rock stars’.  These are the type of high profile success stories that can be role models that turn intellectual curiosity into careers, new discoveries, and enhanced U.S. competitiveness.  

I am optimistic.

Last night, I fought my way thru Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport, the world’s busiest airport.  I walked thru baggage claim and navigated my way thru the flock of weary travelers anxious to grab their baggage and go.

A massive advertising billboard in this swell of organized confusion greeted me:

 ”17 million new Chinese consumers of plastic will be born this year.  Are you ready?”

Well, that depends on what you mean.  I’m not sure I can handle 17 million of anything.  This message of opportunity by Emerson invoked lots of probably unintential thoughts - not only the immediate population explosion occuring on Earth (and especially China) but also that every one of these 17 million consumers will eagerly use then dispose of these plastics.   Combine a pinch of global warming with a shake of population explosion and you’ve got a recipe for a 21st century disaster in the kitchen.

While we’re on the subject, make sure and link on over to the friendly folks at Learn About Coal where  your favorite doe-eyed grade schoolers will help you learn more about Clean Coal technologies, paid for by the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.  Don’t forget to find out more information by following the link to the American Coal Foundation while you are there.

And one more thing — the next time you get stuck in an airport, don’t forget to bring along some good reading materials.  It’ll make the time go a lot quicker.

Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Truth opens May 24.  The film, an 80 minute documentary on our planet’s growing climate crisis, is based on the lecture Gore has been giving at college campuses and speaking engagements now for years.  He’ll be all over TV, print and internet in coming weeks – in fact, he’s already on the cover of Vanity Fair and Wired this month. 

He won’t announce his presidential candidacy today, Earth Day.

He won’t announce it on May 24th either

He won’t run for president.  Well, not yet anyway.

Recently, Gore removed himself from consideration as a presidential candidate and Democrats, begging for someone, anyone, with a pulse and some semblance of a backbone let out a collective silent scream.   

Ironically, his early removal from the race for the highest political office in the land may be the thing that enables him to later be the leading candidate for the 2008 presidential elections. Gore and team have wisely removed any discussion of political ambitions in advance of the movie openings.   Even the new trailer, the one that sends chills up my spine every time I see it, states that the movie is “not a political issue so much as a moral issue”.

Gore is taking his message to the American public and wisely letting us decide for itself whether global warming matters.    And he’s removing his political ambitions from the discussion.

The movie opens days before the official kick-off of the 2006 Hurricane Season.  April’s 80 degree Wisconsin afternoons will again turn into another sweltering summer season.  Everywhere you look there’s a new report, new documentary, new special report on global warming.  Is a tipping point about the tipping point happening?

Envision, if you will, that saving the planet really does matter to us. Could we see a true grass movement by Democrats, heck by humans in general, to push for Gore to run as the Environmental President.  It will likely become THE issue of our generation in coming years and with a considerable vacuum of leadership on the issue from both Democrats and Republicans, there’s no one better positioned within either party to run on this issue.   The scenario is a dream right out of a Rocky movie – called out of retirement one last time by screaming fans everywhere - to fight on the ultimate stage of life.

Gore can let the conversation play out a little longer before ultimately committing one way or another on his political future - he just shouldn’t wait too long.

Keep an eye out on NASA’s Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California.

Paperwork is still moving forward on having S. Pete Worden move into the top Ames post. Worden is a Brigadier General (retired) of the U.S. Air Force. He’s now a research professor of Astronomy at the Steward Observatory and research professor of planetary sciences in the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Sources say that Worden’s agenda at Ames includes turning the field center into “Moon central” in terms of robotic lunar exploration.