Keith Smith

Stellardrone and the soundtrack from Surviving Mars are quite appropriate

It put me in ‘health journalists’ for some reason 🤷‍♂️

🧪🔭⚛️☄️

🧪🔭⚛️🛰️

A tidally-locked rocky #exoplanet orbiting close to its host star could have tidal waves of lava sweeping around the planet. Simulations show this effect would complicate the search for an atmosphere. 🔭☄️

News report by @elisecutts.bsky.social from the @rockyworlds.bsky.social meeting #RockyWorlds4

Funding piece Modern astronomy is full of marvels. In recent years we have rejoiced in the success of the James Webb Space Telescope, and been puzzled by the surprisingly vibrant early Universe it is showing us. We...

I've updated my post on the funding crisis heading for British astronomy: docs.google.com/document/d/1.... UKRI made clear that astro and particle physics are being subject to unique cuts due to rising costs elsewhere. This looks like a deliberate decision not to fund fundamental physics. 🔭 🧪

A *candidate* #exoplanet with potentially Earth-like size and orbit. This was observed in only a single Kepler transit, so the radius is well constrained but the orbit is not, and the mass is even less clear. News report by @elisecutts.bsky.social . 🔭☄️

Thanks. That's not at all clear from the letter!

What's PPRP?

Last July, Dougherty told the National Astronomy Meeting that tensioning funds for grants vs facilities is 'not tenable', and that salami slicing of the grant line cannot continue. But here we are, that's exactly what's happening.
(3/3) 🧪🔭

b) That won't be applied uniformly, so some will be cancelled completely while others have smaller cuts. Existing grant holders will have to fight to maintain any funding.

c) The money clawed back will instead go to 'government priorities' and 'innovative companies', whatever that means.
(2/3) 🧪🔭

This reads as deliberate obfuscation, not clear communication with the affected community.

I *think* what it's saying is:
a) Existing facilities and already-approved grants will be cut by an average of 30%. This is in addition to a 15% cut in new grants last year.
(1/3) 🧪🔭

extract (too long for complete alt text): This shift to a strategic, outcome-focused approach is the most significant change since UKRI’s creation and is in line with what was envisaged when UKRI was first created. This involves focusing investment across three priority buckets: Curiosity-driven research (investigator led and determined by scientists alone); Government and societal priorities; and supporting innovative companies; while also enabling and strengthening UK R&D – including talent, infrastructure, institutes and facilities. To meet these ambitions, a period of transition is underway across UKRI. In response to STFC’s indicative allocation, UKRI will need to ensure that investments across the portfolio are aligned to a sustainable level over the Spending Review period. For STFC this means striking the right balance between long-term discovery science, our major national facilities, and applied research and innovation. To achieve this, we will need to focus our efforts on a more concentrated set of priorities, funded at a level that can be maintained over time. As part of this, STFC is reviewing its entire portfolio, including facilities and laboratories, to understand how best to deliver a sustainable programme for the future. Within the PPAN programme – now operating fully within STFC’s curiosity-driven research portfolio – we will need to model further adjustments, building on last year’s 15% reduction in new grants, to bring the programme into long-term balance. This prioritisation process will inevitably require some difficult choices. A more sustainable level for STFC's PPAN budget is likely to be around 70% of what this budget grew to in 24/25 off the back of steep inflation and rises in cost of operations in the last Spending Review.

extract (too long for complete alt text): Next Steps: Preparing for Portfolio Adjustments To manage the challenges ahead, we will need to make difficult choices between scientifically excellent projects, this will include ceasing or reducing investments in many of the projects that STFC currently supports in order to continue funding others at a sustainable level. To support a comprehensive appraisal of options, we will be asking individual projects within our PPAN portfolio to identify how their project would respond to flat cash and reductions of 20%, 40% and 60%, and also identify the funding point at which the project becomes non-viable. This will enable Science Board to advise on redistribution and optimise returns. A separate proforma will be sent to Projects PIs shortly for completion by Tuesday 10 March 2026. Where major changes to scope or schedule are proposed, we understand full plans may not be possible. Please work closely with colleagues in STFC National Labs departments where relevant to ensure joined-up planning and the most accurate possible estimates. As always, your STFC Programmes Directorate team will try to help with any detailed questions that may emerge. I recognise this news comes after tough decisions on Infrastructure Fund projects before Christmas, which adds to concern. These decisions were the outcome of a structured UKRI-wide prioritisation process, which was heavily over-subscribed, informed by independent committee assessment and supported by DSIT. We would deeply appreciate your support and input as we navigate this difficult process to ensure that public R&D investment is sustainable, delivers long-term value, and continues to underpin the UK’s world-leading research and innovation system. I hope that you can work with us to emerge from these challenges with a positive and future-proofed vision for STFC and the PPAN disciplines.

In UK astro news, the Executive Chair of our funding council #STFC, Prof Michele Dougherty, has written to the community. TL;DR: skint. Bad times ahead for UK astro, particle physics, facilities etc 🧪🔭

Last July, Dougherty told the National Astronomy Meeting that tensioning funds for grants vs facilities is 'not tenable', and that salami slicing of the grant line cannot continue. But here we are, that's exactly what's happening.
(3/3) 🧪🔭

b) That won't be applied uniformly, so some will be cancelled completely while others have smaller cuts. Existing grant holders will have to fight to maintain any funding.

c) The money clawed back will instead go to 'government priorities' and 'innovative companies', whatever that means.
(2/3) 🧪🔭

This reads as deliberate obfuscation, not clear communication with the affected community.

I *think* what it's saying is:
a) Existing facilities and already-approved grants will be cut by an average of 30%. This is in addition to a 15% cut in new grants last year.
(1/3) 🧪🔭

(FWIW I'm in favour of green energy, just not brightly lit facilities next door to one of the world's premier observatories. Build it somewhere else, or without the light pollution.)

Controversial Chilean energy project scrapped, relieving astronomers Light pollution from green hydrogen plant would have threatened world’s largest telescopes

Some good news for once: the plan to build a large light-polluting and dust-producing industrial facility just 5km from some of the world's biggest telescopes, has been dropped. The project caused an outcry among astronomers and criticism from Chilean politicians. 🔭🧪
www.science.org/content/arti...

TRAPPIST-1 was a made up name, precisely because the pre-existing catalogue ID was a mouthful: 2MASS J23062928–0502285. A HD number is much simpler.

There already is an IAU-approved system for assigning proper names to exoplanets, called NameExoWorlds. Unfortunately it only runs every few years.

That’s a pretty *good* name for an exoplanet. HD numbers are easy as catalogues go, and it means the host star is fairly bright. No need to invent something new.

Six digits is the same as a UK local phone number, and we all used to remember several of those without much difficulty.

Proposed budget cuts a catastrophe for UK astronomy The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) is gravely concerned at the drastic cuts to support for UK astronomy outlined by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (...

The Royal Astronomical Society is gravely concerned at the drastic cuts to support for UK astronomy outlined by the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

Read our statement 👉 ras.ac.uk/news-and-pre...

Come and work with us! Science is recruiting an editor in the area of next-generation medicine in the USA or UK. bit.ly/4bWOJfn
🧪

Tracking space debris from sonic booms Seismic data reveal the trajectory and break-up of space debris in Earth’s atmosphere

Rapid identification of the debris field could aid recovery of spacecraft components, or even the identification of meteorites, as Chris Carr discusses in a related Perspective. 🛰️🔭 #seismology
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Also this week: tracking spacecraft re-entry using seismometers on the ground. This method provides additional constraints on the debris trajectory, even during daytime. 🛰️🔭 #seismology

Now published in final print format, with my editor's summary. ☄️🔭
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Spacecraft captures a solar flare as it builds into an explosive outburst Europe’s Solar Orbiter is helping researchers understand what causes the Sun to blast out radiation and particles

Spacecraft captures a solar flare as it builds into an explosive outburst | Science | AAAS 🔭🧪 @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...

🔭🧪 #planetsci

GRB 250702B: discovery of a gamma-ray burst from a black hole falling into a star ABSTRACT. Gamma-ray bursts are the most luminous electromagnetic events in the Universe. Their prompt gamma-ray emission has typical durations between a fr

That is a question for the researchers who led the work, not me! I recommend you contact the corresponding authors of the paper.
academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...

In Other Journals Editors’ selections from the current scientific literature

Editor's choice: Neights et al. have observed a gamma-ray burst that lasted 7 hours. They argue it arose from a black hole merging with a helium star. ☄️🔭 #highenergyastro #stellarastro
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Settings -> accessibility -> display -> reduce transparency

Doesn’t fix things entirely, but it’s better