Three Innovations To Upend The Energy Storage Market

The battery craze isn’t really about batteries at all. It’s about something far grander than a battery, which is simply a conduit to a much bigger story.

Batteries are like the internet without Wifi. 

The holy grail is energy storage. 

And while perpetually bigger batteries themselves have emerged as the dominant solution to our energy storage needs, their reliance on rare earths elements and some metals that are controversially sourced, as well as the fact that their product life is quite limited, indicates they are simply a stop along the way to more creative innovations. 

Already, there are several challenger solutions that have the potential to rise above the battery as the answer to our energy storage needs.  

Gravity 

One of these solutions is gravity. Several companies across the world are using gravity for energy storage or rather, moving objects up and down to store and, respectively, release stored electricity.

One of these, Swiss-based Energy Vault, uses a six headed crane to lift bricks when renewable installations are producing electricity than can be consumed and drop them back down when demand for electricity outweighs supply. The idea may sound eccentric but kinetic energy, according to a Wall Street Journal report on these companies, is getting increasingly popular.

The idea draws on hydropower storage: that involves pushing water uphill and storing it until it is needed to power the turbines, when it is released downhill. On instead of water, these companies use gravity, essentially lifting and dropping heavy objects. Energy Vault uses bricks and says 20 brick towers could power up to 40,000 households for a period of 24 hours.

Another company, in the UK, lifts and drops weights in abandoned mine shafts. 

Gravitricity, which last year ran a crowdfunding campaign that raised $978,000 (750,000 pounds), is using abandoned shafts to raise and lower weights of between 500 and 5,000 tons with a system of winches. According to the company, the system could be configured for between 1 and 20 MW peak capacity. The duration of power supply, however, is even more limited than Energy Vault’s, at 15 minutes to 8 hours.

The duration of power supply is an important issue. When the wind dies down and the sky is overcast, this could last more than a day as evidenced by the wind drought in the UK two years ago, when wind turbines were forced to idle for a week.

Heat

Gravity-base storage is one alternative to batteries, some of it cheaper than batteries, but for the time being, less reliable than batteries if we are thinking about a 100-percent renewable-powered grid. Another solution is thermal storage.

EnergyNest is one developer of thermal energy storage. It works by pumping a heated fluid along a system of pipes and storing it in a solid material. The heat flows into the material from top to bottom and is released into this material where it stays until it is needed again. Then, the flow gets reversed, with cold fluid (thermal oil or water) flowing from the bottom up, heating up in the process and exiting the storage system.

Then there is liquid air storage as an alternative to batteries. It works by separating the carbon dioxide and the oxygen from the nitrogen in the air and then storing this nitrogen in liquefied form. When needed to generate electricity, it is regasified. The process of liquefaction is powered by the excess electricity that needs to be stored and when a peak in demand requires more electricity generation, it is reheated and regasified, and used to power a turbine. According to experts, the process is not 100-percent efficient, with rates ranging from 25 percent to 70 percent.

Geothermal

Yet another potential alternative to batteries for energy storage is using geothermal energy to store heat and then releasing it to generate more electricity. The so-called sensitized thermal cells developed by researchers from the Tokyo Institute of Technology are technically batteries, as they use electrodes to move electrons. But on the flip side, it does not work with intermittent energy such as solar or wind. It taps the potential of geothermal energy, an underused renewable source.

Not all of these energy storage idea swill take off. Not all of them will prove viable enough to become widely adopted. Yet some alternatives to batteries will likely work well enough to provide an alternative to the dominant technology. Alternatives are important when you are aiming for 100-percent renewable electricity. 

EVs

Failing that, we could simply use our EV batteries as energy storage for excess power from solar and wind installations, as the International Renewable Energy Agency said earlier this month. While a strain on the grid when they charge, IRENA said, electric cars could juice up at the right time to take in surplus power and then release it back into the grid if that grid is a smart one. In 2050, around 14 terawatt-hours (TWh) of EV batteries would be available to provide grid services, compared to 9 TWh of stationary batteries, according to the agency. One way or another, slowly and with difficulty, we are heading into a much more renewable energy future.

3 REASONS WHY CRYPTO MARKETS HAVE CRASHED TODAY

Last week, we were firmly back in bullish terrain with jubilant voices standing by bold predictions. Bitcoin and altcoins were all up with Ethereum leading the charge. This Monday, however, we’re back to a red crypto market.


WHAT CAUSED THE CRYPTO MARKET CRASH?

As Bitcoinist reported earlier today, the weekend was savage for cryptocurrency. The total crypto market cap dumped more than $15 billion in 24 hours, falling well below the $300 billion level we were so excited about last week.

Taking a closer look at the events over the past 48 hours, these would seem to be the 3 most likely reasons for the crypto market crash.

1. BINANCE PERFORMANCE ISSUES

On Friday, Bitcoinist reported that a “lagging” issue caused widespread REKage of traders.

Binance assured traders that the issue was fixed. But that was of no compensation to those who lost thousands due to a glitch that wouldn’t allow them to exit their positions.14 BTC & 30,000 Free Spins for every player, only in mBitcasino’s Crypto Love Affair! Play Now!

And despite being “fixed” in record time, the problem carried on well into the weekend. Binance exchange continued to suffer from ‘performance issues’.

Trades were executed without being placed, prices weren’t being displayed correctly, altcoins dumped when BTC went down… it all sounds rather chaotic. In response to these issues, CZ stated that a report was being produced on the matter and thanked his customers for their support in the meantime. 

Of course, that was met with a mixture of replies, as the Binance CEO predicted. Everything from “sh**show” to gratitude (and a whole lot more in between).

One rational trader commented that losing funds and orders “popping in/out of existence” was somewhat more serious than a “performance issue.”

And having the “heaviest traffic in crypto”, these kinds of problems can lead to a cease of trading and widespread chaos across the board–a crypto market crash even.

2. ‘FULCRUM TRADING’ EXPLOIT COULD’VE AIDED A CRYPTO CRASH

Over the weekend, TradingView’s top crypto trader, Jacob Canfield, reported that someone had exploited ‘Fulcrum trading’ and made off with $360K ETH.

An opportune hacker was able to make the ETH almost instantaneously in one flash single loan transaction.

Canfield seemed to believe it was most likely a manipulative act to “buy the dip”. But it could have contributed to the wider crypto market crash.

3. WHALE MANIPULATION ON SATURDAY

On the topic of manipulation, there were also signs of substantial whale movements over the last 6 days. On February 11, BTC rose 5.39% in a matter of minutes. For the next 4 days, the leading asset whipsawed and broke down briefly to the $10,100 level before correcting back to $10,400. Then, at 15:00 GMT on February 15, BTC suddenly dumped 5% in a single trade. This pattern, dubbed the ‘Bart Simpson pattern‘, is frequently regarded as an institutional manipulation pattern which is employed to shake out weak traders.

inverse bart simpson crypto

Of course, there are macro factors on top of these that may have contributed to this latest crypto market crash. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s warning of “significant” new cryptocurrency regulations last week is hardly bullish. Frankly, it sounds more than a little ominous.

Adding to the anti-crypto sentiment in the U.S., was the Department of Justice calling bitcoin mixing “a crime”. The Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari also gave his 2-cents labeling cryptocurrencies “a giant garbage dumpster.”

Unfavorable regulation on the horizon is never a good sign. Although, the markets failed to react at the time of the news.

So, this time around, it looks more likely that it was an accumulation of inside jobs. If bitcoin fails to hold the $9,700 support level, we could see a tumble all the way back to the $8K region. Happy Monday!

Bombardier agrees to sell rail unit in multibillion-dollar deal

On Monday, the French trainmaker said it has signed an agreement to acquire Bombardier’s rail business for between €5.8 billion ($6.3 billion) and €6.2 billion ($6.7 billion).

The acquisition, which will be paid for via a mix of cash and shares, will improve Alstom’s “global reach” and its ability to respond to the growing demand for “sustainable mobility,” particularly in Europe, according to a company statement.

Alstom and Bombardier, which is seeking to reduce its debt burden as it nears the end of a five-year turnaround, had earlier confirmed the talks following a report from the Wall Street Journal.

The Canadian company said the deal would enable it to focus exclusively on its aviation business.

The deal will be Alstom’s second attempt to create a European rail company that can compete with the likes of China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC), the world’s largest supplier of rail equipment.

A deal between Alstom and Bombardier could create the “European champion” the bloc needs to compete in the worldwide rail industry, said Maria Leenen, CEO of SCI Verkehr, a strategy consultancy focused on the railway and logistics industry.

Last year, EU regulators blocked a deal to combine the train manufacturing businesses of Alstom and its German rival Siemens on concerns that the merger would lead to higher prices for signaling systems and next generation high-speed trains.

The proposal drew comparisons to Airbus, which traces its roots to the consolidation of several European aircraft manufacturers in the 1970s, a structure that helps it compete with U.S. rival Boeing. The rail companies had argued that joining forces was necessary to cope with “growing competition from non-EU companies.”

CRRC is a key rival. The state-owned rail company reported revenue of nearly €21 billion ($23 billion) in 2018, compared to a combined €15.3 billion ($16.6 billion) recorded by Alstom and Bombardier’s rail unit, according to SCI Verkehr.

The Chinese company has been very open about its plans to export more railway products and has already underbid rivals to supply passenger rail cars in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles.

It gained an important foothold in Europe last year when it bought German rail company Vossloh’s diesel locomotives business. German authorities are still reviewing the deal.

Leenen said that while China’s presence in Europe is for now “too small to count,” CRRC is pushing into the continent with the political backing of the Chinese state.

Trouble ahead?

Leenen warned the proposed deal between Alstom and Bombardier could also run into trouble with competition authorities, given that together the companies deliver almost 50% of Europe’s regional electric passenger trains.

SCI Verkehr expects to see growing demand for these trains in the next five to 10 years as Europe pushes to reduce its fleet of carbon-emitting cars.

Unions might also be concerned that the merger could lead to plant closures and job cuts, she added.

Other problems may lurk.

“I expect Alstom to factor in the risk of under investment in the plants, low-margin contracts and potential third-party claims” against Bombardier Transportation, Leenen said, referring to Deutsche Bahn’s reported refusal to accept 25 new intercity trains because of “technical defects.”

“Alstom is committed to recover Bombardier Transportation’s full operational and profitability potential,” the company said in a statement. It said that it expects the acquisition to deliver cost savings and boost earnings.

Artificial intelligence program aims to help doctors more accurately diagnose breast cancer

Sixty more satellites for SpaceX’s Starlink broadband network launched Monday on a Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral, bringing the total number of Starlink platforms deployed in orbit since last May to 300.

More Starlink missions are on tap in the coming months, with the next slated to fly aboard another Falcon 9 launcher as soon as early March.

Monday’s mission began with a burst of flame from SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster, followed by the release of hold-down clamps to allow the 1.2-million-pound Falcon 9 to climb into a partly cloudy sky over Cape Canaveral’s Complex 40 launch pad.

The 229-foot-tall (70-meter) rocket lifted off at 10:05:55 a.m. EST (1505:55 GMT) powered by thrust from nine kerosene-fueled Merlin 1D engines.

The Falcon 9 quickly cleared lightning towers at pad 40 and steered toward the northeast, sending a window-shaking roar across the Florida spaceport.

Two-and-a-half minutes into the mission, the Falcon 9’s first stage booster shut down its engines and separated, allowing a single Merlin engine on the launcher’s second stage to fire into orbit.

Seconds later, the Falcon 9’s payload shroud jettisoned as the rocket soared into space, revealing the launcher’s more than 34,000-pound (15.6-metric ton) payload package, comprised of 60 flat-panel signal relay nodes for SpaceX’s Starlink network.

While the second stage accelerated into orbit, the first stage of the Falcon 9 descended back through the atmosphere and attempted landing on SpaceX’s football field-sized drone ship “Of Course I Still Love You” holding position nearly 400 miles (630 kilometers) northeast of Cape Canaveral.

But the rocket missed the drone ship and appeared to make a soft landing in the water nearby, according to streaming video from the offshore vessel. The missed landing marked the first time a first stage booster on a Falcon 9 rocket has missed a landing attempt on a SpaceX drone ship since 2016.

The rocket used on Monday’s mission was a veteran of three previous launches and landings. It’s not likely to be reused after landing in sea water.

Two other SpaceX vessels were positioned in the Atlantic Ocean to try to catch the two halves of the Falcon 9’s payload shroud. SpaceX did not announce the results of the fairing recovery attempt, but a company employee said engineers are still experimenting with catching the aerodynamic shroud using fast-moving ships fitted with giant nets. Previous catch attempts have been hit or miss.

Around the same time as the first stage reached the ocean, a SpaceX launch controller announced that the Falcon 9 upper stage had arrived in orbit and was poised to release the 60 Starlink satellites, the mission’s primary objective.

After firing thrusters to enter a controlled spin, the upper stage released retention rods holding the Starlink satellites to the rocket. That allowed the spacecraft — each weighing about a quarter-ton — to fly away from the Falcon 9 as the vehicles soared over the North Atlantic Ocean.

One change introduced Monday different from past Starlink missions was the release of the Starlink payloads into an elliptical transfer orbit, instead of a circular orbit.

SpaceX did not respond to questions from Spaceflight Now on the reason for the change in launch profile, but a host on the company’s webcast Monday said all future Starlink missions will use the new trajectory to inject the satellites into an elliptical orbit after a single upper stage burn.

“We are executing a direct inject of the Starlink satellites into an elliptical, or oval-shaped, orbit,” said Jessica Anderson, a manufacturing engineer at SpaceX. “In prior Starlink missions, we deployed the satellites into a 290-kilometer (180-mile) circular orbit, which required two burns of the Merlin vacuum engine on the second stage.

“Keep in mind the stack of 60 Starlink satellites combined is one of the heaviest payloads we fly, so putting them directly into this orbit requires more vehicle performance and makes recovery more challenging,” she said. “Going forward, and starting with today, we will deploy the satellites shortly after the first burn of the second stage, putting the Starlink satellites into an elliptical orbit.

“Once checkouts are complete, the satellites will then use their on-board ion thrusters to move into their inteded orbits at an operational altitude of 550 kilometers (341 miles).”

According to preflight predictions, the Starlink craft on Monday were programmed for deployment in an elliptical, or egg-shaped, orbit ranging between 131 miles (212 kilometers) and 239 miles (386 kilometers) in altitude, with an inclination of 53 degrees to the equator.

As a result of the orbit change, the Falcon 9’s second stage remained in orbit after release the Starlink satellites Monday. It is expected to passively re-enter the atmosphere in the coming months, instead of performing a controlled de-orbit burn, as the stage did after previous Starlink launches.

Like SpaceX’s previous Starlink launches, the satellites deployed in a tight cluster. SpaceX ground teams will activate krypton ion thrusters and other systems on the satellites to maneuver them into a higher orbit, targeting an altitude of 341 miles for operational service broadcasting signals in Ku-band.

The first phase of SpaceX’s Starlink program, which aims to beam consumer broadband to customers around the world, will include 1,584 of the flat-panel satellites — including spares — in orbit 341 miles above Earth.

SpaceX has approval from the Federal Communications Commission to operate nearly 12,000 Starlink satellites in Ku-band, Ka-band and V-band frequencies, with groups of spacecraft flying at different altitudes with various orbital tilts, or inclinations.

Last year, SpaceX signaled to the International Telecommunication Union that it may seek authority to operate up to 30,000 additional broadband satellites in low Earth orbit, potentially bringing the total Starlink fleet to 42,000 platforms.

But SpaceX says the fleet’s growth will hinge on demand, and the company must launch roughly 20 more missions before completing the first phase of its Starlink network.

SpaceX also needs to test the network and begin selling the Starlink service, and work continues on user terminals to link customers on the ground with the satellite network in space. The company has not announced a price or Internet speeds for its consumer-grade service.

The rapid-fire deployment of Starlink satellites — coupled with plans for other large satellite fleets — has astronomers worried that the proliferation of small spacecraft could impact observations by ground-based telescopes.

The Starlink satellites are brighter than predicted, sometimes reflecting sunlight and becoming as bright as the most luminous stars in the night sky. But the brightest sightings occur only soon after a launch, when the satellites are flying at lower altitudes and are clumped close together.

The satellites are harder to spot as they spread out in the weeks after a launch and begin raising their orbits to their 341-mile-high operating altitude. But scientists caution they will pose a threat to high-power telescopes, such as the U.S. government-funded Vera C. Rubin Observatory under construction in Chile.

The International Astronomical Union — a global body chartered in 1919 to “promote and safeguard the science of astronomy” — said last week that it “considers the consequences of satellite constellations worrisome.”

“They will have a negative impact on the progress of ground-based astronomy, radio, optical and infrared, and will require diverting human and financial resources from basic research to studying and implementing mitigating measures,” the IAU said in a press release.

“A great deal of attention is also being given to the protection of the uncontaminated view of the night sky from dark places, which should be considered a non-renounceable world human heritage,” the IAU said.

At the request of the IAU, scientists from the Vera Rubin Observatory, the University of Michigan, the Centro Astronómico Hispano-Alemán, the European Southern Observatory and the European Space Agency modeled the frequency, location and brightness of satellites in planned “mega-constellations” flying in low Earth orbit.

The IAU said the results of the simulations are preliminary. Some of the simulations assumed more than 25,000 broadband satellites could be deployed in low Earth orbit, in which case between 1,500 and a few thousand spacecraft could be above the horizon at any given time, depending on the observer’s latitude.

The “vast majority” of those satellites would not be visible to the naked eye, according to the IAU. The simulations showed that around 250 to 300 of the spacecraft above the horizon at any given time would have an elevation of more than 30 degrees, the region of the sky where astronomers perform most of their observations.

At astronomical dawn and dusk — when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon — simulations suggest around 1,000 satellites could be illuminated by sunlight and above the horizon. Around 160 of the illuminated spacecraft could be higher than 30 degrees in the sky at one time, and those are the satellites that pose the greatest threat to astronomical research.

The numbers of illuminated satellites will decrease in the middle of the night, according to the IAU.

In response to astronomers’ concerns, SpaceX launched one satellite in early January with an experimental darker coating. The long-term effectiveness of the external treatment will not be known until the satellite reaches the Starlink fleet’s operational altitude.

Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX’s president and chief operating officer, said in December the company was in dialog with astronomers about the issue.

“Astronomy is one of a few things that gets little kids excited about space,” Shotwell said. “There are a lot of adults that get excited, too, who either depend on it for their living or for entertainment. But we want to make sure we do the right thing, to make sure little kids can look through their telescopes. It’d be cool for them to see a Starlink. I think that’s cool. But they should be looking at Saturn and the moon.”

The other company on the cusp of launching hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of broadband satellites is London-based OneWeb.

OneWeb has launched 40 satellites to date, with plans to launch roughly 32 to 36 more every month to deploy an initial fleet of nearly 650 spacecraft. But like SpaceX, OneWeb has plans to grow from there.

The satellites owned by OneWeb are smaller than the Starlink spacecraft, and they orbit higher, allowing the company to provide global coverage with fewer satellites than SpaceX. The higher altitude also means they will be dimmer to ground observers, the company says.

“We’re going to do the most we can to mitigate (astronomers’ concerns),” said Adrian Steckel, OneWeb’s CEO. “We’re not visible to the naked eye. We are visible to telescopes. It’s hard to get around some of those facts.”

Scientists have also questioned whether constellations of thousands of satellites broadcasting broadband data will interfere with radio astronomy, which uses giant antennas to listen to faint radio signals generated from distant stars and galaxies.

“With respect to radio frequency … we’ll try,” Steckel said earlier this month. “We’re going to do the most we can. I don’t know if there will be a solution that will make everybody happy. At least we’re in dialog, and we’re trying to get feedback on what can we do.”

The IAU said there is still uncertainty in the eventual impacts of huge flocks of satellites on astronomy.

“At the moment it is difficult to predict how many of the illuminated satellites will be visible to the naked eye, because of uncertainties in their actual reflectivity,” the IAU said, referencing the unknown outcome of SpaceX’s experiments with darker coatings.

“The appearance of the pristine night sky, particularly when observed from dark sites, will nevertheless be altered, because the new satellites could be significantly brighter than existing orbiting man-made objects,” the IAU said. “The interference with the uncontaminated view of the night sky will be particularly important in the regions of the sky close to the horizon and less evident at high elevation.”

The IAU said astronomical impacts during the period of time when Starlink satellites are brightest — soon after a launch — depend on how long the spacecraft are flying at lower altitudes, and the frequency of launches.

“Apart from their naked-eye visibility, it is estimated that the trails of the constellation satellites will be bright enough to saturate modern detectors on large telescopes,” the IAU concluded. “Wide-field scientific astronomical observations will therefore be severely affected. For instance, in the case of modern fast wide-field surveys, like the ones to be carried out by the Rubin Observatory (formerly known as LSST), it is estimated that up to 30 percent of the 30-second images during twilight hours will be affected.”

Formerly known as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, the Vera Rubin Observatory will capture deep, wide-field images of the entire available sky, allowing astronomers to learn more about dark energy and dark matter, and detect potentially hazardous asteroids with orbits near Earth, among other objectives.

“Instruments with a smaller field of view would be less affected,” the IAU continued. “In theory, the effects of the new satellites could be mitigated by accurately predicting their orbits and interrupting observations, when necessary, during their passage. Data processing could then be used to further ‘clean’ the resulting images. However, the large number of trails could create significant and complicated overheads to the scheduling and operation of astronomical observations.”

The IAU’s statement last week focused on optical astronomy. Astronomers continue studying the possible interference that signals transmitted by broadband satellites in low Earth orbit will have on radio astronomy.<

The IAU said there are no internationally-agreed rules of guidelines on the brightness of satellites. The group said it will present its findings to the United Nations to bring the attention of world government representatives on the issue.

“The IAU stresses that technological progress is only made possible by parallel advances in scientific knowledge,” the group said. “Satellites would neither operate nor properly communicate without essential contributions from astronomy and physics. It is in everybody’s interest to preserve and support the progress of fundamental science such as astronomy, celestial mechanics, orbital dynamics and relativity.”

SpaceX’s next launch is scheduled for 1:45 a.m. EST (0545 GMT) March 2, again from pad 40 at Cape Canaveral, when a Falcon 9 rocket will loft a Dragon cargo capsule into orbit on a resupply mission to the International Space Station.

Another Starlink launch on a Falcon 9 rocket is also scheduled as soon as March 4 from nearby pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center.

GM to pull out of Australia, New Zealand and Thailand

DETROIT — General Motors says it’s pulling out of Australia, New Zealand and Thailand as part of a strategy to exit markets that don’t produce adequate returns on investments.

The company said in a statement Sunday that it will wind down sales, engineering and design operations for its historic Holden brand in Australia and New Zealand in 2021.

It also plans to sell its Rayong factory in Thailand to China’s Great Wall Motors and withdraw the Chevrolet brand from Thailand by the end of this year.

CEO Mary Barra says the company wants to focus on markets where it can drive strong returns. She says GM GM, -1.50% will support its employees and customers in the transition.

The company said it will scale back operations in all three countries to selling niche specialty vehicles. It also will make the same move in Japan, Russia and Europe, where “we don’t have significant scale.”

“We are pursuing a niche presence by selling profitable high-end imported vehicles supported by a lean GM structure,” International Operations Senior Vice President Julian Blissett said in the statement.

GM said it will honor all warranties in the markets, and it will continue to provide service and parts. Local operations also will handle recalls and any safety-related issues, the company said.

Four Possible NASA Missions to Explore the Secrets of the Solar System

Two NASA-JPL proposals are among the selections: Trident would explore Neptune’s moon Triton, while Veritas aims to map Venus’ surface to determine the planet’s geologic history.

NASA has selected four Discovery Program investigations to develop concept studies for new missions. Although they’re not official missions yet and some ultimately may not be chosen to move forward, the selections focus on compelling targets and science that are not covered by NASA’s active missions or recent selections. Final selections will be made next year.

NASA’s Discovery Program invites scientists and engineers to assemble a team to design exciting planetary science missions that deepen what we know about the solar system and our place in it. These missions will provide frequent flight opportunities for focused planetary science investigations. The goal of the program is to address pressing questions in planetary science and increase our understanding of our solar system.

“These selected missions have the potential to transform our understanding of some of the solar system’s most active and complex worlds,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. “Exploring any one of these celestial bodies will help unlock the secrets of how it, and others like it, came to be in the cosmos.”

Each of the four nine-month studies will receive $3 million to develop and mature concepts and will conclude with a Concept Study Report. After evaluating the concept studies, NASA will continue development of up to two missions towards flight.

The proposals were chosen based on their potential science value and feasibility of development plans following a competitive peer-review process.

The selected proposals are:

TRIDENT

Trident would explore Triton, a unique and highly active icy moon of Neptune, to understand pathways to habitable worlds at tremendous distances from the Sun. NASA’s Voyager 2 mission showed that Triton has active resurfacing – generating the second-youngest surface in the solar system – with the potential for erupting plumes and an atmosphere. Coupled with an ionosphere that can create organic snow and the potential for an interior ocean, Triton is an exciting exploration target to understand how habitable worlds may develop in our solar system and others. Using a single flyby, Trident would map Triton, characterize active processes and determine whether the predicted subsurface ocean exists. Louise Prockter of the Lunar and Planetary Institute/Universities Space Research Association in Houston is the principal investigator. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, would provide project management.

VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography, and Spectroscopy)

VERITAS would map Venus’ surface to determine the planet’s geologic history and understand why Venus developed so differently than the Earth. Orbiting Venus with a synthetic aperture radar, VERITAS charts surface elevations over nearly the entire planet to create three-dimensional reconstructions of topography and confirm whether processes, such as plate tectonics and volcanism, are still active on Venus. VERITAS would also map infrared emissions from the surface to map Venus’ geology, which is largely unknown. Suzanne Smrekar of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, is the principal investigator. JPL would provide project management.

DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging Plus)

DAVINCI+ would analyze Venus’ atmosphere to understand how it formed and evolved and determine whether Venus ever had an ocean. DAVINCI+ plunges through Venus’ inhospitable atmosphere to precisely measure its composition down to the surface. The instruments are encapsulated within a purpose-built descent sphere to protect them from the intense environment of Venus. The “+” in DAVINCI+ refers to the imaging component of the mission, which includes cameras on the descent sphere and orbiter designed to map surface rock-type. The last U.S.-led, in-situ mission to Venus was in 1978. The results from DAVINCI+ have the potential to reshape our understanding of terrestrial planet formation in our solar system and beyond. James Garvin of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is the principal investigator. Goddard would provide project management.

Io Volcano Observer (IVO)

IVO would explore Jupiter’s moon Io to learn how tidal forces shape planetary bodies. Io is heated by the constant crush of Jupiter’s gravity and is the most volcanically active body in the solar system. Little is known about Io’s specific characteristics, such as whether a magma ocean exists in its interior. Using close-in flybys, IVO would assess how magma is generated and erupted on Io. The mission’s results could revolutionize our understanding of the formation and evolution of rocky, terrestrial bodies, as well as icy ocean worlds in our solar system and extrasolar planets across the universe. Alfred McEwen of the University of Arizona in Tucson is the principal investigator. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, would provide project management.

The concepts were chosen from proposals submitted in 2019 under NASA Announcement of Opportunity (AO) NNH19ZDA010O, Discovery Program. The selected investigations will be managed by the Planetary Missions Program Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, as part of the Discovery Program. The Discovery Program conducts space science investigations in the Planetary Science Division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, guided by NASA’s agency priorities and the Decadal Survey process of the National Academy of Sciences.

Established in 1992, NASA’s Discovery Program has supported the development and implementation of over 20 missions and instruments. These selections are part of the ninth Discovery Program competition.

Is the stock market open on Presidents Day?

U.S. financial markets are closed on Monday in observance of Presidents Day.

The New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq will resume normal trading hours on Tuesday following a three-day holiday weekend to celebrate George Washington’s birthday. Presidents Day is also a federal bank holiday.

The U.S. bond market will be closed Monday, as recommended by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Foreign financial markets are open Monday. Currency markets are expected to remain open for trading.

The next market holiday is Good Friday, which falls on April 10.

Stocks were little changed Friday but posted their second straight weekly gain.

Three theories of how this bull market will go off the rails

It’s that time of the bull market again, when everyone decides things beyond the realm of rationality have taken over in equities. Demand is brisk for an account of all the ways investors have lost their minds.

Concern is normal whenever the market is buoyant. When it’s 11 years into a massive rally and share values soar by $1 trillion in two weeks, skeptics come out of the woodwork. Records keep falling — the S&P 500 is setting one every 2½ days — while valuations fatten. It’s enough to make the staunchest bull wonder about a reckoning.

Dread is a natural human reaction to a market that appears to have inured itself to bad news. A global health panic, flat-lining economies in Europe, inverting bond yields — none has restrained the S&P 500, which is up eight of the last 10 days and 15 of 19 weeks. Forty days into 2020 and a third of the Nasdaq 100 is already up 10% — the list goes on.

Maybe it’s a bad look to complain when stocks surge. Yet lately it seems half of Wall Street must go on Twitter to protest each time the S&P 500 rises 1% or Tesla Inc. surges. For a rundown of all the stuff they say make this leg of the advance untenable, read on.

Theory No. 1: Concentration

The stock market has ceased to be a report card on the broad health of American commerce and is instead being hijacked by four or five monopoly-like companies that basically can’t keep rising.

Wealth concentration in the market is well documented. Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc., and Facebook Inc. now make up 18% of the S&P 500, a record. Combined, they account for half of the S&P 500’s gain this year, and one-fifth of its 400% rise since March 2009. When they break, so will everything else.

It may be sooner than you think, too, with regulators stepping up scrutiny. This week, the Federal Trade Commission issued orders to the five companies for information on past acquisitions. Even that couldn’t keep them from rallying.

The counterargument is that concentration is always present. In 2020, it’s Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. In 1990, the top three S&P constituents — Exxon Mobil Corp., IBM Corp. and General Electric Co. — accounted for 8% of the S&P. In 1980, IBM, Exxon and AT&T Inc. made up 12%, data compiled by S&P Dow Jones Indices show.

“Tech has run up quite a bit, but it’s not as worrisome as it’s been in the past,” says Jeff Zipper, managing director at U.S. Bank Private Wealth Management. “From a valuation standpoint, we still like it.”

By the way, as big as the FANG stocks are, the S&P 500’s weighting methodology is not the reason for its success over the years. Since bottoming in 2009, an equal-weighted version of the benchmark has returned 605% including dividends. That’s 80 points more than the classic market-cap weighted index.

Theory No. 2: The Fed

The stock market has ceased to be a report card on the broad health of American commerce and instead is being manipulated by the Federal Reserve.

Easy money and plentiful liquidity are the market’s drug, and when they’re taken away, withdrawal will be rough. Financial conditions are historically loose and monetary policy accommodative, and now the central bank is pumping billions of dollars worth of liquidity into financial markets to keep short-term funding markets tame.

No doubt Fed largess has played a role throughout the bull market. What’s worrying people now is the Fed’s efforts to prop up the repo market by buying billions of dollars of Treasury bills, which Chair Jerome Powell is at pains to categorize as unstimulative. Still, one strategist says every percentage-point increase in the Fed’s balance sheet has corresponded with a 1% gain in the stock market.

“There’s tons of liquidity out there, it’s driving the market higher,” Shawn Matthews, the chief investment officer of Hondius Capital Management and former Cantor Fitzgerald CEO, told Bloomberg Television. “People will always look for the extra 3 to 5% at the top. I would rather let someone else take it and move on.”

Just as many find the theory preposterous. Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, told “QE conspiracists” on twitter that he doesn’t see the connection. Dennis DeBusschere, Evercore ISI’s head of portfolio strategy, says the relationship between changes in the Fed’s balance sheet and the S&P 500 is near zero, and the latest stock rally is consistent with improving economic data and earnings.

“This can go on until it doesn’t — the expansion here can continue,” said Chris Gaffney, president of world markets at TIAA. “I don’t think investing in this equity market at this point is crazy. We still have good fundamentals supporting these equity prices.”

Theory No. 3: Passive funds

The stock market has ceased to be a report card on the broad health of American commerce and is more like a perpetual-motion experiment fueled by self-fulfilling deposits into passive funds.

It’s a theory you hear a lot: that exchange-traded funds and other index products are fueling a bubble. ETFs from industry titans like Vanguard Group Inc. and BlackRock Inc. cost next to nothing to trade, are diversified similar to mutual funds, but are easier to jump in and out.

In August, assets in passively managed U.S. equity funds exceeded actively managed competitors for the first time in history. Already in 2020, mutual funds have fallen behind their passive competitors by a distance that will be hard to make up.

“After a big gain, you’ll see investors piling in and the momentum continues because of the fact that they say, ‘I may have missed out last year and it looks like it’s really running so I better get more money into equity markets,” said TIAA’s Gaffney. “Momentum, especially ETFs and index-type funds, have an impact.”

While the influence of passive money is rising, one should be prudent in blaming ETFs for the market’s problems. More than $3.6 trillion is invested across 1,600 U.S.-listed equity ETFs, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s a lot, but it’s still about 12% of the market cap of the S&P 500.

Investors put $161 billion into U.S. equity exchange-traded funds in 2019, the smallest inflow in seven years, as the S&P 500 gained 28% in the same time — its best year in six. An August 2018 study by Federal Reserve staffers listed the verdict as “unclear” and evidence “mixed” as to whether inclusion in indexes was likely to raise a stock’s beta, a measure of systemic risk.

“When you get into a market that’s driven by momentum plays and passive money, you can’t help but think that if the rally gets excessive, these factors set things up for a spill,” said Marshall Front, the chief investment officer at Front Barnett Associates in Chicago. “But does it mean you should sell your stocks and run away? Maybe fundamentals aren’t as strong as you wished, but they’re improving.”

US mulls blocking GE from selling jet engines to China: Report

The United States government is considering whether to stop General Electric Co from continuing to supply engines for a new Chinese passenger jet, according to people familiar with the matter, casting uncertainty over China’s efforts to enter the civil aviation market.

The potential restriction on the engine sales – possibly along with limits on other components for Chinese commercial aircraft such as flight control systems made by Honeywell International Inc – is the latest move in the battle between the world’s two largest economies over trade and technology.

The issue is expected to come up at an interagency meeting about how strictly to limit exports of US technology to China on Thursday and at another meeting with members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet set for February 28, sources told the Reuters News Agency.

The White House and the US Commerce Department, which issues licenses for such exports, declined to comment, as did a GE spokeswoman. The departments of Defense, State, Energy and Treasury did not respond to requests for comment.

For years, the US has supported American companies’ business with China’s budding civil aviation industry.

The government has provided licences that allow those companies to sell engines, flight control systems and other components for China’s first large commercial aircraft, the COMAC C919. The narrow-body jet has already engaged in test flights and is expected to go into service next year. COMAC is an acronym for Commercial Aircraft Corp of China Ltd.

But GE has received licenses for the LEAP engines since 2014 and was last granted one in March 2019.

The CFM LEAP engine is a joint venture between GE and France’s Safran Aircraft Engines. The proposal to halt the deliveries of the engines was also reported on Saturday by the Wall Street Journal.

Safran did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and French government officials could not be reached for comment.

Flight control systems

Aside from aircraft engines, flight control systems are up for discussion at the February meetings. Honeywell International has received licences to export flight control systems to COMAC for the C919 for about a decade, and one was approved in early 2020, according to a person familiar with the matter.

But future permission for such sales for COMAC’s passenger aircraft may be up for debate. Honeywell also has been seeking a licence for flight control technology to participate in the development of the C929, China’s planned wide-body jet venture with Russia, the person said.

The flight control system operates moving mechanical parts, such as the wing flaps, from the cockpit.

A spokeswoman for Honeywell declined to comment.

An aerospace trade group official said his organisation would like to weigh in on any policy shifts.

“If there are any changes, we would hope they would engage with us, as they’ve done before,” said Remy Nathan, vice president for international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association.

At the heart of the debate over a possible crackdown on the sale of US parts to China’s nascent aircraft industry is whether such shipments would fuel the rise of a serious competitor to US-based Boeing Co or boost China’s military capabilities.

People familiar with the matter said some administration officials are concerned China could reverse engineer some items, though others say an abundance of LEAP engines in China has not brought that about to date.

If the US were to move ahead with the measure, one person familiar with the matter said, China could retaliate by ordering more planes from Airbus SE, rather than crisis-hit Boeing, which relies on China for a fourth its deliveries.

The Trump administration’s meetings about technology issues also are set to include a discussion of whether to impose further restrictions on suppliers to Huawei Technologies, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment maker, which is on a US trade blacklist. 

Treat us like something between a telco and a newspaper, says Facebook’s Zuckerberg

Online content should be regulated with a system somewhere between the existing rules used for the telecoms and media industries, Facebook (FB.O) CEO Mark Zuckerberg told global leaders and security chiefs on Saturday.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Zuckerberg said Facebook had improved its work countering online election interference, and expanded on his previous calls for regulation of social media firms.

“I do think that there should be regulation on harmful content … there’s a question about which framework you use for this,” Zuckerberg said during a question and answer session.

“Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing industries – there’s like newspapers and existing media, and then there’s the telco-type model, which is ‘the data just flows through you’, but you’re not going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone line.”

“I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between,” he said.

Facebook and social media giants including Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet’s Google (GOOGL.O) have come under increasing pressure to better combat governments and political groups using their platforms to spread false and misleading information.

Zuckerberg said he now employed 35,000 people to review online content and implement security measures.

Those teams and Facebook’s automated technology currently suspend more than 1 million fake accounts each day, he said, adding that “the vast majority are detected within minutes of signing up.”

“Our budget is bigger today than the whole revenue of the company when we went public in 2012, when we had a billion users,” he said.

“I’m proud of the results but we will definitely have to stay vigilant.”

error: Content is protected !!