Animals!

Evolution has created wild and weird animals. Get to know a few of them.

Pablo Escobar’s hippos: Why drug lords shouldn’t play God

Females run spotted hyena society for a fascinating reason

Sloths: Evolutionary losers or the true jungle king?

On the origin of beauty: Darwin's controversial idea about sex

Giving animals rights enriches our own lives

Is animal cruelty the new slavery? 

The extinct animal Bill Nye would bring back to life

Bill Nye: Zoos enrich our lives but cost animals their dignity 

More playlists
  • The review examined the results of 61 brain-scanning studies that involved 1,850 people.
  • The results of the review found no significant differences in how male and female brains respond to viewing visual erotic stimuli.
  • Still, one of the researchers noted that there are sex-specific differences in sexual behavior.


It's commonly thought that men react more strongly to pornography than women do. After all, studies show that, compared to women, men generally have stronger sex drives, harbor higher levels of sexual aggression, and view more pornography.

But a new review challenges that common assumption, suggesting that viewing pornography — or, erotic visual stimuli — causes similar patterns of brain activity in men and women. Published in scientific journal PNAS on Monday, the statistical review examined 61 neuroimaging studies that included 1,850 individuals. Some of these studies had identified sex-specific differences in neuronal response to pornography, but the review authors suggest that these differences were either insignificant or based on "ambiguous" measurement criteria.

"Both men and women show increased activation in many cortical and subcortical brain regions thought to be involved in the response to visual sexual stimuli, while the limited sex differences that have been found and reported previously refer to subjective rating of the content," the authors wrote.

By subjective rating, the review authors are referring to some past studies which found that men self-reported higher levels of arousal than women. But these results are less reliable because they don't use "measurable biological dimensions," the review authors suggest. In any case, the new review doesn't suggest that men and women engage with sexuality in the exact same ways.

"There are differences in behaviour — the number of men going to porn sites is roughly 80 per cent of the consumers," review co-author Hamid R. Noori told New Scientist. "But men and women respond the same way at the brain level to visual sexual stimuli. What we do with it afterwards is what brings the difference."

Noori also noted that the new review focused on the activity of relatively large brain regions, and that future research could reveal sex-specific differences at smaller scales. Still, Noori stated that the review challenges commonly held assumtions about biological sex and sexual enjoyment.

"This result challenges not only some of the previous studies but also the common public perception that men respond stronger to porn or even like sex more than women," Noori told The Independent.

No matter your biological sex, viewing too much pornography could eventually become a problem — and even an addiction, similar to drugs and alcohol. Excessive pornography consumption has been associated with lower sexual satisfaction, loneliness and increased risk of divorce. If you're looking to cut down on watching porn, clinical sexologist and psychotherapist Robert B. Weiss suggests establishing a three-tiered boundary plan, as he wrote for Psychology Today:

  • The "inner boundary" lists bottom line problem behaviors the client wants to quit. For instance, a client might say, "I can no longer look at porn on my computer, my smartphone, or any other digital device. I can no longer cruise social media sites looking for erotic pictures and videos. And I can no longer participate in video chat, because for me it's like a live-action porn site."
  • The "middle boundary" lists slippery behaviors and other triggers that might cause the client to backslide into inner boundary behaviors. For instance, a client might say, "I need to be careful if I've had an argument, if I'm feeling 'less than,' if I'm bored, if I'm on my computer when nobody else is around, etc."
  • The "outer boundary" lists healthy and enjoyable activities the client can turn to when he or she feels triggered toward porn use. For instance, a client might say, "Instead of looking at porn, I can clean the house, play with my kids, read a book, hang out with friends, go to the gym, brush the cat, etc."
  • New research shows that there's no one diet that works for everyone.
  • Instead, gut bacteria may hold the key to personalized diet plans.
  • A future doctor may check gut bacteria to offer diet advice.


Rates of obesity are rising across the globe; a third of the world's population is now overweight and nearly a fifth is obese.

Public health policy has mainly focused on diet to reverse these rising rates, but the impact of these policies has been limited. The latest science suggests why this strategy is failing: one diet does not fit all. Dietary advice needs to be personalized.

The reason one diet does not suit all may be found in our guts. Our previous research showed that microbes in the digestive track, known as the gut microbiota, are linked to the accumulation of belly fat. Our gut microbiota is mostly determined by what we eat, our lifestyle and our health. So it is difficult to know exactly how food and gut microbes together influence fat accumulation and ultimately disease risk. Our latest study provides new insights into these interactions.

Animal studies have been valuable in showing that gut microbes alone can reduce the build-up of fat, resulting in better health. But translating these findings to humans is difficult, especially considering that we can eat very different foods.

Gut microbes don't lie


In our study, we aimed to disentangle the effect of gut microbes and diet on the accumulation of belly fat in 1,700 twins from the UK. We found that the composition of the gut microbiota predicts belly fat more accurately than diet alone.

We identified a few specific nutrients and microbes that were bad for us and linked to an increase in belly fat, as well as a few nutrients and many microbes that were good for us and linked to reduced belly fat. The observed link between belly fat and bad nutrients, such as cholesterol, was not affected by the gut microbiota.

In contrast, we found that the gut microbiota plays an important role in the beneficial effect of good nutrients, such as fibre or vitamin E. We show that specific gut bacteria play an important role in linking certain beneficial nutrients to less belly fat. In other words, changes in a person's diet are less likely to lead to weight loss if the relevant bacteria are not in their gut.

Diet alone did not have a strong impact on the observed links between gut microbes and belly fat, as specific gut bacteria were linked to belly fat accumulation regardless of diet. This confirms what was previously seen in mice, that gut microbiota alone could affect fat accumulation. Our findings also provide further evidence that the human gut microbiota plays an important role in the individualized response to food.

Personalized dietary advice

A limitation of our study was that we analyzed measurements taken at a single point in time. This means that we cannot establish causal links. Also, we focused on reported nutrient intake in the study participants' diets, but did not assess the effect of total food consumption on its own. Another drawback is that most people misreport what they eat. Researchers are working on improving the way that diet is reported, which should lead to more accurate work in the future.

Our results mean that in the future, you may need to have your gut microbiota checked so that your doctor or dietitian can give you personalized dietary advice. Although bacteria may be partially to blame for the rise in rates of obesity, until we know more it is best to stick to a healthy, varied diet rich in fibre, fruit and vegetables, which in turn may result in a healthier gut microbiota.The Conversation

Caroline Le Roy, Research Associate in Human Gut Microbiome, King's College London and Jordana Bell, Senior Lecturer, King's College London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

  • Abraham Maslow first came up with the hierarchy of needs many decades ago.
  • At the top of this hierarchy was the idea of self-actualization, a human need to become all that we can possibly be.
  • It's struck a chord outside of academic circles, but both pursuing this goal and the concept itself are a little problematic.


It's a staple of pop psychology. Most are, by now, familiar with Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The model describes 5 varieties of needs, each of which must be satisfied before one can move up to the next level of the pyramid. At the very bottom, there are physiological needs like the need for food, water, and sleep. If you haven't got enough food, for example, it's very unlikely that you'll feel motivated to pursue the needs at the next level of the pyramid, which are safety needs. These include feeling financially secure, safe from harm, and being healthy. The next level focuses on the need to feel social belonging, such as feeling loved and having friendships. Then there are the esteem needs, such as a sense of mastery and competence. And finally, there's the summit of the pyramid, the ultimate goal of self-actualization.

The model makes intuitive sense, and it gives us the impression that so long as we work hard, we can make inexorable progress to the top of the pyramid. It's grown so popular that unlike most academic theories, it's broken out of the ivory tower and has gained new life among wellness blogs and motivational speakers. But Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the idea of self-actualization in particular have some serious flaws. In fact, our dogged pursuit to become the best version of ourselves and live our best lives might be doing more harm than good.

Flickr user BetterWorks Breakroom

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Misreading Maslow

Maslow's work was revolutionary in the sense that prior to his hierarchical theory of human motivation, most psychology only sought to explain disorders — the ways in which human beings deviate from "normal." The trouble is, nobody knew exactly what a "normal" human was. Maslow's hierarchy of needs landed him in the growing field of humanistic psychology, which seeks to explain human nature holistically.

But Maslow's hierarchical model represents just the first few steps into a developing field, not a definitive picture of human nature. As Maslow's model spread outside of the realm of the academic, it took on more of an air of something obviously and inherently true, a roadmap to becoming a complete and happy human being. But Maslow never intended the hierarchy of needs to be a prescriptive model. It doesn't tell you what you should be doing. Instead, it's a descriptive model; it tells you the way things are under certain conditions. Striving for self-actualization rather than allowing for the need to self-actualize arise naturally might actually do more harm than good.

For starters, people don't exactly know what self-actualization means. In "A Theory of Human Motivation," one of the earliest works to describe this model, Maslow described self-actualization as

"[…] the desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for [an individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming."

The key here is that self-actualization is a fulfillment of what one is actually capable of becoming — not what one wants to become. This misconception becomes tricky when we think of self-actualization as a goal in and of itself. Rather than pursuing the natural, innate motivations that would lead to self-actualization, sometimes we pursue the concept of self-actualization itself. More often than not, this leads down a futile path of struggling to become a person we're not, of transforming our real selves into an illusory self-image. This quickly turns into a pursuit of perfection, which works against self-actualization. Perfectionism has been linked to higher levels of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. In his later work, "Critique of Self-Actualization Theory," Maslow wrote:

"In a word, when life is judged as not worthwhile — whether through the accumulation of pains or the absence of peak-experiences and positive joys — then humanistic psychology is worthless. It speaks only to those people who want to live, grow, become happier and more effective, fulfill themselves, like themselves better, improve in general, and move toward the ideal of perfection, even though they never expect fully to reach that point."

Does self-actualization even capture the big picture?

In addition to misunderstanding Maslow's description of self-actualization, we should also be aware that the concept itself has some major flaws. For starters, Maslow's picture of self-actualization is an awfully subjective one. In his book, Motivation and Personality, Maslow describes the qualities of self-actualized people as being realistic, accepting of the self and others, possessing a sense of autonomy, having a focus on completing tasks or fixing problems, possessing a constantly renewed perspective of the world, having few but close friends, being comfortable with solitude, and self-reliance, among others.

These sound like good qualities, and probably qualities that any self-actualized person would have, but that's more or less the same amount of academic rigor that Maslow applied when defining a self-actualized person.

Maslow developed this list of qualities by studying the top 1% "healthiest" college students and several historical figures that he believed had been self-actualized. As part of his definition of the healthiest students, he looked for those with an absence of neuroses as well as those whom he thought were good examples of self-actualized individuals. This is, unfortunately, a circular methodology. Maslow was studying living and historical individuals he believed to be self-actualized with the goal of qualifying what self-actualization is.

Between public misunderstandings of the term and its own subjective nature, we have to question whether pop psychology's fascination with self-actualization is a useful one. Yes, it's a concept that makes sense; we all know we can become better, and realizing our potential in a way that strives for perfection without vainly becoming obsessed with it strikes us as behavior that's inherently correct. But self-actualization is merely a description of a phenomenon, and not an entirely accurate description at that. Worrying about what one needs to do to accomplish self-actualization and whether one can become self-actualized is counter-productive.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs was never designed to live outside of the ivory tower of academia. Within that tower, it has been criticized and refined and criticized again, but we don't often receive the benefit of those reviews outside of academia. So, the next time a self-help guru tells you what you need to do to achieve self-actualization, take it with a grain of salt.

  • The website includes lets viewers experience the mission through 11,000 hours of audio, thousands of photographs and multiple camera angles.
  • Apollo 11 lasted just over eight days.
  • Only 12 men have walked on the Moon so far. NASA plans to return to the lunar surface in 2024.


Today — July 16, 2019 — marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, the mission that first landed a man on the Moon. Hundreds of Apollo-themed celebrations are happening across the U.S. this week, from museum exhibits to choreographed miniature rocket launches to tours of the newly restored Apollo Mission Control Room. But one of the most interesting commemorations of the historic mission is happening online.

Apollo 11 in Real Time is a "mission experience" a website, created by Ben Feist, that replays the Apollo 11 mission second by second, starting with archival footage and audio taken 20 hours before launch, and ending just after Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins step onto the USS Hornet recovery ship. The website lets viewers switch between multiple camera angles and also includes:

  • All mission control film footage
  • All TV transmissions and onboard film footage
  • 2,000 photographs
  • 11,000 hours of Mission Control audio
  • 240 hours of space-to-ground audio
  • All onboard recorder audio
  • 15,000 searchable utterances
  • Post-mission commentary
  • Astromaterials sample data
You can start at the beginning, 1 minute to launch, or you can join the 'in progress' view to see exactly where the mission was at this very second 50 years ago.

"With the help of archivist Stephen Slater, the website is the most complete presentation of the mission's historical film footage ever assembled," Feist told CollectSpace.com. "It contains all of the 16mm film that was scanned for the recent documentary, 'Apollo 11.' Much of this film has had sound added to it for the first time — painstakingly lip synced with the restored mission control audio that was just digitized."

Feist said viewers are virtually guaranteed to see and hear things they've never heard before.

"Running through the entire mission is very rewarding," he said. "You really get to know the personalities of the crew and controllers. It feels very current — as though it's happening right now.

During the anniversary, clicking the 'Now' launch button will drop you into the mission exactly 50 years later, to the second...If I had my way, all of humanity would take a moment out of their busy lives, tune in and marvel at the scale of what humanity can achieve when we all work together."

After blasting off from the Kennedy Space Center on the Saturn V rocket, the Apollo 11 spent three days traveling to the Moon, entering lunar orbit on July 19. But only Aldrin and Armstrong were headed for the lunar surface in NASA's lunar module called the Eagle, while Collins stayed aboard the Columbia — a task he felt honored to perform but still made him feel "absolutely isolated from any known life."

"I am it. If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two over on the other side of the Moon, and one plus God knows what on this side."

Science & Society Picture Library / GETTY

Apollo lunar landing mission profile, 1969.

Armstrong and Aldrin spent more than two hours on the lunar surface, collecting ground samples and deploying scientific equipment, before launching off the Moon in the Eagle's ascent stage, eventually rejoining Collins aboard the Columbia. The trio finally returned to Earth on July 24, having spent more than eight days in space. For a more detailed look at the mission, check out NASA's Apollo 11 mission timeline listed below:

Apollo 11 Timeline

Event

GET

(hhh:mm:ss)

GMT

Time

GMT

Date

Terminal countdown started.

-028:00:00

21:00:00

14 Jul 1969

Scheduled 11-hour hold at T-9 hours.

-009:00:00

16:00:00

15 Jul 1969

Countdown resumed at T-9 hours.

-009:00:00

03:00:00

16 Jul 1969

Scheduled 1-hour 32-minute hold at T-3 hours 30 minutes.

-003:30:00

08:30:00

16 Jul 1969

Countdown resumed at T-3 hours 30 minutes.

-003:30:00

10:02:00

16 Jul 1969

Guidance reference release.

-000:00:16.968

13:31:43

16 Jul 1969

S-IC engine start command.

-000:00:08.9

13:31:51

16 Jul 1969

S-IC engine ignition (#5).

-000:00:06.4

13:31:53

16 Jul 1969

All S-IC engines thrust OK.

-000:00:01.6

13:31:58

16 Jul 1969

Range zero.

000:00:00.00

13:32:00

16 Jul 1969

All holddown arms released (1st motion).

000:00:00.3

13:32:00

16 Jul 1969

Liftoff (umbilical disconnected) (1.07 g).

000:00:00.63

13:32:00

16 Jul 1969

Tower clearance yaw maneuver started.

000:00:01.7

13:32:01

16 Jul 1969

Yaw maneuver ended.

000:00:09.7

13:32:09

16 Jul 1969

Pitch and roll maneuver started.

000:00:13.2

13:32:13

16 Jul 1969

Roll maneuver ended.

000:00:31.1

13:32:31

16 Jul 1969

Mach 1 achieved.

000:01:06.3

13:33:06

16 Jul 1969

Maximum dynamic pressure (735.17 lb/ft2).

000:01:23.0

13:33:23

16 Jul 1969

Maximum bending moment (33,200,000 lbf-in).

000:01:31.5

13:33:31

16 Jul 1969

S-IC center engine cutoff command.

000:02:15.2

13:34:15

16 Jul 1969

Pitch maneuver ended.

000:02:40.0

13:34:40

16 Jul 1969

S-IC outboard engine cutoff.

000:02:41.63

13:34:41

16 Jul 1969

S-IC maximum total inertial acceleration (3.94 g).

000:02:41.71

13:34:41

16 Jul 1969

S-IC maximum Earth-fixed velocity. S-IC/S-II separation command.

000:02:42.30

13:34:42

16 Jul 1969

S-II engine start command.

000:02:43.04

13:34:43

16 Jul 1969

S-II ignition.

000:02:44.0

13:34:44

16 Jul 1969

S-II aft interstage jettisoned.

000:03:12.3

13:35:12

16 Jul 1969

Launch escape tower jettisoned.

000:03:17.9

13:35:17

16 Jul 1969

Iterative guidance mode initiated.

000:03:24.1

13:35:24

16 Jul 1969

S-IC apex.

000:04:29.1

13:36:29

16 Jul 1969

S-II center engine cutoff.

000:07:40.62

13:39:40

16 Jul 1969

S-II maximum total inertial acceleration (1.82 g).

000:07:40.70

13:39:40

16 Jul 1969

S-IC impact (theoretical).

000:09:03.7

13:41:03

16 Jul 1969

S-II outboard engine cutoff.

000:09:08.22

13:41:08

16 Jul 1969

S-II maximum Earth-fixed velocity. S-II/S-IVB separation command.

000:09:09.00

13:41:09

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 1st burn start command.

000:09:09.20

13:41:09

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 1st burn ignition.

000:09:12.20

13:41:12

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB ullage case jettisoned.

000:09:21.0

13:41:21

16 Jul 1969

S-II apex.

000:09:47.0

13:41:47

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 1st burn cutoff.

000:11:39.33

13:43:39

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 1st burn maximum total inertial acceleration (0.69 g).

000:11:39.41

13:43:39

16 Jul 1969

Earth orbit insertion. S-IVB 1st burn maximum Earth-fixed velocity.

000:11:49.33

13:43:49

16 Jul 1969

Maneuver to local horizontal attitude started.

000:11:59.3

13:43:59

16 Jul 1969

Orbital navigation started.

000:13:21.1

13:45:21

16 Jul 1969

S-II impact (theoretical).

000:20:13.7

13:52:13

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn restart preparation.

002:34:38.2

16:06:38

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn restart command.

002:44:08.2

16:16:08

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn ignition (STDV open).

002:44:16.2

16:16:16

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn cutoff.

002:50:03.03

16:22:03

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn maximum total inertial acceleration (1.45 g).

002:50:03.11

16:22:03

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB 2nd burn maximum Earth-fixed velocity.

002:50:03.5

16:22:03

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB safing procedures started.

002:50:03.8

16:22:03

16 Jul 1969

Translunar injection.

002:50:13.03

16:22:13

16 Jul 1969

Maneuver to local horizontal attitude started.

002:50:23.0

16:22:23

16 Jul 1969

Orbital navigation started.

002:50:23.9

16:22:23

16 Jul 1969

Maneuver to transposition and docking attitude started.

003:05:03.9

16:37:03

16 Jul 1969

CSM separated from S-IVB.

003:15:23.0

16:47:23

16 Jul 1969

CSM separation maneuver ignition.

003:17:04.6

16:49:04

16 Jul 1969

CSM separation maneuver cutoff.

003:17:11.7

16:49:11

16 Jul 1969

CSM docked with LM/S-IVB.

003:24:03.7

16:56:03

16 Jul 1969

CSM/LM ejected from S-IVB.

004:17:03.0

17:49:03

16 Jul 1969

CSM/LM evasive maneuver from S-IVB ignition.

004:40:01.72

18:12:01

16 Jul 1969

CSM/LM evasive maneuver from S-IVB cutoff.

004:40:04.65

18:12:04

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB maneuver to lunar slingshot attitude initiated.

004:41:07.6

18:13:07

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB lunar slingshot maneuver - LH2 tank CVS opened.

004:51:07.7

18:23:07

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB lunar slingshot maneuver - LOX dump started.

005:03:07.6

18:35:07

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB lunar slingshot maneuver - LOX dump ended.

005:04:55.8

18:36:55

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB lunar slingshot maneuver - APS ignition.

005:37:47.6

19:09:47

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB lunar slingshot maneuver - APS cutoff.

005:42:27.8

19:14:27

16 Jul 1969

S-IVB maneuver to communications attitude initiated.

005:42:48.8

19:14:48

16 Jul 1969

TV transmission started (recorded at Goldstone and transmitted to Houston at 011:26).

010:32

00:04

17 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

010:48

00:20

17 Jul 1969

Midcourse correction ignition.

026:44:58.64

16:16:58

17 Jul 1969

Midcourse correction cutoff.

026:45:01.77

16:17:01

17 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

030:28

20:00

17 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

031:18

20:50

17 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

033:59

23:31

17 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

034:35

00:07

18 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

055:08

20:40

18 Jul 1969

CDR and LMP entered LM for initial inspection.

055:30

21:02

18 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

056:44

22:16

18 Jul 1969

CDR and LMP entered CM.

057:55

23:27

18 Jul 1969

Equigravisphere.

061:39:55

03:11:55

19 Jul 1969

Lunar orbit insertion ignition.

075:49:50.37

17:21:50

19 Jul 1969

Lunar orbit insertion cutoff.

075:55:47.90

17:27:47

19 Jul 1969

Sighting of an illumination in the Aristarchus region. 1st time, a lunar transient event sighted by an observer

in space.

077:13

18:45

19 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

078:20

19:52

19 Jul 1969

S-IVB closest approach to lunar surface.

078:42

20:14

19 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

079:00

20:32

19 Jul 1969

Lunar orbit circularization ignition.

080:11:36.75

21:43:36

19 Jul 1969

Lunar orbit circularization cutoff.

080:11:53.63

21:43:53

19 Jul 1969

LMP entered CM for initial power-up and system checks.

081:10

22:42

19 Jul 1969

LMP entered CM.

083:35

01:07

20 Jul 1969

CDR and LMP entered LM for final preparations for descent.

095:20

12:52

20 Jul 1969

LMP entered CM.

097:00

14:32

20 Jul 1969

LMP entered LM.

097:30

15:02

20 Jul 1969

LM system checks started.

097:45

15:17

20 Jul 1969

LM system checks ended.

100:00

17:32

20 Jul 1969

CSM/LM undocked.

100:12:00.0

17:44:00

20 Jul 1969

CSM/LM separation maneuver ignition.

100:39:52.9

18:11:52

20 Jul 1969

CSM/LM separation maneuver cutoff.

100:40:01.9

18:12:01

20 Jul 1969

LM descent orbit insertion ignition (LM SPS).

101:36:14

19:08:14

20 Jul 1969

LM descent orbit insertion cutoff.

101:36:44

19:08:44

20 Jul 1969

LM acquisition of data.

102:17:17

19:49:17

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar on.

102:20:53

19:52:53

20 Jul 1969

LM abort guidance aligned to primary guidance.

102:24:40

19:56:40

20 Jul 1969

LM yaw maneuver to obtain improved communications.

102:27:32

19:59:32

20 Jul 1969

LM altitude 50,000 feet.

102:32:55

20:04:55

20 Jul 1969

LM propellant settling firing started.

102:32:58

20:04:58

20 Jul 1969

LM powered descent engine ignition.

102:33:05.01

20:05:05

20 Jul 1969

LM fixed throttle position.

102:33:31

20:05:31

20 Jul 1969

LM face-up maneuver completed.

102:37:59

20:09:59

20 Jul 1969

LM 1202 alarm.

102:38:22

20:10:22

20 Jul 1969

LM radar updates enabled.

102:38:45

20:10:45

20 Jul 1969

LM altitude less than 30,000 feet and velocity less than 2,000 feet per second (landing radar velocity update

started).

102:38:50

20:10:50

20 Jul 1969

LM 1202 alarm.

102:39:02

20:11:02

20 Jul 1969

LM throttle recovery.

102:39:31

20:11:31

20 Jul 1969

LM approach phase entered.

102:41:32

20:13:32

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar antenna to position 2.

102:41:37

20:13:37

20 Jul 1969

LM attitude hold mode selected (check of LM handling qualities).

102:41:53

20:13:53

20 Jul 1969

LM automatic guidance enabled.

102:42:03

20:14:03

20 Jul 1969

LM 1201 alarm.

102:42:18

20:14:18

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar switched to low scale.

102:42:19

20:14:19

20 Jul 1969

LM 1202 alarm.

102:42:43

20:14:43

20 Jul 1969

LM 1202 alarm.

102:42:58

20:14:58

20 Jul 1969

LM landing point redesignation.

102:43:09

20:15:09

20 Jul 1969

LM altitude hold.

102:43:13

20:15:13

20 Jul 1969

LM abort guidance attitude updated.

102:43:20

20:15:20

20 Jul 1969

LM rate of descent landing phase entered.

102:43:22

20:15:22

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar data not good.

102:44:11

20:16:11

20 Jul 1969

LM landing data good.

102:44:21

20:16:21

20 Jul 1969

LM fuel low-level quantity light.

102:44:28

20:16:28

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar data not good.

102:44:59

20:16:59

20 Jul 1969

LM landing radar data good.

102:45:03

20:17:03

20 Jul 1969

1st evidence of surface dust disturbed by descent engine.

102:44:35

20:16:35

20 Jul 1969

LM lunar landing.

102:45:39.9

20:17:39

20 Jul 1969

LM powered descent engine cutoff.

102:45:41.40

20:17:41

20 Jul 1969

Decision made to proceed with EVA prior to first rest period.

104:40:00

22:12:00

20 Jul 1969

Preparation for EVA started.

106:11:00

23:43:00

20 Jul 1969

EVA started (hatch open).

109:07:33

02:39:33

21 Jul 1969

CDR completely outside LM on porch.

109:19:16

02:51:16

21 Jul 1969

Modular equipment stowage assembly deployed (CDR).

109:21:18

02:53:18

21 Jul 1969

First clear TV picture received.

109:22:00

02:54:00

21 Jul 1969

CDR at foot of ladder (starts to report, then pauses to listen).

109:23:28

02:55:28

21 Jul 1969

CDR at foot of ladder and described surface as "almost like a powder."

109:23:38

02:55:38

21 Jul 1969

1st step taken lunar surface (CDR). "That's one small step for a man…one giant leap for mankind."

109:24:15

02:56:15

21 Jul 1969

CDR started surface examination and description, assessed mobility and described effects of LM descent engine.

109:24:48

02:56:48

21 Jul 1969

CDR ended surface examination. LMP started to send down camera.

109:26:54

02:58:54

21 Jul 1969

Camera installed on RCU bracket, LEC stored on secondary strut of LM landing gear.

109:30:23

03:02:23

21 Jul 1969

Surface photography (CDR).

109:30:53

03:02:53

21 Jul 1969

Contingency sample collection started (CDR).

109:33:58

03:05:58

21 Jul 1969

Contingency sample collection ended (CDR).

109:37:08

03:09:08

21 Jul 1969

LMP started egress from LM.

109:39:57

03:11:57

21 Jul 1969

LMP at top of ladder. Descent photographed by CDR.

109:41:56

03:13:56

21 Jul 1969

LMP on lunar surface.

109:43:16

03:15:16

21 Jul 1969

Surface examination and examination of landing effects on surface and on LM started (CDR, LMP).

109:43:47

03:15:47

21 Jul 1969

Insulation removed from modular equipment stowage assembly (CDR).

109:49:06

03:21:06

21 Jul 1969

TV camera focal distance adjusted (CDR).

109:51:35

03:23:35

21 Jul 1969

Plaque unveiled (CDR).

109:52:19

03:24:19

21 Jul 1969

Plaque read (CDR).

109:52:40

03:24:40

21 Jul 1969

TV camera redeployed. Panoramic TV view started (CDR).

109:59:28

03:31:28

21 Jul 1969

TV camera placed in final deployment position (CDR).

110:02:53

03:34:53

21 Jul 1969

Solar wind composition experiment deployed (LMP).

110:03:20

03:35:20

21 Jul 1969

United States flag deployed (CDR, LMP).

110:09:43

03:41:43

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of surface mobility started (LMP).

110:13:15

03:45:15

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of surface mobility end (LMP).

110:16:02

03:48:02

21 Jul 1969

Presidential message from White House and response from CDR.

110:16:30

03:48:30

21 Jul 1969

Presidential message and CDR response ended.

110:18:21

03:50:21

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of trajectory of lunar soil when kicked (LMP) and bulk sample collection started (CDR).

110:20:06

03:52:06

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of visibility in lunar sunlight (LMP).

110:10:24

03:42:24

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of thermal effects of sun and shadow inside the suit (LMP).

110:25:09

03:57:09

21 Jul 1969

Evaluation of surface shadows and colors (LMP).

110:28:22

04:00:22

21 Jul 1969

LM landing gear inspection and photography (LMP).

110:34:13

04:06:13

21 Jul 1969

Bulk sample completed (CDR).

110:35:36

04:07:36

21 Jul 1969

LM landing gear inspection and photography (CDR, LMP).

110:46:36

04:18:36

21 Jul 1969

Scientific equipment bay doors opened.

110:53:38

04:25:38

21 Jul 1969

Passive seismometer deployed.

110:55:42

04:27:42

21 Jul 1969

Lunar ranging retroreflector deployed (CDR).

111:03:57

04:35:57

21 Jul 1969

1st passive seismic experiment data received on Earth.

111:08:39

04:40:39

21 Jul 1969

Collection of documented samples started (CDR/LMP).

111:11

04:43

21 Jul 1969

Solar wind composition experiment retrieved (LMP) .

111:20

04:52

21 Jul 1969

LMP inside LM.

111:29:39

05:01:39

21 Jul 1969

Transfer of sample containers reported complete.

111:35:51

05:07:51

21 Jul 1969

CDR inside LM, assisted and monitored by LMP.

111:37:32

05:09:32

21 Jul 1969

EVA ended (hatch closed).

111:39:13

05:11:13

21 Jul 1969

LM equipment jettisoned.

114:05

07:37

21 Jul 1969

LM lunar liftoff ignition (LM APS).

124:22:00.79

17:54:00

21 Jul 1969

LM orbit insertion cutoff.

124:29:15.67

18:01:15

21 Jul 1969

Coelliptic sequence initiation ignition.

125:19:35

18:51:35

21 Jul 1969

Coelliptic sequence initiation cutoff.

125:20:22

18:52:22

21 Jul 1969

Constant differential height maneuver ignition.

126:17:49.6

19:49:49

21 Jul 1969

Constant differential height maneuver cutoff.

126:18:29.2

19:50:29

21 Jul 1969

Terminal phase initiation ignition.

127:03:51.8

20:35:51

21 Jul 1969

Terminal phase initiation cutoff.

127:04:14.5

20:36:14

21 Jul 1969

LM 1st midcourse correction.

127:18:30.8

20:50:30

21 Jul 1969

LM 2nd midcourse correction.

127:33:30.8

21:05:30

21 Jul 1969

Braking started.

127:36:57.3

21:08:57

21 Jul 1969

Terminal phase finalize ignition.

127:46:09.8

21:18:09

21 Jul 1969

Terminal phase finalize cutoff.

127:46:38.2

21:18:38

21 Jul 1969

Stationkeeping started.

127:52:05.3

21:24:05

21 Jul 1969

CSM/LM docked.

128:03:00

21:35:00

21 Jul 1969

CDR entered CM.

129:20

22:52

21 Jul 1969

LMP entered CM.

129:45

23:17

21 Jul 1969

LM ascent stage jettisoned.

130:09:31.2

23:41:31

21 Jul 1969

CSM/LM final separation ignition.

130:30:01.0

00:02:01

22 Jul 1969

CSM/LM final separation cutoff.

130:30:08.2

00:02:08

22 Jul 1969

Transearth injection ignition (SPS).

135:23:42.28

04:55:42

22 Jul 1969

Transearth injection cutoff.

135:26:13.69

04:58:13

22 Jul 1969

Midcourse correction ignition.

150:29:57.4

20:01:57

22 Jul 1969

Midcourse correction cutoff.

150:30:07.4

20:02:07

22 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

155:36

01:08

23 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

155:54

01:26

23 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

177:10

22:42

23 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

177:13

22:45

23 Jul 1969

TV transmission started.

177:32

23:04

23 Jul 1969

TV transmission ended.

177:44

23:16

23 Jul 1969

CM/SM separation.

194:49:12.7

16:21:12

24 Jul 1969

Entry.

195:03:05.7

16:35:05

24 Jul 1969

Drogue parachute deployed

195:12:06.9

16:44:06

24 Jul 1969

Visual contact with CM established by aircraft.

195:07

16:39

24 Jul 1969

Radar contact with CM established by recovery ship.

195:08

16:40

24 Jul 1969

VHF voice contact and recovery beacon contact established.

195:14

16:46

24 Jul 1969

Splashdown (went to apex-down).

195:18:35

16:50:35

24 Jul 1969

CM returned to apex-up position.

195:26:15

16:58:15

24 Jul 1969

Flotation collar inflated.

195:32

17:04

24 Jul 1969

Hatch opened for crew egress.

195:49

17:21

24 Jul 1969

Crew egress.

195:57

17:29

24 Jul 1969

Crew aboard recovery ship.

196:21

17:53

24 Jul 1969

Crew entered mobile quarantine facility.

196:26

17:58

24 Jul 1969

CM lifted from water.

198:18

19:50

24 Jul 1969

CM secured to quarantine facility.

198:26

19:58

24 Jul 1969

CM hatch reopened.

198:33

20:05

24 Jul 1969

Sample return containers 1 and 2 removed from CM.

200:28

22:00

24 Jul 1969

Container 1 removed from mobile quarantine facility.

202:00

23:32

24 Jul 1969

Container 2 removed from mobile quarantine facility.

202:33

00:05

25 Jul 1969

Container 2 and film flown to Johnston Island.

207:43

05:15

25 Jul 1969

Container 1 flown to Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.

214:13

11:45

25 Jul 1969

Container 2 and film arrived in Houston, TX.

218:43

16:15

25 Jul 1969

Container 1, film, and biological samples arrived in Houston.

225:41

23:13

25 Jul 1969

CM decontaminated and hatch secured.

229:28

03:00

26 Jul 1969

Mobile quarantine facility secured.

231:03

04:35

26 Jul 1969

Mobile quarantine facility and CM offloaded.

250:43

00:15

27 Jul 1969

Safing of CM pyrotechnics completed.

252:33

02:05

27 Jul 1969

Mobile quarantine facility arrived at Ellington AFB, Houston.

280:28

06:00

28 Jul 1969

Crew in Lunar Receiving Laboratory, Houston

284:28

10:00

28 Jul 1969

CM delivered to Lunar Receiving Laboratory.

345:45

23:17

30 Jul 1969

Passive seismic experiment turned off.

430:26:46

11:58:46

03 Aug 1969

Crew released from quarantine.

10 Aug 1969

CM delivered to contractor's facility in Downey, CA.

14 Aug 1969

EASEP turned off by ground command.

27 Aug 1969

  • Since 2006, white-nose syndrome has killed millions and millions of bats, threatening many species with extinction.
  • Bats may not be everybody's idea of a cute and cuddly animal, but losing them would be devastating to the ecosystem.
  • Fortunately, researchers are hard at work trying to uncover a means of dealing with this fungal disease. One such treatment is the use of the antifungal bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens.


Since arriving in North America in 2006, Pseuodgymnoascus destructans has been wreaking havoc in bat populations. The fuzzy white fungus rapidly infects bats, tending to cluster around the nocturnal mammals' noses. Hence, the disease it causes is best known as white-nose syndrome.

Once P. destructans infects a bat colony, it wipes out about 90 percent of the colony on average. By agitating bats during the winter months when they're meant to be hibernating, P. destructans forces them to emerge early and expend the energy they need to get through the winter. As a result, the cold-loving fungus has killed millions and millions of bats since 2006. Bats may not be the cutest or most popular animal out there, but the sheer scale of this plague threatens to drive bat species to extinction and thoroughly throw our ecosystem out of whack.

"This disease has really just been devastating," said ecologist Joseph Hoyt. "We've essentially removed our dominant nighttime insect predator." That's why Hoyt and colleagues conducted an experiment in a Wisconsin mine to test out a new treatment for white-nose syndrome: Pseudomonas fluorescens, an inherently antifungal bacteria. Through their efforts, described in Scientific Reports, Hoyt's team were able to increase survivorship in bats by more than fivefold.

Spraying bats with beneficial bacteria

Flickr user U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters

A little brown bat afflicted with white-nose syndrome.

P. fluorescens is frequently used in agricultural contexts as an antifungal agent and has also been used to treat similar fungal infections in amphibians. What's better, P. fluorescens is naturally present on bats already, so using it for treatment posed little risk of introducing additional threats to bat species.

For these reasons, P. fluorescens was an attractive subject for Hoyt and colleagues. To conduct their experiment, they picked a mine in Wisconsin that served as a hibernacula — a fancy term referring to caves in which bats hibernate over winter — for a colony of Myotis lucifugus, or the little brown bat.

Little brown bats were once one of the most common species in the northeastern U.S., but white-nose syndrome is quickly changing that. In fact, the year before in the very same mine that Hoyt and colleagues had chosen, there had been 226 little brown bats. On the year the researchers chose to conduct their experiment, that number had dwindled to just 82.

Prior to the start of winter, the researchers collected 60 bats from the mine with roughly 30 each to serve in the control and treatment groups, respectively. All bats were given a tag that would trigger a transponder near the entrance of the cave, alerting the researchers to a bat's movements in and out of the cave and, in theory, to when the bats immerged from hibernation. In this way, the researchers could determine whether a bat had died during hibernation or whether white-nose syndrome had driven them out of the cave early. If the bats failed to return, they were presumed to have died. To confirm this, the researchers searched through all known sites within 50 kilometers of the focal mine to find any tagged bats who had immigrated to a new hibernaculum, but this proved not to be the case.

Significant progress, significant challenges

"Bats are really difficult to work with," said Hoyt, "so being able to pull out some meaningful results from this work was a huge win for us." And the results were striking. In the control group, only about 8 percent of bats survived the winter. But in the group treated with P. fluorescens, nearly 50 percent of bats survived. "It's definitely exciting news," said Hoyt. "Fifty percent is great. It's not 100% like we would hope, unfortunately, but I am not sure we'll ever get there."

Significant challenges remain before we can solve white-nose syndrome. For one, Hoyt and colleagues applied their treatment slowly, tediously, to just a handful of bats. Bat colonies, however, can reach the thousands; treating huge colonies, who are at the greatest risk for white-nose syndrome, will be difficult. What's more, P. fluorescens only helped save half of the bat population. Assuming this number holds in more large-scale treatments, bats still can't afford to lose half of their colony members each winter. With more work and any luck, however, future researchers will be able to come up with a solution to treating bat colonies en masse and potentially discover the right combination of antifungal treatments to prevent death by white-nose syndrome entirely.