In fact, only about one quarter of us report getting eight or more hours of sleep. That’s according to the huge annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey which now tracks more than 17,500 people in 9500 households.
We’ll hear today from Roger Wilkins, who runs the HILDA survey at University of Melbourne, on what exactly the survey found about how much and how well Australians sleep.
But first, you’ll hear from sleep expert Melinda Jackson, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, about what the evidence shows about how we used to sleep in pre-industrial times, and what promising research is on the horizon. Here’s a taste:
Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes here.
And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation – including The Conversation US’ Heat and Light, about 1968 in the US, and The Anthill from The Conversation UK, as well as Media Files, a podcast all about the media. You can find all our podcasts over here.
The two segments in today’s podcast were recorded and edited by Dilpreet Kaur Taggar. Additional editing by Sunanda Creagh.
I believe the incoming minister is likely to be a strong advocate and effective representative for the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) sector. She should have solid support from some key members of cabinet who have a track record of supporting STEM, such as Josh Frydenberg (treasurer), Michaelia Cash (now minister for small and family business, skills and vocational education), and Greg Hunt (minister for health).
But this is a complex portfolio and as a new member she will need to work hard to build cabinet-wide support for solutions to key challenges in the sector.
Andrews is the member for McPherson, an electorate in southern Queensland. She has held the seat since her election in 2010, joining politics as a graduate of mechanical engineering and following a career in human resources and industrial relations.
During her eight years in parliament, Andrews has shown an avid interest in science and technology.
Previously assistant minister for vocational education and skills, and before that assistant minister for science, Andrews is the co-founder and co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Science group alongside shadow minister for defence Richard Marles.
I am very keen that my parliamentary colleagues understand science, technology, engineering and maths and the importance of evidence-based decision making. We all need to make sure we are making decisions based on evidence, not opinions.
We need a better plan
Despite some recent positive actions, Australia still lacks a strong, comprehensive and long-term whole-of-government plan for the STEM sector.
Given the excellent returns on investment in research and development, it is crucial that similarly bold, and long-term, approaches to investment in both basic and applied non-medical scientific research are soon to follow.
I hope to see expansion from the government’s vision outlined in the National Science Statement, that outlines a role for the sector more broadly, along with clear and measurable priorities and goals. This will allow Australian science and technology to move forward with more confidence and purpose.
With a new minister, and a new voice in cabinet to promote science and evidence, I am more optimistic about the future of Australian science and technology.
Having a representative that is qualified, demonstrably passionate, and who is engaged with the STEM sector at all levels, gives us hope that we will see visionary leadership and strength from the member for McPherson.
I look forward to continuing to work with the government to make STEM a top priority for Australia, and ensure that our scientists and technologists play a key role in the nation’s future environment, health, wealth and well-being.
But from where should Australia launch rockets? Woomera in South Australia launched its first rocket in 1967, but in reality Australia could support multiple launch sites. And the closer to the equator, typically the better.
The first step in a space venture is to launch the payload (typically a satellite) and get it to stay in a suitable orbit without falling back to earth.
To achieve this, first the rocket must lift itself and the payload from the launch pad, through the lower levels of the atmosphere to altitudes greater than 100 km. This is achieved using a near vertical trajectory.
Once outside the atmosphere, the climb angle is reduced and the rocket starts to accelerate to reach its orbital velocity. It must travel at more than 7.8km/s (approx 28000 km/h) to stay in Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). LEOs are orbits with an altitude of less than 2000km, and are used by the majority of small satellites.
The majority of the rocket fuel is used in this acceleration phase. The high final velocity is required to ensure the released payload stays in orbit.
However, by appropriate selection of launch site and launch direction, the required velocity to achieve LEO can be reduced.
The earth rotates one revolution per day in the westward direction, which results in a surface velocity of 0.46km/s (approx 1670 km/hr) at the equator. As you move north or south from the equator, this surface velocity decreases.
So, in the ideal case, launching westwards from the equator, the velocity to stay in LEO is reduced from 7.8km/s to approximately 7.3km/s.
As fuel required to attain these speeds is proportional to velocity squared, this is a substantial saving.
This speed advantage is most important for spacecraft leaving earth and satellites going to geostationary orbit (a high earth orbit, where they rotate with earth and remain exactly above a fixed point on the ground). By launching from the equator in a purely westward direction they can fully utilise this speed advantage.
However, for small satellites aiming for LEO this has limited value. They would circle above the equator and could only view (or be visible from) a strip several hundreds of kilometres wide.
Instead most LEO launches are slightly to the north or south of the equator, so that the resulting orbit is inclined relative to the earth equatorial plane. From these orbits, after multiple passes, most of the earth (excluding the north and south pole) is visible.
A good example of such an orbit is the International Space Station, which can be tracked at ISS tracker.
The exception to this are satellites in what are called sun synchronous and polar orbits, flying almost directly over the north and south pole. These require launches in the north or south direction and cannot utilise the speed advantage.
The biggest motivator for building launch sites close to the equator is the the speed advantage and associated fuel savings mentioned above. Reductions in fuel mass allow increases in allowable payload mass.
This is reflected by the major well established spaceports: Cape Canaveral in Florida (USA), Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan (Russia), Kourou in French Guinea (Europe), and Jiuqan (China) all of which are located in the vicinity of the equator.
Looking ahead, there will be significant demand for future launch capacity to LEO either on inclined or sun synchronous orbits, as they are easy to reach and well suited for observation and communication satellites.
Secondary considerations for choosing launch sites are weather and climate related. Obviously blue sky days with little wind are desirable for launching, but – as demonstrated by Cape Canaveral in Florida – it is possible to operate a space-port in a region regularly visited by hurricanes. Nevertheless NASA cites weather as one of the main causes for launch delays.
Finally, it is desirable for launch sites to be close to towns and cities so that people have somewhere to live, and so that launch sites can contribute to the local community.
Australia has a rich heritage in space related innovation, research, and collaboration, dating back to the NASA Mercury and Gemini programs.
Today there are several home-grown start-ups developing launch capabilities for access to space, such as Hypersonix and Gilmour Space Technologies (plus Rocketlab in New Zealand), all specifically targeting small satellite launches.
An evolution from this would be an Australian space port, which would further spur on these developments and help grow Australia’s space industry.
So far the majority of rocket launches in Australia have been conducted at the Woomera Prohibited Area, located in South Australia. An advantage of Woomera is that trajectories initially run over land. This allows easier communications with the rocket or flight experiment, making it ideal for rocket development. But this isn’t essential in space launches.
Being a large country, Australia can accommodate multiple launch sites. Equatorial Launch Australia (ELA) recently announced that they have secured land to start construction of the Arnhem Space Centre in the Northern Territory in 2018.
Similarly Australian Space Launch (ASL) is exploring locations in the Bowen region, North Queensland and Southern Launch have started site selection along the south coast.
Space launches from Australia can be expected in the not so distance future.
Having a national launch capability will significantly boost the growing space and satellite industry.
What lessons can we take from this year’s outcome? After two years in Canberra, I haven’t discovered a magic key to the Federal coffers. But here are my general observations.
Intrinsic value is not sufficient
We can’t assume that the broad public support for science will translate into support for specific proposals unless we do the work to explain the benefits, including more jobs and better health.
Being intrinsically valuable is not sufficient. Clarity about what we can deliver is essential when science is competing with spending proposals with obvious and immediate benefits – like more hospital beds.
It helps to remember that most politicians aren’t experts in science policy. I’ve wrestled for years with the term “national research infrastructure”. People I talk to outside the research sector simply don’t understand it. A small change to saying “national research facilities” turns the lights on.
It’s important for politicians to see the outcomes of public investment. They see the dollar figures in the budget papers but they don’t necessarily connect the research breakthroughs they read about in the newspapers years later to the programs that made them possible. It is important to help local members, irrespective of their party, recognise the impact of previously funded programs working for Australians.
Review and communicate
Take stock of progress and give credit to what has been achieved to date before heading back into the arena for the next round. As custodians of public funds, researchers should be proud to share their achievements with the taxpayers who ultimately make them possible.
Finally, I’ve always found politicians to be far more receptive to funding proposals when they see commitment from other quarters. It’s not just the Commonwealth that needs to step up. It’s business. It’s state and territory governments. It’s philanthropists.
If we reach out widely, we can strengthen our advocacy with new allies, and at the same time, help government to focus on the things that only government can do.
Below I highlight some key areas funded through Budget 2018.
I am encouraged that the government has committed to review the investment plan every two years, in recognition of the importance of keeping this discussion firmly on the national agenda.
In addition to these funds, the budget acts on an urgent priority flagged in the Roadmap – high performance computing. $70 million for the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre in Perth adds to the $70 million previously committed to the National Computational Infrastructure in Canberra.
This builds on the $119 million announced for the European Southern Observatory in the previous budget.
The ISA mission to preserve the Great Barrier Reef is supported by $100 million in new investment for coral reef research and restoration projects, as part of a $500 million package announced last month.
The ISA mission to harness precision medicine and genomics to make Australia the healthiest nation in the world is backed with $500 million over the next ten years from the Medical Research Future Fund.
A scaffold for the genomics revolution was provided by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) in the recent Precision Medicine Horizon Scanning report, commissioned by the Commonwealth Science Council.
A forthcoming Horizon Scanning report, on artificial intelligence, will likewise inform the $30 million commitment to AI and machine learning in the 2018 budget. The funding includes a national ethics framework for AI – a welcome development that will position Australia well in the global AI standards debate.
Over four years, $36 million will be provided for the Antarctic science program.
An amount of $4.5 million over four years is aimed to encourage more women into STEM education and careers, including a decadal plan for women in science.
With a focus on GPS technology, $225 million is allocated over four years to improve the accuracy of satellite navigation, and $37 million over three years for Digital Earth Australia. The goal of this funding is to make satellite data accessible for research, regional Australia and business.
There is also $20 million for an Asian Innovation Strategy, including an extension of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund for four years.
In the business arena, changes to address integrity and additionality (that is, driving R&D to levels beyond “business as usual”) in the Research and Development Tax Incentive (RDTI) will reduce by an estimated $2.4 billion the money the scheme delivers to industry.
As one of the authors of the “3Fs” review of the RDTI – with Bill Ferris and John Fraser – I support the rebalancing of Australia’s business innovation budget. We are a global outlier in our heavy reliance on the indirect pull-through achieved through the tax system, instead of mission-driven direct investment.
With money recouped from the RDTI, scientists and research-intensive businesses should be making the case for more and better-targeted programs. Work remains to be done.