Weapons in space are almost globally understood to be dangerous. They could, for instance, damage the International Space Station or another structure if they fell into orbit with them.

However, the United States has refused to sign a binding deal that would prevent them from ever sending weapons into space.

Russia, China, Canada, and several other countries have agreed to proposals for a treaty prohibiting any country from putting weapons in space, but the United States has refused to join.

SFU adjunct professor of International Studies and fellow in International Security Paul Meyer weighed in on the conversation taking a critical view of US policies: “In the Obama Administration’s June 2010 National Space Policy, it has said it would consider any arms control proposals ‘if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies.’

“The US has, however, not proposed any such measures of its own and has criticized those put forward by Russia and China.”

He added, “The US has expressed a preference for political arrangements, such as confidence-building measures (CBMs), but has not been active on behalf of these either. The impression is left that the US does not want to accept any new constraint on its freedom of action in outer space.”

Some people are concerned because while countries rely on space technology for scientific research, communication, and space technology, it is possible that a failure to prevent space weaponry could have serious consequences.

Meyer says that space warfare not only poses a threat to spatial structures, but could also result in a massive amount of debris that would be obtrusive to prime satellite orbits. According to data from the Union of Concerned Scientists, there are approximately 1,300 operational satellites in orbit, including 120 American satellites used for military operations.

He commented, “As [the US is] the leading spacefaring nation, US opposition to a space weapons ban would make it difficult to achieve such a treaty. Understandably, other space powers would not want to accept constraints on their conduct that would not also bind the US.

“There is always the risk that as long as the door to weaponization of space is not firmly closed, some irresponsible actor will introduce weapons into this fragile operating environment to the detriment of all users of space,” Meyer added.

The United States has supported the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, a set of political measures that has run into opposition since being proposed seven years ago. Meyer says that this is mainly from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) arguing that this type of code should be negotiated under UN auspices with a clear mandate.

“With the EU’s Code proposal stalled and continued US opposition to international legal instruments for prohibiting space weapons, the prospects for obtaining new agreed measures of restraint are dim,” Meyer concluded.

Advocates are hopeful that when the UN meets on October 22, the debate over space arms will be considered to be the most prevalent issue of the year.

An SFU study has unlocked some new evidence regarding how maple trees produce such a large quantity of sap — and the implications of these findings could mean big things for the maple syrup industry.

The study, led by SFU mathematician John Stockie with colleagues Isabell Graf and Maurizio Ceseri, looks into the subject of tree sap exudation (excretion) in sugar maples.

The research was developed to find a more concrete answer to why these particular trees continued to produce a lucrative amount of sap even in a leafless state during the winter months.

The prevalent theory of the secretion of tree sap attributes exudation to the physical processes of osmosis and freeze-thaw cycles, which involve the buildup of gas in sap cells during freezing and results in the release of gas and expansion of the sap as it thaws. However, these models have led to their fair share of unanswered questions and head-scratching over the years.

Hoping to close the gap of uncertainty, Stockie and his team designed the first mathematical model of sap exudation as means of resolving the bewilderment linked to the strange case of maple exudation.

Stockie justified the need for a mathematical model: “Typically what happens with problems like this — with many different physical mechanisms coupled together and interacting — people have ideas for what could be going on, but the physics is so complex that it’s very difficult to fasten on the correct solution unless you get into the math.”

SFU mathematicians worked first on modelling the mechanics of sap exudation on a cellular level, to understand all the processes that were going on. They then scaled up the cellular processes to arrive at a simpler string of equations, which the computer could then go on to solve.

A year later, Stockie and his team discovered three new physical mechanisms that were essential components in tree sap secretion. Additionally, they discovered a connection between exudation and freeze-induced embolism, which causes blockages in sap flow and further damage to the tree itself.

Stockie argued that the model could be greatly helpful to the maple syrup industry. It would, he said, aid in the optimization of sap harvests for syrup producers, and help foresee the potential impacts of climate change on sap yields.

For Stockie, though, these findings are only the beginning to unlocking more unanswered questions in the study of sap harvest. He hopes to further pursue this topic over the next two years and continue to unlock more secrets into our beloved national treasure, maple syrup.

The journey for BrainShield began six years ago with a simple question: “How can we improve helmet performance?”

By asking this, BrainShield creators SFU post-doctoral fellow Daniel Abram and SFU professors Gary Wang and Farid Golnaraghi of the School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering discovered that the majority of available helmet designs were made and tested only to protect the brain against direct collisions. However, most blows to the head are delivered at an angle, rather than head-on.

BrainShield is a decal that can adhere to the outside of a helmet. It was designed to reduce the risk of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) that can result from shocks suffered during high-collision sports.

TBI is a high risk for serious injury or death, especially among players of sports such as boxing, football, and hockey. The technology has been in development for five years at SFU’s Head Injury Prevention Lab. Now, Abram’s company, Shield-X Technology Inc., prepares to sell the technology on a wider scale.

Abram explained in a statement that BrainShield is unique because with trauma to the head there can be a “compression” and “rotation” due to the angle of collision and the decal protects against both of those.

Said Abram, “While research studies show that the brain tissues are considerably more sensitive to rotation than compression, the majority of helmets are only designed to protect the head against compression of the brain.”

In addition to its safety features, BrainShield has several other functions. For instance, it glows in the dark for cyclists, and can be customized with a logo for sports teams. Shield-X hopes to soon usecrowdsourcing to fund efforts to produce a higher quantity of the decal for mass distribution.

Jacques Chapdelaine, head coach of the SFU Football team, explained how the team began using BrainShield last year. Said Chapdelaine, “the number of these injuries was reduced from 14 in 2013 to only 4 [sic] recorded injuries in 2014.”

He continued, “I sincerely believe that using BrainShield was an instrumental element in dramatically reducing the number of head trauma injuries and thus can play an incredible role in a holistic approach aimed at significantly reducing the risk of traumatic brain injuries.”