The next step in the fight against cancer may just be for the birds. A UK-based lab has just announced the development of a genetically modified chicken, which now lays eggs containing proteins needed for cancer-fighting medicines.

The breakthrough was announced by The Roslin Institute, near Edinburgh - the same research facility responsible for Dolly the cloned sheep.

"The idea of producing the proteins involved in treatments in flocks of laying hens means they can produce in bulk, they can produce cheaply and indeed the raw material for this production system is quite literally chicken feed," said Professor Harry Griffin, director of the institute, in light of the normally high cost of cancer medicines.

Using a total of 500 genetically modified birds, the research team had engineered the fowl to lay eggs laced with complex proteins like miR24 and human interferon b-1a. The former is used for treating malignant melanoma (skin cancer), the latter used to prevent viruses from replicating in cells. The proteins are located in the egg white, which makes for easy extraction and refinement into usable drugs.

It is noted that there have already been similar uses of animals to farm complex proteins - such as the modifying of the milk given of by sheep, goats, cows and rabbits. What makes this research special is the sheer quantity of proteins that can be produced.

"Once you've made the transgenic birds, then it's very easy; once you've got the gene in, then you can breed up hundreds of birds from one cockerel - because they can be bred with hundreds of hens and you can collect an egg a day and have hundreds of chicks in no time," said Dr Helen Sang, leader of the this research project, who had been working on the project for 15 years.

Cancer cure hopefuls may have to wait longer before the medicine is released, however - the Roslin Institute says a further five years before they attempt human testing, with a further 10 years of waiting needed before the medicine is fully developed

For now, we simply wait for the day when a cancer cure is as simple as a nurse asking "Boiled, scrambled, fried or poached?" And perhaps a slice of toast...oh, wait...

We reported last March that Lockheed Martin Corporation aimed for Manned Space Flight. Well it's official because NASA has awarded a multi-billion dollar contract to actually build a manned lunar spacecraft.

This is interesting for several reasons, most apparent is that the last time NASA has outsourced with Lockheed Martin for a manned ship was way back in 1996. This was for the space plane that was supposed to replace the aged space shuttle. Some $912 million was spent but the ship called x-33 was never built.

Next point of interest is the ship itself, Lockheed Martin was chosen to build the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Again it's supposed to replace the space shuttle, but this time it has the goal to take astronauts to the moon and even perhaps Mars.

The last time we put people on the moon was in 1972.

The Orion spaceship is deliberately designed to look similar to the original baby boomer set. As NASA administrator Michael Griffin said, "Apollo on steroids." NASA wants Orion to be capable of delivering four astronauts to the moon, and six to the international space station. They also want Orion to have its own service module for lunar trips.

If all goes well, NASA estimates that the first test flights will be on September 2014. NASA adds that astronauts could possibly be returning to the moon by late 2019 or 2020.

Since last July, the US Government Accountability Office has warned that it was wrong for NASA to be choosing a contractor by late August-September. According to them the space agency was choosing a contractor without "well-defined requirements, a preliminary design, mature technology and firm cost estimates for the project." The GAO says, "This approach increases the risk that the project will encounter significant cost overruns, schedule delays and decreased capability."

It has been said that there are many available solutions to any particular problem. And so goes NASA Chief Mike Griffin's message in the upcoming 20th Annual Conference on Small Satellites, set to begin on Monday at Utah State University in Logan, Utah.

Griffin wanted to remind everyone that yes, there was a time in our history that all we could make are small satellites. But even though things are getting bigger and we are becoming more capable, we should not abandon these so called "smallsats". Should be asked, he actually prefers to have a network of smallsats doing the same work than a few big ones, calling it as the "distributed approach".

Research and deep space missions are often, if not always, given to smallsats. The NASA chief highlighted, for instance, the Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) satellite and its delving into the secrets of solar flares. Similarly important smallsats are: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) that has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe by measuring the properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation over the full sky; Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) set to launch as a hitchhiker craft onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2008, as well as future scout missions at Mars.

But probably the most important of Griffin's message, was the discussion on the budget reality of NASA and the infrastructure needed in solar system space. According to him, communication, navigation and other services can be handled by smallsats, which in turn can be afforded by entrepreneurial space firms. This Friday in fact, NASA will unveil its strategy with private space companies to provide commercial orbital transportation services (COTS), starting with a pump prime money of half billion dollars over the next four years.

Unfortunately, the NASA chief also declared that the plan is not a given. “There have been some entrepreneurial space successes, but by and large I think it’s only fair to point out that most of space entrepreneurship exists on viewgraphs,” Griffin said.

On a happy note though, he concluded that should NASA be able to put the money on the table, the time will be right for these space entrepreneurs to help and step up.

NASA announced that the Discovery shuttle will launch on July 1 (3:48:15 p.m. EDT) despite the No-Go opinion of two senior officials. “There were many different viewpoints on the issue of whether we are ready to fly or not,” said NASA chief Michael Griffin. “We’ve decided that we are.” The two officials did not object to the agreed launch date.

The decision came after two days of “intensive and spirited exchange” during a Flight Readiness Review for NASA’s STS-121 shuttle flight aboard the Discovery orbiter. The two dissenting senior NASA managers – chief engineer Chris Scolese and Bryan O’Conner, the associate administrator of Safety and Mission Assurance – did have concerns over the potential risk of foam debris posed by a number of insulated ice frost ramps along Discovery’s external tank. 

A one-pound piece of foam insulation fell from a protective ramp from Discovery’s external tank during the STS-114 launch in July 2005. While it did not strike Discovery, a similar foam shedding event pierced Columbia's heat shield ultimately leading to its destruction and loss of seven astronauts in 2003.

NASA’s ability to inspect the spacecraft in orbit, conduct basic repairs, and keep the shuttle astronauts safely aboard the International Space Station (ISS) until a rescue comes contributed to the positive launch decision.

NASA managers picked July 1 as the launch date of space shuttle Discovery, despite recommendations against a lift-off from the agency's chief engineer. The flight is the second shuttle mission since the Columbia disaster in 2003.

Representatives from NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance and the Office of the Chief Engineer have advised against flying until further design changes are made to the shuttle's external fuel tank. It has been debated whether the external tank should undergo further changes in 34 areas called ice-frost ramps. In last July's launch, there was a one-pound chunk of foam that fell off from the Discovery. Since then, about 35 pounds of foam have been removed.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin made the final decision and vowed to shut down the space shuttle program should they lose another vehicle. Griffin is confident that the decision to fly poses no risk to the seven astronauts because NASA has devised new inspection and repair techniques to the shuttle. As a last resort the astronauts could stay at the International Space Station until a rescue shuttle arrives.

NASA's shuttles are scheduled to be grounded in 2010, once the International Space Station is constructed. Setting a launch date beyond July might cause schedule pressure in three or four years for completing the station.

Griffin said, I don't want to get us into a situation where by being more cautious than I think technically is necessary today, we wind up having to execute six flights in the last year. That's not smart.

The current Administration has - at least in words - stated its plans to return humans to the Moon within 8 - 12 years. The challenge for NASA (aside from budgetary considerations) is to, as one scientist put it, "regain its space legs."

Those "legs" suffer from a bad case of atrophy, not having been really exercised since the early 1970's. Although there have been many trips into orbit, these have consisted mainly of exercises, experiments and transport missions. The art and science of exploration for its own sake has nearly been lost. NASA chief Michael Griffin pointed out to the U.S. Congress, "We proactively made decisions as a country that caused those capabilities to go away." It will take ten years to get back to their former level, Griffin adds.

Why return to the moon? Aren't there enough problems on Earth to deal with? Two answers come to mind immediately; first, exploration requires science in order to keep human explorers as safe as possible, and extend their capabilities. If history is any indication, sciences and technologies growing out of exploration activities ultimately filter into the mainstream, to the benefit of all.

There's another reason, which can be summed up in names: Leif Eriksen. Zheng-He. Ferdinand Magellan. Lewis and Clark. Admiral Perry.

Humans are explorers, insatiably curious about the universe. It's what we do.

This by itself begs the question, "Aren't automated probes doing the job?" While probes can certainly give us an idea of what lies in wait for us, the fact is, computers at their current stage of development are incapable of value judgements. Humans can synthesize data and numerous conclusions, and react independently to unexpected situations. Machines can only obey.

The Moon is also the logical jumping-off place for travelers bound for Mars. It is even possible that many of the raw materials needed for the journey are available right there, and taking off from Luna would require far less in terms of energy than lifting off from Earth.

Even were this not the case, there is still much to be learned about our satellite. If the history of Antarctica's McMurdo station is any indication, a science station on the Moon should keep teams of scientists and explorers busy for decades.