Like many other alluring things on this Earth, video games can toe the line between good and evil. They are notoriously addicting (sometimes to their users’ detriment) — but that quality also allows them to function as a successful medium in rehabilitation and therapy applications.

“There are some people who claim that playing video games contributes to attention deficit, that it rewires our brains,” said NASA Langley Research Center scientist Alan Pope. “Well, if that’s the case, then let’s decide how we want video games rewiring our brain.” Pope and his team are developing “Mindshift” gaming technology that helps users learn how to control stress and sharpen their ability to concentrate. A former version of this NASA-developed technology has also been commercialized into a game for children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Read more about the technology here.

It appears that games may indeed “rewire” our brains — for better or for worse. In a recent University of Oxford experiment, healthy volunteers viewed a film that included traumatic images of injury from a variety of sources. After waiting for 30 minutes, 20 volunteers played Tetris for 10 minutes, 20 volunteers played Pub Quiz, a word-based quiz game, for 10 minutes, and a final set of 20 volunteers did nothing.

Subjects who played Tetris reportedly experienced significantly fewer flashbacks of the film, while those who played Pub Quiz actually experienced significantly more flashbacks, in comparison to the control group of volunteers who did nothing. This surprised me, because I had guessed that the games would have a neutral or beneficial effect on the subjects — certainly not a negative effect, as in the case of the word-based game.

Could it be the visual component of Tetris that, at least in this particular experiment, made it a better candidate for reducing the incidence of traumatic flashbacks? Whatever the reason, it’s nice to have an excuse to play a bit of Techtris (NASA Tech Briefs’ version of Tetris) — strictly to pay tribute to the game’s potentially therapeutic qualities, of course.

In the words of the late, great gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.” That’s comforting to know because the future of America’s space exploration program has suddenly gotten weird, and the last thing you need when that happens is amateurs calling the shots.

It all started getting weird back in 2004 when President Bush announced that, after nearly 30 years of service, NASA’s space shuttles would be retired in 2010 following completion of the International Space Station (ISS). The plan was to replace the aging shuttles with a new Crew Exploration Vehicle, a.k.a. Orion, which would make its maiden voyage in 2014 as part of the ambitious Constellation program. Those with an aptitude for math quickly realized that left a four-year gap where U.S. astronauts would either have to remain earthbound, or rely on hitching rides back and forth to the space station aboard Russian owned and operated spacecraft.

To those of us who grew up during the cold war – which is what drove America into the space race to begin with – that didn’t seem like such a good idea. Granted, the cold war has been over for decades, and if anyone knows how to run a space taxi service, the Russians do. Since 2001, anybody with a taste for adventure and $20-30 million to burn could buy a seat on one of their Soyuz spacecraft and vacation aboard the ISS. But given the fragile relationship between the U.S. and Russia, the slightest amount of friction could put our entire space program in jeopardy, or at the very least make it hostage to the whims of a foreign government. Kind of a weird approach for the world’s leader in space exploration to take, wouldn’t you say?

But wait, it gets even weirder. When the White House released its proposed 2011 budget last month, one of the items they cut was the Constellation program. It’s not that they don’t want American astronauts to explore space anymore; they do, and they proved it by adding $6 billion to NASA’s budget over the next five years so they can develop the necessary technology to do so. They just don’t want that technology to include new spacecraft for such mundane tasks as commuting back and forth to the ISS or traveling to the moon.

So, just how are our astronauts supposed to get there, aside from hailing a Russian space taxi? With good, old-fashioned American ingenuity and profit-driven, private, commercial enterprise. I kid you not. According to information distributed by NASA, the agency has been directed “…to partner with the aerospace industry in a fundamentally new way, making commercially provided services the primary mode of astronaut transportation to the International Space Station. This new policy harnesses our nation’s entrepreneurial energies, and will create thousands of new jobs and catalyze the development of other new businesses that capitalize on affordable human access to space.”

 “Entrepreneurial energies”? Those wouldn’t, by any chance, be the same entrepreneurial energies that recently led to the near total collapse of two of our three major automakers and many of our biggest financial institutions, would they? The same entrepreneurial energies that exported most of our manufacturing capabilities overseas to capitalize on cheaper production costs, sometimes at the expense of better quality? And if you want to see how well entrepreneurial energies work for fare-paying passengers in a transportation setting, one need only look at what the commercial airline industry has degenerated into these days. Does anyone believe air travel is better today than it was, say, ten years ago?

I assume our astronauts would receive much better treatment from whatever commercial entity is selected to ferry them into space, but the point I am trying to make is this. With NASA designed, built and operated spacecraft, no expense was spared and no stone was left unturned to ensure the safety of the crew and the success of the mission. Yes, accidents happened – space travel is a dangerous pursuit – but it was never because corners were cut. Would a profit-driven, commercial entity go to equivalent lengths to ensure such a high degree of safety and success? Or would they look at the bottom line, weigh it against the risks, and then roll the dice, figuring our legal system gives commercial entities escape options that NASA doesn’t have should something go horribly wrong?

I certainly hope not. But looking back at what our “entrepreneurial energies” have done for us over the last 2 – 3 years, I have my doubts. What do you think?

Day one at the Medical Design & Manufacturing (MD&M) West show in Anaheim, CA was bustling with energy. Nearly everyone I spoke with said that they had found themselves happily busy throughout the day.

One nice part about meeting people at trade shows is that you might come across information you would never have gleaned from a simple press release (or information that never made it into the press release in the first place). For instance, although I was aware that NASA and GM had developed the highly advanced “Robonaut 2″ robot for space and automotive applications, I had no idea that Quickparts was involved in the process as well — until I spoke with their representatives at today’s show. Roughly speaking, Quickparts supplied custom parts for the Robonaut 2′s head and body, while GM was involved mainly with the development of the robot’s dexterous arms.

In other news, one innovation that caught my eye was the Noble UltraLight from Norman Noble. The brochure features a man in swimming gear making a snow angel, underneath the words, “Our New Laser Technology is Cool.” This athermal laser machining process was developed for applications that require intricate cutting without thermal damage to the material – such as the manufacturing of stents or a number of other medical devices. Hopefully I’ll find something just as “cool” tomorrow.

Have a son or daughter fascinated by space travel? NASA has invited more than 350 student rocketeers from middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities to take part in its 2009-2010 Student Launch Projects. The contest is designed to inspire students to channel their interests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics into careers critical to NASA’s exploration and scientific discovery endeavors.

The contest challenges student teams to build rockets of their own design, complete with a working science payload, and launch them to an altitude of 1 mile. Beginning in the fall school term, each team will spend eight months designing, building, and field-testing their rocket – encountering the same challenges faced by professional rocket engineers. In addition, the students must create a unique on-board science experiment able to survive the mile-high flight, and produce test results after the vehicle parachutes back to earth.

The projects will conclude April 15 to 18, 2010, when the teams gather at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. There, NASA engineers will conduct a professional design review of the students’ rockets – similar to the design review taken for every NASA launch. Following the review is a two-day launch fest at Bragg Farms in Toney, Ala.

There are two levels to the contest. The Student Launch Initiative enables middle and high school students to participate in the contest for up to two years and awards grants to participating teams. For college and university students, the University Student Launch allows participating teams to seek funding from their state’s Space Grant Consortium. The university-level contest is sponsored by ATK Space Systems of Magna, Utah, which awards prizes ranging up to $5,000 to the first-place winner.

U.S. engineering education has come under fire by some industry critics for being more theoretical than practical. This NASA effort addresses the practical aspects of engineering education by challenging students to build a working rocket. More information on the middle and high school Student Launch initiative can be found here. To learn more about the University Student Launch initiative, go here.

Walter Cronkite, arguably the best-known and respected television news anchor of the past half century, died last Friday at 92. Cronkite left an indelible mark on the face on television news journalism, covering many of the main events and interviewing many of the world’s key leaders shaping the 20th century. Besides his well-known expertise covering political and economic news, Cronkite was a pioneer in reporting on and interpreting the complex world of science and space travel.

From 1967 to 1970, Cronkite hosted The 21st Century, a half-hour Sunday documentary sponsored by chemical maker Union Carbide, which covered many of the emerging technologies at the time – for instance, computers. Cronkite was on the forefront of reporting on the U.S. space program. He enthusiastically covered not only the events but also the grueling preparation for the Apollo space missions, culminating in the Apollo 11 lunar mission 40 years ago.

Cronkite’s reports gave many youngsters growing up, like myself, an interest and appreciation for science and technology. His clear, concise reporting, combined with a genuine enthusiasm for adventure and exploring complex technical subjects – made science more understandable – and enjoyable – for the masses. Nowadays, unfortunately, many youngsters take science and technology for granted.

Is there anyone out there who can love and explain space travel the way Walter Cronkite did?