Annie Easley: putting rockets into space

Annie Easley head and shoulders portrait
Annie Easley. NASA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Annie Easley was a pioneer both as a computer programmer but also as a champion of women and minorities into computer science. She went from being a human computer doing calculations for the rocket scientists (in the days before computers were machines), to becoming a programmer whose programs were integral to many NASA projects. Here work has helped us explore the planets and beyond, to put satellites into space and help humans leave the Earth. She also contributed to early battery technology as well as the alternative energy sources we now need to transition away from oil and gas. Throughout her career, despite being repeatedly discriminated against herself as an African-american woman, she encouraged, supported and mentored others like her.

Annie was a maths graduate so when she saw that computers were needed by NACA, the predecessor of NASA, she jumped at the chance. At the time a computer was a human who did calculations, as no machine at that point had been created to take over the job. She was one of only four African-american employees out of several thousand. Her job was to do the calculations researchers needed for their work. However, as digital computers started to be introduced – machines were now able to do large numbers of tedious calculations much more quickly than humans so took over the job…but now needed people who could program them for each task. To do so still needed mathematical ability to understand the task, as well as the ability to write code. She learnt both low level assembly language and the high level language, Fortran, invented for such scientific programming work and transitioned to being a programmer mathematician.

Much of her work involved or supported simulation, so writing programs that model aspects of the real world to test whether scientists predictions are correct, or to help make new predictions. Ultimately, this work would help provide the data to make choices of which technologies to use. Today computer simulation is a completely standard way of doing both engineering and science and has actually provided a completely new way to do science complementing theory and experiment. It allows us to probe everyday science questions but also big questions like exploring the origins of the universe or probing the long term consequences of our actions on the climate. Back then it was totally novel though, as computers were completely new. She was involved in simulation work that prefigured important work today around the environment, investigating systems to convert energy between different forms and so hybrid battery technology. It allows vehicles (whether a rocket, satellite, car or planetary rover) to switch between electric power and other sources of energy – an idea that has provided an important bridge from petrol to electric cars. She was also part of teams exploring alternative fuel sources like wind power and solar power (important of course now in space for satellites and planetary rovers, as well as a fossil fuel alternatives on Earth).

An Atlas rocket with centaur final stage launching
An Atlas rocket with centaur final stage. NASA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

One of her major areas of work, that has had a lasting impact, was on the Centaur rocket. Rocket launches involve multiple fuel tanks to get the payload (eg a satellite) into space. The tanks of each stage are ejected when their fuel runs out with the next stage taking over. Centaur was the final upper stage which used the then novel fuel of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to propel the payload in the final step into space. Centaur became a mainstay for satellite launches as well as for probes sent to visit other planets – like Voyager (which visited the outer planets and is now in interstellar space heading away from the solar system having visited ) and CassiniHuygens  (which sent back stunning images of Saturn’s rings). Newer versions of Centaur are still used today,

At the same time as doing all this work she was also heavily involved in NASAs public engagement with science programmes, visiting schools and giving talks about the work, inspiring girls and those from ethnic minorities that STEM careers were for them. She also worked as equal employment opportunity counselor. This involved her helping sort out discrimination complaints (whether over age or race or gender) in a positive and cooperative way.

Space travel has opened up not only a new ability to explore our solar system, but made lots of other technologies from SatNav to remote monitoring possible as well has helped in the development of other technology such as battery technology and alternative energy sources. We all owe a lot to the pioneers like Annie Easley, and none more so than the private companies now aiming to further commercialise space.

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.


This page is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Calculating Pi for Pi Day

There are several Pi Day’s (14 March: 3.14; 22 July: 22/7) so we should look at how on earth you compute a number like Pi (3.1.4159….). It has an infinite number of digits containing no repeating pattern so you can never tie it down exactly. One of my favourite ways for calculating pi was first devised by the Indian mathematician Mādhava of Sangamagrāma 600 years ago. He worked out an algorithm for working out Pi based on the maths of infinite series that he had also worked out.

Pi symbol as a sculpture against a blue sky with digits written across it
Image by Naji Habib from Pixabay

Pi is one of the most useful numbers in all of maths. In school you come across it when working out the area or circumference of a circle, but it crops up all over the place including in practical computer science situations. Digital music, for example, relies on it deep down. Remember that the next time you stream your favourite music!

So how, 600 years ago did Mādhava manage to work out a much more accurate version of Pi than anyone before him? He had worked out that certain sequences of infinite numbers wouldn’t get bigger and bigger but would just get closer and closer to some specific number. In particular, he worked out one such sequence linked to pi.

π / 4 = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – …

Writing this a slightly different way it gives us a way of calculating pi itself

π = 4 – 4/3 + 4/5 – 4/7 + 4/9 – …

With an infinite number of terms, this gives an accurate value for pi. We can’t add an infinite number of numbers together though. Instead, we can use it to get a good answer. To get an approximation to pi we just follow an algorithm where we gradually add / subtract the next term. Each new calculation then gives us a better estimate of what pi is.

So to start with we just take the first term which says

π = 4 (very approximately)

That isn’t very good as it doesn’t get any digits right! Pi is closer to 3 than to 4. So its not looking hopeful! That doesn’t matter though as it is just a starting point. When we subtract the next term it gets a bit better

π = 4 – 4/3 = 2.6666…

Hmm. Now we have overshot the other way. However, we are closer to the real value of pi than we were. So don’t lose heart, keep going and add the next term

π = 4 – 4/3 + 4/5 = 3.46666…

And another term …

π = 4 – 4/3 + 4/5 – 4/7 = 2.895 …

And another term …

π = 4 – 4/3 + 4/5 – 4/7 + 4/9 = 3.339…

and so on.

The important thing to notice is that after each term included we get a more accurate answer, and we can keep adding terms for as long as we are happy to do the calculations. Mādhava (or his followers) obviously liked doing calculations so kept going until he had worked out pi accurate to 10 decimal places (3.1415926535…) : a new world record at the time beating the previous best of 6 decimal places by a Chinese astronomer Zhao Youqin using a different algorithm, That record had been set 80 years earlier but was smashed by 4 decimal places. This new record lasted for another 96 years. In doing these calculations Mādhava was acting as a ‘computer’ in the original meaning of the word: a human following an algorithm to do computation.

His algorithm is what computer scientists call an iterative algorithm. This kind of algorithm is used quite a lot by computer scientists as it gives a general way of getting a good enough (if not perfect) answer to a problem that otherwise is hard (or impossible) to get a perfect answer to in a reasonable time. You start with a good guess and then gradually refine the answer until you are happy that it is accurate enough. These algorithms can be straightforward to code as it is just running a loop doing calculations that refine the answer. Mādhava was happy with 10 decimal places of accuracy but he could have kept going. The trouble is this is a very slow algorithm. As we saw with the first few iterations above, it takes a long time even to home in on the first digit being 3! Every new digit took a lot of extra work to get right. When calculating machines and then computers were invented it became easier to use slow algorithms like this, but even with a faster computer it is still better to have a faster algorithm. Now far faster algorithms have been invented and the world record at the time of writing gives pi accurate to 105,000,000,000,000 decimal places!

Mādhava would have needed to really like doing calculations (and have discovered the secret to eternal life) to have calculated pi that accurately. 600 years ago his world record for pi was still an amazing achievement.

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

More on

Related Magazines …

Front cover of CS4FN issue 29 – Diversity in Computing

More on …


EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1,

Could AI end science?

by Nick Ballou, Oxford Internet Institute

The contents of a book burning
Image by Dariusz Sankowski from Pixabay

Scientific fraud is worryingly common, though rarely talked about. It has been happening for years, but now Artificial Intelligence programs could supercharge it. If they do that could undermine Science itself.

Investigators of scientific fraud have found that large numbers of researchers have manipulated their results, invented data, or even produced nonsensical papers in the hope that no one will look closely enough to notice. Often, no one does. The problem is that science is built on the foundation of all the research that has gone before. If we can no longer trust that past research is legitimate, the whole system of science begins to break down. AI has the potential to supercharge this process.

We’re not at that point yet, luckily. But there are concerning signs that generative AI systems like ChatGPT and DALLE-E might bring us closer. By using AI technology, producing fraudulent research has never been easier, faster, or more convincing. To understand, let’s first look at how scientific fraud has been done in the past. 

How fraud happens 

Until recently, fraudsters would need to go through some difficult steps to get a fraudulent research paper published. A typical example might look like this: 

Step 1: invent a title

Fraudsters look for a popular but very broad research topic. We’ll take an example of a group of fraudsters known as the Tadpole Paper Mill. They published papers about cellular biology. To choose a new paper to create, the group would essentially use a simple generator, or algorithm, based on a template. This uses a simple technique first used by Christopher Strachey to write love letters in an early “creative” program in the 1950s.

For each “hole” in the template a word is chosen from a word list.

  1. Pick the name of a molecule
    • Either a protein name, a drug name or an RNA molecule name
    • eg mir-488
  2. Pick a verb
    • From alleviates, attenuates, exerts, …
    • eg inhibits
  3. Pick one or two cellular processes
    • From invasion, migration, proliferation, …
    • eg cell growth and metastasis
  4. Pick a cancer or cell type
    • From lung cancer, ovarian cancer, …
    • eg renal cell carcinoma
  5. Pick a connector word
    • From by, via, through, …
    • eg by
  6. Pick a verb
    • From activating, targeting, …
    • eg targeting
  7. Pick a name
    • Either a pathway, protein or miRNA molecule name
    • eg hMgn5

This produces a complicated-sounding title such as “mir-488 inhibits cell growth and metastasis in renal cell carcinoma by targeting hMgn5”. This is the name of a real fraudulent paper created this way.

Step 2: write the paper

Next, the fraudsters create the text of the paper. To do this, they often just plagiarise and lightly edit previous similar papers, substituting key words in from their invented title perhaps. To try to hide the plagiarism, they automatically swap out words, replacing them with synonyms. This often leads to ridiculous (and kind of hilarious) replacements, like these found in plagiarised papers: 

  • “Big data” –> “Colossal information” 
  • “Cloud computing” –> “Haze figuring”
  • “Developing countries” –> “Creating nations”
  • “Kidney failure” –> “Kidney disappointment”

Step 3: add in the results

Lastly, the fraudsters need to create results for the fake study. These usually appear in papers in the form of images and graphs. To do this, the fraudsters take the results from several previous papers and recombine them into something that looks mostly real, but is just a Frankenstein mess of other results that have nothing to do with the current paper.

A new paper is born

Using that simple formula, fraudsters have produced thousands of fabricated articles in the last 10 years. Even after a vast amount of effort, the dedicated volunteers who are trying to clean up the mess have only caught a handful. 

However, committing fraud like this successfully isn’t exactly easy, either: the fraudsters still need to come up with a research idea, write the paper themselves without copying too much from previous research, and make up results that look convincing—at least at first glance. 

AI: Adding fuel to the fire 

So what happens when we add modern generative AI programs into the mix? They are Artificial Intelligence programs like ChatGPT or DALL-E that can create text or pictures for you based on written requests. 

Well, the quality of the fraud goes up, and the difficulty of producing it goes way down. This is true for both text and images.

Let’s start with text. Just now, I asked ChatGPT-4 to “write the first two paragraphs of a research paper on a cutting edge topic in psychology.” I then asked it to “write a fake results table that shows a positive relationship between climate change severity and anxiety”. I won’t copy the whole thing—in part because I encourage you to try this yourself to see how it works (not to actually create a fake paper!)—but here’s a sample of what it came up with: 

“As the planet faces increasing temperatures, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation, the mental health repercussions for populations worldwide become a crucial area of investigation. Understanding these effects is vital for developing strategies to support communities in coping with the psychological challenges posed by a changing climate.”

As someone who has written many psychology research papers, I would find the results very difficult to identify as AI-generated—it looks and sounds very similar to how people in my field write, and it even generated Python code to analyse the fake data. I’d need to take a really close look at the origin of the data and so on to figure out that it’s fraudulent. 

But that’s a lot of work required from me as a fraud-buster. For the fraudster, doing this takes about 1 minute, and would not be detected by any plagiarism software in the way previous kinds of fraud can be. In fact, this might only be detected if the fraudsters make a sloppy mistake, like leaving in a disclaimer from the model as in the paper caught which included the text

“[Please note that as an AI language model, I am unable to generate specific tables or conduct tests, so the actual resutls should be included in the table.]”! 

Generative AIs are not close to human intelligence, at least not yet. So, why are they so good at producing convincing scientific research, something that’s commonly seen as one of the most difficult things humans can do? Two reasons play a big part: (1) scientific research is very structured, and (2) there’s a lot of training data. In any given field of research, most papers tend to look pretty similar—an introduction section, a method describing what the researchers did, a results section with a few tables and figures, and a discussion that links it back to the wider research field. Many journals even require a fixed structure. Generative AI programs work using Machine Learning – they learn from data and the more data they are given the better they become. Give a machine learning program millions of images of cats, telling it that is what they are, and it can become very good at recognising cats. Give it millions of images of dogs and it will be able to recognise dogs too. With roughly 3 million scientific papers published every year, generative AI systems are really good at taking these many, many examples of what a scientific report looks like, and producing similar sounding, and similarly structured pieces of text. They do it by predicting what word, sentence and paragraph would be good to come next based on probabilities calculated from all those examples.

Trusting future research

Most research can still be trusted, and the vast majority of scientists are working as hard as they can to advance human knowledge. Nonetheless, we all need to look carefully at research studies to ensure that they are legitimate, and we should be on extra alert as generative AI becomes even more powerful and widespread. We also need to think about how to improve universities and research culture generally, so that people don’t feel like they need to commit scientific fraud—something that usually happens because people are desperate to get or keep a job, or be seen as successful and reap the rewards. Somehow we need to change the game so that fraud no longer pays.

What do you think? Do you have ideas for how we can prevent fraud from happening in the first place, and how can we better detect it when it does occur? It is certainly an important new research topic. Find a solution and you could do massive good. If we don’t find solutions then we could lose the most successful tool human-kind has ever invented that makes all our lives better.


Related Magazines …

Cover issue 22 creativer computing
Cover issue 18 Machines that are creative

More on …


EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1,