ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Space

Climate Progress

‘Space Oddity’ Astronaut Rock Star Has Unique Perspective On Climate Change

Chris Hadfield touched down early this morning after spending 146 days in space as Canada’s first commander of the International Space Station (ISS).

Apart from carrying out his mission, Hadfield explained what happened when you cry in space, how astronauts clip their nails and brush their teeth, and what happens to vision quality in space.

Many may know him better for an almost true-to-life performance of David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” which he performed on board the ISS with a guitar:

He has also gained a unique perspective on the way that humans are changing the climate of our planet from an orbital perch.

Florida Today reported earlier this year that Hadfield told Canadian reporters (translated from French) that we are changing the planet and are responsible for what happens to future generations:

Climate is changing naturally, and perhaps as a result of what we have done, our influence…. And so maybe we just need to be more responsible in the decisions we make and think of the longer term, more than five years, more than the upcoming elections, more than just one lifespan, and think about our grandchildren and even further.

He also commented on how different the Aral Sea looked from orbit nearly 20 years after his first visit to space. The sea has dried up for a number of reasons (mainly diverting rivers for irrigation), which as Hadfield said, “was human change — change that has occurred thanks to what humans have done.”

While astronauts are not climate scientists, it must be a very surreal to look back down on the planet from the station and understand what Homo sapiens sapiens has done to the planet.

The mission of the International Space Station is multifaceted, but some of the instruments on board collect important climate data according to NASA:

Read more

Climate Progress

Extreme Weather And U.S. Satellites

Image of the U.S. taken by the Suomi NPP. (NASA)

A polar-orbiting satellite employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration retired yesterday after 11 years of service. This is more than three times the typical lifespan of these satellites.

Known as the NOAA-17 Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite, it measured air temperature, moisture, sea surface temperature, and image data that helped strengthen NOAA’s climate and weather models. In fact, these satellites provide up to 80 percent of the data for the weather computer models we rely on every day. They are called polar-orbiters because they fly a lower orbit than others, from pole to pole. Mary Kicza, from NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service, explained how the data these satellites collect can help us find out more about our planet:

NOAA-17 helped our forecasters see the early development of severe weather from tornadoes and snow storms to hurricanes, including the busiest hurricane season on record — 2005. It also tracked subtle changes in the environment that signaled the onset of drought and wildfire conditions. NOAA-17’s long life is a credit to the engineers who built and operated it and the technology that sustained it. Although we say farewell to NOAA-17, we still operate a dependable fleet of satellites that continue to provide crucial data.

Number 17 was being used as backup for other soon-to-retire satellites (15, 16, 18, and 19). A newer satellite called Suomi NPP was launched in 2011 as the first step in the next generation of polar orbiters: the Joint Polar Satellite System. So the system will continue to operate after Number 17′s retirement party — for now. The next orbiter was planned to launch in 2015, but that will be pushed back to 2017, risking a gap in weather and climate monitoring. This critical satellite program has been orbiting by the seat of its pants for years.

A 2012 report found that the U.S. satellite program was at “risk of collapse” due to a lack of launch capability, budget shortfalls, and aging orbiters. In 2011, the GOP proposed cutting NASA’s budget by $1.2 billion, which would have harmed the satellite program had the cuts taken place. In 2012, they did it again. Sequestration poses additional, longer-term cuts that will diminish the reliability of weather reporting. President Obama’s budget would have NASA take over responsibility of future joint polar orbiters, which would allow NOAA to move up launch dates.

Europe has a polar satellite system, and a partnership with them may provide a solution. The current understanding is that NOAA will be flying one orbital shift (morning) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) will be flying another (afternoon). The partnership is an attempt to share costs and data.

Another satellite, the Deep Space Climate Observatory, received funding in President Obama’s budget proposal. It has been sitting in storage for more than a decade, after being cancelled after President Bush took office. NASA refurbished its instruments in 2009, but the project has not received enough funding to launch. If given the funding to launch, this satellite would orbit 1 million miles out between the Earth and the Sun, taking a continuous picture of Earth and providing essential climate data. It would also provide an early heads-up of incoming solar storms.

At a time when extreme weather disasters are increasing in frequency and scope, we need a fully-functioning satellite monitoring program. To do otherwise means putting on a blindfold.

Economy

The Russian Meteor Exposes The Dangers Of Cutting Space Funding

Asteroid DA14

Asteroid DA14

It seems a little late to talk about the potential dangers from above as an asteroid 150 feet across flies by closer than the moon and more than 400 people have been injured by a meteor in Russia. But if there is one thing that today’s headlines highlight, it’s that we do not have the capacity to protect ourselves from space.

As hyperbolic as that may sound, it’s true: Asteroid 2012 DA14, the hunk of rock hurtling 17,000 miles above us today, wasn’t discovered until last year — too late to do anything about it, had it been on a collision course. According to comments from Ed Lu, a former astronaut and head of a nonprofit dedicated to protecting humanity from asteroids, “[w]e only know the locations and trajectories of about 1 percent of asteroids this size or larger [...] So for every one of these, there’s 99 out there we don’t know about.”

Had 2012 DA14 hit the Earth, the impacts would have been comparable to the 1908 Tungusta Event that devastated 2.150 square km with an estimated 10 and 20 megaton explosion. But while, the Tungusta Event hit an isolated pocket of Eastern Russia, because of our lack of interstellar observational capacity we don’t yet know where the next major impact will hit — or if it will be a few hundred feet across like in Tungusta, or up to 20 kilometers like the asteroid that new evidence shows struck Australia between 298 and 360 million years ago.

Despite the evidence that space represents some very real risks to humanity, President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal decreased NASA’s overall budget by $59 million, to $17.7 billion with another marginal decrease in the 2013 proposed budget. While that may seem minor, the NASA budget has decreased from above 5 percent of GDP at the height of the space race to around half a percentage point today, as shown by this chart via azizonomics:

The very existence of Lu’s nonprofit and NASA’s budget cuts are evidence that the U.S. isn’t taking this truly global security issue seriously.

It’s a rough time for science right now:The U.S. is facing serious negative impacts on long-term economic competitiveness due to research and development cuts and politicians deemed “saviors” choose to ignore the evidence of climate change. But maybe today’s headlines will be enough to spur the nation’s leaders to have a serious dialogue about investing in space research.

Security

Why Iran’s ‘Space Monkey’ Launch Claim Actually Matters

Earlier today, news broke that Iran claims to have successfully launched a monkey into space and retrieved it. While the event has been greeted with some mockery, the launch, if it indeed took place, may have been conducted against international law.

Iran’s simian traveler was reportedly launched in an “indigenous bio-capsule” to a height of over 75 miles before being recovered on its landing, according to the Fars state news agency. The launch is being billed by Iran as the prelude to sending humans into space, which they aim to achieve in the next five to eight years. Experts, however, remain skeptical that Iran currently possesses the technology required to send a living thing into space, let alone orbit.

The news of the supposed launch was not well received in Western capitals, however. When asked about “extraterrestrial primates” at today’s State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland made clear that she could neither confirm nor deny that such a launch had taken place. If it had, though, Iran would be in violation of previous United Nations resolutions:

NULAND: Our concern with Iran’s development of space launch vehicle technologies are obviously well known. Any space launch vehicle capable of placing an object in orbit is directly relevant to the development of long-range ballistic missiles, as well as [satellite launch vehicle] technologies, and they’re all virtually identical and interchangeable. Just to remind, U.N. Security Council 1929 prohibits Iran from undertaking “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.”

The resolution in question, passed in 2010 by the U.N. Security Council, contained the most comprehensive international sanctions package on the Islamic Republic to date over its continuing uranium enrichment. Among the clauses in the text of the resolution the full ban on development and testing of ballistic technology cited by Nuland.

Today’s response by the United States to the possible space launch echoes that of then-State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in 2008. “The kinds of technologies and capabilities that are needed in order to launch a space vehicle for orbit are the same kinds of capabilities and technologies that one would employ for a long-range ballistic missile,” McCormack said at the time. Adding to concern about Iran’s claim is the announcement on Iran’s PressTV today that new short, intermediate, and long-range missiles will be revealed early next month.

If confirmed, Iran’s launch today could result in further action by the Security Council, much as was recently taken against North Korea. The Council last week approved a resolution tightening existing sanctions on North Korea following a “satellite launch” in Dec. 2012 that Council members said was actually a test of ballistic missile technology. “This resolution demonstrates to North Korea that there are unanimous and significant consequences for its flagrant violation of its obligations under previous resolutions,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said after the resolution’s passage. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. was unable to immediately respond to inquiries about whether similar measures are being considered against Iran.

Climate Progress

Stunning Video: View From International Space Station Reminds Us What We Can Achieve And What We Must Protect

View from the ISS at Night from Knate Myers on Vimeo.

by Dominique Browning, Senior Director of Moms Clean Air Force

I just stumbled on this gift of a link from a friend, having just gotten home from seeing the latest Batman movie, which I loved though it nearly made me crazy with anxiety. (I am a Batman freak from childhood, he was always my favorite superhero.)

I was in a mood of wonder, at how apocalyptic the world can get, and yet how people always have hope. What with drought, floods, blow outs of electric grids, searing heat waves, the fate of the world has been weighing on my mind–as it has on anyone who thinks about global warming.

Then I opened this video of scenes (above) from the International Space Station. It moved me to tears. The stunning beauty of this planet of ours. How vulnerable we are, how tiny in that infinitely spangled sky– and how large this world is, at the same time; our only home, containing everything we know and love. And how ingenious, how brilliant, how unnervingly ambitious, that humankind was able to send up a space ship that looks like a brittle, gangly dragonfly, unfolding its wings, rolling around its eyes–so that we can see, through it, how we look, from way out there. I don’t know which is the most miraculous creation–the planet, the human, the space ship … all of it.

The gorgeous majesty of this movie should remind us all of what we are capable of achieving: the impossible. We can do this. We can take care of our world, and of each other. And we must. So that our children can one day gaze at the stars and wonder at the miracle of life here.

Alyssa

As ‘John Carter’ Comes Out, Considering the Movie Obsession With Mars

I know Kyle Buchanan is being sort of snarky in this post about why Mars movies have such a dismal track record at the box office, but I think there’s a tie between this sort of sentiment and our conversation from earlier in the week about the need for thoughtful science fiction. He writes:

Why are audiences so turned off by our planetary neighbor? They don’t seem to have the same hang-ups about the moon, which has factored into big hits like Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Apollo 13 (as well as critically acclaimed movies like Moon), but that rock is movie-ready: Stories set there simply have to be told in romantic black-and-white. Meanwhile, setting your movie on red, red Mars is like staring into a Virtual Boy for two hours, and who wants that? (Evidently not John Carter director Andrew Stanton, whose Mars is more tan than red.) It helps, too, that the moon is such an ever-present presence in our lives, as well as a place that Americans have actually been. If NASA can’t motivate an administration to send a man to Mars, why should the average moviegoer get worked up about it?

Why should the average moviegoer get worked up over Mars movies if there’s absolutely no rationale for a movie to be set there? I have a fuller review of Disney’s sci-fi blockbuster John Carter coming tomorrow, but there is zero reason the events of that movie need to take place on Mars, which I assume is only the setting because Edgar Rice Burroughs, who wrote the books on which the movie is based thought it was cool. Ditto on pretty much every other movie with a tie to Mars—it’s a little further away from the Moon, and we haven’t had human contact with it, so it’s easy to project ideas of wacky things onto it. But that doesn’t mean those wacky aliens or evil forces derive anything interesting or significant from the fact that they come from or are based on Mars.

By contrast, Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy works because there are very specific reasons for the characters to be going to Mars—an international consortium has decided it can viably made habitable (as a way to make it potentially mineable and a population escape hatch for Earth)—and a great deal of the novel’s plot is drawn from Mars-specific forces. The amount of radiation the characters are getting both drives them close together in protected habitats and encourages the experimentation that leads to a treatment to reverse aging. The religion that develops on Mars, the areophany, is specific to the planet. The political and philosophical debates are directly tied to how people feel about Mars’ geography and geological history. It’s really a shame that we can get an infinite number of failed and hugely spectacles set on Mars, but we can’t make a series or a television show out of a fully-realized, very smart Martian adventure that (other than some special effects work to show the Martian gravity) could be made pretty darn cheap.

Politics

Moon Bases And Beyond: Newt Gingrich’s Top 5 Sci-Fi Policy Proposals

Gingrich tests virtual reality goggles in 1996

It’s not often that moon bases play a key role in presidential politics, but when Mitt Romney sought to draw a contrast with front-runner Newt Gingrich during Saturday’s ABC debate, he explained: “We could start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon.” The comment drew laughter from the audience, but Gingrich is serious. “I’m proud” of the idea, Gingrich said. “I grew up in a generation where the space program was real, where it was important.”

Indeed, Gingrich has had a long fascination with ideas that most Americans would probably consider science fiction. Gingrich’s top five science fiction ideas, beyond moon bases:

1. EMP attack: As the New York Times notes today, Gingrich has a unusual phobia for outlandish doomsday scenarios like an electromagnetic pulse attack, even though most nuclear experts dismiss the threat. He even wrote the foreword to a 2009 sci-fi thriller based on an EMP attack.

2. Space mirrors: Gingrich has proposed a “a mirror system in space [that] could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”

3. Space lasers: Gingrich has flirted with several variations of orbiting death rays. For example, in 2002 he called for “directed energy weapons and laser pulsing systems that could actually [shoot down missiles] from space.” “If you go to a space-based system, we can almost certainly build a workable system,” he said in 2009.

4. Geo-engineering: Gingrich has suggested that instead of actually stopping global warming from happening (this was when he believed in global warming), we should use geoengineering to ameliorate its impact. “Geo-engineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” Gingrich said in 2008. Geo-engineering is the process of artificially altering the climate in fundamental ways and is considered so dangerous that it faced a ban from the U.N.

5. A better life through video games: Gingrich made a political speech to Second Life in 2007 in which he said that the “3-D Internet in all of its various forms” will help create a better “parallel country.” “It’s a parallel that enables us to do things that would be much more difficult to do in the real world.. [It's a] world that works.” Second Life has basically failed.

Gingrich’s “futuristic proselytizing” even earned him the nickname “Newt Skywalker” among the local press in his home state of Georgia in the 1980s and ’90s, Politico notes today.

But Gingrich’s fascination with science fiction goes far deeper than gadgets and to his core motivations as a politician. Ray Smock was the historian of the U. S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1995 until Gingrich fired him as one of Gingrich’s first acts as Speaker. As Smock wrote last week for the History News Network, Gingrich’s “hero and role model” was the protagonist of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, who invents a new field of history — Gingrich is himself a historian — and fundamentally changes the course of history for thousands of planets in the process. A tagline of the series is, “In a future century the Galactic Empire dies and one man creates a new force for civilized life.” As Smock writes, “Newt liked the idea of one man shaping the destiny of entire civilizations.”

Indeed, Gingrich has spoken often about his galatic inspiration. For example, as he wrote in his 1996 memoir, To Renew America:

Isaac Asimov was shaping my view of the future in equally profound ways. …For a high school student who loved history, Asimov’s most exhilarating invention was the ‘psychohistorian’ Hari Seldon. The term does not refer to Freudian analysis but to a kind of probabilistic forecasting of the future of whole civilizations. The premise was that, while you cannot predict individual behavior, you can develop a pretty accurate sense of mass behavior.

Gingrich’s sense of grandiosity is by now famous, but his reverence for Seldon underscores the planet-sized ambitions Gingrich held, as helps elucidate his fascination with grand, futuristic projects. In a doodle of Gingrich’s recently published in Slate, the then-Speaker wrote that his two primary missions were to be an “Advocate of civilization” and “definer of civilization.” Another doodle “shows Gingrich (the “system designer”) at the hub of concentric circles featuring his staff, key supporters, the media, constituents, and the public.”

Alyssa

Invasion Of The Humanity-Snatchers

Mike Wall argues in Scientific American that alien movies might be back because we’re at a moment when scientific discoveries make the prospect of extraterrestrial life more plausible:

Just 20 years ago, scientists had yet to find a single planet beyond our own solar system. Now the count of confirmed extrasolar planets tops 550, with many more about to be added to the list. In February, for example, scientists announced that NASA’s Kepler space telescope had detected 1,235 candidate alien worlds in its first four months of operation. Of those, 54 likely orbit in their host stars’ habitable zone — the range of distances that could support liquid water. These candidate planets need to be confirmed by follow-up observations, but NASA researchers have estimated that at least 80 percent will end up being the real deal. And last year, astronomers reported strong evidence that the Saturn moon Enceladus likely harbors a huge and salty ocean beneath its icy crust. Subsurface oceans are also suspected to occur on other moons, such as Saturn’s Titan and Europa, a satellite of Jupiter. In short, the prospect that life exists beyond Earth — and perhaps even beyond our solar system — is becoming more and more likely. This is big news that affects the way many people view our species and its place in the universe.

All of that is true, though I’m not sure how much it penetrates the public consciousness. Our public space program is a policy afterthought, our anxieties about the math and science performance of American students in comparison to their foreign counterparts are more about winning the future on this planet than about building it on another one. If terrorism is our great foreign policy fear, that lends itself less to grand invasion metaphors and more to stealthy, unnerving small invasions and quick strikes. I wonder instead if some of the rise in alien movies comes from a sense of unease about what it means to be human.

One of the few interesting things about Cowboys and Aliens was the prospect, before it became clear how Daniel Craig acquired his nifty, alien-killing bracelet, that in captivity he’d become something other than entirely human, that he was standing between two species and two worlds but part of neither. Whether it’s Jason Silva calling for humanity to embrace the grandness of its ambitions and its potential; SyFy shows like Eureka and Alphas that suggest that rather than dividing us into binary categories of men and superman we’re all somewhere on a continuum; or the increasing integration of technology into our lives, affecting the way we live and think, increasingly, the aliens are us.

Update

I should note that of course Zack is right that alien invasion movies are mostly about giving us an enemy who isn’t the Russians or the Chinese to fight, and that makes us feel like we’re not the big bad invaders that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, if alien movies are about scientific anxiety, which I think is part of the equation, I think the anxiety’s more about the meaning of humanness than it is about the idea that we’re about to make first contact.

NEWS FLASH

Perry’s Moon Shot: Accusing Obama Of Leaving Astronauts To ‘Hitchhike Into Space’ | Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) looks increasingly likely to launch a presidential campaign as he takes every opportunity to criticize President Obama. In a sharply worded statement, Perry accused Obama of “leaving American astronauts with no alternative but to hitchhike into space.” Texas is home to the Johnson Space Center, and Perry says he’s outraged that the U.S. is halting its leadership in space exploration. Perry charges that the administration “continues to lead federal agencies and programs astray, this time forcing NASA away from its original purpose of space exploration, and ignoring its groundbreaking past and enormous future potential.”

Alyssa

‘Questionable Content’ Cartoonist Jeph Jacques On Post-College Career Paths, the Space Program, and What He’s Learned From Readers

Questionable Content, Jeph Jacques’ tale of post-college discontent, Massachusetts coffee shops, and tiny eccentric robots is one of the most famous and emotionally realized comics published online. Over the years, Jacques’ characters have run small businesses, entered treatment for depression, bonded over Toto songs, and grappled with what to do when weapons-grade lasers get installed in your personal computer. Jacques was kind enough to take some time to answer my questions about the stalled professional life of his main character, Marten Reed, what the world would look like if the U.S. hadn’t given up on space exploration, and what he’s learned about drawing lesbian characters from his readers.

With the exception of Dora, who is a small business owner, and Raven, who’s back to school, finding career paths seem like fairly low priorities for your characters. Is that an intentional decision to leave a clear path to focus on their emotional lives? A function of time moving more slowly in the strip than it is in the real world? Is it a function of living in a college town without a lot of non-academic industries or a terrible economy? And whatever happened to Hannelore’s counting business?

A lot of it is based on who I was in my twenties, and the Northampton folks I know who are that age now. When you’re living in a college town and all you’ve got is a liberal arts degree, you’re pretty much gonna take whatever job you can get that pays the bills and isn’t too demanding. I think the philosophy is that working a job that is relatively low-responsibility and low-committment gives you more time and energy to focus on the stuff you REALLY care about. That’s certainly how I felt about it when I was 23!

But I also think that is a bit of an illusion and a trap that you can get caught in. Even if it’s a low commitment job, you’re still giving it hours and days and months and years of your time — suddenly you’re 25, or 29, and you haven’t really “done anything” with your life, and you’re not entirely sure how that happened. And that’s something I’m planning on exploring more in the relatively near future, with Marten in particular.

I imagine that Hanners still does the counting business on the side. With her family connections, she probably doesn’t actually NEED to work to support herself, but it’s important to be at least somewhat free of that kind of a family dependency. Working at CoD is more of an enrichment exercise for her than a means to make money.
Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up