The purpose of this blog is the creation of an open, international, independent and free forum, where every UFO-researcher can publish the results of his/her research. The languagues, used for this blog, are Dutch, English and French.You can find the articles of a collegue by selecting his category. Each author stays resposable for the continue of his articles. As blogmaster I have the right to refuse an addition or an article, when it attacks other collegues or UFO-groupes.
Druk op onderstaande knop om te reageren in mijn forum
Zoeken in blog
Deze blog is opgedragen aan mijn overleden echtgenote Lucienne.
In 2012 verloor ze haar moedige strijd tegen kanker!
In 2011 startte ik deze blog, omdat ik niet mocht stoppen met mijn UFO-onderzoek.
BEDANKT!!!
Een interessant adres?
UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN - DE ALLERLAATSTE NIEUWTJES
UFO's of UAP'S in België en de rest van de wereld In België had je vooral BUFON of het Belgisch UFO-Netwerk, dat zich met UFO's bezighoudt. BEZOEK DUS ZEKER VOOR ALLE OBJECTIEVE INFORMATIE , enkel nog beschikbaar via Facebook en deze blog.
Verder heb je ook het Belgisch-Ufo-meldpunt en Caelestia, die prachtig, doch ZEER kritisch werk leveren, ja soms zelfs héél sceptisch...
Voor Nederland kan je de mooie site www.ufowijzer.nl bezoeken van Paul Harmans. Een mooie site met veel informatie en artikels.
MUFON of het Mutual UFO Network Inc is een Amerikaanse UFO-vereniging met afdelingen in alle USA-staten en diverse landen.
MUFON's mission is the analytical and scientific investigation of the UFO- Phenomenon for the benefit of humanity...
Je kan ook hun site bekijken onder www.mufon.com.
Ze geven een maandelijks tijdschrift uit, namelijk The MUFON UFO-Journal.
Since 02/01/2020 is Pieter ex-president (=voorzitter) of BUFON, but also ex-National Director MUFON / Flanders and the Netherlands. We work together with the French MUFON Reseau MUFON/EUROP.
ER IS EEN NIEUWE GROEPERING DIE ZICH BUFON NOEMT, MAAR DIE HEBBEN NIETS MET ONZE GROEP TE MAKEN. DEZE COLLEGA'S GEBRUIKEN DE NAAM BUFON VOOR HUN SITE... Ik wens hen veel succes met de verdere uitbouw van hun groep. Zij kunnen de naam BUFON wel geregistreerd hebben, maar het rijke verleden van BUFON kunnen ze niet wegnemen...
12-02-2020
Beautiful outcome of a fight between sibling stars
Beautiful outcome of a fight between sibling stars
In a cosmic ‘stellar fight,’ a red giant star engulfed its smaller binary companion star. The chaos, however, created a beautiful space image.
View larger. | This new image from the ALMA telescope in Chile shows the aftermath of a near-collision between stars in the binary star system HD101584. In this system, a red giant star is engulfing its smaller companion. The colors indicate velocities of gas moving toward or away from us. Blue indicates gas moving toward us. Red indicates gas moving away.
Image via ALMA/ ESO/ NAOJ/ NRAO)/ Olofsson et al./ Robert Cumming.
Stars like our sun die by expanding into huge, bloated red giants. Over time, some lose their outer layers gradually, leaving behind only a hot core called a white dwarf. Our sun is expected to end its life in this way. In the case of the binary star systemHD101584, however, the death process was interrupted prematurely, and the result was the beautiful image shown at top. The European Southern Observatory (ESO) released this new image from the ALMA telescope in Chile on February 5, 2020. It shows what can happen when one star swallows another.
Hans Olofsson of the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, who led a recent study of this object, commented in a statement:
The star system HD101584 is special in the sense that this ‘death process’ was terminated prematurely and dramatically as a nearby low-mass companion star was engulfed by the giant.
Here’s what’s happening in this image. The more massive star in the HD101584 system would have expanded into a red giant faster than its less massive companion. It eventually grew large enough to swallow up its smaller companion star.
As the smaller star became engulfed, it began to spiral in towards the core of the red giant, but never actually collided with it. Instead, the larger star experienced a massive outburst, shedding its outer gas layers.
Jets of gas formed during this process, blasting though material previously ejected from the star, which formed the rings of gas.
The double star system HD101584 is located in our sky in the direction of the constellation of Centaurus. HD101584 itself is highlighted with a red circle on this chart.
The nebula-like gas cloud in the new ALMA image is beautiful, and it can also provide scientists with valuable clues about how sunlike stars form and evolve. As co-author Sofia Ramstedt from Uppsala University in Sweden explained:
Currently, we can describe the death processes common to many sunlike stars, but we cannot explain why or exactly how they happen. HD101584 gives us important clues to solve this puzzle since it is currently in a short transitional phase between better studied evolutionary stages. With detailed images of the environment of HD101584 we can make the connection between the giant star it was before, and the stellar remnant it will soon become.
Hans Olofsson of the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden led the study of HD101584.
ESO said that it’s ALMA’s ability to see distant objects sharply – combined with data from the ESO-operated Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment (APEX) – that made this image possible. Elizabeth Humphries, another co-author from ESO in Chile, explained that the combination of ALMA and APEX was essential to being able to study “both the physics and chemistry in action” of the gas cloud.
Right now, the two stars in this gas cloud can’t be resolved separately as they are too close together and too distant. Only the colorful tendrils of gas now surrounding them can be easily seen. But, ESO said, its upcoming Extremely Large Telescope, now under construction, will be able to see them more clearly for the first time. As Olofsson said, it:
Will provide information on the ‘heart’ of the object.
The video below – also released February 5, 2020 – is also very cool. It starts by showing a wide-field view of a region of the sky in the constellation of Centaurus, then zooms in to show HD 101584, and the beautiful gas cloud surrounding the binary star.
Bottom line: A “stellar fight” – where a red giant star engulfed a smaller companion star – resulted in a beautiful and colorful gas cloud. Stars go through a process of birth, life, death – and even conflict – much as living things do. In this case, the cause of this cosmic display was chaotic and violent, but its result was beautiful.
In a cosmic ‘stellar fight,’ a red giant star engulfed its smaller binary companion star. The chaos, however, created a beautiful space image.
View larger. | This new image from the ALMA telescope in Chile shows the aftermath of a near-collision between stars in the binary star system HD101584. In this system, a red giant star is engulfing its smaller companion. The colors indicate velocities of gas moving toward or away from us. Blue indicates gas moving toward us. Red indicates gas moving away.
Image via ALMA/ ESO/ NAOJ/ NRAO)/ Olofsson et al./ Robert Cumming.
Stars like our sun die by expanding into huge, bloated red giants. Over time, some lose their outer layers gradually, leaving behind only a hot core called a white dwarf. Our sun is expected to end its life in this way. In the case of the binary star systemHD101584, however, the death process was interrupted prematurely, and the result was the beautiful image shown at top. The European Southern Observatory (ESO) released this new image from the ALMA telescope in Chile on February 5, 2020. It shows what can happen when one star swallows another.
Hans Olofsson of the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, who led a recent study of this object, commented in a statement:
The star system HD101584 is special in the sense that this ‘death process’ was terminated prematurely and dramatically as a nearby low-mass companion star was engulfed by the giant.
Here’s what’s happening in this image. The more massive star in the HD101584 system would have expanded into a red giant faster than its less massive companion. It eventually grew large enough to swallow up its smaller companion star.
As the smaller star became engulfed, it began to spiral in towards the core of the red giant, but never actually collided with it. Instead, the larger star experienced a massive outburst, shedding its outer gas layers.
Jets of gas formed during this process, blasting though material previously ejected from the star, which formed the rings of gas.
The double star system HD101584 is located in our sky in the direction of the constellation of Centaurus. HD101584 itself is highlighted with a red circle on this chart.
The nebula-like gas cloud in the new ALMA image is beautiful, and it can also provide scientists with valuable clues about how sunlike stars form and evolve. As co-author Sofia Ramstedt from Uppsala University in Sweden explained:
Currently, we can describe the death processes common to many sunlike stars, but we cannot explain why or exactly how they happen. HD101584 gives us important clues to solve this puzzle since it is currently in a short transitional phase between better studied evolutionary stages. With detailed images of the environment of HD101584 we can make the connection between the giant star it was before, and the stellar remnant it will soon become.
Hans Olofsson of the Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden led the study of HD101584.
ESO said that it’s ALMA’s ability to see distant objects sharply – combined with data from the ESO-operated Atacama Pathfinder EXperiment (APEX) – that made this image possible. Elizabeth Humphries, another co-author from ESO in Chile, explained that the combination of ALMA and APEX was essential to being able to study “both the physics and chemistry in action” of the gas cloud.
Right now, the two stars in this gas cloud can’t be resolved separately as they are too close together and too distant. Only the colorful tendrils of gas now surrounding them can be easily seen. But, ESO said, its upcoming Extremely Large Telescope, now under construction, will be able to see them more clearly for the first time. As Olofsson said, it:
Will provide information on the ‘heart’ of the object.
The video below – also released February 5, 2020 – is also very cool. It starts by showing a wide-field view of a region of the sky in the constellation of Centaurus, then zooms in to show HD 101584, and the beautiful gas cloud surrounding the binary star.
Bottom line: A “stellar fight” – where a red giant star engulfed a smaller companion star – resulted in a beautiful and colorful gas cloud. Stars go through a process of birth, life, death – and even conflict – much as living things do. In this case, the cause of this cosmic display was chaotic and violent, but its result was beautiful.
After decades of poking around in the math behind the glue holding the innards of all matter together, physicists have found a strange hypothetical particle, one that has never appeared in any experiment. Called a sexaquark, the oddball is made up of a funky arrangement of six quarks of various flavors.
Besides being a cool-sounding character, the sexaquark could eventually explain the ever-maddening mystery of dark matter. And physicists have found that if the sexaquark has a particular mass, the particle could live forever.
Almost everything you know and love is made of tiny particles known as quarks. There are six of them, given the names, for various nerdy reasons, of up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm. The up and down varieties are the lightest of the bunch, which makes them by far the most common. (In particle physics, the heavier you are, the more likely you are to decay into smaller, stabler things.)
The protons and neutrons inside your body are all composed of trios of quarks; two ups and a down make a proton, and two downs and an up make a neutron. Indeed, due to the complicated nature of the strong force, quarks really enjoy hanging out in groups of three, and that is also by far the stablest and most common configuration.
Occasionally in our particle colliders, we create particles each consisting of a pair of quarks; these conglomerations are unstable and quickly decay into something else. Sometimes, when we try really hard, we can glue five quarks together and make them play nicely with each other — briefly — before they, too, decay into something else.
And to date, those are all the combinations of quarks that we've been able to manufacture.
After decades of poking around the mathematical corners of the strong nuclear force, physicists found a strange combination that has yet to appear in our experiments: an arrangement of six quarks, consisting of two ups, two downs and two stranges: the sexaquark.
Theories don't predict a mass for the sexaquark; this value would depend on the precise arrangement and interaction of the individual quarks inside that particle, so it's up to the experimental physicists to suss it out. And as for the sexaquark's stability? Calculations suggest that if its mass falls below a certain threshold, it would be absolutely stable forever, meaning it wouldn't ever decay. And if the mass is a little bigger than that, but still below a certain threshold, then the particle would decay, but over such long timescales that it might as well be stable forever.
So if it's stable, why haven't we ever seen it?
Curiously, the range of stable masses for the sexaquark falls below the threshold of what many particle collider experiments can create; these tools were designed to study much rarer, much heavier, much more fleeting particles. In other words, the sexaquark may be hiding in plain sight, having simply flown under the radar all these years.
But particle colliders aren't the only place to make sexaquarks. The earliest moments of the Big Bang were a frenetic hotbed of nuclear energies, with temperatures and pressures high enough to forge helium and hydrogen out of a raw soup of quarks. And that forge may have also flooded our cosmos with sexaquarks, along with all the more-familiar subatomic characters.
Preliminary calculations suggest that if the sexaquark is a real thing within the right range of masses, it could have been produced in ridiculous abundance in the early universe. And it could have survived that youthful inferno. In fact, sexaquarks may still exist, not really interacting with anything, not really decaying into anything else — just existing, creating extra gravitational pulls wherever they collect, due to their mass.
An invisible particle that's flooding the universe and that interacts only through gravity? Bingo. That's dark matter.
A light in the dark
In order for the sexaquark to make up dark matter, it has to actually exist. That is currently a subject of debate, because the object has never been spotted in a particle collider experiment. But like we saw earlier, the sexaquark's relatively light mass may mean it's been able to slip by unnoticed, simply because we haven't been looking for it.
But that's beginning to change. The BaBar Detector at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California is really good at producing lots of combinations of quarks, including some really heavy ones that decay into stabler and more reasonable arrangements. BaBar should also produce a bumper crop of sexaquarks, if they exist.
A paper published Jan. 2 to the arXiv database has reported the latest result: no sign of the sexaquark. But that finding is certain to a confidence level of only 90%. That means that if the more massive and less stable combinations of quarks do decay into stable sexaquarks, they do so very rarely, at a rate of only 1 decay in every 10 million.
Does this rule out the sexquark as a dark matter candidate? Not quite. It could be that the conditions of the early universe allowed enough sexaquarks to be made that they could account for the amount of dark matter that we estimate is in the universe. But the new result does make it challenging to use the sexaquark to explain dark matter.
Nice try, sexaquark, but no cigar — at least, not yet.
Will Humanity Achieve Interstellar Travel And Find Alien Life? - PART II
Will Humanity Achieve Interstellar Travel And Find Alien Life? - PART II
Live blog begins at 3:50 PM Pacific Time, with all timestamps below shown beginning from that starting point.
A representation of an alien invasion. This is not an actual extraterrestrial.
FLICKR USER PLAITS
4:00 PM: Aliens, on the other hand, are likely ubiquitous, based on what we know about the ingredients for life in the Universe, the workings of chemistry, and our measurements of exoplanets with the right conditions for life around other stars. We have literally billions and billions of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy alone, with similar conditions to early Earth. In many models, early Venus and Mars were similar to early Earth.
Are we supposed to believe that Earth, where life arose within the first ~3% of our planet's history, is somehow unique in that regard? Although winding up with something like human beings is a difficult proposition, winding up with no life at all, across billions and billions of other instances with similar initial conditions, seems far more unlikely, at least from a scientific perspective.
4:01 PM: Hooray for another on-time start, as Greg Dick, the executive director of Perimeter Institute, gets us started right on time with his introduction!
4:02 PM: Oh, before I forget, Bryan is Australian, so get ready for an accent, although his won't be the strongest Australian accent you hear by a long shot!
4:03 PM: And that's a pretty quick introduction! Here we go; curious what the scientific perspective holds, according to an astronomer/astrophysicist who isn't me!
4:05 PM: Spoilers: we don't have warp drive yet, and we haven't found the aliens yet. Love to hear this up-front, but I also love the optimism that he has that science can make pretty much all of our non-laws-of-physics-violating dreams come true. I think, at its best, this is the dream we all have for science.
4:07 PM: Bryan absolutely talks about an important aspect of being exposed to not just answers of what we do know, but what the frontiers of science are, what's unknown, at a young age. As a five year old, to discover that adults, parents, teachers, and even experts (libraries and encyclopedias) didn't know the answer to everything.
And that there are people who figure out the answers to those questions, and they're just ordinary people, and that he could be one of them.
Please note that this applies to everyone! You can do it, too, and you don't have to figure that out at age 5 to do it.
From inflation to the hot Big Bang, to the birth and death of stars, galaxies, and black holes, all... [+]
E. SIEGEL, WITH IMAGES DERIVED FROM ESA/PLANCK AND THE DOE/NASA/ NSF INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON CMB RESEARCH
4:10 PM: And this is a lot of fun, too: the fact that questions we didn't even know we needed to ask can be revealed by finding the answers to previous scientific questions. In the 1920s, we didn't know the Universe was expanding, but its discovery led to the idea of the Big Bang. In the 1960s, we didn't know that the Big Bang was true, but its confirmation led to questions about what came before it and what our Universe's ultimate fate would be.
And now, as you can see, we're talking about the mysteries of cosmic inflation and dark energy, which are where those frontiers now lie. And in any field, this is how it works: discovering an answer only reveals a deeper frontier that we haven't yet explored.
4:11 PM: I like Bryan's delineation between the difference between science and science fiction. Science is all about discovering and following the rules; science-fiction is about breaking those rules. I haven't explicitly thought about it in those terms, and I agree that this is pretty much how it usually works. I don't know that this is why I, personally, like or don't like various forms of science-fiction, but it's a new perspective to think about for me.
4:13 PM: We constantly have advancing technology, and science-fiction asks the question of how advancing technology will change our lives. He brings up the example of Westworld, which I like, but I really think he missed a golden opportunity to reference Black Mirror, which really highlights and elevates the dystopian aspects of our society in a new way in each episode.
An animation showing the path of the interstellar interloper now known as ʻOumuamua. The combination... [+]
NASA / JPL - CALTECH
4:15 PM: Alright, some science! Here we are, moving on to interstellar interloper 'Oumuamua, one of the things we've seen that wasn't particularly anticipated, even by science fiction. And yet, Bryan is correct to point out that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, had a cigar-shaped alien asteroid in our own solar system.
It's not, of course, telling us to save the whales, and it's not a space probe, but it's remarkable that science fiction had this idea before astronomers or any scientists knew it was coming.
The Event Horizon Telescope's first released image achieved resolutions of 22.5 microarcseconds,... [+]
EVENT HORIZON TELESCOPE COLLABORATION
4:18 PM: This one is a little bit less fair. When you're talking about older movies that talk about black holes, it's really unfair to talk about how "we knew what black holes would look like" in science-fiction, because black holes have been astrophysically theorized for decades, going back to the 60s, 50s, or even 1916 in the context of General Relativity, and even earlier (the late 18th century) in Newtonian gravity.
Sure, it's fascinating, but visualizations, based on a mix of science and artistic license, have been around for as long as we've even known enough about science to imagine what could realistically be. Also, side note, the "interstellar" black hole is probably not very likely to be what we see when we examine our realistic black holes in supreme accuracy; there's a lot of artistic license and some likely unphysical assumptions that were made for Insterstellar.
Artist’s illustration of two merging neutron stars. Binary neutron star systems inspiral and merge... [+]
NSF / LIGO / SONOMA STATE UNIVERSITY / A. SIMONNET
4:22 PM: I also don't quite think it's fair to say "well, we simulated and visualized this astrophysical event," and then "we observed it," and "that's an example of science outstripping science fiction.
Yes, it's true that the entire Universe shook... but not every scientific event, including one that involves planet Earth "shaking" by less than an atom's width, makes for particularly good science fiction. He said earlier, remember, that science fiction was about investigating the human condition. It's hard to see how a tiny, subtle effect like that would make for a good sci-fi story.
The hyperdrive from Star Wars appears to depict an ultra-relativistic motion through space,... [+]
JEDIMENTAT44 / FLICKR
4:25 PM: Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine. Do you know why things like rockets and space shuttles have the shapes they do? That elongated, narrow-cone shape you're familiar with? It's because of atmospheric drag.
If you're going to build your ship in space, and fly it only in space, you don't need to factor in aerodynamic considerations at all! You'd be much, much smarter to build a structure with a good volume-to-surface-area ratio: a sphere. The Death Star, not the Millennium Falcon or an X-Wing, is going to be much more practical for structures we build in space!
The NEXIS Ion Thruster, at Jet Propulsion Laboratories, is a prototype for a long-term thruster that... [+]
NASA / JPL
4:28 PM: Ion drives are real, and they're very cool. But if you want to power a journey across large distances in a reasonable amount of time, ion drives won't get you far at all. They can take you ~6 billion kilometers over 11 years, as Bryan said, and can do so pretty efficiently. But if you factor that distance over that time as a "mean acceleration," you get something truly atrocious: 100 nanometers/second^2.
You're... not going to go very far very fast. ~100,000 years to the nearest star, same as conventional fuel. I'll pass, thank you.
Normally, structures like IKAROS, shown here, are viewed as potential sails in space. However, if a... [+]
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS USER ANDRZEJ MIRECKI
4:30 PM: Hey, solar sails! Yes, if you accelerate with a solar sail, you can decelerate with a solar sail! The "fuel" is simply radiation provided by a star, so as long as you visit a star comparable to the Sun, you could decelerate the same way you accelerated.
Unfortunately, this technology is inferior to ion drives not only in terms of distance reached, but in terms of acceleration and control over your spacecraft. It's a nice idea, but it's an idea that's in its infancy, at best, despite being proposed more than 400 years ago by Johannes Kepler!
4:32 PM: 75 years?! That's... that's going to assume a very light payload and a very, very large and efficient over a distance of 1.8 kilometers. Can we do that for ~4 light years, or 20 trillion kilometers. That's... well, good luck is all I'll say.
The EmDrive device, as originally displayed by Roger Shawyer's company, SPR Limited.
Quantum teleportation, an effect (erroneously) touted as faster-than-light travel. In reality, no... [+]
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
4:36 PM: Remember, what "quantum teleportation" is doesn't involve teleporting a particle, it involves teleporting the quantum state of a particle. And Bryan gets that right, but this doesn't solve the problem of teleporting an inanimate object, much less a person.
4:38 PM: Yes, you need a lot of information to encode a human being. Remember that there are around ~10^28 atoms in the human body, and that means something like 10^29 or 10^30 quantum bits of information. As Bryan says, "I don't think we'll be teleporting anytime soon."
The travel time for a spacecraft to reach a destination if it accelerates at a constant rate of... [+]
P. FRAUNDORF AT WIKIPEDIA
4:40 PM: Hey, don't be mad at time dilation! Time dilation is what could get us to the stars in a human lifetime. If you wanted to go more than ~100 light-years, it would always take you more than ~100 years (a human lifetime, at the far end) to get there from the frame-of-reference of a person remaining on Earth.
But if you continue to accelerate at 1 g, or 9.8 m/s^2, you'll get to wherever you want to go in a much shorter timescale from your frame of reference, as you travel close to the speed of light. Time dilation rules!
An artist's conception of a starship making use of the Alcubierre drive to travel at apparently... [+]
NASA
4:42 PM: Okay, really? From long, long-term technologies like ion drives and solar sails straight to warp drive, with nothing in between? In terms of not using fuel, Bryan is correct. But in terms of not using energy... well, good luck transforming your spacetime, where (reminder) spacetime's curvature is based on matter-and-energy, without expending energy!
The DEEP laser-sail concept relies on a large laser array striking and accelerating a relatively... [+]
4:43 PM: Wait, he's going to finish this part of his talk now, talking about Breakthrough Starshot (and the laser sail technology and a "starchip" spaceship) which we mentioned earlier, and cover "aliens" in... what, 10-15 minutes? We'll see!
4:45 PM: Nope; we're not onto the "aliens" part yet; we're talking about femtosatellites, which are still quite large and weigh a few grams, which is still too much for Breakthrough Starshot.
Tiny particles known as micrometeoroids will strike whatever they encounter in space, causing... [+]
NASA; SECURE WORLD FOUNDATION
4:48 PM: Yesss! This is something I'm excited to hear, because it's something that I've brought up that few people talk about: when you travel through space at relativistic speeds, you are going to smash into stuff in the interstellar medium! And that stuff is going to erode your spacecraft really fast, and there's nothing that's going to protect your "starship" (even if it's a microchip) from smashing into that dust.
Remember that a little piece of nerf-like foam was all it took, at high speeds, to cause the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Remember that all of our spacecraft get hit by micrometeoroids. And remember that 20% the speed of light is about 100 times faster than our fastest spacecraft go, which means they have 10,000 times the kinetic energy from dust particle collisions. This is a harder problem to overcome than anyone has figured out a viable way to reckon with.
4:50 PM: Okay, it's onto the aliens part, and I have to disagree with what Bryan says. We don't want to go to planets around other stars to look for life; we want to find planets where life exists (or is likely) and then go there.
There are ~400 billion stars in our galaxy. Do you want to go on a wild goose chase, or do you want to know where you're going before you go on a decades-long journey across the great void of space?
(Pick the latter.)
When Hubble pointed at the system Kepler-1625, it found the initial transit of the main planet began... [+]
NASA’S GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER/SVS/KATRINA JACKSON
4:53 PM: Using the transit method, we can find out properties of the planets that orbit around the stars, and they come in enormous varieties, just like we'd expect if we didn't assume the rest of the Universe was just like our little corner. We've found the planets that are easiest to find, and that means the largest planets relative to their star in close-in orbits. This, unsurprisingly, has skewed the population of planets that we've found.
Although more than 4,000 confirmed exoplanets are known, with more than half of them uncovered by... [+]
NASA/AMES RESEARCH CENTER/JESSIE DOTSON AND WENDY STENZEL; MISSING EARTH-LIKE WORLDS BY E. SIEGEL
4:55 PM: We have found waterworlds and lava worlds, but these are... well, likely not the best candidates for an "interesting" form of alien life. Nor are hot Jupiters (or any type of Jupiter), or any gas planet with a large hydrogen/helium envelope.
Just like in our own Solar System, most of the planets out there are not expected to have life on them.
4:56 PM: This is a totally unimportant point, but for an astronomer, it's a pet peeve for many.
The smallest stars in the Universe are red dwarfs. Always dwarfs, never dwarves. The plural of dwarf (for stars) is dwarfs; the plural of dwarf (for the fantasy race of short, stout, beard, axe-wielding characters) is dwarves.
If TOI 700d were a cloudless, dry-land planet with an atmosphere similar to modern Earth, there... [+]
ENGELMANN-SUISSA ET AL./NASA'S GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
4:59 PM: This is also an important point: what's happening on a world around a red dwarf star isn't so much about the irradiance from the star and day/night temperatures and the border between them, but how the atmosphere circulates and what it's composed of.
We also have to be very careful in distinguishing between "biosignatures," which is going to be a slam-dunk signal that tells us, "wow, that's a living planet right there," and a "bio-hint," which is what Bryan's referring to, which is pretty much guaranteed to get you false positives, over and over, before you actually get it right.
This diagram shows the novel 5-mirror optical system of ESO's Extremely Large Telescope (ELT).... [+]
ESO
5:01 PM: This is really true: the ELT will be humanity's best chance, in the 2020s, for directly imaging an Earth-like (or potentially inhabited) planet of any type. This could lead us to a revolution, where bio-hints and bio-signatures could be abundant. Right now, planet-finders like TESS are giving us the best candidate planets for direct imaging, and while we'll have to get lucky, this is the high-reward science most of us dream about!
In this artist's rendition, NASA's Clipper spacecraft makes one of its many dozen close passes to... [+]
NASA/JPL-CALTECH
5:04 PM: Of course, this is the third possibility I haven't discussed for finding life: it could be right here in our Solar System! Do we have life in a subsurface ocean on Europa or Enceladus? Do we have subterranean, potentially seasonally active/inactive life on Mars? Do the outer worlds, like Triton or Pluto, have anything on them of interest?
We have missions going to look, and hopefully in the 2020s, we'll start to get answers that teach us whether our fantastical interpretations of signals like seasonal methane or organic molecules really hold up. They could be biotic in nature, and we won't know until we do the appropriate tests!
A small section of the Karl Jansky Very Large Array, one of the world's largest and most powerful... [+]
JOHN FOWLER
5:06 PM: This is a fun fact: you must not use a walkie talkie around radio telescopes; the interference is atrocious! Remember that people didn't know what "fast radio bursts" were for much longer than we realized, because the microwave oven in the break room of a giant radio telescope was causing interference? That's a true story; don't use walkie talkies near radio telescopes!
5:07 PM: So I think this 1 hour talk has taught me how you talk about two topics when you spend the first 50 minutes on the first topic: just keep talking over your talk's time!
5:10 PM: The present and the near future are incredibly exciting, and you don't need warp drive or actual aliens to make it so. But, that said, it would be pretty cool to achieve interstellar travel or to find any true signatures (not just hints + wishful thinking) of alien life.
This is why we do science and why we develop technology; these are our sci-fi dreams and we're making them come true!
5:12 PM: Alright, talk's over and we're into the Q&A. Hey, and the first question is "how do we go from that light of an exoplanet transiting" to "how do we extract all that useful information?" And the two answers are:
transit spectroscopy, and
direct imaging.
Bryan is only giving the first answer, but both matter!
5:14 PM: No to aliens in Roswell, New Mexico. Good answer, Bryan. I like the snark of, "why come all this way just to dissect a cow?"
Alright, everyone, that's all the time I've budgeted for today's talk; hope you enjoyed the live blog and Bryan's talk! We might not have found aliens yet and we might still be quite far from reaching another star, but our technology has brought us quite an impressive way already, and we're headed towards something even more spectacular as the 2020s begin to unfold. Stay curious and please join me in looking forward to all the wondrous discoveries that this decade is sure to hold!
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
Although our dreams of making contact with an alien civilization have traditionally been rooted in... [+]
DANIELLE FUTSELAAR
For as long as human beings have looked up at the stars in the sky, two questions have captured our collective imaginations: are there other life forms out there on any of their worlds, and will we ever realize the dream of traveling to one of them? Although both tasks appear to have enormously daunting technical challenges, recent advances in science suggest that not only might humanity be capable of overcoming them, but we might even do so later this century.
While faster-than-light travel and visitations from aliens — whether benign or malevolent — are staples of our science-fiction stories, it's plausible that our real-life scientific advances may legitimately be more profound than any fictional stories humans have dreamed up. On the edge of both frontiers, humanity may be on the cusp of achieving a dream as old as humanity itself.
A logarithmic chart of distances, showing the Voyager spacecraft, our Solar System and our nearest... [+]
NASA / JPL-CALTECH
The biggest problem with the idea of interstellar travel is scale. The distances to even the nearest stars are measured in light-years, with Proxima Centauri being our nearest neighbor at 4.24 light-years away, where one light-year is approximately 9 trillion kilometers: some 60,000 times the Earth-Sun distance. At the speed of the fastest space probes humanity has ever sent on their way out of the Solar System (the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft), covering the distance to the nearest star would take approximately 80,000 years.
But all of this is based on current technology, which uses chemical-based rocket fuel for propulsion. The biggest downside of rocket fuel is its inefficiency: one kilogram of fuel is capable of generating just milligrams' worth of energy, as measured by Einstein's E = mc2. Having to carry that fuel on board with you — and requiring that you accelerate both your payload and the remaining fuel with that energy — is what's hamstringing us right now.
Position and trajectory of Voyager 1 and the positions of the planets on 14 February 1990, the day... [+]
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS / JOE HAYTHORNTHWAITE AND TOM RUEN
But there are two independent possibilities that don't require us to dream up Warp Drive-like technologies that would rely on new physics. Instead, we can pursue the routes of either using a more efficient fuel to power our journey, which could increase our range and speeds tremendously, or we can explore technologies where the thrust-providing source is independent of the payload that's going to be accelerated.
In terms of efficiency, there are three technologies that could vastly outperform chemical-based rocket fuel:
nuclear fission,
nuclear fusion,
and matter-antimatter propulsion.
Whereas chemical-based fuels convert a mere 0.0001% of their mass into energy that can be used for thrust, all of these ideas are far more efficient.
ll rockets ever envisioned require some type of fuel. Whether a plasma engine, a matter/antimatter... [+]
NASA/MSFC
Fission converts approximately 0.1% of the mass of fissile materials into energy; approximately one kilogram of fissionable fuel yields about one gram's worth of energy, via E = mc2. Nuclear fusion does a superior job; fusing hydrogen into helium, for example, is 0.7% efficient: one kilogram of fuel would yield 7 grams' worth of usable energy. But far-and-away the most efficient solution is matter-antimatter annihilation.
If we could create and control 0.5 kilograms of antimatter, we could annihilate it at will with 0.5 kilograms of normal matter, creating a 100% efficient reaction that produced a full kilogram's worth of energy. We could conceivably extract thousands or even a million times as much energy from the same amount of fuel, which could propel us to the stars on timescales of centuries (with fission) or even just decades (with fusion or antimatter).
An artist's rendition of a laser-driven sail shows how a large-area, light-weight spacecraft could... [+]
ADRIAN MANN / UCSB
On the other hand, we could work to achieve interstellar travel via a completely different route: by placing a large power source capable of accelerating a spacecraft in space. Recent advances in laser technology have led many to suggest that an enormous, sufficiently collimated array of lasers in space could be used to accelerate a spacecraft from low-Earth orbit to tremendous speeds. A highly reflective laser-sail, like a solar sail except specifically designed for lasers, could do the job.
If a large-enough, powerful-enough array of in-phase lasers were constructed, potentially reaching gigawatt power levels, it could not only impart momentum to a target spacecraft, but could do so for a long period of time. Based on calculations performed by Dr. Phil Lubin a few years ago, it's possible that speeds up to 20% the speed of light could be reached. While we don't yet have a plan for decelerating such a spacecraft, reaching the nearest star in a single human lifetime is within the realm of possibility.
The laser sail concept, for a starchip-style starship, does have the potential to accelerate a... [+]
BREAKTHROUGH STARSHOT
By the same token, the search for extraterrestrial life is no longer restricted to either waiting for an alien visit or searching the Universe with radio signals for intelligent aliens, although the latter is certainly still an active scientific field spearheaded by SETI. Although no signals have been found, this remains a stunning example of high-risk, high-reward science. If a positive detection is ever made, it will be a civilization-transforming event.
However, as exoplanet astronomy continues to advance, two techniques that have already been demonstrated could bring us our first signatures of life on other worlds: transit spectroscopy and direct imaging. Both of these involve using the light from a planet itself, with transit spectroscopy leveraging the light that filters through a planet's atmosphere and direct imaging taking advantage of the sunlight directly reflected off of the planet itself.
When a planet transits in front of its parent star, some of the light is not only blocked, but if an... [+]
ESA / DAVID SING
Transit spectroscopy relies on us having a serendipitous alignment of our observatory with both a target exoplanet and its parent star, but these alignments do occur. Whereas a small fraction of the star's light will get blocked by the transiting planet, an even smaller fraction of starlight will transmit through the planet's atmosphere, similar to the sunlight that gets transmitted through Earth's atmosphere and lights up the Moon (in red) during a total lunar eclipse.
This enables us, if our measurements are good enough, to decode what elements and molecules are present in the target planet's atmosphere. If we could discover biological signatures or even technosignatures which could be an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, complex biomolecules, or even something like a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) molecule we would immediately have a strong hint of a living world that would tantalizingly await confirmation.
Left, an image of Earth from the DSCOVR-EPIC camera. Right, the same image degraded to a resolution of 3 x 3 pixels, similar to what researchers will see in future exoplanet observations.
NOAA/NASA/STEPHEN KANE
Direct imaging could provide exactly that sort of confirmation. Although our first image of an Earth-sized exoplanet likely won't be very visually impressive, it will contain a ton of information that can be used to reveal indicators of life. Even if the planet itself is just one pixel in a detector, we could not only break its light apart into individual wavelengths, but can look for time-varying signatures that could reveal:
clouds,
continents,
oceans,
plant life greening with the seasons,
icecaps,
rotation rates,
and much more. If there are light-emitting signatures at night, just as planet Earth has our light that illuminate the world at night, we could conceivably even detect those as well. If there's a civilization out there on a nearby Earth-like planet, the next generation of telescopes might be able to find them.
The Earth at night emits electromagnetic signals, but it would take a telescope of incredible... [+]
NASA'S EARTH OBSERVATORY/NOAA/DOD
All of this, together, points to a picture where a spacecraft or even a crewed journey to the stars is technologically within our reach, and where the discovery of our first world beyond the solar system with possible life on it could occur in a decade or two. What was once solely in the realm of science-fiction is quickly becoming possible due to both technical and scientific advances and the thousands of scientists and engineers who work to apply these new technologies in practical ways.
On February 5 at 7 PM ET (4 PM PT), Dr. Bryan Gaensler, director of the Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Toronto, will be delivering a public lecture at Perimeter Institute on exactly this topic. Titled Warp Drive and Aliens: The Scientific Perspective, it's available to watch from anywhere on Earth, and I'll be following along with a live-blog in real time, below.
How close is humanity to achieving this dream that's spanned innumerable generations? The answer is closer than you might think, so tune in here and follow along below (updates every 3-5 minutes) to find out what lies just beyond the known frontier. It could be the revolution we've all been hoping for!
An illustration of the warp field from Star Trek, which shortens the space in front of it while... [+]
TREKKY0623 OF ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA
Okay, warp drive fans, here we go! The first thing you might be wondering is about whether warp drive itself is really feasible or not. And the answer, believe it or not, is maybe, but not unless we figure out a source of energy that goes well beyond anything we've got so far, including antimatter.
The reason is simple: to achieve warp drive, you need to bend the space in front of you so that it contracts, and that can only occur at the expense of expanding the space behind you. This takes an enormous amount of energy all localized in one spot, and you need to do it while still keeping the space where your spaceship will be not too severely bent, or you'll wind up destroying it with terrific gravitational tidal forces.
The Alcubierre solution to General Relativity, enabling motion similar to warp drive. This solution... [+]
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS USER ALLENMCC
But if you can do it, and it is something allowed in General Relativity, this requires not only the matter-and-energy we know, but also some form of negative energy: either matter with negative mass or a form of anti-energy itself. If we could harness this, it would mean we could travel through the contracted space (slower than light), but we could do something like contract a 40 light-year journey down to 6 light-months.
Even if we only traveled through that now-contracted space at half the speed of light, we'd get there in 1 year, rather than 40. That's pretty impressive!
The warp drive system on the Star Trek starships was what made travel from star to star possible. If... [+]
ALISTAIR MCMILLAN / C.C.-BY-2.0
That doesn't mean, however, that the plot devices or treknobabble cooked up by Star Trek's writers, which includes things like:
dilithium crystals,
warp nacelles,
Bussard ramjets
warp cores,
or anything else we might immediately refer to has any relevance. Science fiction provides us with possible outcomes, but only very rarely gets the path to that technological solution correct. We know enough about physics, today, to be certain that Star Trek's "solution" to this problem is not feasible. But, then again, that's part of what makes science so wonderful: it can take a fictional idea and make it a reality. Or, if we're really lucky, surpass our sci-fi dreams!
Christina Koch did not set out to break records on her first spaceflight, but with her return to Earth after nearly a year in orbit, her mission is now one for the history books.
Koch, a NASA astronaut, landed on the snow-covered steppe of Kazakhstan on Thursday (Feb. 6) with two of her International Space Station (ISS) crewmates, Expedition 61 commander Luca Parmitano of the European Space Agency (ESA) and cosmonaut Alexander Skvortsov of the Russian space agency Roscosmos.
Descending under a parachute and further slowed by braking thrusters, the three touched down aboard Russia's Soyuz MS-13 spacecraft southeast of the Kazakh town of Dzhezkazgan at 4:12 a.m. EST (0912 GMT or 3:12 p.m. local time).
Russian recovery forces, as well as NASA and ESA medical personnel, arrived quickly at the landing site to assist Koch, Parmitano and Skvortsov out of the space capsule and to conduct brief physical exams as the three crewmates began adjusting to the pull of gravity again.
"Everyone says that getting back into gravity is such a surprise, because you suddenly have to work to raise your own arms and, of course, your legs," Koch said in a media interview a few days before experiencing her first landing. "I haven't even had to hold up my own body weight in a long time, so we will see how that goes."
Koch, Parmitano and Skvortsov all appeared to be in good spirits, as they felt the chill of the open air for the first time since leaving Earth.
"I'm so overwhelmed and happy right now," Koch said a few minutes after landing.
"There are many people on the ground [who] are taking counts of what we have done — how many EVAs [extravehicular activities or spacewalks], how many hours of work, how many experiments, how many days we have spent up here — none of those are important," said Parmitano, addressing his station crewmates during a change of command ceremony on Wednesday. "What is important is what you achieved. You, as the crew, made all of this possible. It has been your incredible, incredible dedication that has made it all possible."
Parmitano, Skvortsov and Koch undocked their Soyuz at 12:50 a.m. EST (0550 GMT). Their departure from the Poisk mini-research module (MRM-2) marked the official end of Expedition 61. Cosmonaut Oleg Skripochka and NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Andrew Morgan remained on the station to begin Expedition 62.
Koch arrived aboard the orbiting laboratory on March 14, 2019, to join the 59th expedition crew. Originally slated to to return to Earth after just six months, her stay was extended to collect data about the physiological effects of long-duration spaceflight. In December, Koch surpassed the previous record set by a woman — 289 days by NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson in 2017 — and has now completed the second longest single spaceflight by an American astronaut after Scott Kelly, who logged 340 days in 2016.
During her time as a member of the Expedition 59, 60 and 61 crews, Koch participated in more than 210 science investigations, including research into how the human body adjusts to the stresses of spaceflight and protein crystallization growth in support of developing cancer treatments. She also assisted in the robotic capture of uncrewed resupply spacecraft, including SpaceX's 19th Dragon and Northrop Grumman's 12th Cygnus cargo vehicles.
In addition, Koch performed six spacewalks, totaling 42 hours and 15 minutes, to upgrade the batteries for two channels of the space station's solar arrays. She conducted three of the excursions with Meir, setting another record for the first-ever extravehicular activities by an all-women team.
"When we first got the go to come out of the airlock ... we were holding onto a handrail and we just caught each other's eye, we knew [then] how special that moment was and I'll never forget that," said Koch of her first spacewalk with Meir on Oct. 18, 2019.
Over the course of the 328 days, Koch orbited Earth 5,248 times, traveling 139 million miles (224 million kilometers), or the equivalent of about 291 round trips to the moon.
"Milestones are important, and I think they are important for a couple of reasons," said Koch. "They get the conversation going about where we are in the state of the art of human exploration."
"The second aspect is inspiration," she continued. "I think some people draw inspiration from milestones and from things they have seen someone work hard to achieve."
Koch, who now ranks seventh on the list of U.S. space travelers with the most time in space, was not the only record-setter who returned to Earth on Thursday. Completing his second mission, Parmitano has now logged a total of 367 days in space, more than any ESA astronaut in history.
Parmitano also now holds the record for the most time on EVA by a European at 33 hours and 9 minutes. Four of his six career spacewalks were devoted to the repair of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer cosmic ray detector, which involved the most complex EVA work since the servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Skvortsov, who has spent 546 days off the planet on three missions, now ranks 15th on the all-time spaceflight endurance list.
From their landing site the three will be flown by helicopter to Karaganda, where they will be greeted by a traditional Kazakh welcome ceremony. From there, Koch and Parmitano will board a NASA jet for Cologne, Germany, where Parmitano will be met by ESA officials before Koch continues to Houston. Skvortsov will be flown by a Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center aircraft to his home in Star City, Russia.
Soyuz MS-13 was the 59th Soyuz to launch for the International Space Station. It traveled 85.2 million miles (137 million km) completing 3,216 orbits of Earth.
Astronomers don't know why the monster's star-birth engine shut down.
These three panels show, from left to right, what the galaxy XMM-2599's evolutionary trajectory might be, beginning as a dusty star-forming galaxy, then becoming a dead galaxy, and perhaps ending up as a "brightest cluster galaxy," or BCG.
Astronomers just discovered a rare monster galaxy that grew rapidly in the universe's early days — and then went quiet surprisingly fast.
The newfound giant, known as XMM-2599, lies about 12 billion light-years from Earth, meaning that scientists are seeing the galaxy as it existed when the universe was quite young. (The Big Bang that created the universe occurred 13.82 billion years ago.)
“Even before the universe was 2 billion years old, XMM-2599 had already formed a mass of more than 300 billion suns, making it an ultramassive galaxy," Benjamin Forrest, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California Riverside (UCR), said in a statement.
"More remarkably, we show that XMM-2599 formed most of its stars in a huge frenzy when the universe was less than 1 billion years old, and then became inactive by the time the universe was only 1.8 billion years old," added Forrest, the lead author of a new study reporting the discovery of XMM-2599.
Forrest and his colleagues used an instrument called the Multi-Object Spectrograph for Infrared Exploration (MOSFIRE), which is installed on a telescope at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii. The MOSFIRE observations allowed the team to nail down XMM-2599's mass and its distance from Earth.
The researchers also determined that the galaxy created more than 1,000 suns' worth of stars every year during its activity peak. (For comparison, our Milky Way is currently forming just one solar mass of new stars annually.) But that peak is in the rearview mirror for XMM-2599; its star-birth engine has shut down, for reasons that remain unclear.
"Even though such massive galaxies are incredibly rare at this epoch, the models do predict them," study co-author Gillian Wilson, a physics and astronomy professor at UCR who heads the lab in which Forrest works, said in the same statement.
"The predicted galaxies, however, are expected to be actively forming stars," Wilson added. "What makes XMM-2599 so interesting, unusual and surprising is that it is no longer forming stars, perhaps because it stopped getting fuel or its black hole began to turn on. Our results call for changes in how models turn off star formation in early galaxies."
The researchers will continue to observe XMM-2599 using Keck, in an attempt to better characterize the galaxy and investigate unanswered questions about it. The most prominent such question may concern the galaxy's fate.
"We do not know what it will turn into by the present day," Wilson said. "We know it cannot lose mass. An interesting question is what happens around it. As time goes by, could it gravitationally attract nearby star-forming galaxies and become a bright city of galaxies?"
Secret underground bases located near well known tourist attractions in North Carolina
Secret underground bases located near well known tourist attractions in North Carolina
Author and researcher, Mary A. Joyce, is the editor of the Sky Ships over Cashiers website which features cutting-edge and unusual topics.
She detailed her work investigating a variety of anomalous phenomena in her home state of North Carolina.
This includes underground military bases located near well-known tourist attractions in the state, yet, so well camouflaged that few people know they exist.
According to a source she interviewed, a city-sized secret base that is totally self-sufficient, is located underneath PARI, an astronomical education and research center, located about an hour from Asheville.
Mike Turber, who claims to be a former Air Force intelligence expert, revealed on
‘The Hidden Truth Show’ with Jim Breslo (see videos below) that the infamous ‘Tic
Tac’ UFO captured on video by Navy pilots with the USS Nimitz carrier group off of
San Diego in 2004 is actually technology created by the US military. However, the
Navy says that it is not able to identify the object, calling it a ‘UAP’ or ‘unidentified
aerial phenomena’.
Ever since the revelation in 2017 of the Nimitz’ UFO encounter, there has been an
overwhelming sense that there is more footage yet to be disclosed. In January, a US
Navy spokesperson confirmed that a longer video classified “secret” does exist.
Turber says that this footage would be at least 10 minutes long and is far clearer
than the first one. Turber noted that the FLIR video recorder is turned on when the
jet launches, so the entire beginning of the video seems to be missing.
Turber claims that in 2007 or 2008, a craft matching the description of the ‘Tic Tac’
UFO was spotted hurtling through the water at 550mph by a US Navy submarine. “I
thought it was just a torpedo,” said Turber, “but, apparently not.” Turber told
the Daily Star Online that this US military craft is capable of traveling at astonishing
speeds both in the air and under the sea.
A craft matching the description of the USS Nimitz UFO was spotted by a US Navy submarine hurtling at 550mph through the water in a previously unrevealed encounter, a former US Air Force intelligence expert has claimed.
Jim Breslo Mike Turbo
The sighting of a ‘tic-tac’ craft by two US Navy fighter jets in 2004 has become one of the most famous UFO videos of all time.
The US Navy is still unable to explain the object, previously identifying it as an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
But Mike Turber, an intelligence expert who claims to have worked in the USAF, claims the craft was actually created by the US military.
He first made his bombshell comments on The Hidden Truth Show with Jim Breslo.
And in an exclusive chat with Daily Star Online, he suggested the craft is capable of hurtling at astonishing speeds in both the air and sea.
“There was a submarine situation – that report will probably come out further down the line,” he explained.
“It (the tic-tac object) was travelling at 550mph. As far as I know, it was a Los Angeles-class submarine.
1:13:23 length Part 1 video of Jim Breslo’s interview of Mike Turber (‘Hidden Truth Show’ YouTube)
1:23:51 length Part 2 video of Jim Breslo’s interview of Mike Turber (‘Hidden Truth Show’ YouTube)
Powerful Radio Signal From Deep Space Appears to Be Repeating in a 16-Day Cycle
MICHELLE STARR
One of the defining characteristics of the mysterious deep-space signals we call fast radio bursts is that they are unpredictable. They belch out across the cosmos without rhyme or reason, with no discernible pattern, making them incredibly hard to study.
Now, for the first time, astronomers have found a fast radio burst (FRB) that repeats on a regular cycle.
Every 16.35 days, the signal named FRB 180916.J0158+65 follows a similar pattern. For four days, it will spit out a burst or two every hour. Then it falls silent for 12 days. Then the whole thing repeats.
Astronomers with the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) Collaboration in Canada observed this cycle for a total of 409 days. We don't yet know what it means; but it could be another piece in the complicated conundrum of FRBs. The research has been uploaded to pre-print server arXiv, where it awaits scrutiny from other experts in the field.
It's easy to become somewhat obsessed with fast radio bursts, a fascinating space mystery that has so far defied any attempts at a comprehensive explanation.
To recap, FRBs are hugely energetic flares of radiation in the radio spectrum that last just a few milliseconds at most. In that timeframe, they can discharge as much power as hundreds of millions of Suns.
Most of them spark once, and we have never detected them again. This makes it rather difficult to track these bursts down to a source galaxy. Some FRBs spit out repeating radio flares, but wildly unpredictably. These are easier to track to a galaxy, but so far, that hasn't brought us a great deal closer to an explanation.
Last year, the CHIME collaboration announced they had detected a whopping eight new repeating fast radio bursts, bringing the then-total of repeaters to 10 out of over 150 FRB sources. (Another paper recently brought that total up to 11.)
FRB 180916.J0158+65 was among the eight repeaters included in last year's haul; apart from its repeat bursts, initially it didn't appear to be anything special. But as the CHIME experiment continued to stare at the sky, a pattern emerged.
This is exciting, because it offers new information that can be used to try and model what could be causing FRB 180916.J0158+65.
"The discovery of a 16.35-day periodicity in a repeating FRB source is an important clue to the nature of this object," the researchers wrote in their paper.
Other objects that demonstrate periodicity tend to be binary systems - stars and black holes. The 16.35-day period could be the orbital period, with the FRB object only facing Earth during a certain part of the orbit.
"The single constraint on the orbital period still allows several orders of magnitude range in companion mass amongst known stellar-mass compact object binaries: from so-called 'black widow' binary systems, consisting of a low-mass star and a powerful millisecond pulsar whose wind ablates the companion (albeit typically with few-hour orbital periods), to massive O/B stars with highly eccentric companion pulsar orbits," the researchers wrote.
Alternatively, winds from the companion object, or tidal disruptions from a black hole, may periodically somehow block the FRB radiation.
It also can't be ruled out that the FRB source is a single, lone object such as a magnetar or X-ray pulsar, although the researchers note this explanation is a little harder to reconcile with the data. That's because those objects have a wobbling rotation that produces periodicity, and none are known to wobble that slowly.
And radio pulsars that do have periodic intervals of several days are orders of magnitude fainter than FRBs. So it's still a mystery.
But remember that 11th repeater we mentioned earlier? It was found coming from an FRB astronomers had thought was a one-off; its repeats were simply too faint for the equipment that had initially been used to look for them.
This suggests that many more FRBs could be repeating, but outside our detection range. And the fact that FRB 180916.J0158+65 seemed more or less the same as other FRBs could mean that other repeating FRBs are also on a cycle - we just haven't detected those cycles yet.
So, the next step would be, of course, to continue staring at FRB 180916.J0158+65 for a bit. But it also would be pretty interesting to try and see if periodicity can be detected in other bursts as well.
"Future observations, both intensity and polarimetric, and at all wavebands, could distinguish among models and are strongly encouraged," the researchers wrote, "as are searches for periodicities in other repeaters, to see if the phenomenon is generic."
The research is available on arXiv ahead of peer review.
NASA scientists say a new study proves there are seven times as many big and potentially dangerous comets flying through deep space than previously thought.
The study analyzed data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) spacecraft that tracks “long-period” comets (LPCs) that take at least 200 years to orbit around the sun. WISE data showed far more LPCs that potentially pose a serious impact risk to Earth.
“Previously the sense was that for every 100 asteroid impacts (of all sizes) we get 1 comet impact,” Dr. Joseph A. Nuth, a senior asteroid scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now that we know there are more LPCs for every 100 asteroid impacts we might get 5 comet impacts.”
Astronomers previously gave broad estimates of the number of LPCs in the solar system, but researchers didn’t have a good way to detect them since they were obscured by clouds of gas and dust.
Gravitational forces can move LPCs back into the inner solar system, potentially putting them on a collision course with Earth. An LPC impact would be devastating.
“A comet impact is, on average, much more devastating than an asteroid impact, Nuth said. “Think BBs and Bullets vs. Howitzers and Nukes.”
Comets are rarer than asteroids, but can carry more than 100 times the energy of a typical asteroid. An LPC would likely impact Earth at a much higher velocity than other space objects.
“[A] higher velocity impact would release more energy and therefore would be worse,” Paul Chodas, manager of the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told TheDCNF. “This is offset somewhat by the fact that comets are less dense than asteroids: the energy release of a comet impact would be less than that of a similarly sized asteroid impact if the velocities were the same.”
The study also determined that LPCs are more dangerous than more conventional asteroids or comets because they are twice the size on average.
“Yes, a body twice the size has eight times the mass of a smaller body and therefore delivers eight times the kinetic energy if all other factors are equal,” Nuth said. “The impact energy is proportional to the velocity squared. So a comet moving three times the average asteroid velocity would impact with nine times the energy.”
“The potential impact of a long-period comet would be more hazardous than that of a Jupiter family comet both because the long-period comets are more likely to be larger, and because they follow orbits that would impact at higher velocities,” Chodas said.
The final reason researchers think LPCs are dangerous is their relative stealthiness compared to other space rocks. Detecting an LPC on a collusion course with Earth would be more difficult that spotting a more conventional near-Earth asteroid.
“The larger distance of comets, and the long orbital periods affect the warning time more than higher velocities: the generally larger distance of comets make the tracking observations less effective (since they are angular measurements), and the longer orbital periods mean that we don’t have multiple opportunities to see these objects at closer ranges,” Chodas said. “The distance at which a comet is discovered depends largely on the activity level of the comet.”
The difficulties inherent in detecting LPCs mean that NASA would likely have far less warning that one was on a collision course with Earth. The comet Siding Spring was detected on a trajectory that would strike the planet Mars in October of 2014, just 22 months after its discovery.
“Since Comet Siding Spring was quite active, it was discovered at a distance of 7 AU, about two years before it passed very close to Mars,” Chodas said. “A less active long-period comet might be discovered only a year before entering the inner Solar System. Establishing a precise trajectory for the comet would be challenging and likely take several months, so the warning time would likely be less than a year.”
Twenty-two months warning is far less than NASA scientists think they’d need to intercept an incoming comet. The best way to stop an asteroid or comet from hitting the Earth on such short notice may be to send a spacecraft up to intercept it. But even then, NASA researchers think they would need at least five years to construct a reliable spacecraft and man it.
“The case of Siding Spring is a reasonable example: much less than 5 years is a good guess,” Nuth said. “Siding Spring came in from the celestial pole and was not spotted until it began to exhibit a coma. A larger body would show a coma at similar distances.”
Earth is just as vulnerable to LPCs and other space rocks as Mars nearly was to the Siding Spring Comet. Earths’ closer proximity to the Sun wouldn’t make it easier to detect a long-period comet on a collision course, according to NASA researchers.
“The discovery time is dictated mostly by the comet’s distance from the Sun and how active the comet is,” Chodas said. “If Comet Siding Spring were headed for an encounter with Earth, its discovery time would be the same.”
Apair of Russian satellites are tailing a multibillion-dollar U.S. spy satellite hundreds of miles above the Earth’s surface, a top U.S. military commander tells TIME, underscoring a growing threat to America’s dominance in space-based espionage and a potentially costly new chapter in Washington’s decades-long competition with Moscow.
Gen. John “Jay” Raymond, commander of the newly minted U.S. Space Force, says the Russian spacecraft began maneuvering toward the American satellite shortly after being launched into orbit in November, at times creeping within 100 miles of it. “We view this behavior as unusual and disturbing,” Raymond says. “It has the potential to create a dangerous situation in space.” Raymond says the U.S. government has expressed concern to Moscow through diplomatic channels.
The confrontation marks the first time the U.S. military has publicly identified a direct threat to a specific American satellite by an adversary. The incident parallels Russia’s terrestrial encounters with the U.S. and its allies, including close calls between soldiers, fighter jets and warships around the world. Observers worry that space is now offering a new theater for unintentional escalation of hostilities between the long-time adversaries.
Pentagon, White House and Congressional backers, say the incident demonstrates the need for the Space Force, which President Donald Trump established in December when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. It became the first new military service since the Air Force was created in 1947.
The Space Force, for which the White House is requesting $15 billion in this week’s budget proposal, represents a strategic shift from passively operating and observing satellites to actively defending them. Space warfare doctrine remains a work in progress, but Raymond has spoken about the need to mobilize Space Command against perceived threats because other nations, especially Russia and China, have become increasingly sophisticated at building arsenals of lasers, anti-satellite weapons and state-of-the-art spacecraft designed to render the U.S. deaf, mute and blind in space.
At the same time, the expansion of military operations in space harks back to another hallmark of the Cold War competition between Washington and Moscow: massive spending on perceived threats, regardless of the cost.
For those monitoring waste, fraud and abuse in the military industrial complex, the Russian maneuver and the Pentagon’s response also portends a new front in the effort to keep real and potential threats from becoming a budgetary sinkhole. The history of U.S.-Russia military competition is full of examples of perceived threats that require costly responses.
“The initial costs of setting up the Space Force are likely a small down payment on an undertaking that could cost tens of billions of dollars in the years to come,” says William D. Hartung, director of the arms and security project at the Center for International Policy. “The last thing we need is more bureaucracy at the Pentagon, but that’s exactly what the Space Force is likely to give us. Creating a separate branch of the armed forces for space also risks militarizing U.S. space policy and promoting ill-advised and dangerous projects that could involve deploying weapons in space.”
The Russian embassy did not respond to requests for comment about the allegedly threatening maneuvers by its satellites. The Kremlin has previously stated they are not weapons, but rather “inspector” spacecraft engaged in an “experiment.”
U.S. military analysts first noticed something peculiar after Russia launched its spacecraft into orbit November 26 from Plesetsk Cosmodrome aboard a Soyuz rocket. The Russian satellite had been in orbit less than two weeks when, bafflingly, it split in two. As the analysts looked closer, they suspected that a second smaller satellite was somehow “birthed” from the first one. “The way I picture it, in my mind, is like Russian nesting dolls,” Raymond says. “The second satellite came out of the first satellite.”
The maneuver was later confirmed on Dec. 6 when the TASS news agency cited Russia’s Defense Ministry saying the two had separated. “The purpose of the experiment is to continue work on assessing the technical condition of domestic satellites,” the statement said.
However, the satellites, identified as Cosmos 2542 and Cosmos 2543, appeared to be carrying out another mission. By mid-January, they were sidling near the American satellite, identified as USA 245, known to space experts as a KH-11.
The U.S. satellite, part of a reconnaissance constellation codenamed Keyhole/CRYSTAL, is operated by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the secretive intelligence agency headquartered in Chantilly Va. Although the NRO refuses to comment on the large school bus-sized satellites, the KH-11’s capabilities are often compared by experts in the field to the Hubble Space Telescope. Instead of staring into the vast expanse of space, however, the satellites’ sensors and cameras are focused into the heart of foreign adversaries’ top-secret military installations
A KH-11 satellite, known as USA 224, is widely believed by analysts to have taken the image of Iran’s Imam Khomeini Space Center that President Donald Trump posted to Twitter in August. The photo was so detailed, you could make out the Farsi characters written along the edge of the launchpad. The KH-11 constellation, which consists of four satellites that maintain constant Earth observation, operate in a polar orbit above the rotating Earth, enabling them to cover its entire surface.
Russia’s curious space activities were first noted on Twitter last week by Michael Thompson, an amateur satellite tracker, who used publicly available data to speculate on what it was up to. “The relative orbit is actually pretty cleverly designed, where Cosmos 2542 can observe one side of the KH11 when both satellites first come into sunlight, and by the time they enter eclipse, it has migrated to the other side,” Thompson wrote in a series of tweets. “This is all circumstantial evidence, but there are a hell of a lot of circumstances that make it look like a known Russian inspection satellite is currently inspecting a known US spy satellite.”
President Donald Trump and General John "Jay" Raymond attend a ceremony marking the establishment the U.S. Space Command at the White House on Aug. 29, 2019.
Chen Mengtong—China News Service/VCG via Getty Images
Raymond says he’s concerned because Russia is demonstrating capabilities the U.S. first saw three years ago, when Moscow tested the “Russian nesting doll” technology. “In 2017, they launched a satellite, it launched another satellite,” he says. “The satellites exhibited characteristics of a weapon system when one of those satellites launched a high-speed projectile into space.”
Moscow’s intent with the current mission remains unknown, but the Russian spacecraft should be capable of capturing high-resolution imagery of the American satellite as it conducts its mission, spying deep into adversaries’ territory. It’s akin to handing over a state-of-the art spy satellite to Russian scientists for forensic analysis.
Brian Weeden, a former Air Force officer and expert in space security at the Secure World Foundation, says the Russian satellites’ positioning could allow it to determine things like where the KH-11 is “pointing—and thus what ground targets its taking picture of—as well as the general operating schedule and usage.”
Further, if the Russian satellites are outfitted with electronic emissions probes, they could listen for radio frequency signals to try figure out how the KH-11 communicates and even attempt to intercept those communications, which are likely encrypted, says Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There are a lot of things it could be doing,” Harrison says. “They could simply be practicing on-orbit maneuvers or signaling to the United States that they have this capability.”
The Keyhole program is 44 years old and the satellites are widely known to have similar capabilities as the Hubble Telescope. The U.S., China and other nations have already shown the ability to launch spacecraft into close orbit with their own satellites. The Kremlin could be showing the U.S.—in a very obvious way—that it has joined the club.
From Raymond’s standpoint, however, maneuvering close to a foreign satellite for an “inspection” is virtually indistinguishable from staging an attack to damage, disrupt or destroy it. “It’s clear that Russia is developing on-orbit capabilities that seek to exploit our reliance on space-based systems that fuel our American way of life,” he says. Raymond wouldn’t comment specifically on Russia’s intentions with the shadowing satellites
Over the past decade, space weaponry has gone from the stuff of science fiction to reality. A flurry of advancements from the U.S., Russia and China has altered the image of outer space as a peaceful sanctuary and instead stoked fears that an arms race has extended into the heavens.
But even if the Russian satellites are doing the most intrusive things the Pentagon and outside observers imagine, none of them would violate treaties or international law. Absent binding agreements, the incident portends a growing a cat-and-mouse game in space. “We prefer space to remain free of conflict,” Raymond says. “We think that responsible space-faring nations need to have conversations about developing these norms going forward.”
It is a historical truth that where humans have ventured, violence has followed. But conflict in space isn’t in any nation’s interest. There are more than 1,000 American satellites circling the planet, enabling everything from commerce, banking, transportation and communications. Russia, China and other developed nations have also grown increasingly dependent on satellites for commercial as well as military purposes, which raise the risks for miscalculation.
The U.S. government’s space-based operations are among the most highly technical and classified secrets in its possession. Raymond’s willingness to go on the record about the ongoing event provides a glimpse into what military officials see as an increasingly congested and contested environment.
Robert Cardillo, the former director of the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, says space is a “messy environment,” which without established rules, could turn into the Wild West. An attack on a satellite constellation, such as GPS, which is owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force, could have far-reaching consequences like halting ATM banking transactions or causing a blackout in navigation applications on users’ smartphones, which occurs billions of times a day around the globe.
The developments hark back to military concept that helped keep the world safe from nuclear apocalypse during the Cold War. Mutual assured destruction (MAD)—the military doctrine that posited a nuclear strike from one nation would result in a full-scale counterattack from the other—helped prevent the U.S. and the Soviet Union from using the massive arsenals they each amassed during decades of armed standoff.
But MAD eventually became backstopped by a series of treaties and open lines of communication designed to avoid accidental escalation of conflict. The U.S., Russia and other nations have yet to establish a similar diplomatic structure for space, and experts warn of the dangers of weaponizing the cosmos without them. “Deterrence is something we just haven’t dealt with,” in space Cardillo says. “If you make it, you can break it.”
I found this black triangle UFO on our sun a few months ago and I am still watching it. I can see it daily using this special software designed by the ESA (european space admistration). Anyone can download it and use it. This shows me that the triangle UFO is still there. Its black, so we know its surface is heat resistant or has some kind of protective electronic shield around it. Its unbelievable that NASA has never even mentioned this triangle craft, but I guess they think the public would panic if they knew. Because admitting its a craft would mean admitting that intelligent aliens exist. Scott C. Waring - Taiwan
Hey, Google, Where Are the Aliens? How UFO Enthusiasts Utilize Tech Giant’s Services to Search ETS in Antarctica
Hey, Google, Where Are the Aliens? How UFO Enthusiasts Utilize Tech Giant’s Services to Search ETS in Antarctica
In December last year, UFO fans were engaged in debates over a large mysterious hole in Antarctica. Users believed the humongous structure was an entrance to a secret military facility, which first appeared in 2007. However, it vanished shortly afterwards. Twelve years later, it was found again on Google Maps.
It appears that Antarctica has long pulled in fans of conspiracy theories since wild stories surfaced that high-ranking Nazi officers could have escaped and gone to Antarctica. However, Antarctica has become the most famous place for hunting aliens using Google’s services. Here are the most exciting finds.
The Alien Face
One may believe that aliens want humanity to find them after seeing the alien image. A huge alien-like face on snow was discovered in Antarctica via Google Earth. Footage posted on Instagram by ufo_scandinavia quickly made the rounds on the internet with some social media users claiming the structure was left by aliens or an ancient civilisation that lived in Antarctica.
Alien Ship
UFO fans got baffled after YouTube user MrBB333 shared what he claims is a possible capsized ship in Antarctica. On his channel, he posted a man showing how he found a long cylindrical shape in the ground via Google Earth.
Strange Disc-Shaped Object on Mountain
It is another find that baffled conspiracy theorists. YouTube user Sandra Elena Andrade posted a video in December 2019 showing a massive black object that many commenters said was an alien ship. The woman discovered the mysterious object through Google Earth.
Ancient Alien City
YouTube channel thirdphaseofmoon co-author Blake Cousins claimed to have found an entrance to a hidden base, thought to be owned by aliens. He said that the dark shape on the snow looks like each one has a tunnel or cave that possibly connected underneath the show. Some social media users believed Blake’s version, while others thought this could be a hiding spot for a government project or Nazis.
Massive Hole
The YouTube channel thirdphaseofmoon stunned UFO followers again when they found a mysterious hole on Google Maps in December 2019. The humungous hole first appeared in 2007 but disappeared shortly afterward. According to Brett and Blake Cousins, this cave could potentially accommodate up to thousands of people. Brett added that it is big enough for flying saucers and spacecraft or even assets in our military to fly.
Ever since the space race, humankind has launched a lot of things into space and in the process have polluted our orbit. Sometimes experimental satellites went awry and turned to debris as soon as they launched, and other times space accidents created lots of space junk.
In some cases, the creation of space junk was the direct result of intentional exploding satellites, such as China destroying a defunct weather satellite with a missile that added more than 3,000 pieces to orbit. NASA estimates that there are more than half a million items larger than a marble currently floating in space. These are the ones that can be tracked! There may be millions more that cannot be tracked.
In 1963, the Project West Ford colloquially known as Project Needles, launched 500 million copper wires into orbit to form a dipole antennas so military messages could be sent coast to coast in the United States. These needles were only supposed to stay in orbit for three years, but they outlasted the initial project and remain in orbit to this day: in 2016 there were 38 clusters in existence. These items are all in constant movement and depending where they are in orbit have speeds that can reach to about 17,500 miles per hour.
Space Junk: An Imminent Threat
The closer an object is to the Earth, the faster it travels. The debris can hit each other and other objects and lose energy, causing them to switch to lower orbits. This is potentially dangerous to active satellites, Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station (ISS). In 1957, the United States Department of Defense started tracking space debris larger than a grapefruit. Presently in conjunction with NASA, they actively track approximately 21,000 items with a special satellite.
There are established protocols to address debris to protect the ISS, one is called the “Debris Avoidance Maneuver”, that moves the ISS out of the path of incoming debris. This is not as easy as it sounds, since the ISS is as big as a soccer field and weighs 450 tons. If time is to short, or the maneuver is not feasible, the ISS crew members move to the Soyuz spacecraft to prepare to return to Earth in an emergency. This has happened 3 times in history, but no space debris has caused an emergency Earth landing.
Also concerning is that even small, untraceable items can cause damage and impose danger on space activities. It is estimated that there are more than 100 million pieces smaller than 1.5 centimeters in our orbit. One of these pieces led to the the ISS to replace a window. It was determined that the damage on the window was caused simply from tiny paint flecks that were smaller than 1 millimeter.
The ISS has also sustained damage to thermal radiators and solar panels from small space debris. In late 2017, SpaceX Dragon cargo vehicle delivered the “Space Debris Sensor” that is allowing the ISS to monitor impacts caused by small-scale space debris for the following two to three years.
What Happens to the Debris?
Obviously, this junk does not stay in orbit forever. Some will eventually lose energy due to collisions and enter Earth’s atmosphere. In fact, every week, 4400 pounds of debris uncontrollably re-enters our atmosphere.
Luckily for us on Earth, most of these objects burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry. Even if they survive beyond reentry, more than likely they will break down into smaller pieces and land in oceans. Because remember: Water covers 70 percent of the Earth’s surfaces. So, it’s unlikely that you will be hit with space debris, but the probability is not zero.
Some scientists classify our orbit as being at “critical density”. This means that “more fragments will be generated by collisions, than will be removed by atmospheric drag, even if no further objects are added.
How Will We Solve the Space Junk Problem?
There is research being done to help address this issue, such as improving detection methods and removal technologies that involve capture of space debris, laser beams to interfere with the orbit of the debris and promote decay or pushing debris further out away from satellites zones, and even upcycling old satellite parts.
There has also been an active effort in space activities to limit or prevent additional debris from being added to the orbit that will only become more important as companies are wanting to launch their own satellites. For example, SpaceX have been launching satellites into our orbit to create broadband internet. They were first granted permission to launch up to 12,000 satellites from U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but more recent requests from SpaceX indicate they want permission from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to launch up to 30,000 more satellites.
However, given that the aerospace initiatives may allow us to surpass the limits of our Pale Blue Dot, and allow us to spread to the Solar System and maybe eventually to the Milkyway Galaxy… We don’t think this is a dream that we can let go, just because of space debris.
But hey… Who knows? Maybe one of you who is reading this will come up with the ultimate solution to space debris that allows us to limit or not create debris during our attempts to leave Earth, to study the universe, to communicate around the Earth, to connect to the Internet and so forth.
Researchers concluded that even a contained nuclear conflict would take a toll on Earth’s oceans and potentially disrupt the human food web. “The impacts are huge,” a scientist said.
A mushroom cloud erupts during the Castle Bravo nuclear weapon test at Bikini Atoll in 1954.
You’ve likely heard of nuclear winter, a hypothesis explored by decades of scientific research. It’s the idea that – following the firestorms produced in an all-out nuclear war – the soot lifted into Earth’s stratosphere would cause serious cooling, and subsequent crop failures and famines. Now a new study has looked at how even a relatively contained nuclear conflict – for example, a hypothetical war between India and Pakistan – might shift the chemistry of Earth’s oceans. The reasoning is reminiscent of that behind nuclear winter: soot lifted into the atmosphere would cause cooling. In the new study, the researchers concluded that even a contained conflict would “take a toll” on the oceans and potentially disrupt the human food web.
Nicole Lovenduski of University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) led the study. She commented in a statement:
The impacts are huge.
The journal Geophysical Research Letterspublished the new study in late January 2020.
These researchers used global climate models to conduct their simulations. They looked at four possible nuclear conflicts, including three in India/Pakistan of differing magnitudes (5 teragrams, 27 teragrams, and 47 teragrams of soot produced, respectively; a teragram is equal to one trillion grams or 1,000 kilotons), and one all-out U.S./Russia case with 150 teragrams of soot produced. Writing at LaboratoryEquipment.com, Michelle Taylor penned a succinct explanation of what would happen in even the “tamest” of the India-Pakistan simulations. She wrote:
… the researchers found that the conflict would likely generate huge amounts of black carbon high in Earth’s atmosphere, causing the globe to cool. Interestingly, the researchers found that the fallout from a nuclear detonation would come in two stages: the first within one year, and the second between three and five years post-bombing.
Soon after denotation and no longer than one year later, global climate models showed the acidity of the world’s oceans would likely dip. Years later, the world’s salt water would begin to suck up more carbon dioxide from the air. Supplies of carbonate in the oceans would shrink, removing the key ingredient that corals use to maintain their reefs and oysters use to sustain their shells.
Lovenduski told Taylor that – beyond taking a toll on crustaceans – a major disruption of the oceanic food web would undoubtedly severely impact the human food chain. Taylor wrote:
That’s because there are more than 3 billion people in the world today who depend on ocean fisheries for protein and/or income.
The shell of an ocean pterapod dissolves when exposed to acidic conditions in a lab.
Brian Toon, also of CU Boulder, was a co-author on the study. He commented in the team’s statement:
This result is one that no one expected. In fact, few people have previously considered the impact of a nuclear conflict on the ocean.
Lovenduski commented:
A lot of things would change in the oceans once you dim the lights [via soot in the atmosphere]. The way the water moves in the ocean, for example, is sensitive to how much heat it gets from the atmosphere …
It makes me question whether organisms could adapt to such a change. We’re already questioning whether they can adapt to the relatively slower process of man-made ocean acidification, and this would happen much more abruptly.
Lovenduski said it’s too soon to say for sure what the fate of shelled creatures in the oceans would be if nuclear war broke out. She said she hopes that her group’s findings will bring more attention to the wide-ranging devastation that would follow even a limited nuclear exchange. There’s no such thing, she said, as a minor nuclear war, adding:
I hope this study helps us to gain perspective on the fact that even a small-scale nuclear war could have global ramifications.
A U.S. Army nuclear test at Bikini Atoll, Micronesia, on July 25, 1946. The wider, exterior cloud is a condensation cloud, not a classic mushroom cloud. Read more about this image. A new study shows that even a limited nuclear conflict could have damaging effects on Earth’s oceans. The bombs would not have to explode over the ocean for the effects to take place.
Bottom line: Scientists used global climate models to study various scenarios involving limited nuclear conflicts. The researchers called the impacts “huge.”
These powerful storms can knock out satellites and power grids, and we may be due for one every 25 years.
On June 20, 2013, at 11:15 p.m. EDT, the sun shot out a solar flare (left side), which was followed by an eruption of solar material shooting through the sun's atmosphere.
The sun constantly bombards Earth with wispy belches of plasma called solar wind. Normally, the planet's magnetic shield soaks up the brunt of these electric particles, producing stunning auroras as they surge toward Earth's magnetic poles. But every so often, there comes a solar sneeze powerful enough to body-slam our atmosphere.
These severe space weather events — known as solar storms — compress Earth's magnetic shield, releasing enough power to blind satellites, disrupt radio signals and plunge entire cities into electrical blackouts. According to a study published Jan. 22 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they may be much more common than previously thought.
In the new study, researchers analyzed a catalog of Earth's magnetic field changes going back to 1868; years that showed the strongest spikes in geomagnetic activity coincided with the most severe solar storms. They found that severe storms (those capable of disrupting some satellites and communications systems) occurred in 42 of the last 150 years, while the most extreme storms — "great" superstorms, which cause significant damage and disruption — occurred in six of those years, or once every 25 years.
"Our research shows that a super-storm can happen more often than we thought," study co-author Richard Horne, a space weather researcher at the British Antarctic Survey, said in a statement. "Don't be misled by the stats. It can happen any time. We simply don't know when."
Attack of the sun
For the new study, the researchers consulted the world's oldest continuous geomagnetic index, known as the aa index.
Since 1868, the index has recorded changes in Earth's magnetic field as observed by two research stations on opposite sides of the planet, one in Australia and the other in the U.K. Every 3 hours, ground-based sensors at each station record local changes in magnetic field activity; after combining the daily averages from each station, scientists get a general picture of magnetic field activity across the entire planet.
Because the study authors were concerned only with the most extreme solar events over the last 150 years, they focused on the top 5% of geomagnetic spikes recorded each year. With this data, the authors ranked the top 10 years with the most severe geomagnetic activity from 1868 to present day. Those years, from most to least active, were 1921, 1938, 2003, 1946, 1989, 1882, 1941, 1909, 1960 and 1958.
Unsurprisingly, most of those years were associated with powerful geomagnetic storms.
"The earliest ones would have been reported in terms of auroras ('northern lights') at low latitudes, and disruptions to telegraph communications," lead study author Sandra Chapman, an astrophysics professor at the University of Warwick in England, told Live Science in an email. "As aviation and radio came into widespread use, reports centered on disruptions to those."
A geomagnetic storm in May of 1921, for example, caused widespread radio and telegraph outages across the world, resulting in at least one telegraph operator's instrument bursting into flames and setting his office on fire, according to a report published in 2001 in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. The northern and southern auroras (which intensify during solar storms) were also visible at far lower latitudes than usual, with one observatory claiming to detect the southern lights from the island of Samoa, just 13 degrees south of the geomagnetic equator.
More recent solar storms, such as a massive flare that swept over Earth on Halloween 2003, disrupted communications satellites and caused other spacecraft to tumble out of control. In March 1989, a gargantuan solar storm plunged the entire province of Quebec, Canada, into darkness and left millions of people without power for 12 hours.
Earth hasn't been hit with a solar super-storm in nearly two decades (though a large, potentially damaging solar ejection passed by us in 2012). Since then, our world has become more networked and satellite-dependent; the precise impacts the next superstorm will have on our society aren't well understood, Chapman said. Studies like this can help scientists predict the likelihood that a powerful space storm might hit Earth in a given year, which could lead to better preparedness, she added.
Powerful solar ejections occur more frequently when there are a lot of sunspots on the sun's surface. Sunspot activity tends to peak approximately every 11 years, during a period called the solar maximum. The last solar maximum occurred in 2014.
Researchers Find Presolar Grains in Unusual Inclusion from Allende Meteorite
Researchers Find Presolar Grains in Unusual Inclusion from Allende Meteorite
Scientists from Washington University, St. Louis, Caltech and the University of Chicago have found presolar grains — tiny bits of solid interstellar material formed before the Sun was born — in Curious Marie, a sample of the famous Allende meteorite.
Curious Marie is a sample of the Allende meteorite, which fell in northern Mexico in February 1969. The white, fuzzy-looking features in this fragment are calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions — some of the first solids to condense in the Solar System. Image credit: The Planetary Society.
Curious Marie is a notable example of an inclusion, or a chunk within a meteorite, called a calcium-aluminum-rich inclusion (CAI).
These objects, some of the first to have condensed in the Solar Nebula, help cosmochemists define the age of the Solar System.
“What is surprising is the fact that presolar grains are present. Following our current understanding of solar system formation, presolar grains could not survive in the environment where these inclusions are formed,” said Dr. Olga Pravdivtseva, a researcher in the Physics Department and the McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences at Washington University, Saint Louis.
In 2016, a research team from the University of Chicago discovered evidence in Curious Marie that a rare element called curium was present during the formation of the Solar System.
This fragment of the Allende meteorite and curium are named after the Nobel Prize-winning physicist and chemist Marie Curie, whose pioneering work laid the foundation of the theory of radioactivity.
In the new study, Dr. Pravdivtseva and colleagues used noble gas isotopic signatures to show that presolar grains of silicon carbide are present in Curious Marie.
That’s important because presolar grains are generally thought to be too fragile to have endured the high-temperature conditions that existed near the birth of our Sun.
But not all CAIs were formed in quite the same way.
“The fact that silicon carbide is present in refractory inclusions tells us about the environment in the Solar Nebula at the condensation of the first solid materials,” Dr. Pravdivtseva said.
“The fact that silicon carbide was not completely destroyed in Curious Marie can help us to understand this environment a little bit better.”
“Many refractory inclusions were melted and lost all textural evidence of their condensation. But not all.”
The scientists had 20 mg of Curious Marie to work with, which is a relatively large sample from a cosmochemistry perspective.
They heated it up incrementally, increasing temperature and measuring the composition of four different noble gases released at each of 17 temperature steps.
“Experimentally, it is an elegant work. And then we had a puzzle of noble gas isotopic signatures to untangle. For me, it is like solving a mystery,” Dr. Pravdivtseva said.
Other scientists have looked for evidence of silicon carbide in such CAIs in meteorites using noble gases before, but Dr. Pravdivtseva’s team the first to find it.
“It was beautiful when all noble gases pointed to the same source of the anomalies — silicon carbide,” Dr. Pravdivtseva said.
“Not only do we see silicon carbide in the fine-grained CAIs, we see a population of small grains that formed at special conditions.”
“This finding forces us to revise how we see the conditions in the early Solar Nebula.”
The results were published in the journal Nature Astronomy.
It's always sunny for heliophysicists, but especially so now.
The Solar Orbiter spacecraft, a collaboration between the European Space Agency and NASA, launched yesterday (Feb. 9), less than two weeks after the first public image from a massive new solar telescope showed off the structure of our star in more detail than humans have ever seen. On that same day, Jan. 29, NASA's Parker Solar Probe made its closest swing pass the sun to date — a record it will continue to break until 2025.
"It's a great time to be a heliophysicist; we're launching lots of new missions," Nicky Fox, head of NASA's Heliophysics Division, told Space.com. "It's a very strategic way that we're looking at this system [of instruments], as one large observatory."
Although the three missions weren't designed as a suite, they complement one another well. The Parker Solar Probe, which launched in August 2018, is flying closer to the visible surface of the sun than any spacecraft to date. That trajectory carries the spacecraft deep into the sun's atmosphere, called the corona, where the probe's instruments focus on the spacecraft's immediate surroundings, measuring magnetic fields and particles of plasma, the charged soupy state of matter that makes up the sun.
Solar Orbiter won't fly as close to the sun, but it brings unique skills. First, it carries two types of instruments. One set, like Parker's, will study the spacecraft's surroundings; the other, a set of telescopic instruments, will observe the visible surface of the sun itself at a distance. And partway through its mission, Solar Orbiter will leave the belt around the sun's middle, called the ecliptic, and begin circling the sun at a tilt, allowing the spacecraft to use those telescopic instruments to produce the first-ever images of the sun's poles.
The National Science Foundation's Inouye Solar Telescope is stuck here on Earth, and construction is still underway. But once all of its instruments are operational, there will be plenty more images like the "caramel corn" picture that scientists published in January — the highest-resolution solar image to date. "The Inouye Solar Telescope is a microscope on the sun," Valentin Martínez Pillet, director of the National Solar Observatory, which runs the facility, told Space.com. The observatory will also measure the wavelengths of light emitted by the sun and decipher the magnetic signature of light that is under the influence of the sun's magnetic field.
Although the three projects are separate endeavors, both scientists said they and their colleagues are awfully excited about pulling all the data together.
We have so few close-up observations of the sun that being able to compare two separate locations is automatically valuable, no matter where each spacecraft is. Solar Orbiter's final schedule was dependent on its precise launch date, but as mission personnel evaluated how each timetable aligned the spacecraft with the Parker Solar Probe's close approaches, they found intriguing opportunities regardless of the launch date, Fox said.
The Inouye Solar Telescope is even easier to integrate into an observational program, Martínez Pillet said; its personnel know precisely where the two spacecraft will be at any given time and can match up the telescope accordingly.
Combining the data from all three observatories is vital for scientists to accomplish the goal that drives the missions: to understand the sun and its influence throughout the solar system. The impacts of the sun's antics ripple across the solar system as a set of phenomena called space weather.
In Earth's neighborhood, space weather can interfere with the technology modern society is ever more reliant upon, particularly navigation and communication satellites. Space weather is also a hazard for astronauts traveling farther from Earth, as it can harm both their technology and their bodies. Ultimately, solar scientists want to be able to predict space weather in much the same way meteorologists predict terrestrial weather. "We are 50 or 100 years lagging from what terrestrial weather is in terms of prediction," Martínez Pillet said.
That's because scientists just don't know enough about how the sun works. "We're able to predict a single second on the sun," he said. "I'm exaggerating — well, no, I don't think I'm exaggerating. We're not able to have any realistic predictive capabilities today, but as soon as you get the physics right, then you start being able to develop predictive capabilities."
One particular challenge in understanding space weather is the sheer distance involved, and that's where the trio of missions will be valuable, Martínez Pillet said. "One space-weather event has a combination of scales," he said. "It's triggered at really small scales, and it's a huge thing that propagates all over the heliosphere and probably can hit several planets at the same time." But by the time space weather reaches Earth, it's been influenced by millions of miles of space; it's much fresher where the Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter can study it.
There's another reason to understand space weather: It could tell scientists where to look for signs of life elsewhere in the universe. After all, while we humans have a soft spot for the sun, it's just a star like any other — which means that scientists can apply what these three missions discover to all the stars we'll never be able to see as clearly. And while space weather is vexing to Earth, it could be deadly in solar systems that surround smaller, more active stars.
And there should be plenty for the trio of projects to study in the coming years. Right now, the sun is pretty quiet, but over the next five or six years, the sun's activity will increase — and both the Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter will be on hand to see what happens during that period.
"They are really, truly voyages of discovery, and we're doing fundamental physics and understanding how a star works," Fox said.
Of course, even three high-powered missions won't solve every mystery about the sun.
"We know right now what we don't know, but we're going to find a whole lot more things that we don't know," Fox said. "That's why it's nice that these missions are so long, so you have time to develop these new questions, this new thirst for knowledge."
Beste bezoeker, Heb je zelf al ooit een vreemde waarneming gedaan, laat dit dan even weten via email aan Frederick Delaere opwww.ufomeldpunt.be. Deze onderzoekers behandelen jouw melding in volledige anonimiteit en met alle respect voor jouw privacy. Ze zijn kritisch, objectief maar open minded aangelegd en zullen jou steeds een verklaring geven voor jouw waarneming! DUS AARZEL NIET, ALS JE EEN ANTWOORD OP JOUW VRAGEN WENST, CONTACTEER FREDERICK. BIJ VOORBAAT DANK...
Druk op onderstaande knop om je bestand , jouw artikel naar mij te verzenden. INDIEN HET DE MOEITE WAARD IS, PLAATS IK HET OP DE BLOG ONDER DIVERSEN MET JOUW NAAM...
Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek
Alvast bedankt voor al jouw bezoekjes en jouw reacties. Nog een prettige dag verder!!!
Over mijzelf
Ik ben Pieter, en gebruik soms ook wel de schuilnaam Peter2011.
Ik ben een man en woon in Linter (België) en mijn beroep is Ik ben op rust..
Ik ben geboren op 18/10/1950 en ben nu dus 74 jaar jong.
Mijn hobby's zijn: Ufologie en andere esoterische onderwerpen.
Op deze blog vind je onder artikels, werk van mezelf. Mijn dank gaat ook naar André, Ingrid, Oliver, Paul, Vincent, Georges Filer en MUFON voor de bijdragen voor de verschillende categorieën...
Veel leesplezier en geef je mening over deze blog.