The A-Train: Using Five Satellites as One to Analyze Polluted Clouds

The A-Train - 5 satellites collaborate to scan polluted clouds (NASA)

This is one of the finest examples of satellite collaboration. Five Earth-observing orbiters, four from NASA and one from France, are working together to provide the deepest analysis of cloud cover ever carried out. The satellites orbit in a close formation, only eight minutes apart, and create what is known as the “Afternoon Constellation” (or “A-Train” for short). They are so close in fact, that they can be considered to act as one satellite, capable of carrying out a vast suite of measurements on the pollution content of clouds. This work is shedding new light on the link between clouds, pollution and rainfall, a study that could never be achieved with one satellite alone…

Pollution in clouds is a critical problem for the international community. These rogue particles can seriously change the natural behaviour of clouds and entire weather systems, but until now, scientists have been uncertain about the difference in rainfall from polluted and unpolluted cloud cover. This is primarily because no single environmental satellite has been able to probe deep into clouds with the limited number of instruments it can carry. But using the collective power of five independent satellites, scientists are beginning to unlock the secrets polluted clouds have been hiding.

Particulates from pollution mixing with clouds above the US (NASA)

Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Labs (JPL) in Pasadena have recently discovered that clouds peppered with pollutant particles do not produce as much rain as their unpolluted counterparts. This finding was only possible after analysing data from the near-simultaneous measurements made by the five A-Train satellites. The constellation includes NASA’s Aqua, Aura, CloudSat and CALIPSO and the French Space Agency’s PARASOL.

Typically, it is very hard to get a sense of how important the effect of pollution on clouds is. With the A-Train, we can see the clouds every day and we’re getting confirmation on a global scale that we have an issue here.” – Anne Douglass, project scientist at Goddard for NASA’s Aura satellite.

The A-Train is turning up some interesting, if alarming, results. When focusing on the skies above South America during the June-October dry season, the JPL team found that the increased level of agricultural burning during this period injected more aerosols into the clouds. This had the effect of shrinking the size of ice crystals in the clouds, preventing the crystals from getting large enough to fall as rain. This direct effect of burning and ice crystal formation has never been connected before the use of the A-Train. However, during wet seasons, the aerosol content in clouds appeared not to be a critical factor on the amount of rainfall.

How is it possible to distinguish between polluted and unpolluted clouds? Firstly, the A-Train’s Aura satellite measures the concentration of carbon monoxide in the clouds. This is a strong indicator for the presence of smoke and other aerosols originating from a power plant or agricultural activities. When the polluted clouds are identified, the A-Train’s Aqua satellite can be called into use. Using its Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instrument, the size of ice crystals in polluted and unpolluted clouds can be measured. Next up is NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite that can measure the amount of precipitation (rain) from polluted and unpolluted clouds.

Through this combination of satellites, scientists are able to link pollution with clouds with precipitation. This is only one example of the flexibility behind collaborations such as A-Train, so cloud science can only go from strength to strength.

Source: Physorg.com

China Launches Second Olympic Satellite; Will Help Earthquake Zone

Fengyun-3 launched on a Long March-4C rocket from Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center in the Shanxi province (chinanews.com)

China is stepping up its preparations for this year’s Olympics to be held in the Chinese capital, Beijing. Concern is growing for the start of the games this summer as early August is known to be a wet period in the region. More advanced weather satellites are therefore being sent into orbit to aid the forecasting effort. This is good timing for improved weather satellite technology as the earthquake-striken Sichuan province recovery effort has been hampered by poor weather conditions. Aid and search operations will greatly benefit from better weather forecasting…

At 11:02 Beijing Time (03:02 GMT) today, one of the most advanced weather satellites to be sent into space by China was launched from Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center in northern Shanxi Province. The satellite, called Fengyun-3, was launched by a Long March-4C carrier rocket. The ascent took 27 minutes from launch to orbital insertion.

This is the next generation in weather satellite technology for the nation. Fengyun-3 is carrying three-dimensional sensors that will measure the dynamics in the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. It will also monitor Polar Regions and ocean conditions. The sensors can measure temperature changes of 0.1F and has a spatial resolution of 250 meters (0.15 miles). This is a vast improvement on the resolution of its predecessors of only 1 kilometer (0.62 miles).

The 250-m resolution images will be of vital significance for censoring global climate changes and possible subsequent natural disasters.” – Gao Huoshan, general director of the FY-3 research team.

Gao also describes Fengyun-3 as a key contributor to acquiring geographical data for aviation, navigation, agriculture, forestry and oceanography research. This impressive 2,295 kg (5,060 lb) satellite will be used extensively to aid weather predictions for the Olympics and will help disaster zones (such as the recent sequence of major earthquakes in the Sichuan province).

This is another Chinese success in space as the proud nation pushes for more development of homemade satellite technology. Since US rules barred the export of satellite components to China, there is a sense of urgency to develop their own direction in space. US rules do not seem to be restricting Chinese aspirations in space, China is planning for a manned Moon mission to launch soon after 2017.

Sources: China Daily, Physorg.com

Life Found a Mile Below Terrestrial Seabed; Implications For Life on Mars

Prokaryotes are found in very extreme places (Cyanosite)

We all know how hard life can be, but spare a thought for the microbes recently discovered 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) below the seabed off the coast of Canada. The living conditions are cramped, the environment is a searing 100°C (212F), and yet these hardy cells appear to be thriving. In the midst of the historic landing of Phoenix in the arctic wastes of Mars yesterday, the interest in finding life on the Red Planet has, yet again, reached fever pitch. Although Phoenix isn’t built to look for life, it is assessing the Martian surface water content for signs that it may (or may have been able to) support life. This new discovery of life so deep below the Earth’s surface may set some new limits on just how extreme life can be on other planets…

Off the Newfoundland coastline, scientists have burrowed far below the seabed. Smashing the previous record for subterranean life, this new discovery has found one of the most basic forms of terrestrial life living a mile deep (the previous record held at 842 meters, or 0.5 miles). As I’m no biologist, I’ll leave it to the Reuters news source to describe as to what was found:

Prokaryotes are microbes lacking nuclei, comprising archaea and some types of bacteria. The lack of cell nuclei distinguishes them from eukayrotes, or all animal and plant life.Reuters

These prokaryote specimens were scooped from sediments dating 111 million years old. At these depths, the sediment is subjected to temperatures from 60-100°C (140-212F), and John Parks, professor at the University of Wales (UK), belives that this type of microbe can live even deeper. He believes more prokaryotes could be discovered up to 4 km (2.5 miles) below the seabed. This leads to the question as to whether life on other planets may not be found on the surface, but deep inside their crust.

If there is a substantial subsurface biosphere on earth there could also be substantial biospheres on other planets. Just taking a scoop from the surface of Mars is not going to tell you whether there is life on Mars or not.” – Prof. John Parks

This obviously relates to the attempts made by previous Mars landers to analyse the surface for extraterrestrial microbes. However, a lot of information can be gained by analysing the surface composition for the materials required by life (as we know it) to survive. The Phoenix lander for instance was not designed for life hunting in mind, but it was designed to analyse the top layer of regolith for water content and evidence that liquid water may have once flowed in recent Mars history. Now we have extended our limit on where life may thrive, missions to Mars will need to burrow deeper into the surface, or we’ll simply have to wait till we can do it ourselves.

It is not clear where these subterranean microbes get their energy from. Sunlight probably isn’t a factor; methane and heat from volcanic vents seem more obvious candidates.

There is a problem associated with finding life this deep. It complicates possible plans to bury carbon dioxide emissions deep underground to slow the effects of climate change. It is a completely untouched ecosystem, dumping our waste could have serious consequences for these colonies of microbes. However, it might take some convincing as the U.N. Climate Panel has announced that carbon dioxide burial may be the key tool in the future to prevent this greenhouse gas from escaping into the atmosphere.

Source: Reuters

2012: No Planet X

Will Planet X cause mayhem in 2012? Nope.

Apparently, Planet X (a.k.a. Nibiru) was spotted by astronomers in the early 1980’s in the outermost reaches of the Solar System. It has been tracked by infrared observatories; seen lurking around in the Kuiper Belt and now it is speeding right toward us and will enter the inner Solar System in 2012. So what does this mean to us? Well, the effects of the approach of Planet X on our planet will be biblical, and what’s more the effects are being felt right now. Millions, even billions of people will die, global warming will increase; earthquakes, drought, famine, wars, social collapse, even killer solar flares will be caused by Nibiru blasting through the core of the Solar System. All of this will happen in 2012, and we must begin preparing for our demise right now…

As investigated in my previous article “No Doomsday in 2012“, a lot of weight had been placed on the end of an ancient Mayan calendar, the “Long Count”. According to this calendar and Mayan myth, something is going to happen on December 21st, 2012. Now the world’s Planet X supporters seem to have calculated that this hypothetical, deadly planet will arrive from a highly eccentric orbit to wreak gravitational havoc on Earth, sparking geological, social, economic and environmental damage, killing a high proportion of life… in 2012.

Related 2012 articles:

I’m sorry, but the “facts” behind the Planet X/Nibiru myth simply do not add up. Don’t worry, Planet X will not be knocking on our door in 2012 and here’s why…

Nibiru and Planet X
The planet Neptune - could its orbital deviations reveal Planet X (NASA)

In 1843, John Couch Adams (a British mathematician and astronomer) studied the orbital perturbations of Uranus and deduced that through gravitational interactions, there must be an eighth planet, tugging at the gas giant. This led to the discovery of Neptune, orbiting at a distance of 30AU from the Sun. There have been numerous occasions where this method has been used to deduce the existence of other bodies in the Solar System before they were directly observed.

Neptune was also experiencing orbital perturbations, and on the discovery of Pluto in 1930, it was thought that the aptly named “Planet X” had been discovered. Alas, Pluto’s mass was tiny, and once the orbit of Charon (Pluto’s moon) was analysed it was found that the mass of the Pluto-Charon system was far too small to affect the orbit of Neptune. The hunt for Planet X continued…

After years of speculation and historic research, it was believed that a huge body astronomers were looking for was a huge planet or a small star, possibly a companion to our Sun (making the Solar System a binary system). The name “Nibiru” was unearthed by the author Zecharia Sitchin, on researching the possible intervention of extraterrestrials in the early history of mankind. Nibiru is a hypothetical planet as taught in ancient Sumerian culture (the Sumerians existed from around 6,000BC to 3,000BC, predating Babylon, in the current geographic location of Iraq). There is very little archaeological evidence to suggest this mythical planet has anything to do with Planet X. But since this dubious connection, Planet X and Nibiru are now thought by doomsayers to be the same thing, an ancient astronomical body that has returned after a long orbit beyond the Solar System.

OK, so the Nibiru/Planet X connection might be a bit ropey already, but is there any solid evidence for the modern-day Planet X?

Infrared observations = Planet X
A popular image on Planet X websites. Is this Planet X, or is it simply a young galaxy? (NASA - possible source)
There is much emphasis placed on the 1983 “discovery” of a mysterious heavenly body by NASA’s Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) on the outskirts of the Solar system, some 50 billion miles (540 AU) away. Naturally the world’s media will have been very excited by such a discovery and began making noises that perhaps this was Planet X (the most popular accessible resources for Planet X advocates is the Washington Post article published on December 31st 1983 titled “Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered“). In actuality, astronomers weren’t sure what the infrared object was (the clue is in the word “mystery”). Initial media reports postulated that it could be a long-period comet, or a planet, or a far-off young galaxy or a protostar (i.e. a brown dwarf). As soon as the last possibility is mentioned, suddenly this became the “discovery” that Planet X was in fact a brown dwarf orbiting in the outer reaches of our Solar System.

So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby “protostar” that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.” – Thomas O’Toole, Washington Post Staff Writer, December 30th 1983 (from text on the Planet X and Pole Shift website)

So where did the Washington Post get its story? The story was published in response to the research printed a paper titled “Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey” (by Houck et al, published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, 278:L63, 1984). Dr. Gerry Neugebauer, co-investigator in the IRAS project, was interviewed and strongly stated that what IRAS had seen was not “incoming mail” (i.e. the results did not suggest there was an object approaching Earth). On reading this interesting research, I was especially drawn to the paper’s conclusion:

A number of candidate identifications have been considered including near-solar system, galactic, and extragalactic objects. Further observations at infrared and other wavelengths may provide additional information in support of one of these conjectures, or perhaps these objects will require entirely different interpretations.” – Houck et al, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 278:L63, 1984.

Although these IRAS observations were seeing mysterious objects, at this stage, there was no indication that there was an object (let alone a brown dwarf) powering its way toward us. But the rumours had already begun to flow. When follow-up papers were published in 1985 (Unidentified IRAS sources – Ultrahigh-luminosity galaxies, Houck et al., 1985) and 1987 (The IRAS View of the Extragalactic Sky, Soifer et al., 1987), there was little if any media interest in their findings. According to these publications, most of the IRAS observations in the 1984 paper were distant, ultra-luminous young galaxies and one was a filamentary structure known as “infrared cirrus” floating in intergalactic space. IRAS never observed any astronomical body in the outer reaches of the Solar System.

Orbital perturbations = Planet X
The bodies in the Kuiper Belt (Don Dixon)
In addition to the 1983 “discovery” of the Planet X brown dwarf, the 1992 Planet X claim goes something like this: “Unexplained deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune point to a large outer solar system body of 4 to 8 Earth masses, on a highly tilted orbit, beyond 7 billion miles from the sun,” – text from an un-cited NASA source on the “Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide” video.

Pulling up the discovery of planets using orbital perturbation measurements, Planet X advocates point to a NASA announcement that in 1992, there were indirect measurements of a planet some 7 billion miles from Earth. Alas, I cannot find the original source for this claim. The only huge discovery NASA announced along these lines was the discovery of the first major trans-Neptunian object (TNO) called 1992 QB1 (full details of the discovery of this “cubewano-class” object can be found in the original announcement transcript). It has a diameter of 200km and is confined to the Kuiper Belt, a zone of minor planets (where Pluto lives) and asteroids from 30AU to 55AU, just outside Neptune’s orbit. Some of these bodies (like Pluto) cross the path of Neptune’s orbit and there therefore designated as a TNO. These TNO’s pose no threat to the Earth (in as much as they wont be leaving the Kuiper Belt to pay us a visit in 2012).

Since then, any Neptune orbital perturbations have been put down to observational error and have since not been observed… so there doesn’t appear to be any obvious object any bigger than the largest Kuiper Belt objects out there. Still, to keep an open mind, there could be more large bodies to be discovered (that might explain why there is such a steep drop-off of Kuiper Belt objects at the “Kuiper Cliff”, the jury is out on that idea), but there is no evidence for a massive body approaching from the vicinity of the Kuiper Belt. Even the strange Pioneer anomaly that the Pioneer and Voyager probes are experiencing cannot be attributed to Planet X. This anomaly appears to be a Sun-ward acceleration, if there was a massive planet out there, there should be some gravitational effect beyond what has been predicted by the other known objects in the Solar System.

4-8 Earth masses = a brown dwarf? It must be Planet X.
Brown dwarfs are 15-80 times the mass of Jupiter (NASA)
Probably the most glaring inconsistency in the Planet X hypothesis is the Planet X advocates assertion that the 1984 IRAS object and the 1992 body are one of the same thing. As announced on many websites and online videos about Planet X, the 1984 IRAS observation saw Planet X at 50 billion miles from Earth. The 1992 NASA “announcement” put Planet X at a distance of about 7 billion miles from Earth. Therefore, the logic goes, Planet X had travelled 43 billion miles in the course of only eight years (from 1984 to 1992). After some dubious mathematics, Planet X is therefore expected to reach the core of the Solar System in 2012. (Although many believed it should arrive in 2003… they were obviously wrong about that prediction.)

Well, I think we might be clutching at straws here. For starters, for the 1984 object to be the same as the 1992 object, surely they should be the same mass? If Planet X was a brown dwarf (as we are led to believe in the IRAS observations), how can it possibly weigh in at only 4 to 8 Earth masses eight years later? Brown dwarfs have a mass of around 15-80 Jupiter masses. As Jupiter is about 318 Earth masses, surely the object hurtling toward us should have a mass of somewhere between 4,770 and 25,440 Earth masses? So I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I reckon the 1984 object and the 1992 object (if either object actually existed that is) are not the same thing. Not by a very long shot.

If there is no evidence supporting Planet X, it must be a conspiracy
If it can be this easy to cast the fundamental “scientific” theory behind Planet X into doubt, I see little point in discussing the historical reasons (mass extinctions, volcanic activity, earthquakes etc.) as to why the doomsayers believe Planet X should exist. If there is no renegade planet out there of significant mass, how can Nibiru be a threat to us in 2012?

They will have us believe there is a global conspiracy of international governments hiding the facts from us. NASA is involved in the cover-up, hence the lack of evidence. In my opinion, simply because there is no evidence, doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy to hide the truth from the public. So why would governments want to hide a “discovery” as historic as a doomsday planet approaching the inner Solar System anyway? To avoid mass panic and pursue their own, greedy agendas (obviously).

As it turns out, this is the only strength behind the Planet X myth. When confronted with scientific facts, the Planet X advocates reply with “…governments are sending out disinformation and covering up the true observations of Nibiru.” Although I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, I will not support anything in the name of Planet X. If the basic science behind what we are led to believe are the foundation of Planet X existing is wrong, it seems a poor argument to say “the government did it”.

Therefore, the story that Planet X will arrive in 2012-21-December is, in my view, total bunkum (but it helps to sell doomsday books and DVDs by scaring people). Nibiru will remain in the realms of Sumerian myth.

Sources: No Tenth Planet Yet From IRAS, Surviving 2012 and Planet X (Video), The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, New Scientist, IRAS, Planet X and Pole Shift

Here’s information on the 2012 comet, 2012 doomsday

Leading image credits: MIT (supernova simulation), NASA/JPL (extrasolar planet). Effects and editing: myself.

Navigation for Spaceships Using X-ray Pulsars: Introducing XNAV

Pulsar diagram (© Mark Garlick)

This could be the ultimate galactic GPS system: using pulsars as an interstellar navigation tool. Rapidly spinning neutron stars emit focused beams of X-rays into space and many, with accuracy as good as an atomic clock, have been mapped by astronomers. Now these pulsars may have a very important practical use. These interstellar beacons may be used to get a fix on the position of spacecraft and guide them around space…

Ever since the first X-ray pulsar was discovered in 1967 (called Centaurus X-3, the third X-ray source discovering in the constellation of Centaurus with a period of 4.84 seconds), astronomers have been busy mapping the distribution of these rapidly spinning stellar objects. Pulsars are the embodiment of a neutron star binary system; the neutron star strips the material from its stellar neighbour, accelerating the gas to about half the speed of light, blasting hot collimated X-ray emissions from its poles. As the pulsar spins, these beams of light act like a lighthouse, and should they be directed toward the Earth, we observe a highly accurate periodic flashing of X-rays.

At the beginning of this month, the IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS) 2008 conference in Monterey, California featured two interesting concepts for the use of these highly accurate X-ray sources. The first proposal called “Noise Analysis for X-ray Navigation Systems” headed by John Hanson of CrossTrac Engineering, introduces a scaled-up version of terrestrial GPS, using pulsars rather than man-made satellites. The system is called X-ray navigation, or “XNAV” for short. Primarily focusing on space missions beyond Jupiter, XNAV would use the Solar System as the base co-ordinate and then measure the phase of the incoming X-ray emission from the mapped pulsars. As the X-ray pulses are so accurate, onboard systems could measure and compare the signal from multiple pulsar sources and automatically deduce the position of the spacecraft to a high degree of certainty. I suppose it would be an advanced 3D version of the traditional sextant as used by ships to measure the elevation of stars above the Earth’s horizon.

The second concept entitled “Online Time Delay Estimation of Pulsar Signals for Relative Navigation using Adaptive Filters“, is headed by Amir Emadzadeh at the UCLA Electrical Engineering Department. Emadzadeh suggests that the location of two spacecraft can be worked out if both ships are looking at the same, known pulsar. The periodic emission measured by both ships will have a differential time delay proportional to the distance between the ships. In addition, the UCLA group suggest a method to derive their relative inertial position by observing a distribution of X-ray sources throughout the cosmos.

These are very interesting concepts, but until we begin routinely venturing beyond the orbit of Jupiter I doubt we’ll see these ideas come to fruition any time soon…

Original source: Space.com
Additional info: IEEE/ION PLANS 2008 conference

Soyuz Hard Landing: Equipment Module Failed to Separate – Official

The Soyuz landing site was a bit of a mess (AP)

Its official, last month’s Soyuz emergency landing was due to a technical fault just before re-entry. A Russian space agency official has made an announcement indicating that one of the spaceship’s modules failed to separate, putting the crew into a “ballistic re-entry”. After the event, a Russian agency source said the lives of the crew were on a “razor’s edge”, but the hardy Soyuz re-entry capsule landed the astronauts just about in one piece…

The Soyuz modules (NASA)
It was a rough ride when South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and American astronaut Peggy Whitson left the International Space Station on April 19th. At the time, the “ballistic re-entry” was shrouded in misinformation and media spin after the Russian space agency made attempts to deflect attention away from the troubled re-entry. As the dust settled a couple of days on, the facts slowly leaked though to the world’s media. Rather than re-hashing the events as they happened, check out the four days of Universe Today coverage from April 20th-24th:

Today, the first official word from Moscow appears to confirm the initial idea that there was some problem with the separation of the descent module from another module before it hit the Earth’s atmosphere. There is no mention whether the ballistic trajectory was caused by a short circuit, and there is no blame placed on any member of the crew (originally the agency cited the Soyuz commander to be at fault, making an unscheduled course correction).

The head of the Russian manned space program, Alexei Krasnov said the Soyuz TMA-11 equipment bay module was supposed to separate after the spaceship detached from the ISS. The capsule would have then been able to smoothly enter the atmosphere for a controlled re-entry. Instead the module remained attached, forcing the ballistic re-entry. The resulting drop through the atmosphere exerted forces of several Earth gravities on the crew. It is not clear at what point the equipment module was ripped free from the descent capsule, but the crew still sustained a hard landing, making sure they will never forget that journey.

The final official report on the Soyuz hard landing is pending…

Source: ABC

The Human Brain in Space: Euphoria and the “Overview Effect” Experienced by Astronauts

The integration of spirituality and science have been taught by scholars of many faiths for years (mi2g.com)

Could be the best example yet of being “spaced out”? When in space, astronauts have repeatedly reported inexplicable euphoria, a “cosmic connection” or an increased sensitivity to their place in the Universe. The experience sounds like the ultimate high, or the ultimate enlightening; it would appear that without trying, astronauts are able to attain a similar mental state as meditating Buddhist monks. So what is happening when the human body is in space? Does zero-gravity create new connections in the brain? Or is it a natural human response to the vastness of space and realizing just how small we are in comparison? What ever the reason, it looks like even when astronauts are back on solid ground, they have changed profoundly…

On March 6th, 1969, Rusty Schweikart experienced a feeling that the whole universe was profoundly connected. At the time, he was on a postponed space walk outside his Apollo 9 Lunar Module, carrying out tests for the forthcoming Moon landings. Already having suffered from space sickness (hence delaying the EVA) he felt a euphoric sensation:

“When you go around the Earth in an hour and a half, you begin to recognize that your identity is with that whole thing. That makes a change… it comes through to you so powerfully that you’re the sensing element for Man.” – Russell “Rusty” Schweikart.

Two years later, Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell (joint record holder with Alan Shepard for longest ever Moon walk of 9 hours and 17 minutes) reported experiencing an “Overview Effect”. He described the sensation gave him a profound sense of connectedness, with a feeling of bliss and timelessness. He was overwhelmed by the experience. He became profoundly aware that each and every atom in the Universe was connected in some way, and on seeing Earth from space he had an understanding that all the humans, animals and systems were a part of the same thing, a synergistic whole. It was an interconnected euphoria.

Schweikart and Mitchell’s experiences are not isolated anomalies, many other astronauts since the 1970’s have reported this Overview Effect. Andy Newberg, a neuroscientist/physician with experience in space medicine, hopes to find out whether this is an actual psychological phenomenon. Perhaps there is a medical reason for an actual change in an astronaut’s brain function when in space. What’s more, he’s noticed a psychological change in the men and women that have come back from space:

You can often tell when you’re with someone who has flown in space, its palpable.” – Andy Newberg

Newberg has scanned many brains to try to understand how humans reach this euphoric state on Earth. The religious communities, transcendental mediators and others around the world are able to experience similar states and have been the focus of interest to neuroscientists. In some cases, the meditation leads some people to view the whole cosmos as an interconnected quantum web, where consciousness is not separate, but a part of the Universe. Now Newberg hopes to monitor the brain of one of the first space tourists so a better grasp of the brain function of a human in zero-G can be understood.

Edgar Mitchell has said that his personal event has changed his life, revealing a Universe that had remained hidden until he experienced the Overview Effect on that Apollo 14 mission in 1971. Whether this effect is a physical change in the brain, or a deeper, yet to be discovered event, Newberg hopes to find some answers.

Source: The Daily Galaxy

Solar Sonic Boom: Eclipses May Generate Atmospheric Shocks

The shadow of a lunar eclipse (NASA)

Something strange happens during a solar eclipse. As the Moon’s shadow passes over the surface of the Earth, observers have noticed mysterious bands of shadow ripple ahead and behind the eclipse. It seemed possible that these bands were a result of constructive and destructive interference of sunlight around the limb of the Moon (an effect known as diffraction), or atmospheric turbulence may have had a part to play. However, a new theory has come to light. As the Moon’s shadow travels across the Earth’s surface, it may be possible that the shadow cools the atmosphere suddenly, creating a pressure difference. This gives rise to a sonic phenomenon: a shock front. This may refract the path of light from the lunar limb and through the atmosphere, creating the bands of light and dark. The solar eclipse may be a sonic phenomenon as well as an optical one…

If an object travels faster than the speed of sound, a shock will form. This shock is generated as a body passes through the atmosphere faster than sound can propagate. On Earth, at sea level, the speed of sound is approximately 1,225 kilometres per hour (or 761 miles per hour; i.e. the sound of an explosion would take an hour to travel a distance of 761 miles). Should an aircraft travel at 1,225 km/hr or beyond, the pressure waves it generates cannot keep up with the plane. In this case, a shock wave will form, more commonly known as a “sonic boom” for stationary observers.

So, back to the solar eclipse. How can the shadow of the Moon create a sonic boom? It’s only a shadow, it’s not a solid body moving inside the atmosphere; surely a shock isn’t possible? Actually, research carried out by astrophysicist Dr Stuart Eves who works with the Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) suggests it may be possible, and the phenomenon produced is known as “infrasound”. He believes that as the lunar shadow passes over the Earth’s surface, there is intense, local cooling of the atmosphere after the leading and before trailing edge of the eclipse. This cooling sets up a sudden pressure difference.

As the eclipse shadow moves through the atmosphere, the sudden disappearance of the Sun changes the Earth’s temperature.” – Dr Eves.

If we consider that the eclipse shadow travels at supersonic velocities (1,100 miles per hour at the equator and up to 5,000 miles per hour near the poles), and the strong pressure gradient travels with the eclipse, a shock front is created in the atmosphere, generating infrasound waves. The sub-audible infrasound generated by this occurrence modifies the atmosphere to such an extent that it will deflect the path of light through the atmosphere. In this case, the light and dark bands around the eclipse shadow would be created by refraction.

Some scientists are sceptical about this new theory, but Eves thinks his explanation may also help to explain other phenomena during eclipses. Infrasound may be responsible for strange Foucault pendulum behaviour (the sensitive pendulums – used to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth – swing wildly during eclipses). The infrasound pulses may cause the ground to vibrate, interfering with the pendulum swing. Infrasound may also explain some bizarre animal behaviour during these events. Sub audible sound wave frequencies are known to distress or alarm birds, perhaps their strange behaviour during eclipses could be down to infrasound propagation.

Source: BBC

Could Dark Matter be the Root Cause of Flyby Anomalies?

The Galileo mission above Earth - the subsequent flybys caused an unexpected boost in velocity (credit: NASA)

When space probes Galileo, Rosetta, NEAR and Cassini carried out Earth flyby manoeuvre, scientists measured a bizarre and unpredictable jumps in orbital acceleration. To this day, the phenomenon remains unexplained, but there are many ideas as to how this flyby anomaly may be caused. As previously reported on the Universe Today, some of the scientific explanations can be pretty exotic (the Unruh Effect, after all, isn’t that easy to understand), but this new theory is just as captivating. In a new study from the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, one researcher thinks dark matter might be messing around with our robotic explorers…

Dark matter is probably one of the most interesting, yet controversial, ideas in advanced cosmological studies. We have reported on many of the existing theories as to how we might be able to detect the Universe’s “missing matter” and it is thought that the bulk of universal mass may be held in a range of sub-atomic to massive stellar objects.

The flyby anomalies have been attributed to measurement error (spaceships using the Earth as a gravitational slingshot have their velocities measured by Doppler radar instruments on ground-based observatories), the Unruh effect, even variations in the speed of light, but so far, dark matter hasn’t really featured. So if there is dark matter out there in space, perhaps it will influence the spaceships we send out there. Now Stephen Adler at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton examines this possibility and imposes some limits that dark matter may influence flyby anomalies.

The biggest challenge facing any anomaly theory is that spacecraft have experienced increases and decreases in acceleration, what could be the chief suspect causing these sudden changes in acceleration? Alder points to the strange physics behind dark matter accumulating around the Earth, confined within a planetary ring, much like the visible rings around Saturn. What’s more, to explain flyby observations, the ring would have to contain at least two types of dark matter (non-baryonic particles). Interestingly, I recently wrote about the proposed LUX detector to be buried in a disused South Dakota goldmine. This detector will be the first of its kind to attempt to measure the elusive Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) that have been theorized to contain large quantities of matter, hence a large proportion of the dark matter in our universe. This leads to the possibility that the Earth may be passing through “clouds” of WIMPs, giving some credence to the idea that dark matter varieties may also be contained in the volume of space surrounding Earth. As spacecraft orbiting Earth passes through this dark matter ring, perhaps there will be some complex interaction causing this sudden change in acceleration.

For more technical information, have a read of the arXiv publication: “Can the flyby anomaly be attributed to earth-bound dark matter?” by Stephen L. Adler.

Source: arXiv blog

Phytoplankton Bloom Erupts in the North Sea

Usually the North Sea conjures up cold and gloomy visions. But as the stunning image above shows, this isn’t always the case. ESA’s Envisat captured vast green swirls of phytoplankton bloom drifting in the North Sea currents on May 7th 2008; spring has most definitely sprung for the Scottish waters. But how is this bright green bloom produced? What has stirred up all this activity? It seems that for a short time, the lush green landscape of Fife is matched by the sea-faring plankton off the UK coast…

Phytoplankton through the microscope (NOAA)

This vivid green bloom was created by a type of plankton called phytoplankton. The microscopic plant floats near the surface of large bodies of water where sunlight is plentiful. Like any land-based plant, phytoplankton requires photosynthesis to survive. Other types of plankton include zooplankton (microscopic creatures) and bacterioplankton (water-borne bacteria) survive by feeding off other plankton varieties. The plant variety of plankton, phytoplankton, is well known to produce blooms when nutrients on the marine environment increase, boosting phytoplankton population. It would seem that the water off the Scotland coast has become particularly nutrient rich, with plenty of sunlight, creating magnificent displays observable from orbit.

Envisat above Earth (ESA)

This particular bloom was captured by the Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) instrument on board the ESA’s Envisat operating at a full spatial resolution of 300m (i.e. features of 300m can be resolved). The green hue is from the chlorophyll (essential for photosynthesis) contained within each phytoplankton cell. Depending on the phytoplankton species, it’s possible that there are hundreds to thousands of cells per millilitre of sea water.

Phytoplankton is very important when considering the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and their density in the worlds oceans are modelled in simulations of future climate change. During photosynthesis, they absorb carbon dioxide (and generate oxygen), so they form a highly influential carbon sink.

Source: ESA Picture of the Day