NASA continues with their TRUE mandate
Rich
B.S. global warming.
Nasa sky survey probe blasts off
A Nasa satellite designed to uncover hidden cosmic objects has blasted
off from California.
The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (Wise) blasted off from
Vandenberg Air Force Base on a Delta II rocket just after 1409 GMT.
It will pick up the glow of hundreds of millions of astronomical
bodies.
The probe is expected to uncover objects that have never seen before,
including some of the coolest stars and the most luminous galaxies.
The $320m mission will do this by scanning the entire sky in infrared
light with a sensitivity hundreds of times greater than ever before.
Viewing the sky with "infrared glasses" can lift a veil on many
objects that are not visible to the naked eye.
“ Now we're ready to see the infrared glow from hundreds of thousands
of asteroids, and hundreds of millions of stars and galaxies ”
Ned Wright, UCLA
"All systems are looking good, and we are on our way to seeing the
entire infrared sky better than ever before," said William Irace, the
mission's project manager at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
California.
The satellite will also have a role in planetary protection: Wise will
be able to detect some of the darkest near-Earth asteroids and comets.
This would help efforts to determine whether any of these objects
could strike Earth in the near future.
Engineers acquired a signal from the spacecraft just 10 seconds after
the spacecraft separated from the rocket.
Approximately three minutes later, Wise re-oriented itself with its
solar panels facing the Sun to generate its own power.
Super cool
Wise is cooled by a chamber of super-cold hydrogen. Because the
instrument sees the infrared, or heat, signatures of objects, it must
be kept at chilly temperatures. Its coldest detectors operate below
-266C.
"Wise needs to be colder than the objects it's observing," said Ned
Wright of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the
mission's principal investigator. "Now we're ready to see the infrared
glow from hundreds of thousands of asteroids, and hundreds of millions
of stars and galaxies."
With the spacecraft stable, cold and communicating with mission
controllers, a month-long process of check-out and calibration is
underway.
Wise joins two other infrared missions in space: Nasa's Spitzer Space
Telescope and the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory.
This mission is different from those others in that it will survey the
entire sky.
It is designed to cast a wide net to catch a variety of objects of
interest.
Wise will target dim objects called brown dwarfs. These are
effectively failed stars, which have not gathered up enough mass to
ignite.
Brown dwarfs are cool and faint, and nearly impossible to see in
visible light. Mission scientists expect the spacecraft to uncover
many hundreds.
This could double or triple the number of star-like objects known
within 25 light-years of Earth.
Quadibloc
> Exploring space. Instead of "padding their resume" with support for
> B.S. global warming.
Helping farmers in the U.S. determine what crops would be best to
plant, looking out for insect infestations and marijuana farms are
entirely legitimate space activities.
You should actually be cheered to note that one part of rising sea
levels, melting ice caps on the Himalays, have recently been found to
be more the fault of soot from China than the world's carbon
emissions... by new observations partly made by NASA.
John Savard
Chris.B
>
> You should actually be cheered to note that one part of rising sea
> levels, melting ice caps on the Himalays, have recently been found to
> be more the fault of soot from China than the world's carbon
> emissions... by new observations partly made by NASA.
>
Is Chinese soot somehow inferior to American soot?
Will America take any responsibility for its share of soot production
caused by its own companies exporting their entire production to
China?
Will America take responsibility for its own coal burning?
http://www.burningthefuture.org/show.asp?content_id=14089
What goes around comes around.
One world. Our world. Not just your world.
TBerk
> One world. Our world. Not just your world.
1stly, I continue to observe many people who seem to want
A) unfettered access to Growth & Production (and therefore 'Profit!')
&
B) undervalue the ability of Humans to influence the natural
environment we all live in.
I. Me. _I_ have a say in the actions others take, (often on my
behalf, so they proclaim) about activities that affect the world I am
in. I also have a responsibility to myself and others in that same
regard.
This is _not_ Rocket Science.
Now, as to the Rocket Science; 320 Million Dollars is a lot of money.
But it pales in comparison to many other scales of finance and I am in
favor of exploration, discovery and teaching.
Bully that it didn't blow up on the way up and I look forward to it's
results over time.
berk
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 15, 6:55 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You should actually be cheered to note that one part of rising sea
> > levels, melting ice caps on the Himalays, have recently been found to
> > be more the fault of soot from China than the world's carbon
> > emissions... by new observations partly made by NASA.
>
> Is Chinese soot somehow inferior to American soot?
>
> Will America take any responsibility for its share of soot production
> caused by its own companies exporting their entire production to
> China?
If the Chinese were that worried about the situation, they would stop
producing things (including soot.)
> Will America take responsibility for its own coal burning?
Will Denmark takes responsibility for its own coal burning?
> http://www.burningthefuture.org/show.asp?content_id=14089
>
> What goes around comes around.
>
> One world. Our world. Not just your world.
Not just yours either.
Chris.B
>
> > One world. Our world. Not just your world.
>
> Not just yours either.
No, but my world is a lot more fun than yours! ;-)
Frank Warner
<d32db95f-6f6e-4a8c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exploring space. Instead of "padding their resume" with support for
> B.S. global warming.
>
> Nasa sky survey probe blasts off
>
> A Nasa satellite designed to uncover hidden cosmic objects has blasted
> off from California.
>
> The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (Wise) blasted off from
> Vandenberg Air Force Base on a Delta II rocket just after 1409 GMT.
I live about nine miles from Vandenberg and happened to be in the back
yard when the missile lifted off. Lovely sight. Left gorgeous exhaust
trails in the early morning sky (it was 6:10 AM here), almost like
aurora borealis. I managed to snap a couple of pictures but actually
haven't looked at them yet to see how they came out.
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
Rich
news:161220091533184960%war...@verizonDOTnet.net:
Sounds like it would be nice to have that vista.
Morten Reistad
Chris.B <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 6:55�pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> You should actually be cheered to note that one part of rising sea
>> levels, melting ice caps on the Himalays, have recently been found to
>> be more the fault of soot from China than the world's carbon
>> emissions... by new observations partly made by NASA.
>>
>
>Is Chinese soot somehow inferior to American soot?
No, it is superior in both density and amount. And pretty
unnecessary in the first place.
>Will America take any responsibility for its share of soot production
>caused by its own companies exporting their entire production to
>China?
>
>Will America take responsibility for its own coal burning?
>
>http://www.burningthefuture.org/show.asp?content_id=14089
>
>What goes around comes around.
>
>One world. Our world. Not just your world.
Soot is a lot easier to fix than CO2 emissions. Soot is
carbon that wasn't burned. And it is reasonably easy to
filter. It is an even better proposition to burn the
carbon properly (i.e. hot enough) so the soot gets burnt
in the first place.
Most western carbon burning plants already have soot
filtering in place, or burns sufficiently hot so they
generate very little soot in the first place.
The soot problem generally comes from small furnaces,
burning wood etc. EU norms for small fireplaces went
into effect a decade ago to properly burn wood etc.
with very low amounts of soot.
These norms also generally give a significantly higher
useful heat output per burnt mass than the old one, so
the soot avoidance is really just good housekeeping.
If you want to control a stove with the supply of air
(the normal method) then you need a secondary burn chamber
with extra air supply to properly burn the CO and soot.
Generating soot is just dumb.
-- mrr
wsne...@hotmail.com
Not likely. In my world we have cars and trucks instead of buses and
bicycles. In my world, one gets to keep more of what one earns, and
share it only (and voluntarily) with those whom we consider most
deserving.
Chris L Peterson
>> No, but my world is a lot more fun than yours! ;-)
>
>Not likely. In my world we have cars and trucks instead of buses and
>bicycles. In my world, one gets to keep more of what one earns, and
>share it only (and voluntarily) with those whom we consider most
>deserving.
Methinks you have a most peculiar definition of "fun".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:34:09 -0800 (PST), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> No, but my world is a lot more fun than yours! ;-)
>
> >Not likely. In my world we have cars and trucks instead of buses and
> >bicycles. In my world, one gets to keep more of what one earns, and
> >share it only (and voluntarily) with those whom we consider most
> >deserving.
>
> Methinks you have a most peculiar definition of "fun".
Methinks you are an idiot.
AM
I don't think so, what he writes is perfectly a
natural way to live. Somehow I don't think you
use public transportation to get around.
I also bet you do give and help others without
being told what to do also. I'd like to think
that you give $$$ to charities and do not need
to be told to do so. I bet that you do :)
--
AM
Chris L Peterson
>I don't think so, what he writes is perfectly a
>natural way to live. Somehow I don't think you
>use public transportation to get around.
Well, it's a little difficult when you live in a rural place. But I love
public transportation, and take advantage of it when I'm visiting a city
where it's available. If I lived in such a city, it would certainly be
my first choice for most transportation, and I'm a supporter of
subsidizing public transportation from public funds.
>I also bet you do give and help others without
>being told what to do also. I'd like to think
>that you give $$$ to charities and do not need
>to be told to do so. I bet that you do :)
I don't give money, but I do give a lot of time. Not sure what that has
to do with my comment, though. I wasn't questioning his preferences,
which are not unreasonable, only his choice of defining "fun" in terms
of choosing a car over a bicycle and in terms of tax burden (with no
reference to returns). I don't think either of these much impact whether
a person's world is "fun".
wsne...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:51:59 -0500, AM <sctu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >I don't think so, what he writes is perfectly a
> >natural way to live. Somehow I don't think you
> >use public transportation to get around.
>
> Well, it's a little difficult when you live in a rural place.
So get rid of any cars or trucks that you own anyway. Put those
horses to use!
> But I love
> public transportation, and take advantage of it when I'm visiting a city
> where it's available.
You mean you travel (by jet?) to cities that have public
transportation? Well, there goes your carbon budget!
> If I lived in such a city, it would certainly be
> my first choice for most transportation,
but not all, and only when convenient
> and I'm a supporter of
> subsidizing public transportation from public funds.
IOW, using someone else's money to buy bus rides for others.
> >I also bet you do give and help others without
> >being told what to do also. I'd like to think
> >that you give $$$ to charities and do not need
> >to be told to do so. I bet that you do :)
>
> I don't give money, but I do give a lot of time. Not sure what that has
> to do with my comment, though. I wasn't questioning his preferences,
> which are not unreasonable, only his choice of defining "fun" in terms
> of choosing a car over a bicycle
Riding a bicycle is fun only at those times when riding a bicycle is
fun. It isn't much fun in rain, snow, cold, or wind, nor on very
steep hills, nor when you must be somewhere quickly or travel a very
long distance, or have a heavy load to transport. Buses aren't much
fun either, I have tried them.
> and in terms of tax burden (with no
> reference to returns).
In many cases there are no returns for most taxpayers.
> I don't think either of these much impact whether
> a person's world is "fun".
I think my earlier comment stands.