1474211225000

astronomy

%feed
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond/~3/MvcgKiKm1ac/-startalk-radio-with-neil-degrasse-tyson-the-space-race-from-mining-helium-3-to-conspiracy-theories-.html
StarTalk Radio With Neil deGrasse Tyson --The Space Race: "From Mining Helium 3 to Conspiracy Theories that Deny the Apollo Landing" (LISTEN)

What did politics and the Cold War have to do with the space race? On the flip side, how did the Apollo program and landing on the Moon impact us here on Earth? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Cosmos host and the author of Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, answers fan-submitted questions chosen by co-host Chuck Nice about the Apollo program, landing on the Moon, and so much more.

Explore whether John F. Kennedy's role in pushing for a lunar landing was more important than the geopolitical realities of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Neil explains how going to the Moon influenced our relationship with our home planet, coinciding with the first Earth Day, the passing of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the founding of NOAA and the EPA, the banning of DDT and leaded gasoline.

Discover how comparing samples of lunar soil and minerals to terrestrial samples helped us discover that the Moon is the result of a collision by a Mars-sized protoplanet with Earth's crust.

Neil and Chuck also discuss conspiracy theorists who deny that we've even landed on the Moon, and the reported incident where Buzz Aldrin punched a denier in the face.

You'll hear whether Neil feels we could have better spent some of the money for the Apollo program on other types of space exploration, and also who he thinks “won” the space race.

Plus, you'll learn about plans to mine the Moon for Helium-3, and find out what cosmic event Neil would want to witness if he could travel back in time.

LISTEN

astronomy

1474211222000

astronomy

%feed
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond/~3/Z6S_nmM7Yg8/-nasa-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-plutos-intense-x-ray-emissions-no-natural-means-for-emitting-x-r.html
NASA Mystery: Scientists Baffled By Pluto's Intense X-Ray Emissions --"No Natural Means for Emitting X-Rays"

Something very odd is going on around Pluto. According to NASA scientists, the New Horizons' flyby of the former ninth planet has revealed an enigma: the icy world that orbits some 3.6 billion miles from the sun appears to be emitting x-rays—high energy radiation associated with gases with temperatures of a million degrees. That makes Pluto the furthest known x-ray source in our solar system.

"We've just detected, for the first time, X-rays coming from an object in our Kuiper Belt, and learned that Pluto is interacting with the solar wind in an unexpected and energetic fashion," said Carey Lisse, an astrophysicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) who led the Chandra observation team with APL colleague and New Horizons Co-Investigator Ralph McNutt. “We can expect other large Kuiper Belt objects to be doing the same."

"Before our observations, scientists thought it was highly unlikely that we'd detect X-rays from Pluto," added astronomer Scott Wolk.

NASA's New Horizons spacecraft flew by Pluto in 2014 and 2015, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, imaged Pluto. No known objects in our solar system beyond Saturn emit x-rays. A cold, rocky, and non-magnetic body like Pluto shouldn't normally create X-rays, but it might be able to do so in interaction with the charged particles of the solar wind, except for the fact that there doesn't appear to be enough solar wind to create X-rays as bright as the ones Chandra detected.

While NASA's New Horizons spacecraft was speeding toward and beyond Pluto, Chandra was aimed several times on the dwarf planet and its moons, gathering data on Pluto that the missions could compare after the flyby. Each time Chandra pointed at Pluto four times in all, from February 2014 through August 2015 it detected low-energy X-rays from the small planet.

Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt, a ring or belt containing a vast population of small bodies orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune. The Kuiper belt extends from the orbit of Neptune, at 30 times the distance of Earth from the Sun, to about 50 times the Earth-Sun distance. Pluto's orbit ranges over the same span as the overall Kupier Belt.

The team recently published its findings online in the journal Icarus. The report details what Lisse says was a somewhat surprising detection given that Pluto being cold, rocky and without a magnetic field has no natural mechanism for emitting X-rays.

But Lisse, having also led the team that made the first X-ray detections from a comet two decades ago, knew the interaction between the gases surrounding such planetary bodies and the solar wind the constant streams of charged particles from the sun that speed throughout the solar system -- can create X-rays.

New Horizons scientists were particularly interested in learning more about the interaction between the gases in Pluto's atmosphere and the solar wind. The spacecraft itself carries an instrument designed to measure that activity up-close the aptly named Solar Wind Around Pluto (SWAP) and scientists are using that data to craft a picture of Pluto that contains a very mild, close-in bowshock, where the solar wind first "meets" Pluto (similar to a shock wave that forms ahead of a supersonic aircraft) and a small wake or tail behind the planet.

The immediate mystery is that Chandra's readings on the brightness of the X-rays are much higher than expected from the solar wind interacting with Pluto's atmosphere.

Dwarf planet Pluto, as seen by NASA's Chandra x-ray telescope below. Dwarf planet Pluto, as seen by the Chandra x-ray telescope.

"Before our observations, scientists thought it was highly unlikely that we'd detect X-rays from Pluto, causing a strong debate as to whether Chandra should observe it at all," said co-author Scott Wolk, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. "Prior to Pluto, the most distant solar system body with detected X-ray emission was Saturn's rings and disk."

The Chandra detection is especially surprising since New Horizons discovered Pluto's atmosphere was much more stable than the rapidly escaping, "comet-like" atmosphere that many scientists expected before the spacecraft flew past in July 2015. In fact, New Horizons found that Pluto's interaction with the solar wind is much more like the interaction of the solar wind with Mars, than with a comet.

However, although Pluto is releasing enough gas from its atmosphere to make the observed X-rays, in simple models for the intensity of the solar wind at the distance of Pluto, there isn't enough solar wind flowing directly at Pluto to make them.

Lisse and his colleagues who also include SWAP co-investigators David McComas from Princeton University and Heather Elliott from Southwest Research Institute suggest several possibilities for the enhanced X-ray emission from Pluto. These include a much wider and longer tail of gases trailing Pluto than New Horizons detected using its SWAP instrument. Other possibilities are that interplanetary magnetic fields are focusing more particles than expected from the solar wind into the region around Pluto, or the low density of the solar wind in the outer solar system at the distance of Pluto could allow for the formation of a doughnut, or torus, of neutral gas centered around Pluto's orbit.

That the Chandra measurements don't quite match up with New Horizons up-close observations is the benefit and beauty of an opportunity like the New Horizons flyby. "When you have a chance at a once in a lifetime flyby like New Horizons at Pluto, you want to point every piece of glass every telescope on and around Earth at the target," McNutt says. "The measurements come together and give you a much more complete picture you couldn't get at any other time, from anywhere else."

New Horizons has an opportunity to test these findings and shed even more light on this distant region billions of miles from Earth as part of its recently approved extended mission to survey the Kuiper Belt and encounter another smaller Kuiper. It is unlikely to be feasible to detect X-rays from MU69, but Chandra might detect X-rays from other larger and closer objects that New Horizons will observe as it flies through the Kuiper Belt towards MU69. Belt object, 2014 MU69, on Jan. 1, 2019.

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, designed, built, and operates the New Horizons spacecraft and manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the Chandra program for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, controls Chandra's science and flight operations.

The Daily Galaxy via chandra.si.edu

Image credit: NASA/CXC/JHUAPL/R.McNutt

astronomy

1474172992000

gaia

%feed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-doniger/power-plan-foes-from-mars_b_12068010.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
Power Plan Foes from Mars, Backers from Venus (Earth Actually)

In less than two weeks, nine judges on the Court of Appeals in Washington will hear arguments over the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of this country's action on climate change. At stake are limits on the nation's biggest single source of dangerous carbon pollution some 1500 coal and gas fired power plants that together emit nearly two billion tons per year of carbon dioxide. That's more than a third of U.S. climate-changing pollution and almost three times the pollution from the next ten industrial source categories combined.

The first thing that might strike a neutral observer when reading the briefs is that the two sides are coming from completely different planets. They are presenting such starkly different factual pictures.

To be sure, the Clean Power Plan's supporters feel the fierce urgency of acting on climate change. The climate deniers and big polluters on the others side, not so much. But that is not the main difference I want to emphasize here.

At the heart of their case the Clean Power Plan's challengers have painted an enormous fiction: A picture of a stable, healthy coal-based power industry happily supplying everyone with low-cost electricity, until the big bad EPA came along and disrupted everything, forcing the industry into tumultuous change, and destroying the American energy economy.

By any objective measure, this apocalyptic vision is plainly wrong. The electricity industry already is and has been for years in a rapid transition away from coal and towards cleaner generation a transition driven mainly by fundamental market forces such as lower gas prices, lower costs for wind and solar power and energy efficiency, and by state and federal policies and company planning decisions that long predated the Clean Power Plan.

Every neutral analyst expects these market-driven trends in the generation mix to continue, and to be boosted by Congress's five-year extension of federal wind and solar tax incentives late last year. Because of these trends, analysts expect the power sector to be well-positioned to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon pollution limits in 2022 and beyond. This independent research is summarized in a new analysis NRDC released last week.

These are the reasons why US coal consumption for electricity declined 31 percent between 2008 and 2015.

These are the reasons why Southern Company, the power company with the second-largest carbon emissions, reduced its coal generation by 60 percent over the last 10 years, and reduced its carbon pollution 25 percent.

These are the reasons the wind industry is booming in Oklahoma one of the challenger states which is on track to pass California as the nation's #3 wind producer, behind Texas and Iowa.

Check out these visuals showing the booming growth trends for wind and solar power.

As the lead challenger, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, acknowledged in May, “the marketplace was moving in a particular direction” quite apart from the Clean Power Plan.

The underlying trends are so strong that even the Supreme Court's February stay “doesn't really change anything,” according to Quin Shea, an Edison Electric Institute vice president. Shea added: “We're still reducing CO2, and the general curve, that's not going to change.” “You don't simply put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to major strategic investments that the captains of industry are making.”

Just as King Canute could not hold back the incoming tide, King Coal cannot hold back the rise of the seas—or the clean energy transition.

Seen in this light, there is nothing radical or transformational about the Clean Power Plan. To be sure, like other air pollution control rules, it requires somewhat more than the marketplace will deliver on its own. That should be totally understandable: the marketplace does not capture the externalities that dangerous air pollution imposes on our communities, our children, and our climate. That's why we have a Clean Air Act.

The false story of apocalyptic impacts is fundamental to the challengers' legal arguments. Take that away, and the Clean Power Plan is unexceptional, just the latest of a long line of clean air standards to curb the public health and environmental toll that the power industry the nation's biggest polluter exacts on the American people. I am confident that the Court of Appeals will see through the fictions on which the challengers' case depends.

The challengers cannot question whether the Clean Air Act covers climate-changing air pollutants. The Supreme Court already decided that in Massachusetts v. EPA. They cannot question whether the Clean Air Act covers carbon dioxide pollution from power plants. The Supreme Court already decided that in American Electric Power v. Connecticut.

So they challenge how EPA has regulated. And here they paint a second picture that stands in contrast to the facts.

To hear them tell it, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to assume that every power plant operates on its own, isolated from the others, like Edison's original plants back in the 19^th century.

But that's not how they work. Power plants are part of an interconnected electric grid. They are jointly operated to supply exactly the amount of electricity demanded at any given time. When one plant increases generation, other plants generate less. Power companies and grid operators routinely shift generation among facilities to meet demand within economic and environmental constraints.

It's a fact of life that some power plants are used less, and others used more, when fuel prices change, for example. The same is true when new air pollution limits take effect.

EPA took these facts into account and the fact that CO2 mixes evenly in the atmosphere regardless of its source and designed a flexible, cost-efficient way to reduce emissions. Each coal-fired plant has a set of tools to meet its emission limit. These tools include so-called “inside the fenceline” measures a range of technologies and fuel choices to reduce the emissions of the plant itself and the ability to use credits reflecting the emission reductions that result from ramping up generation at cleaner plants.

This is, in fact, the very system many power companies and states asked EPA to allow for compliance purposes. It is the very system the power sector has supported in numerous prior power sector regulations. It's the system that power company intervenors representing some 10 percent of U.S. generation, joined by amicus Dominion Resources, have stepped in to defend here.

In this case, the challengers are asking the Court to adopt an unprecedented one-sided proposition: let us use all these flexible tools to comply with standards. But forbid EPA from considering these tools, and the cost-effective emission reductions they enable, when the agency determines the stringency of the standards themselves.

That's like the golfer who wants his handicap set playing 18 holes with one club, and then wants to play against his handicap with all the clubs in the bag. The PGA doesn't work that way, and the Clean Air Act doesn't either.

I'll close by briefly addressing another argument one the challengers made up out of whole cloth late in the game, after the Supreme Court decided in American Electric Power that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does indeed authorize EPA to curb the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation's power plants.

Congress adopted Section 111(d) in 1970 expressly to fill any gaps to make sure there was authority to curb any dangerous air pollutants from industrial sources that were not taken care of by other parts of the law, including Section 112 on hazardous air pollutants. Now the challengers claim that the 1990 Congress amended the law to open the very gap Section 111(d) was intended to fill. They claim Congress made EPA must choose between regulating power plants' carbon pollution under Section 111(d) or their mercury pollution under Section 112.

I am confident the Court of Appeals will not be persuaded that Congress intended to create this Sophie's Choice.

The challengers have lately invented a theory that Congress wanted to protect power plants and other sources from so-called “double regulation” under two parts of the Clean Air Act. But a quick look at the Clean Air Act will show you that power plants are subject to regulation under at least six different part of the law, for different pollutants and different adverse effects on health or the environment. That's the statutory plan, which ensures a way to curb all of the dangerous emissions from sources.

I suppose one could argue that it would be better to have a new statute that provides one comprehensive approach to regulating all of the dangerous pollutants that emanate from power plants. But no one would design a system that says that if EPA chooses to protect the public from Dangerous Pollutant A in this case, mercury it may not protect the public from Dangerous Pollutant B in this case carbon dioxide. There's simply no evidence that this is what the 1990 Congress intended to do.

So I am confident that the Court of Appeals will see through the fictions on which the challengers' case depends. The power industry is in rapid transition due to market forces, and the Clean Power Plan asks for a modest amount more to control a very dangerous form of pollution than the unregulated marketplace on its own. Power plants operate together in an interconnected grid, and it is reasonable for EPA to take those facts into account in assessing cost-effective pollution control measures. And because power plants emit many dangerous air pollutants that are subject to many parts of the Clean Air Act, there is no plausibility to the story that Congress wanted EPA to pick one poison and let the other go free.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

My princess by Olala_lalaO

Puddle by Jake Olson Studios

$29.99 End Of Summer Sale!!!! My Newest Photoshop Action Detail Brush is finally here and it's free with purchase of my latest tutorial Jake Olson Masterclass! For details visit Jake Olson Webinars through this link! -> JAKE OLSON STUDIOS MASTERCLASS

I am coming.. by Makis Bitos

Thanks for your visit, your likes and your comments..

Just say Om! by John Wilhelm is a photoholic

If you like my photos, follow me on facebook: [click]