Mike's Noise

Pluto: 1930 - 2006?

It seems that a group of astronomers have officially stripped Pluto of its planetary credentials: "Scientists Decide Pluto Is No Longer A Planet"

The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union in Prague.

"I'm embarrassed for astronomy. Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute.

"This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told Space.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous.

The resolution
The decision establishes three main categories of objects in our solar system.

• Planets: The eight worlds starting with Mercury and moving out to Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
• Dwarf planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite."
• Small solar system bodies: All other objects orbiting the sun.

Pluto and its moon Charon, which would both have been planets under the initial definition proposed Aug. 16, now get demoted because they are part of a sea of other objects that occupy the same region of space. Earth and the other eight large planets have, on the other hand, cleared broad swaths of space of any other large objects.

No Federal $$$ for embryonic stem cell research

I suppose that as a Christian I ought to write a few words about embryonic stem cell research and President Bush's veto of a bill that would have provided federal funding for such research.

Liberals and Bush-bashers of course wasted no time labeling Bush a fundamentalist simpleton pandering to Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.  Such an idiotic charge deserves no response.

But I will direct readers to this article by Dr. Michael Fumento, who reminds his readers that embryonic stem cell research has never progressed beyond the "oooh--aaah!" and "potential" stages, while adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research has actually yielded medical treatments.

Let me say that again:  stem cells harvested from the placentas of newborns and from bone marrow in adults -- methods that do not involve the destruction of a living human embryo -- have already provided useful medical treatments, while embryonic stem cell research -- which involves the destruction of a living human embryo -- has yet to do so.

Ahhhh, you say, but embryonic stem sell research might be fulfilling the futuristic promises of its proponents if we would remove its stigma and give researchers the big bucks from Uncle Sam.  The problem with this theory is that foreign nations have been conducting embryonic stem cell research for some time now.  So has the United States, utilizing strains of stem cells that have already been harvested some time ago and whose perpetuity does not involve killing more living human embryos.  And the research has been less than fulfilling.

Which brings up another point from Dr. Fumento's article: if embryonic stem cell research is so critical and so promising, why are its proponents so cash-strapped that they are begging from the Federal government?  Perhaps the dearth of private funding tells us all we really need to know about the usefulness of embryonic stem cell research.

Crack found in Shuttle foam

Spaceflight Now reports:

Engineers inspecting the shuttle Discovery's external tank following Sunday's launch scrub found a crack in the tank's foam insulation near a bracket holding a 17-inch oxygen feed line in place. Some engineers believe the crack must be repaired but senior managers say a variety of options are on the table, from fly as is to making repairs.

... Engineers also found a small piece of foam insulation resting on the surface of Discovery's mobile launch platform that may be associated with the crack. The crack is located near a bracket toward the top of the hydrogen section of the external tank that holds the liquid oxygen feedline in place. It is not yet known what might have caused the crack, although extreme temperature differences because of the presence of super-cold propellants could have played a role.

Definitely not good.

In order to comply with 1990's environmental regulations that banned the use of freon, the foam insulation on the Shuttle's main fuel tank was reformulated using a different aerosolizing agent.  The first shuttle to use the newly formulated foam flew in 1997, and since then NASA has had nothing but trouble with the foam insulation.

UPDATES:

CBS News has photos of the crack and the chunk of foam that fell off:

It looks to me like this dislodged piece is the same one shown cracked in the photo above.  What do you think?

Says NASA spokesman George Diller, "We don't know if it's a problem or not."

Right up there with "a major malfunction," I'd say.

Now NASA says it's a go for July 4th:

NASA managers decided to go ahead with the launch attempt because of three criteria: They are confident enough foam still is on the bracket to prevent a large piece of ice from forming; that the area of foam where the piece dropped was still intact; and they don't believe the area will be exposed to extreme heat during ascent.

Hope and pray.

Thoughts on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

I've been putting off writing about Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, but this story published by the AP just pushed me over the cliff.

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

Washington - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

This is a news story?  I'd give it five stars as a pure propaganda piece.

Fortunately the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works issued this scathing rebuttal:

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

They also challenged Gore's over-reliance on the questionable "hockey-stick" climate model as well as several other controversial claims made in the movie.

And those "global warming" skeptics?  There is an abundance of them, and they have been quite vocal:

• Gore's Hot Air (New York Post)

• Scientists Respond To Gore's Warnings of Climate Catastrophe (Canada Free Press)

• Chill Out Over Global Warming (Denver Post)

Then there is the excellent JunkScience.com, which has detailed rebuttals of virtually all the claims made in Gore's movie.

Others blogging:

Big Lizards ("I wish the Associated Press had thought to ask those 19 gushers who they thought had really won the 2000 election.")
Flopping Aces
The Anchoress
Bad Hair Blog
Hang Right Politics

Evangelicals fall for junk science

Okay, maybe the title is a little strong, but check out this New York Times story: Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative:

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." (This is the opening paragraph in the story, and already the bias of the writer shows.)

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."

"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.

"We have not paid as much attention to climate change as we should, and that's why I'm willing to step up," said Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, an influential evangelical institution in Illinois. "The evangelical community is quite capable of having some blind spots, and my take is this has fallen into that category."

The story goes on to highlight the dangerous evil-right-wing-icals in the group who tried to spoil the party:

Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Perhaps they are holding out for this?

In all seriousness, the Bible calls for us to exercise responsible stewardship for everything within our earthly dominion.  But the spotty science surrounding "global warming," coupled with the glaringly anti-American/anti-capitalist political agenda of outspoken global warming activists, would seem to make this a subject best left alone by religious leaders.

Challenger disaster 20th anniversary

January 28, 2006 marks the 20th anniversary of the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger, America's first true in-flight space disaster and an event that still haunts the collective memories of those who were around to experience it.  My thoughts and prayers go out to the surviving family members and NASA personnel who were forever changed by this tragedy.

Challenger's January 28, 1986 mission was widely publicized because astronaut Christa McAuliffe (top row, 2nd from left in the crew photo) was a schoolteacher.  Special closed-circuit television systems were installed in numerous schools so students could watch the liftoff.

After liftoff, a jet of flame shot horizontally from one of the Shuttle's solid fuel booster rockets, burning a hole in the craft's main liquid fuel tank.

78 seconds after liftoff, the main fuel tank exploded.  The solid fuel booster rockets continued their ascent.  The phrase "a major malfunction" became part of the popular American lexicon.

A special commission was ordered by President Reagan to investigate the incident and determine what went wrong.  The commission found that the jet of flame was the result of a failed joint in the structure that held the multi-part solid booster rockets together.  The commission also determined that the booster's manufacturer, Morton-Thiokol, was aware of the design flaw for years, and knew that the likelihood of joint failure increased in cold weather.  Thiokol sent NASA several faxes during the days before the January 28 launch, and recommended "no launch" due to concerns over predictions of cold weather at the launch site.

NASA ultimately ignored the warnings, and pressured Thiokol to reconsider their recommendation.  Thiokol conceded to NASA and retracted their "no launch" recommendation, citing inconclusive data.  Physicist Richard P. Feynman, a member of the commission, performed yeoman's work when he dipped a rubber o-ring used in the solid rocket booster joint into a glass of ice water, proving to everyone on live television that the o-rings became stiff (and therefore ineffective) when they were cold.

Sadly, the trend toward "gradually decreasing strictness" noted by Richard P. Feynman in his appendix to the official presidential commission report on the Challenger disaster, was not addressed by NASA, and more lives were lost seventeen years later aboard the shuttle Columbia.  It took a repeat of the same problem that doomed the Columbia (crumbling foam insulation on the Shuttle's main fuel tank) to finally ground the shuttle fleet last year.

Video of the Challenger explosion, juxtaposed with the re-entry disintegration of the Columbia, was used by videographer Chris Valentine to create this sobering presentation.  It's worth your time to download and watch it.  He also has a lot more about both Shuttle disasters here.

More:

NASA - Challenger STS 51-L Accident

Federation of American Scientists' Space Policy Project - The Challenger Accident

Space.about.com - Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Wikipedia - Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

MSNBC coverage, including "7 Myths About The Challenger Disaster"

President Ronald Reagan's Address To The Nation

The Rogers Commission Report on the Challenger Disaster, Wikipedia summary of the report

Richard P. Feynman's Appendix to the Rogers Commission Report

Summary of the work of Roger Boisjoly, aerospace engineer involved with Morton-Thiokol's effort to improve the solid rocket booster o-rings

Could the use of asbestos-containing putty in the solid rocket booster joints have prevented the Challenger disaster?  No.  And here's why.

My earlier posts (cited by Instapundit) on this summer's Shuttle shuttle mission and the controversy surrounding its foam fuel tank insulation are here and here.

Some of the graphics I used in this post came from here.  Start at the linked slide and navigate forward.

Dr. Sanity, who was flight surgeon at NASA when the Challenger exploded, has a must-read piece.

Tracked back to WizBang Carnival of the Trackbacks.  Welcome WizBang readers.  And welcome Michelle Malkin readers.  As always, thanks Michelle!

Plant a tree today, destroy the planet tomorrow

Everyone is talking about the bombshell article published in yesterday's issue of Nature magazine, which reports the Max Planck Institute's discovery that plants produce significant amounts of methane as a part of their normal metabolism.  Scientists had previously thought methane production by living plants to be an impossibility.  And the Planck Institute's study also indicates that the amount of methane produced by plants is significant -- from 10% to 30% of atmospheric methane might be derived from plant metabolism.

This is a big deal because the top three "greenhouse gasses" tied to "global warming" are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane.

But what it really proves is that mankind is still woefully ignorant of the mechanics behind our global climate.  In fact, we don't really even know what an "ideal" climate is.  The Earth's climate is perpetually in a state of flux; it has never remained constant over any appreciable period of time.  Remember that little fact the next time you read about the glaciers that covered New York State 10,000 years ago.

I have no reason to argue against the fact that scientists have noticed an upward trend in the mean temperature of our global climate during the past two decades.  But I will challenge anyone who thinks that they have the answers as to why the climate is changing, or what we can do in order to "undo" the changes.

In truth, most of these people are simply anti-American or anti-capitalism activists, motivated by politics and ideology rather than science.  To them it is impossible to believe that anything except America's evil, greedy capitalists could be responsible for what they see as a global environmental disaster.  And in their way of thinking, destroying America and destroying modern civilization is the only way to "heal the planet."

In their reporting on the methane revelation, The Financial Times also informs us:

Everyone knows fossil fuel power stations are hefty producers of CO2 and need urgently to be replaced. Yet they are now also recognised as hefty producers of aerosols - tiny particles in the atmosphere that play a key role in reflecting the sun's heat back into space. The scientific consensus was that this is a minor benefit of fossil fuel burning. But last month Nature published new research showing aerosols may be twice as effective at keeping the earth cool as was thought. Suddenly, wholesale closure of power stations no longer seems such a good idea.

Even so, it surely makes sense to use renewable sources of energy whenever possible. Well, up to a point: new research suggests hydroelectric schemes can be worse than useless in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A study by the National Institute for Research in the Amazon in the current issue of the journal Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change shows that the vast lakes used to feed hydroelectric turbines are a rich source of rotting vegetation - and thus methane. One such scheme in Brazil is now believed to have emitted more than three times as much greenhouse gas as would have been produced by generating electricity by burning oil.

So please, be skeptical the next time someone offers "the solution" to the global warming problem.  And cut down a few trees while you're at it -- you just might be saving the planet.

Descent of Discovery - Live

________________________________________________

Here is a link to NASA's ground tracking for the Discovery.
________________________________________________

6:45 AM CST

distance 2000 miles to Edwards AFB, California

15000 mph

alt 43 miles

6:51 AM CST

distance 1200 miles to Edwards AFB, California

12400 mph

alt 200000 ft.

6:53 AM CST

distance 800 miles to Edwards AFB, California

10000 mph

alt 34 miles

14 minutes to touchdown ...

6:56 AM CST

distance 800 miles to Edwards AFB, California

7500 mph

alt 167,000 ft miles

3rd roll completed

Discovery confirms it's on course

They've got it on radar

6:58 AM CST

distance 200 miles to Edwards AFB, California

4300 mph (Mach 6)

alt 25 miles

crossing California coastline

7:00 AM CST

distance 150 miles to Edwards AFB, California

3200 mph

alt 21 miles

Right turn to align with runway completed

They've got it on TV now

7:02 AM CST

distance 81 miles to Edwards AFB, California

2000 mph

alt 80,000 ft

7:05 AM CST

distance 10 miles to Edwards AFB, California

speed is subsonic

alt 10,000 ft

right overhead turn completed

Discovery has runway in sight

7:07 AM CST

distance 3 miles to Edwards AFB, California

alt 3,000 ft

looks like a perfect landing ...

7:08 AM CST

Touchdown!!!

Discovery is home - perfect landing, by the book

Congradulations NASA and Discovery crew on a perfect mission and safe touchdown.

I'm not synched with NASA's official mission clock; the actual touchdown time was 7:11 AM CST.

Space Shuttle News Roundup

August 8

You can listen to the first "podcast" from space, a message from mission specialist astronaut Steve Robinson, by clicking here.  Or read the transcript here. (h/t WizBang)

Our prayers are with the NASA and the Discovery crew, that God may grant them a safe return home.

________________________________________________

Here is a link to NASA's ground tracking for the Discovery.
________________________________________________

Possible landing times and locations for the Shuttle Discovery are:

- 5:07 a.m EDT or 6:43 a.m. EDT in Florida

- 8:12 a.m. EDT or 9:47 a.m. EDT at Edwards AFB in California

- 6:39 a.m. EDT or 8:13 a.m. EDT at White Sands, New Mexico

Discovery's Crew Readies for 2nd Try at Landing (Reuters)

NASA Eyes California, New Mexico for possible Shuttle landing (San Jose Mercury News)

Spaceship Earth (CBS News)

Astronaut Eileen Collins is concerned about the environmental degradation she sees from space. On board the fragile spaceship Discovery, she lamented from her unique vantage point above the Earth: "Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world... We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used."

... astronauts are actually given training in detecting major areas of environmental degradation that can easily be viewed from space ...  They are trained to watch for areas of Amazonia and the Congo tropical forests and compare amounts of deforestation with photos from 10, 20, 30 years ago. Likewise, they watch for how far out into the oceans the silt plumes from the major rivers extend. Or for expansion of the great Sahelian Desert further south into sub-Saharan Africa.

Weekend August 6 - 7

SHUTTLE LAUNCH POSTPONED BY 24 HOURS DUE TO CLOUDS IN THE LANDING AREA

Shuttle Undocks from International Space Station (Pakistan Daily Times)

Discovery Crew Checks Shuttle Before Landing (Reuters)

Tension Grows As 'Discovery' Crew Prepares for Re-Entry (The Independent)

NASA Upbeat About Shuttle's Return (ABC News - Australia)

Discovery Astronauts Ready To Return To Earth (MSNBC)

Space Shuttle Program Faces Critical Juncture (USA Today)

The short launch windows and their infrequency are driven in part by NASA's requirement that liftoff be well-lit so cameras can spot flying debris. The timing is also dictated by the need to line up the shuttle to dock with the space station.

Atlantis also could be delayed by another post-Columbia rule: A second shuttle, in this case Discovery, must be ready to rescue the Atlantis crew if something goes wrong. Turning Discovery around fast enough to fulfill the rescue role will be the "real constraint" to the next launch, Hale said.

NASA had hoped many of the launch restrictions would end after the Atlantis mission. Instead, the restrictions might be extended because of the problems found during Discovery's mission, Hale said.

That could have implications for the space station, which is half-built. No other existing space vehicle is big enough to carry pieces of the station.

NASA plans to retire the shuttle in five years, but it has not settled on a replacement vehicle. A long delay in the next flight and tight launch windows could make it hard to squeeze in the 19 to 20 flights NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has said are needed to finish the orbiting laboratory.

Shuttle Program A Study in Change and Stability (New York Times)

The shuttles reflect decades-old design and show their age. But those who maintain the shuttle, manage it, chart its trajectory and its future know that it embodies transition as well, with regular upgrades like the modern "glass cockpit" digital display that replaced antiquated dials.

  Many of the people of the space agency have remained while much around them has changed. And more changes are expected once the Discovery mission is done.

A closer look at the Space Shuttle fuel tank - and why Branson and Rutan matter

UPDATE:  Here's a link to my Shuttle News Roundup, updated daily.
_________________________________________________________

NASA has released photos of the large external Shuttle fuel tank after it was jettisoned.  Clearly visible near the top of the tank in the image (actually the bottom of the bullet-shaped tank, since it is nearly upside down in the photo) is a rather large light-yellow area which has been stripped of insulating foam.

(AP/NASA)

Extensive photographic examination of the Discovery has not revealed any visible damage to the craft so far.  Another examination using a camera mounted on the crane in the Shuttle's cargo bay will take place today.  If everything checks out, the crew is expected to complete their mission to the International Space Station and then return home without incident on Sunday August 7.

In my previous essay regarding the problems with insulating foam peeling off the Space Shuttle's large external fuel tank, I failed to mention the fact that the tank was originally designed to be painted.  Indeed, this image from the inaugural manned launch of the Space Shuttle Columbia, STS-1 on April 12, 1981 will remind us that the tank was originally white:

(NASA)

After the second orbital Shuttle mission, the paint was eliminated in order to reduce the weight of the Shuttle launch assembly.

The Shuttle launch assembly consists of the Shuttle orbiter itself, two solid-fuel booster rockets, and the large external fuel tank.  Morton-Thiokol manufactures the solid-fuel booster rockets, and Lockheed Martin manufactures the external fuel tank.  This fuel tank holds liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen fuel for the Shuttle's three main engines.  Its fuel supply is used up approximately seven minutes after launch, and the tank is jettisoned from the Shuttle orbiter.  It is designed to fall back to Earth and disintegrate during atmospheric re-entry; the small amount of remaining debris falls harmlessly into the Atlantic ocean.

My previous essay provided significant evidence that the 1997 reformulation of the spray-on foam insulation used on the tank has weakened the insulation material and has made it much more likely to peel off during the flight into space.  The foam was reformulated because it was originally made with freon gas.

In light of the problems associated with the new insulation foam, it seems to me that NASA has at least these options if they want to keep the Shuttle flying:

1)  Return to the use of the freon-containing foam and its traditional manufacturing and application techniques and quit worrying about the negligible risk of ozone layer damage.

2)  Continue using the new freon-free foam with its high associated risk of failure.

3)  Continue using the new freon-free foam, but seal it again with paint.  The launch assembly will be heavier, but undoubtedly safer.

4)  Return to the use of the freon-containing foam, but manufacture the tank in a controlled atmosphere that would capture any freon released during the application of the foam, and modify the launch slightly in order to give the fuel tank a bit of extra momentum and propel it to a high enough altitude to prevent atmospheric re-entry and any associated atmospheric contamination risks.

The ultimate conclusion may rightly be that the Shuttle is too expensive to operate.  Maybe this will be the wake-up call for more private entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan and Virgin's Sir Richard Branson, who have just announced plans to begin an enterprise that will build sub-orbital space vehicles for both public and private use.

NASA did its primary job -- winning the space race and landing a man on the moon -- exceptionally well.  John Kennedy gave the agency not only a mission but a stringent timetable, and the agency had the blessings of the American people to spend whatever it took to keep the Russians from winning the technological Cold War.  But the giant bureaucratic behemoth that NASA has become is certainly not the best method to ensure the quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness necessary for the next generation of space travel.