Showing posts with label NASA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NASA. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Parameters: "How widespread within NASA is the conviction that human activity is responsible for climate change?"





Climate change is a hot topic issue.  Different people fall onto different ends of the spectrum on the 'causes' of climate change.  Climate skeptics have held onto the notion that a component attributable to the daily operations of humans on Earth does not figure prominently into the overall equation which represents 'cause.'   Whereas, people who believe in the component of climate change attributable to 'man made' are on the other end.  In between lie people with varying percentages of the two dispositions.



To address the question listed in the title of the article, Astrophysicist Dr. Michelle Thaller, who works for NASA was interviewed by Big Think produced a video interview titled "Does NASA have any climate change skeptics?" gave the following answer:



Michelle Thaller: Hi Jay. So your question is how widespread is it within NASA that scientists are convinced that human activity is responsible for climate change? And this is something that is important to say very, very clearly. I have known and worked with hundreds of earth scientists at many different locations in NASA, all of them, all of them believe that human activity is responsible for the current climate change that we see going so fast it's almost unprecedented. I want you to think about that.

One thing that I take really seriously and I'm very proud of is that NASA is not a political organization. We are scientists that work for the American people. We're funded by taxpayer's money. And what we do is we make measurements. We have many, many different satellites that are orbiting the earth right now they're looking at things like ice on the oceans and at the poles, they're looking for things like vegetation growth and the change of that, ocean level, is the ocean level rising? Yeah it turns out that it is. So we have many scientists all over the planet studying all of the different ramifications of climate change. We understand the causes. There actually is no scientific controversy about that. Humans are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is warming our planet.

Now what scientists are researching currently, and they don't all agree about, is what are the most important components of driving climate change. Is it carbon dioxide? Could it be something else like methane? When methane gets released that's an even more powerful greenhouse gas. We don't agree on how quickly things like the ocean level will rise. People have different estimates for how quickly that will happen. So there still is scientific controversy about what the most important aspects of climate change are and how quickly it will go in the future, but there is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change.

Now I started this off by saying that one of the things I'm very proud of is that NASA is not political. And what that means for me is that I cannot advocate for any specific solution to climate change. That's not my job. That's up to policymakers. People might suggest things like having more solar energy or cutting carbon emissions or things like that, but at NASA we really understand that's not us, that's up to the American people, our leaders and leaders around the world. What we do is provide the facts to everybody on the planet. All of our data is actually free to any government, any person, any scientist all over the world that wants to use it. So we all know what's causing climate change, we can't tell you what to do about it but we can say it's time to do something about it.



I particularly like the ending where Dr. Thaller states that her job is not to convince people of the human component (or any other for that matter) which contributes to climate change.  What is her job is to present the scientific data and let the chips fall where they may -- on the policy (and human) side.  Data speaks for itself.  The data shows an upward trend to the overall effects of global warming over the period.  That is what the data shows.



Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum, science should not be taken for granted.  Each of us should aspire to learn at the very least how science plays into our daily lives.  Further, we should be concerned when scientific data points in one direction while policy points in the other.  That is when the data should be presented again -- or we should revisit the data to remind ourselves of the future.  At the end of the day, each of us will show up to the poll or make our minds up regarding 'cause' and 'solutions' to grand issues facing life on Earth.  The best we can do is gather as much data on which to base our future decisions on.  Happy New Year!



Related Blog Posts:


Senator Carper Blasts Environmental Protection Agency For Considering Relaxing 'Mercury and Air Toxics Standard'?


What does a Government Shutdown look like?


What is the difference between General Anxiety Disorder and Trump Anxiety Disorder?


Congress Gets Involved In Beef Recall


How Effective Are Poultry Corporations At Reducing Salmonella In Their Products?


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!


Thoughts: An example letter of opposition to repealing the 2015 Clean Waters Rule


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


President Trump Just Allowed Greater Environmental Risk To Children's Health


Thoughts: Senator Bernie Sanders Asks Public To Get Involved In The Public Process At Any Level


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Coal Magnate Murray Shames Fossil Fuel Industry For Being "Forward Thinkers" For Energy


Democrats Question EPA Adminstrator Scott Pruitt On Historical Job Cuts At EPA


There Is No Climate Debate -- Scientific Facts Have Settled The Issue?







Saturday, August 4, 2018

Thoughts: Instead of forming a "Space Force" why don't we work together to solve the world's problem?


Source: Brane Space



If you have not heard yet, the current administration in Washington D.C. is planning to form a 6th military branch called the "Space Force."  If you click on the hyperlinked "Space Force" you will be directed to the current (as of the writing of the post) search for this new endeavor.  Many in the defense industry are scratching their heads wondering where the endeavor is headed.  More importantly, why is President Trump calling for the formation?



With the entertainment of that idea in mind, there are also a community of special high ranking military service personnel who are wondering why not just deal with the current problems of the world.  Who are they?  In the video below from 'MSNBC' titled "What We Know About The Existing U.S. Space Force | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC" a brief discussion arises between the reporters and Commander Scott Kelly regarding the formation of a "Space Force" and the "Orbital Perspective."  The video is less than 8 minutes in length and worth viewing:








According to reporting by MSNBC reporter Ali Velshi in the video above, there are multiple components to transitioning toward such an endeavor/change.  First, funding would have to be approved by Congress (good luck on that) to create a 'Space Force'.  Not to mention, the paperwork and usual mandates and laws which accompany such a creation.  The process would be a huge ordeal.  Currently, each branch has a 'space subdivision' with the United States Air Force leading out in front with 'Space Command'. 



Skeptics mainly point to the cost, which would ultimately restructure the current distribution of money which funds the main 5 branches of the military.  The video above is divided into two parts.  The first was just discussed -- funding and creating such an extraordinary 'Force' when the military adequately handles the present demand.  The second part of the video above covers an interview with former NASA astronaut Scott Kelly.  Commander Scott Kelly rightfully points out that currently, each astronaut up in space working together are former enemies (military personnel) who are now forging a relationship to work together to advance the mission of space exploration (i.e. different nations put astronauts in the International Space Station). 



As Commander Scott Kelly points out in the video above, the observation by astronauts alike when viewing the Earth from orbit is the following: "Each of us should work together to solve the ONE PLANET on which we both live."  From his description, the 'orbital perspective' causes a viewer to question the meaning of "countries," "states," "nations" or "boundaries" in general.



Historically, each country (nation) has embedded the need to defend space under various branches of the military.  In the United States, the United States Air Force has a branch responsible for space.  Throughout history, only one country (nation) has had anything like a 'Space Force' -- which is Russia.  Currently, each nation who contributes human capital (i.e. astronauts) to the International Space Station do not feel that their welfare is threatened.  At least not enough to start a "space war" forming each a bunch of separate 'Space Forces' in space.  How would that even work?



Until the occupation of space becomes an issue between nations, each nation should focus on their respective contribution to the problems plaguing planet Earth.  There are more than enough problems to focus on without the need of creating another set of military issues (i.e. creating Space Forces).  The wars which are being battled here on Earth are plenty to keep us busy as an aggregate of different nations trying to inhabit the same planet.  Here is another opinion/article from a popular astronomer/astrophysicist on the matter.



Related Blog Posts:


How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?


How Much Would The Sun Weigh If Filled With Water?


Why Is Elon Musk Powering A Freight Ship With A Rocket Engine?


Why Do People Fly Drones Into "Restricted Air Space"?


Are The Elements Hydrogen And Helium "Of This World"?














Monday, April 11, 2016

Flint Michigan Rations Water, What About Astronauts?

Last Sunday, I was catching up on reading a few old newspapers laying around my house as the rain fell down outside the house.  As you know, I wrote a blog post earlier in the year about the volume of rain in a given period (hours).  An article caught my eye about the rationing of water (bottled water) in the town of Flint, Michigan, due to the polluted water supply.




Specifically, the amount given to a family wast 40 (16-oz) water bottles for a 24 hour period for a family of four.  My mind started to wander and think about another blog post I wrote about the excessive use of water by "Bel Air" residents (32,000 gallons per day) compared to the average Los Angeles resident.  Of course, from there, my thoughts migrated to the amount of water required for space astronauts.  In the paragraphs below, you will find the result of a short trip of mental wandering on my part.




What Is Your Daily Water Consumption?





How much water does a person use per day?  Of course, the amount of water used per person on a daily basis differs greatly than the "true" amount that is needed.  Not all of us cannot be such conservationalist.  Just kidding, I am guilty of taking an occassional 30 minute show (if we are being honest here).    In the case of the residents in the town of Flint, that luxury does not exist.




According to the New York Times article titled "For Families In Flint, A Daily Struggle To Avoid Tap Water," each family is on a rationing of water that is dispersed from the local fire station.  The excerpt that caught my eye was the following:




Local fire stations stock the water, but residents have to pick it up and cart it home every day or every other day. Families go through prodigious amounts of bottled water: A family of four can easily use up a case of 40 half-liter (16.9-fluid-ounce) bottles in a 24-hour-period — just for drinking and cooking. While health officials say the water is safe for bathing, laundry and dishwashing, many families don’t trust the advice.

Mrs. Ollie has trained her sons, 6-year-old Kingston and 4-year-old Jase, to take sponge baths using microwaved bottled water — no more playing in the tub. They must also use bottled water to brush their teeth. After dinner, she uncaps and empties dozens of pint-size bottles of water into a large pot that she heats on the stove to wash dishes. On weekends, she and her husband drive the kids and all the laundry to Mrs. Ollie’s parents’ home in Lansing, Mich., to shower and wash up.



How much water is 40 - 16 oz. water bottle in total?  Here is a conversion to gallons below:







A family of four is living on 5 gallons per day.  Wow.  Compare that to the 107 gallons that an average Los Angeles resident lives on per day.  Further, the average Bel Air resident lives on 32,000 gallons per day -- Oh My Goodness -- what is this world coming to?  From the description of the uses of the small amount of water, there might be another problem emerging.  Cooking a plastic water bottle to heat up water in a microwave is not good.  Do not heat plastic up in the microwave -- whatever you do.




How much does that amount of water weigh?




Weight is an important parameter along with plastic when considering helping out residents in need.  Below is the conversion of gallons to pounds for a 24 hour supply to a family of four:








Stocking the water takes resources (trucks, oil, emissions, etc.).  When I read this article, the first thought that came to mind was why are the residents of Flint not just given a water dispenser and a large bottle of water -- like the setup below:





Source: Costco Water Delivery Service





Handing out 40 bottles (16 ounce) to resident on a daily basis will generate a large amount of plastic waste (plastic bottles).  Do officials have a recycling plan for the plastic water bottles the residents are generating?  Is there a central recycling center that residents can return plastic bottles?  Using the 5 gallon jug above is reusable.  Upon delivery of a set of 2 jugs (5 gallons each), the used jugs could be returned and refilled to give out more water.  This would cut down on waste generation during a time of limited resources.




The water rationing (by authorities) does not include sewer (toilet) water -- which is still running in most areas.  Still, surviving on that small amount of water per day with a family of four is probably pretty difficult.  I started considering how much water is used per person per day in other cultures.  After a couple of refined questions into google's search engine, I found a website called 'CreditLoan.com' who offers a "visual economics" guide on the website.  After cutting and altering the infographic, the results are shown below for a few countries:





Source: CreditLoan.com




The diagram is explained on the website as follows:




The annual personal water use by country varies widely. In Canada, 88 percent of people have access to tap water. Canadians use 759 liters per day. In the USA, 100 percent of the people have access to tap water, using 570 liters of water per day. In Mexico, 90 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 340 liters of water per day. In India, 19 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 128 liters of water per day. In the U.K., 100 percent of the people have access to tap water, using 119 liters of water per day. In China, 69 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 80 liters of water per day.





Some people in the world do not have running water?  Yes, that is correct.  My colleague whose husband is from India tells me about the village where she visited to see her new family.  Literally, there is no running water.  I was blown away.  Shows you how little I know.  But, I am appreciative of the resources that we do have here in the U.S. and am learning how to conserve more by the month.  I am a work in progress.




In the diagram above, there exists a spectrum of water usage listed in terms of most to least by country.  Here within the U.S., could produce another spectrum of usage.  On one end, users such as residents in "Bel Air" might be placed.  Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, we would list disaster areas -- such as Flint, Michigan.  Actually, if we are including all American establishments, we might not want to forget "Astronauts" who are living in space.  Astronauts form the far end of the spectrum of water usage per day.  Why, you might ask?




Astronauts Live In A Closed Water Loop?





In space, the concept about supplies can be stated: what goes up with the space shuttle, must come down with the space shuttle!  Yep, the space station, space shuttle, space instrumentation form a "closed loop."  What do I mean by a "closed loop"?  Well, everything is conserved to the highest degree.  Really?




Based on a search on google, I found a website produced by NASA -- which described the conditions of water usage in space.




"We have plenty of water on the Space Station now," says Jim Reuter, leader of the ECLSS group at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The Russian module Zarya is packed with contingency water containers (CWCs) that were carried over from the Space Shuttle during assembly missions earlier this year. They look like duffle bags and each one holds about 90 lbs."
"But it's expensive to ferry water from Earth," he added. "We have to recycle. There's already a Russian-built water processor in orbit that collects humidity from the air. Here at Marshall we're building a regenerative system that will be able to recycle almost every drop of water on the station and support a crew of seven with minimal resupplies."
Right: Shuttle pilot Terry Wilcutt with 7 contingency water containers destined for the space station Mir.
The ECLSS Water Recycling System (WRS), developed at the MSFC, will reclaim waste waters from the Space Shuttle's fuel cells, from urine, from oral hygiene and hand washing, and by condensing humidity from the air. Without such careful recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth would be required to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station.




Here is the corresponding picture of the pilot with the "contingency bags" of water shown below:





Source: NASA





Every drop of water imaginable is recycled.  Even animals used in research?  Yes.  In the article, the statistic of about 72 rats can urinate and sweat the equivalent of one human being.  That is a pleasant thought.  And here I thought I was thinking deeply about water conservation -- not even close.  




The astronauts are trained to conserve water to the extreme compared to our usage on Earth.  NASA has designed recycling systems that mimic the water cycle found on planet Earth.  Here is an excerpt to describe the rationale during designing the system used in space:




"The water that we generate is much cleaner than anything you'll ever get out of any tap in the United States," says Carter. "We certainly do a much more aggressive treatment process (than municipal waste water treatment plants). We have practically ultra-pure water by the time our water's finished."
Mimicking Mother Earth
On Earth, water that passes through animals' bodies is made fresh again by natural processes. Microbes in the soil break down urea and convert it to a form that plants can absorb and use to build new plant tissue. The granular soil also acts as a physical filter. Bits of clay cling to nutrients in urine electrostatically, purifying the water and providing nutrients for plants.
Water excreted by animals also evaporates into the atmosphere and rains back down to the Earth as fresh water -- a natural form of distillation.
Water purification machines on the ISS partly mimic these processes, but they do not rely on microbes or any other living things.
"While you try to mimic what's happening on Earth -- which is so complicated if you really think about it -- we have to use systems that we can control 100 percent," said Monsi Roman, chief microbiologist for the ECLSS project at MSFC. ECLSS depends on machines -- not microbes -- because, "if a machine breaks, you can fix it."

The water purification machines on the ISS will cleanse wastewater in a three-step process.
The first step is a filter that removes particles and debris. Then the water passes through the "multi-filtration beds," which contain substances that remove organic and inorganic impurities. And finally, the "catalytic oxidation reactor" removes volatile organic compounds and kills bacteria and viruses.
Every Drop Counts
Once the water is purified, astronauts will do everything possible to use it efficiently. "On the ground, people flick on the faucet and they probably waste a couple of liters of water just because it's free and the water pressure is high," notes Carter.




Nature has solved a large amount of issues that scientists are only discovering as time goes on and technology improves.  There are "mimics" that are not fully optimized and work quite well by today's standards.  Imagine if scientists could one day really "mimic" natures ability to form filtration systems that work with a high degree of efficiency (removing debris, antimicrobial activity, high throughput, etc.)?  Nevertheless, the work that NASA has done to optimize the filtration system aboard today's space stations is amazing...




Quite impressive to say the least.  The amount of thought and design matches the large amount of "Research and Design" that is needed to fund the space program annually.  Of course, out of this research, products emerge that hit the market and improve our lives daily.  Yet, often, you will hear people who are not scientists or affiliated with science talk about the wasteful spending on space programs.  We learn a tremendous amount from this research about limits and life in general (growing plants in space - last year!).




Conclusion...




How much water do you use on a daily basis?  How can you optimize the amount of water that you consume and possibly waste?  Do you care even to do so?  These are questions that you might want to entertain.  Even if a person does not plan to reduce their consumption, thinking deeply or critically about the use of water in one's household is important.  The action alone will improve the lives of yourself and those around you.  Of course, in the process, you might end up driving your friends and family a little stir crazy.




Thinking about the situation in Flint (Michigan) has caused me to rethink how I tanke for granted the resources around me.  Although, one could argue that based on my post about water (which was brief), this has been on my mind.  Every time I see a rain fall event here in Southern California, I cannot help to think of the total volume of rain that is washed into the ocean (and not reclaimed).  Each time that I see a "broken water pipe" in the city and water running down the street, I think of the waste that is generated and how many of these 40 (16 ounce) bottles could be filled up and sent to remote areas.




In a future post, I will talk about a recent article that I have read discussing the amount of water that is actually reclaimed annually by various departments of water and power companies.  As you will learn, the amount is not trivial.  On the order of billions of gallons annually.  Stay tuned until then.  Until then, learn something new about water conservation in the world and leave the new found idea in the "comment section" below.  I love to learn new knowledge.  Have a great evening.