Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
Burning triangular object flying over South Carolina
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
Humans are returning to the Moon—this time, to stay. Because our presence will be more permanent, NASA has selected a location that maximizes line-of-sight communication with Earth, solar visibility, and access to water ice: the Lunar South Pole (LSP). While the Sun is in the lunar sky more consistently at the poles, it never rises more than a few degrees above the horizon; in the target landing regions, the highest possible elevation is 7°. This presents a harsh lighting environment never experienced during the Apollo missions, or in fact, in any human spaceflight experience. The ambient lighting will severely affect the crews’ ability to see hazards and to perform simple work. This is because the human vision system, which despite having a high-dynamic range, cannot see well into bright light and cannot adapt quickly from bright to dark or vice versa. Functional vision is required to perform a variety of tasks, from simple tasks (e.g., walking, operating simple tools) through managing complex machines (e.g., lander elevator, rovers). Thus, the environment presents an engineering challenge to the Agency: one that must be widely understood before it can be effectively addressed.
In past NASA missions and programs, design of lighting and functional vision support systems for extravehicular activity (EVA) or rover operations have been managed at the lowest program level. This worked well for Apollo and low Earth orbit because the Sun angle was managed by mission planning and astronaut self-positioning; helmet design alone addressed all vision challenges. The Artemis campaign presents new challenges to functional vision, because astronauts will be unable to avoid having the sun in their eyes much of the time they are on the lunar surface. This, combined with the need for artificial lighting in the extensive shadowing at the LSP, means that new functional vision support systems must be developed across projects and programs. The design of helmets, windows, and lighting systems must work in a complementary fashion, within and across programs, to achieve a system of lighting and vision support that enables crews to see into darkness while their eyes are light-adapted, in bright light while still dark-adapted, and protects their eyes from injury.
Many of the findings of the assessment were focused on the lack of specific requirements to prevent functional vision impairment by the Sun’s brilliance (which is different from preventing eye injury), while enabling astronauts to see well enough to perform specific tasks. Specifically, tasks expected of astronauts at the LSP were not incorporated into system design requirements to enable system development that ensures functional vision in the expected lighting environment. Consequently, the spacesuit, for example, has flexibility requirements for allowing the astronauts to walk but not for ensuring they can see well enough to walk from brilliant Sun into a dark shadow and back without the risk of tripping or falling. Importantly, gaps were identified in allocation of requirements across programs to ensure that the role of the various programs is for each to understand functional vision. NESC recommendations were offered that made enabling functional vision in the harsh lighting environment a specific and new requirement for the system designers. The recommendations also included that lighting, window, and visor designs be integrated.
The assessment team recommended that a wide variety of simulation techniques, physical and virtual, need to be developed, each with different and well-stated capabilities with respect to functional vision. Some would address the blinding effects of sunlight at the LSP (not easily achieved through virtual approaches) to evaluate performance of helmet shields and artificial lighting in the context of the environment and adaptation times. Other simulations would add terrain features to identify the threats in simple (e.g., walking, collection of samples) and complex (e.g., maintenance and operation of equipment) tasks. Since different facilities have different strengths, they also have different weaknesses. These strengths and limitations must be characterized to enable verification of technical solutions and crew training.
NESC TB 2024- discipline-focus-hfView the full article
-
By NASA
2 min read
Jovian Vortex Hunters Spun Up Over New Paper
Jumping Jupiter! The results are in, storm chasers! Thanks to your help over the last two years the Jovian Vortex Hunter project has published a catalog of 7222 vortices, which you can download here. Each vortex is an enormous swirling windstorm in Jupiter’s atmosphere–terrifying yet beautiful to behold.
The vortices are labeled by color (“white” is most common, then “dark”, then “red”).
The catalog reveals distributions of vortex sizes, aspect ratios, and locations on the planet. For example, your work showed that white and dark vortices are preferentially found near the poles. These distributions help researchers derive general parameters about Jupiter’s atmosphere that can give us insights about its internal processes and the atmospheres of other planets.
Over 5,000 of you helped build this catalog by performing over a million classifications of images of Jupiter from the JunoCam instrument on NASA’s Juno mission. The details of the catalog are now published in this paper in the Planetary Science Journal. You can also learn more about this amazing volunteer effort in a video you can find on the Jovian Vortex Hunter Results webpage.Thanks to your efforts, The Jovian Vortex Hunter project is out of data. But you can work with JunoCam data in a different way by participating in NASA’s JunoCam citizen science project.
A set of really cool vortices–spinning storms–found by Jovian Vortex Hunters. Data from the JunoCam instrument on NASA’s Juno mission.
Facebook logo @DoNASAScience @DoNASAScience Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 17, 2024 Editor Bill Keeter Related Terms
Citizen Science Planetary Science Division View the full article
-
By USH
Since late November 2024 there is something is going on and no one has the answer to why there are ongoing incursions of unidentified drones over U.S. and U.K. military bases, nuclear installations and areas such as New Jersey and Manchester Airport.
For example, over the past 72 hours, again there have been numerous reports of large, car-sized drones or UFOs seen in the US (New Jersey, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas) and the UK too.
These drones often flying in formations displaying advanced capabilities such as coordination, range, endurance, and the ability to evade detection and interception. Despite multiple sightings, none have been recovered or identified, and no physical descriptions or origins have been confirmed.
Key details:
Activity: The drones have penetrated restricted airspace repeatedly, often in swarms of a dozen or more.
Capabilities: The drones exhibit advanced coordination and endurance, suggesting sophisticated technology.
Response: The U.S. Air Force acknowledges the incursions but states that they have not disrupted operations. Investigations are ongoing in collaboration with U.K. authorities.
Speculation: Potential origins range from Russia or China to commercial or recreational sources. However, their behavior and capabilities seem to exceed typical drone technology. Even there is speculation about an upcoming false flag alien/UFO invasion.
Government Inaction: Criticism is directed at the Pentagon and other authorities for not addressing the issue or taking action to remove the objects, especially given their proximity to critical infrastructure.
The FBI and other authorities are reportedly focused on potential UFO or drone activities, particularly on or around December 3rd, which some claim was predicted to be significant by an individual known for accurately forecasting the 2003 Indonesian tsunami.
Media Suppression: Reports indicate that some footage and discussions about the sightings have been censored or removed.
Historical Context: The events resemble past UFO sightings at military installations, such as the 1975 U.S. military base incursions, where objects displayed extraordinary flight capabilities and eluded interception.
The situation remains unresolved, raising questions about the drones' origins, purpose, and implications for military security.
Whether they are advanced foreign drones or something more extraordinary, the lack of evidence and official explanations fuels speculation whether these sightings represent a security threat.
More information is awaited from ongoing investigations and official responses.
Several links/discussions of reported drone/UFO sightings:
Manchester Airport UFO sighting from inside the cockpit plus Clear shot of Airport UAP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkZ3x1T0QU
Drones? UFOs? What's flying over the UK Bases? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4feLBNQq8
UFO Invasion?! "They're the size of cars spotted over New Jersey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBLa6lUi5fg
Drone/ UFO sighting over the Duke Nuclear Power Plant https://x.com/digijordan/status/1862721088544772434View the full article
-
By European Space Agency
What’s harder than flying a single satellite in Earth orbit? Flying two – right beside each other, at proximities that would normally trigger collision avoidance manoeuvres.
View the full article
-
By NASA
In the unforgiving lunar environment, the possibility of an astronaut crewmember becoming incapacitated due to unforeseen circumstances (injury, medical emergency, or a mission-related accident) is a critical concern, starting with the upcoming Artemis III mission, where two astronaut crewmembers will explore the Lunar South Pole. The Moon’s surface is littered with rocks ranging from 0.15 to 20 meters in diameter and craters spanning 1 to 30 meters wide, making navigation challenging even under optimal conditions. The low gravity, unique lighting conditions, extreme temperatures, and availability of only one person to perform the rescue, further complicate any rescue efforts. Among the critical concerns is the safety of astronauts during Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). If an astronaut crewmember becomes incapacitated during a mission, the ability to return them safely and promptly to the human landing system is essential. A single crew member should be able to transport an incapacitated crew member distances up to 2 km and a slope of up to 20 degrees on the lunar terrain without the assistance of a lunar rover. This pressing issue opens the door for innovative solutions. We are looking for a cutting-edge design that is low in mass and easy to deploy, enabling one astronaut crewmember to safely transport their suited (343 kg (~755lb)) and fully incapacitated partner back to the human landing system. The solution must perform effectively in the Moon’s extreme South Pole environment and operate independently of a lunar rover. Your creativity and expertise could bridge this critical gap, enhancing the safety measures for future lunar explorers. By addressing this challenge, you have the opportunity to contribute to the next “giant leap” in human space exploration.
Award: $45,000 in total prizes
Open Date: November 14, 2024
Close Date: January 23, 2025
For more information, visit: https://www.herox.com/NASASouthPoleSafety
View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.