Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
Miners in Siberia dug up a strange statue of an angel with shield and sword in the permafrost
-
Similar Topics
-
By USH
In December 2024, reports began surfacing about strange events involving flashing streetlights house and building lights. These incidents, initially dismissed as isolated cases, have now been observed on a larger scale, spanning countries such as the U.S., Canada, and the UK.
Some observers theorize that drones or unidentified orbs might be responsible. These objects could emit electromagnetic interference, disrupting electrical systems and causing lights to flicker. However, no concrete evidence has linked these phenomena to drone activity.
Others suggest the lights could be a result of hackers targeting the power grid. Cybercriminals might be testing infrastructure vulnerabilities. While plausible, no definitive proof has emerged to support this explanation.
A more unconventional theory suggests that the flashing lights are a result of a phenomenon known as Streetlight Interference (SLI). Proponents argue that certain individuals, nicknamed "SLIders," possess psychic or psychokinetic abilities that unintentionally influence lighting systems. SLI remains scientifically unverified, with no successful replication in controlled settings.
Some experts believe it might be mechanical faults in the electrical systems or or fluctuations in the power supply. However, this theory seems unlikely due to the widespread and simultaneous nature of the phenomenon, which has been reported across multiple countries, suggesting it is not a localized issue.
Or is this phenomenon linked to extraterrestrial activity? Some argue that aliens might use electromagnetic propulsion systems, potentially interfering with electrical systems, akin to the effects portrayed in films like 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'.
Could the cause of these flashing lights be a harbinger of an impending global or cosmic event, or might it stem from something entirely beyond our understanding?
The two videos below show, besides the on going mysterious drones/UFO/orb sightings, several locations where street lights are flashing.
View the full article
-
By NASA
Inside of the Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, an electrodynamic dust shield (EDS) is in view on Jan. 18, 2023. The dust shield is one of the payloads that will fly aboard Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost lunar lander as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. NASA/Cory Huston Defeating dust may be a small concern for most people on Earth, but for astronauts and spacecraft destined for the Moon or Mars, it is a significant hazard that must be mitigated. That’s why researchers at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida are seeking innovative ways to use the Electrodynamic Dust Shield (EDS) technology.
The EDS technology is headed to the Moon as part of the agency’s Artemis campaign. This innovative technology will be demonstrated on the lunar surface, where it will use electrical forces to lift and remove lunar regolith, or dirt, from various surfaces.
This dust-mitigating technology is one of 10 payloads aboard the next lunar delivery through NASA’s CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative, set to launch from the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida Wednesday, Jan. 15, with Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost Lander.
Using transparent electrodes and electric fields, EDS technology can lift and remove dust from a variety of surfaces for space applications ranging from thermal radiators, solar panels, and camera lenses to spacesuits, boots, and helmet visors. Controlling and removing the charged dust will be critical to the success of Moon missions under the agency’s CLPS initiative and Artemis campaign.
“For these CLPS and Artemis missions, dust exposure is a concern because the lunar surface is far different than what we’re used to here,” said Dr. Charles Buhler, lead research scientist at the Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy. “Lunar regolith dust can get into gaskets and seals, into hatches, and even into habitats, which can pose a lot of issues for spacecraft and astronauts.”
Unlike dust particles on Earth, dust on the Moon’s surface is sharp and abrasive – like tiny shards of glass – because it hasn’t been exposed to weathering and elements like water and oxygen.
“Simply brushing lunar regolith across surfaces can make the problem worse because it’s also very electrostatically charged and highly insulating,” Buhler said.
Under the CLPS model, NASA is investing in commercial delivery services to the Moon to enable industry growth and support long-term lunar exploration. As a primary customer for CLPS deliveries, NASA aims to be one of many customers on future flights. EDS was funded by the Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Game Changing Development Program (GCD).
Learn more about. CLPS and Artemis at https://www.nasa.gov/clps.
View the full article
-
By NASA
Through the Artemis campaign, NASA will land the next American astronauts and first international astronaut on the South Pole region of the Moon. On Thursday, NASA announced the latest updates to its lunar exploration plans.
Experts discussed results of NASA’s investigation into its Orion spacecraft heat shield after it experienced an unexpected loss of charred material during re-entry of the Artemis I uncrewed test flight. For the Artemis II crewed test flight, engineers will continue to prepare Orion with the heat shield already attached to the capsule. The agency also announced it is now targeting April 2026 for Artemis II and mid-2027 for Artemis III. The updated mission timelines also reflect time to address the Orion environmental control and life support systems.
“The Artemis campaign is the most daring, technically challenging, collaborative, international endeavor humanity has ever set out to do,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “We have made significant progress on the Artemis campaign over the past four years, and I’m proud of the work our teams have done to prepare us for this next step forward in exploration as we look to learn more about Orion’s life support systems to sustain crew operations during Artemis II. We need to get this next test flight right. That’s how the Artemis campaign succeeds.”
The agency’s decision comes after an extensive investigation of an Artemis I heat shield issue showed the Artemis II heat shield can keep the crew safe during the planned mission with changes to Orion’s trajectory as it enters Earth’s atmosphere and slows from nearly 25,000 mph to about 325 mph before its parachutes unfurl for safe splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.
“Throughout our process to investigate the heat shield phenomenon and determine a forward path, we’ve stayed true to NASA’s core values; safety and data-driven analysis remained at the forefront,” said Catherine Koerner, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The updates to our mission plans are a positive step toward ensuring we can safely accomplish our objectives at the Moon and develop the technologies and capabilities needed for crewed Mars missions.”
NASA will continue stacking its SLS (Space Launch System) rocket elements, which began in November, and prepare it for integration with Orion for Artemis II.
Throughout the fall months, NASA, along with an independent review team, established the technical cause of an issue seen after the uncrewed Artemis I test flight in which charred material on the heat shield wore away differently than expected. Extensive analysis, including from more than 100 tests at unique facilities across the country, determined the heat shield on Artemis I did not allow for enough of the gases generated inside a material called Avcoat to escape, which caused some of the material to crack and break off. Avcoat is designed to wear away as it heats up and is a key material in the thermal protection system that guards Orion and its crew from the nearly 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit of temperatures that are generated when Orion returns from the Moon through Earth’s atmosphere. Although a crew was not inside Orion during Artemis I, data shows the temperature inside Orion remained comfortable and safe had crew been aboard.
Engineers already are assembling and integrating the Orion spacecraft for Artemis III based on lessons learned from Artemis I and implementing enhancements to how heat shields for crewed returns from lunar landing missions are manufactured to achieve uniformity and consistent permeability. The skip entry is needed for return from speeds expected for lunar landing missions.
“Victor, Christina, Jeremy, and I have been following every aspect of this decision and we are thankful for the openness of NASA to weigh all options and make decisions in the best interest of human spaceflight. We are excited to fly Artemis II and continue paving the way for sustained human exploration of the Moon and Mars,” said Reid Wiseman, NASA astronaut and Artemis II commander. “We were at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida recently and put eyes on our SLS rocket boosters, the core stage, and the Orion spacecraft. It is inspiring to see the scale of this effort, to meet the people working on this machine, and we can’t wait to fly it to the Moon.”
Wiseman, along with NASA astronauts Victor Glover and Christina Koch and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen, will fly aboard the 10-day Artemis II test flight around the Moon and back. The flight will provide valuable data about Orion systems needed to support crew on their journey to deep space and bring them safely home, including air revitalization in the cabin, manual flying capabilities, and how humans interact with other hardware and software in the spacecraft.
With Artemis, NASA will explore more of the Moon than ever before, learn how to live and work farther away from home, and prepare for future human exploration of the Red Planet. NASA’s SLS, exploration ground systems, and Orion spacecraft, along with the human landing system, next-generation spacesuits, Gateway lunar space station, and future rovers are NASA’s foundation for deep space exploration.
For more information about Artemis, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/artemis
-end-
Meira Bernstein / Rachel Kraft
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1600
meira.b.bernstein@nasa.gov / rachel.h.kraft@nasa.gov
Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 05, 2024 LocationNASA Headquarters Related Terms
Missions Artemis Artemis 2 Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate NASA Directorates View the full article
-
By NASA
The Artemis II Orion spacecraft is lifted from the Final Assembly and Testing (FAST) Cell and placed in the west altitude chamber inside the Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’S Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 28, 2024. Inside the altitude chamber, the spacecraft underwent a series of tests simulating deep space vacuum conditions.Photo Credit: NASA / Rad Sinyak After extensive analysis and testing, NASA has identified the technical cause of unexpected char loss across the Artemis I Orion spacecraft’s heat shield.
Engineers determined as Orion was returning from its uncrewed mission around the Moon, gases generated inside the heat shield’s ablative outer material called Avcoat were not able to vent and dissipate as expected. This allowed pressure to build up and cracking to occur, causing some charred material to break off in several locations.
“Our early Artemis flights are a test campaign, and the Artemis I test flight gave us an opportunity to check out our systems in the deep space environment before adding crew on future missions,” said Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator, Moon to Mars Program Office, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The heat shield investigation helped ensure we fully understand the cause and nature of the issue, as well as the risk we are asking our crews to take when they venture to the Moon.”
Findings
Teams took a methodical approach to understanding and identifying the root cause of the char loss issue, including detailed sampling of the Artemis I heat shield, review of imagery and data from sensors on the spacecraft, and comprehensive ground testing and analysis.
During Artemis I, engineers used the skip guidance entry technique to return Orion to Earth. This technique provides more flexibility by extending the range Orion can fly after the point of reentry to a landing spot in the Pacific Ocean. Using this maneuver, Orion dipped into the upper part of Earth’s atmosphere and used atmospheric drag to slow down. Orion then used the aerodynamic lift of the capsule to skip back out of the atmosphere, then reenter for final descent under parachutes to splashdown.
Using Avcoat material response data from Artemis I, the investigation team was able to replicate the Artemis I entry trajectory environment — a key part of understanding the cause of the issue — inside the arc jet facilities at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. They observed that during the period between dips into the atmosphere, heating rates decreased, and thermal energy accumulated inside the heat shield’s Avcoat material. This led to the accumulation of gases that are part of the expected ablation process. Because the Avcoat did not have “permeability,” internal pressure built up, and led to cracking and uneven shedding of the outer layer.
After NASA’s Orion spacecraft was recovered at the conclusion of the Artemis I test flight and transported to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, its heat shield was removed from the crew module inside the Operations and Checkout Building and rotated for inspection. Credit: NASA Teams performed extensive ground testing to replicate the skip phenomenon before Artemis I. However, they tested at much higher heating rates than the spacecraft experienced in flight. The high heating rates tested on the ground allowed the permeable char to form and ablate as expected, releasing the gas pressure. The less severe heating seen during the actual Artemis I reentry slowed down the process of char formation, while still creating gases in the char layer. Gas pressure built up to the point of cracking the Avcoat and releasing parts of the charred layer. Recent enhancements to the arc jet facility have enabled a more accurate reproduction of the Artemis I measured flight environments, so that this cracking behavior could be demonstrated in ground testing.
While Artemis I was uncrewed, flight data showed that had crew been aboard, they would have been safe. The temperature data from the crew module systems inside the cabin were also well within limits and holding steady in the mid-70s Fahrenheit. Thermal performance of the heat shield exceeded expectations.
Engineers understand both the material phenomenon and the environment the materials interact with during entry. By changing the material or the environment, they can predict how the spacecraft will respond. NASA teams unanimously agreed the agency can develop acceptable flight rationale that will keep crew safe using the current Artemis II heat shield with operational changes to entry.
NASA’s Investigation Process
Soon after NASA engineers discovered the condition on the Artemis I heat shield, the agency began an extensive investigation process, which included a multi-disciplinary team of experts in thermal protection systems, aerothermodynamics, thermal testing and analysis, stress analysis, material test and analysis, and many other related technical areas. NASA’s Engineering and Safety Center was also engaged to provide technical expertise including nondestructive evaluation, thermal and structural analysis, fault tree analysis, and other testing support.
“We took our heat shield investigation process extremely seriously with crew safety as the driving force behind the investigation,” said Howard Hu, manager, Orion Program, NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. “The process was extensive. We gave the team the time needed to investigate every possible cause, and they worked tirelessly to ensure we understood the phenomenon and the necessary steps to mitigate this issue for future missions.”
The Artemis I heat shield was heavily instrumented for flight with pressure sensors, strain gauges, and thermocouples at varying ablative material depths. Data from these instruments augmented analysis of physical samples, allowing the team to validate computer models, create environmental reconstructions, provide internal temperature profiles, and give insight into the timing of the char loss.
Approximately 200 Avcoat samples were removed from the Artemis I heat shield at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama for analysis and inspection. The team performed non-destructive evaluation to “see” inside the heat shield.
One of the most important findings from examining these samples was that local areas of permeable Avcoat, which had been identified prior to the flight, did not experience cracking or char loss. Since these areas were permeable at the start of the entry, the gases produced by ablation were able to adequately vent, eliminating the pressure build up, cracking, and char loss.
A test block of Avcoat undergoes heat pulse testing inside an arc jet test chamber at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. The test article, configured with both permeable (upper) and non-permeable (lower) Avcoat sections for comparison, helped to confirm understanding of the root cause of the loss of charred Avcoat material that engineers saw on the Orion spacecraft after the Artemis I test flight beyond the Moon.Credit: NASA
Engineers performed eight separate post-flight thermal test campaigns to support the root cause analysis, completing 121 individual tests. These tests took place in facilities with unique capabilities across the country, including the Aerodynamic Heating Facility at the Arc-Jet Complex at Ames to test convective heating profiles with various test gases; the Laser Hardened Materials Evaluation Laboratory at Wright‐Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio to test radiative heating profiles and provide real-time radiography; as well as the Interaction Heating Facility at Ames to test combined convective and radiative heating profiles in the air at full-block scale.
Aerothermal experts also completed two hypersonic wind tunnel test campaigns at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia and CUBRC aerodynamic test facilities in Buffalo, New York, to test a variety of char loss configurations and enhance and validate analytical models. Permeability testing was also performed at Kratos in Alabama, the University of Kentucky, and Ames to help further characterize the Avcoat’s elemental volume and porosity. The Advanced Light Source test facility, a U.S. Department of Energy scientific user facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was also used by engineers to examine the heating behavior of the Avcoat at a microstructure level.
In the spring of 2024, NASA stood up an independent review team to conduct an extensive review of the agency’s investigation process, findings, and results. The independent review was led by Paul Hill, a former NASA leader who served as the lead space shuttle flight director for Return to Flight after the Columbia accident, led NASA’s Mission Operations Directorate, and is a current member of the agency’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. The review occurred over a three-month period to assess the heat shield’s post-flight condition, entry environment data, ablator thermal response, and NASA’s investigation progress. The review team agreed with NASA’s findings on the technical cause of the physical behavior of the heat shield.
Heat Shield Advancements
Knowing that permeability of Avcoat is a key parameter to avoid or minimize char loss, NASA has the right information to assure crew safety and improve performance of future Artemis heat shields. Throughout its history, NASA has learned from each of its flights and incorporated improvements into hardware and operations. The data gathered throughout the Artemis I test flight has provided engineers with invaluable information to inform future designs and refinements. Lunar return flight performance data and a robust ground test qualification program improved after the Artemis I flight experience are supporting production enhancements for Orion’s heat shield. Future heat shields for Orion’s return from Artemis lunar landing missions are being produced to achieve uniformity and consistent permeability. The qualification program is currently being completed along with the production of more permeable Avcoat blocks at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans.
For more information about NASA’s Artemis campaign, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/artemis
View the full article
-
By NASA
4 min read
Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
The Permafrost Tunnel north of Fairbanks, Alaska, was dug in the 1960s and is run by the U.S. Army’s Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. It is the site of much research into permafrost — ground that stays frozen throughout the year, for multiple years.NASA/Kate Ramsayer Earth’s far northern reaches have locked carbon underground for millennia. New research paints a picture of a landscape in change.
A new study, co-authored by NASA scientists, details where and how greenhouse gases are escaping from the Earth’s vast northern permafrost region as the Arctic warms. The frozen soils encircling the Arctic from Alaska to Canada to Siberia store twice as much carbon as currently resides in the atmosphere — hundreds of billions of tons — and most of it has been buried for centuries.
An international team, led by researchers at Stockholm University, found that from 2000 to 2020, carbon dioxide uptake by the land was largely offset by emissions from it. Overall, they concluded that the region has been a net contributor to global warming in recent decades in large part because of another greenhouse gas, methane, that is shorter-lived but traps significantly more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Greenhouse gases shroud the globe in this animation showing data from 2021. Carbon dioxide is shown in orange; methane is shown in purple. Methane traps heat 28 times more effectively than carbon dioxide over a 100-year timescale. Wetlands are a significant source of such emissions.NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio The findings reveal a landscape in flux, said Abhishek Chatterjee, a co-author and scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “We know that the permafrost region has captured and stored carbon for tens of thousands of years,” he said. “But what we are finding now is that climate-driven changes are tipping the balance toward permafrost being a net source of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Carbon Stockpile
Permafrost is ground that has been permanently frozen for anywhere from two years to hundreds of thousands of years. A core of it reveals thick layers of icy soils enriched with dead plant and animal matter that can be dated using radiocarbon and other techniques. When permafrost thaws and decomposes, microbes feed on this organic carbon, releasing some of it as greenhouse gases.
Unlocking a fraction of the carbon stored in permafrost could further fuel climate change. Temperatures in the Arctic are already warming two to four times faster than the global average, and scientists are learning how thawing permafrost is shifting the region from being a net sink for greenhouse gases to becoming a net source of warming.
They’ve tracked emissions using ground-based instruments, aircraft, and satellites. One such campaign, NASA’s Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE), is focused on Alaska and western Canada. Yet locating and measuring emissions across the far northern fringes of Earth remains challenging. One obstacle is the vast scale and diversity of the environment, composed of evergreen forests, sprawling tundra, and waterways.
This map, based on data provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, shows the extent of Arctic permafrost. The amount of permafrost underlying the surface ranges from continuous — in the coldest areas — to more isolated and sporadic patches.NASA Earth Observatory Cracks in the Sink
The new study was undertaken as part of the Global Carbon Project’s RECCAP-2 effort, which brings together different science teams, tools, and datasets to assess regional carbon balances every few years. The authors followed the trail of three greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide — across 7 million square miles (18 million square kilometers) of permafrost terrain from 2000 to 2020.
Researchers found the region, especially the forests, took up a fraction more carbon dioxide than it released. This uptake was largely offset by carbon dioxide emitted from lakes and rivers, as well as from fires that burned both forest and tundra.
They also found that the region’s lakes and wetlands were strong sources of methane during those two decades. Their waterlogged soils are low in oxygen while containing large volumes of dead vegetation and animal matter — ripe conditions for hungry microbes. Compared to carbon dioxide, methane can drive significant climate warming in short timescales before breaking down relatively quickly. Methane’s lifespan in the atmosphere is about 10 years, whereas carbon dioxide can last hundreds of years.
The findings suggest the net change in greenhouse gases helped warm the planet over the 20-year period. But over a 100-year period, emissions and absorptions would mostly cancel each other out. In other words, the region teeters from carbon source to weak sink. The authors noted that events such as extreme wildfires and heat waves are major sources of uncertainty when projecting into the future.
Bottom Up, Top Down
The scientists used two main strategies to tally greenhouse gas emissions from the region. “Bottom-up” methods estimate emissions from ground- and air-based measurements and ecosystem models. Top-down methods use atmospheric measurements taken directly from satellite sensors, including those on NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) and JAXA’s (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite.
Regarding near-term, 20-year, global warming potential, both scientific approaches aligned on the big picture but differed in magnitude: The bottom-up calculations indicated significantly more warming.
“This study is one of the first where we are able to integrate different methods and datasets to put together this very comprehensive greenhouse gas budget into one report,” Chatterjee said. “It reveals a very complex picture.”
News Media Contacts
Jane J. Lee / Andrew Wang
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-0307 / 626-379-6874
jane.j.lee@jpl.nasa.gov / andrew.wang@jpl.nasa.gov
Written by Sally Younger
2024-147
Share
Details
Last Updated Oct 29, 2024 Related Terms
Earth Carbon Cycle Climate Change Greenhouse Gases Jet Propulsion Laboratory Explore More
6 min read NASA’s Perseverance Rover Looks Back While Climbing Slippery Slope
Article 22 hours ago 6 min read NASA Successfully Integrates Coronagraph for Roman Space Telescope
Article 1 day ago 3 min read High-Altitude ER-2 Flights Get Down-to-Earth Data
Article 4 days ago Keep Exploring Discover Related Topics
Missions
Humans in Space
Climate Change
Solar System
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.