1962 Nuclear Test in the Pacific Near San Diego

All Posts, Naval ships & systems, Nuclear Arms & Arms Control, , , ,

Peter Lobner

Everyone has heard about the atmospheric and underground nuclear tests that were conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from 1951 to 1992. NTS, which is about 394 miles (634 km) north of San Diego, CA, was the site of 928 nuclear tests.

Operation Dominic, was a series of 31 atmospheric or underwater nuclear tests conducted by the U.S. from April to October 1962 after the Soviet Union resumed atmospheric testing. One of the Operation Dominic tests occurred near San Diego, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean 426 miles (685 km) west of San Diego, CA at latitude 31° 14.7 N and longitude 124° 12.7’ W. This was U.S. nuclear test #238, code named Swordfish.

Swordfish test site west of San Diego, CA. Source: Google maps

Swordfish was a live-fire test of a nuclear-armed RUR-5A ASROC (Anti-Submarine ROCket) that was armed with a W44 nuclear warhead with a yield estimated to be about 10 kilotons (kT).

Mark 12 eight-cell ASROC launcher. Source: U.S. Navy / Wikipedia

ASROC launch. Source: seaforces.org

This was an operational test of the ASROC weapons system and a weapons effects test. The test would validate the nuclear-armed ASROC, which was being widely deployed in the fleet. In addition, the test would help define the effects of the nuclear detonation on the target and on nearby elements of an anti-submarine surface attack unit. The weapons effects data were needed to help the Navy establish a tactical doctrine for ASROC warhead delivery. The test sought to clarify tactical matters such as:

  • Minimum delivery range (safe standoff distance), with varying degrees of damage to the launching ship
  • Restrictions due to radioactivity on subsequent ship maneuvers Degree to which data from the Navy’s traditional high-explosive shock tests of ships applied to nuclear explosions
  • Safe standoff distance for delivery of nuclear weapons from submarines

The test also sought to determine:

  • Impact of the detonation on the U.S. strategic hydro-acoustic detection system known as SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System)
  • Validation of models for detecting and classifying underwater nuclear explosions
  • Long-term drift and diffusion of radioactive contamination in the ocean environment.

The test was conducted on 11 May 1962 by Joint Task Group 8.9, which was led by aircraft carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10), was comprised of 19 ships, two submarine and 55 naval aircraft. JTG 8.9 included three Gearing-class destroyers, the submarine USS Razorback (SS-394) and landing ship dock USS Monticello (LSD-35).

  • Monticello set the instrumentation array for the test,
  • One destroyer (Bausell) was positioned about one mile the blast to monitor surface effects and the crew was evacuated
  • The Razorback monitored underwater effects from a distance of about 2.5 miles.

The nuclear-armed ASROC was fired from the destroyer USS Agerholm (DD-826) at a target 2.5 miles (4,348 yards / 4 km) away.  After the booster rocket burned out, the W44 nuclear depth charge warhead separated and flew a ballistic trajectory to the target. After impacting the water, the warhead sank to a prescribed depth, believed to be about 650 feet (198 meters) for the Swordfish test, before detonating.

USS Agerholm in the foreground of the Swordfish test. Source: Navsource.org

View from a helicopter trailing the USS Yorktown, 9,850 yards (3 km) from the Swordfish test. Source: Federation of American Scientists, fas.org

You can watch a short video clip of the Swordfish test from the perspective of the helicopter trailing USS Yorktown here:

https://gfycat.com/FlimsyTallEland

You can watch a longer video on the Swordfish test at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV5q_mlhaiM

You can read Test Director W.W. Murray’s detailed report, “Operation Dominic, Shot Swordfish, Scientific Director’s Summary Report,” dated 21 January 1963, here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/292806204/Swordfish-1962-Underwater-ASROC-Nuclear-Weapon-Test-Effects-Report

Some key points reported by the Test Director were:

  • The water above “surface zero” was left radioactively contaminated after the collapse of the plumes (and the base surge from the detonation).
  • For about an hour after an ASROC burst, the contaminated water left about surface zero will pose a radiological hazard of significance, even under the exigencies of a wartime situation.
  • Swordfish re-emphasized the role of the base surge as a carrier of radioactivity. A ship which maneuvers, following an ASROC burst, so as to remain at least 350 yards (320 meters) from the edge of the base surge will not subject its personnel to radiation doses in excess of peacetime test limits.
  • The contaminated water pool produced by an ASROC burst drifts with the current while it diffuses and decays radioactively.
  • After Swordfish, the pool was tracked for more than 20 days; in 20 days after the burst the center had drifted about 50 miles (80.5 km) south of surface zero and maximum surface radiation intensity measured 0.04 mr/hr.

A shorter summary on the Swordfish test is included Defense Nuclear Agency report DNA-6040F, “Operation Dominic – 1962,” (see p. 196 – 204), which you can read and download here.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a136820.pdf

All ASROC nuclear warheads were removed from service in 1989.

You’ll find a complete listing of all U.S. nuclear tests in the Department of Energy’s December 2000 report, “United States Nuclear Tests July 1945 Through September 1992,” (DOE/NV—209-REV 15), which you can read and download here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061012160826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf

Integrity in Research

All Posts, Ethics, Scientific integrity, , ,

Peter Lobner

It’s hard to believe that this matter has become a significant issue in modern scientific research, but I’m sure that we’ve all read about questionable research practices, false claims in research papers, retraction of some papers, and notable researchers being exposed for their lack of scientific integrity. It appears that political bias and pressure  play roles in challenging integrity in some research.

The National Academies has just published a consensus study report entitled (you guessed it), “Fostering Integrity in Research.”

         Source: NAP

In their abstract, the National Academies authors explain:

“The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support – or distort – practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge.”

If you have a MyNAP account (it’s free), you can download a pdf copy of this report for free from the National Academies Press (NAP) website at the following link:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21896/fostering-integrity-in-research

This report is a follow-on to a related two-volume, 1992 National Academies report entitled, “Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,” which you can download here:

Volume 1:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/1864/responsible-science-volume-i-ensuring-the-integrity-of-the-research

Volume 2:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/2091/responsible-science-volume-ii-background-papers-and-resource-documents

In our world where “fake news” is becoming commonplace, responsible researchers must maintain their scientific integrity as they face various pressures to do otherwise.

Update 9 June 2019:  RAND Corporation issues a report on ethics in scientific research

In January 2019, RAND Corporation posted research report RR2912, “Ethics in Scientific Research – An Examination of Ethical Principles and Emerging Topics,” on the RAND website.

    Source: RAND Corporation, 2019

In their report abstract, RAND reported:

“The authors reviewed literature from across scientific disciplines and conducted interviews with experts in the United States, Europe, and China. The research had two motivations: (1) to inform researchers and sponsors who engage in research in emerging scientific disciplines and who may face new ethical challenges, and (2) to inform research sponsors — including government officials — who wish to encourage ethical research without unintentionally encouraging researchers to pursue their research in other jurisdictions.

This analysis led to an understanding of which ethics are common across disciplines, how these ethics might vary geographically, and how emerging topics are shaping future ethics. The authors focused on the ethics of scientific research and how the research is conducted, rather than on how the research is applied. This distinction excluded from this research an analysis of so-called “dual-use” applications for military purposes.”

You can download a free pdf copy of this report from the RAND website at the following link:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2900/RR2912/RAND_RR2912.pdf

Human Activities are Contributing to Global Carbon Dioxide Levels, but Possibly not in the Way You Think They Are

All Posts, Economy, Environmental protection, Global Climate, , , ,

Peter Lobner

The Human Development Index (HDI), which is a measure of the quality of life, was developed in 1990 by the United Nations to enable cross-national comparisons of the state of human development. You can read about the HDI and download the UN’s annual Human Development Reports at the following link:

http://hdr.undp.org

As you might imagine, there are large HDI differences among the world’s many nations. In its 2016 Human Development Report, the following nations were at the top and bottom of the HDI international ranking:

  • The top five places in the global HDI rankings are: Norway (0.949), Australia (0.939), Switzerland (0.939), Germany (0.926) with Denmark and Singapore (0.925) sharing the 5th spot.
  • The bottom five countries in rank order of HDI are: Burundi (0.404), Burkina Faso (0.402), Chad (0.396), Niger (0.353) and Central African Republic (0.352).

The UN reported that the regional HDI trends from 1990 to 2015 are up in all regions of the world, as shown in the following figure.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed a general correlation between HDI and the annual per capita energy consumption in each nation, as shown in the following figure. Note that annual per capita energy consumption is not a factor in the UN’s determination of HDI.

Source: DOE “Nuclear Energy Research & Development Roadmap – Report to Congress”,     April 2010

DOE reports:

“Figure 3 illustrates that a nation’s standard of living depends in part on energy consumption. Access to adequate energy is now and will continue to be required to achieve a high quality of life.”

Based on the 25-year HDI trends reported by the UN (Figure 1.1, above), nations generally have been moving up the HDI scale. Based on the DOE correlation (Figure 3, above), many of these nations, especially the least-developed nations, also should be moving up the scale for per capita energy consumption (to the right in the chart above) as their HDI increases. The net result should be a worldwide trend toward higher median per capita energy consumption. While conservation efforts may help reduce the per capita energy consumption in highly developed nations, there is a large fraction of the world’s population living in less developed nations. In these countries the per capita energy consumption will grow significantly as the local economies develop and the local populations demand basic goods and services that are commonplace in more developed nations.

In his commentary on global warming, Nobel laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever takes issue with CO2 being the cause of global warming by noting that the key “evidence” is a claimed global average temperature increase of 0.8 degrees (288 to 288.8 K) between 1880 and 2013 and a supposed correlation of this temperature increase with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Dr. Giaever takes the position that measuring a worldwide average temperature trend is a difficult task, particularly with the modest number of measurement points available more than a hundred years ago, the consistency of measurement over the period of interest, and the still-modest number of measurement points in many parts of the world today. In addition, he notes that a 0.8 degree K change in worldwide average temperature over a period of 133 years seems to be a very high level of consistency rather than an alarming trend. During that same period, Dr. Giaever noted that world population increased from 1.5 to 7 billion and many human activities contributed to environmental change, yet the impacts of all these additional people are rarely mentioned in the climate change debate. You can watch one of Dr. Giaever lectures at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

What is the impact of having 5.5 billion more people in the world today (and their many ancestors for the past 133 years) on global CO2 emissions? That’s hard to determine, but a simpler starting point is to assess the impact of one additional person.

That matter was addressed in a 2017 article by Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas entitled, “The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions,” which was published in Environmental Research Letters. The authors developed a ranking for a wide variety of human activities relative to their contribution to CO2 emission reduction measured in tonnes (metric tons, 2205 pounds) of CO2-equivalent per year. I can tell you that the results are surprising.

A synopsis of these results is published in The Guardian using the following simple graphic.

The study authors, Wynes and Nicholas, concluded:

“We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).”

Surprise!! Population growth adds CO2 to the atmosphere and the biggest impact a person can have on their own carbon footprint is to not have an additional child.

The authors noted that average savings of 58.6 tCO2e per year for having one fewer child applies to developed countries, where we expect per-capita energy consumption to be high. In less developed nations, where we expect lower per-capita energy consumption, the average savings for having one fewer child will be smaller. However, as their HDI continues to increase, the per-capita energy consumption in less developed nations eventually will rise and may approach the values occurring now in medium- or high-developed countries.

You can read the synopsis of the Wynes and Nicholas analysis in The Guardian here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

You can read the full paper in Environmental Research Letters here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

The mathematical approach for estimating the CO2-equivalent per year of an additional child is based on a 2009 paper by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax entitled, “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals,” and published in Global Environmental Change. The authors state:

“Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent.”

“It is important to remember that these analyses focus on the carbon legacies of individuals, not populations. For example, under the constant-emission scenario, an extra child born to a woman in the United States ultimately increases her carbon legacy by an amount (9441 metric tons) that is nearly seven times the analogous quantity for a woman in China (1384 tons), but, because of China’s enormous population size, its total carbon emissions (from its human population) currently exceed those of the United States.”

“…..ignoring the consequences of reproduction can lead to serious under-estimation of an individual’s long-term impact on the global environment.”

You can read this complete paper here:

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/OSUCarbonStudy.pdf

How’s your carbon legacy doing?

How to Build a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

All Posts, Marine Technology, Military technology, National Security, Naval ships & systems, , ,

Peter Lobner

The latest U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is the first of a new class (the Ford-class) of carriers that is intended to replace the already-retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65) and all 10 of the Nimitz-class carriers (CVN-68 to CVN-77) as they retire after 49 years of service between 2024 to 2058. Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), a Division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, built all U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and is the prime contractor for the Ford-class carriers.

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was authorized in fiscal year 2008. Actual construction took almost four years from keel laying on 13 November 2009 to launching on 11 October 2013. NNS uses a modular construction process to build major subassemblies in industrial areas adjacent to the drydock and then move each modular unit into the drydock when it is ready to be joined to the rapidly growing structure of the ship.

Overview of the NNS shipyard and CVN-78 in January 2012. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding / Chris OxleyCVN-78 under construction in the NNS drydock. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding

NNS created a short video of an animated 3-D model of CVN-78 showing the arrival and placement of major modules during the 4-year construction period. Highlights are shown in the screenshots below, and the link to the NNS animated video is here:

http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/employees/pub/media/videos/cvn78_build.mp4

CVN-78 construction sequence highlights. Source: composite of 10 screenshots from a Newport News Shipbuilding video.

You also can watch a time-lapse video of the 4-year construction process from keel laying to christening here:

http://nns.huntingtoningalls.com/employees/pub/watch/cvn78-timelapse-4years.html

In this video, you’ll see major subassemblies, like the entire bow structure and the island superstructure moved into place with heavy-lift cranes.

CVN-78 lower bow unit being moved into place in 2012. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding / Ricky ThompsonCVN-78 “island” superstructure being moved into place. Source: Newport News Shipbuilding

After launching, another 3-1/2 years were required for outfitting and testing the ship dockside, loading the two Bechtel A1B reactors, and then conducting sea trials before the ship was accepted by the Navy and commissioned in July 2017.

CVN-78 underway. Source: U.S. Navy

Since commissioning, the Navy has been conducting extensive operational tests all ship systems. Of particular interest are new ElectroMAgnetic Launch System (EMALS) and the electro-mechanical Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system that replace the traditional steam catapults and hydraulic arresting gear on Nimitz-class CVNs. If all tests go well, USS Gerald R. Ford is expected to be ready for its first deployment in late 2019 or early 2020.

So, how much did it cost to deliver the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Navy? About $12.9 B in then-year (2008) dollars, according Congressional Research Service (CRS) report RS-20643, “Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” dated 9 August 2017. You can download this CRS report here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

Milestones for the next two Ford-class carriers are summarized below:

  • CVN-79, USS John. F. Kennedy: Procured in FY 2013; scheduled for delivery in September 2024 at a cost of $11.4 B in then-year (2013) dollars.
  • CVN-80: USS Enterprise: To be procured in FY 2018; scheduled for delivery in September 2027 at a cost of about $13 B in then-year (2018) dollars.

To recapitalize the entire fleet of 10 Nimitz-class carriers will cost more than $130 B by the time the last Nimitz-class CVN, USS George H.W. Bush, is scheduled to retire in 2058 and be replaced by a new Ford-class CVN.

The current Congressional mandate is for an 11-ship nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet. On 15 December 2016, the Navy presented a new force structure assessment with a goal to increase the U.S. fleet size from the currently authorized limit of 308 vessels to 355 vessels. The Heritage Foundation’s 2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength reported that the Navy’s actual fleet size in early 2017 was 274 vessels, so the challenge of re-building to a 355 ship fleet is much bigger than it may sound, especially when you account for the many planned retirements of aging vessels in the following decades. The Navy’s Force Structure Assessment for a 355-ship fleet includes a requirement for 12 CVNs. The CRS provided their commentary on the 355-ship fleet plans in a report entitled, “Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress,” dated 22 September 2017. You can download that report here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

As the world’s political situation continues to change, there may be reasons to change the type of aircraft carrier that is procured by the Navy. Rand Corporation provided the most recent assessment of this issue in their 2017 report entitled, “ Future Aircraft Carrier Options.” The Assessment Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations sponsored this report. You can download this report at the following link:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

So, how many Ford-class aircraft carriers do you think will be built?

Linking Gravitational Wave Detection to the Rest of the Observable Spectrum

All Posts, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the U.S. reported the first ever detection of gravitational waves on 14 September 2015 and, to date, has reported three confirmed detections of gravitational waves originating from black hole coalescence events. These events and their corresponding LIGO press releases are listed below.

  • GW150914, 14 September 2015

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw150914

  • GW151226, 26 December 2015

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw151226

  • GW170104, 4 January 2017

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170104

The following figure illustrates how these black hole coalescence events compare to our knowledge of the size of black holes based on X-ray observations. The LIGO team explained:

“LIGO has discovered a new population of black holes with masses that are larger than what had been seen before with X-ray studies alone (purple). The three confirmed detections by LIGO (GW150914, GW151226, GW170104), and one lower-confidence detection (LVT151012), point to a population of stellar-mass binary black holes that, once merged, are larger than 20 solar masses—larger than what was known before.”

Image credit: LIGO/Caltech/MIT/Sonoma State (Aurore Simonnet)

On 1 August 2017, the Advanced VIRGO detector at the European Gravitational Observatory (EGO) in Cascina, Italy (near Pisa) became operational, using wire suspensions for its interferometer mirrors instead of the fragile glass fiber suspensions that had been delaying startup of this detector.

On 17 August 2017, the LIGO – VIRGO team reported the detection of gravitational waves from a new source; a collision of two neutron stars. In comparison to black holes, neutron stars are low-mass objects, yet the neutron star collision was able to generate gravitational waves that were strong enough and in the detection frequency range of the LIGO and VIRGO. You’ll find the LIGO press release for that event, GW170817, at the following link.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817

The following figure from this press release illustrates the limits of localizing the source of a gravitational wave using the gravitational wave detectors themselves. The localization of GW180817 was much better than the previous gravitational wave detections because the detection was made by both LIGO and VIRGO, which have different views of the sky and a very long baseline, allowing coarse triangulation of the source.

Gravitational wave sky map. Credit__LIGO_Virgo_NASA_Leo_Singer__Axel_Melli

Unlike the previous gravitational wave detections from black hole coalescence, the neutron star collision that produced GW180817 also produced other observable phenomena. Gravitational waves were observed by LIGO and VIRGO, allowing coarse localization to about 31 square degrees in the sky and determination of the time of the event. The source of a two-second gamma ray burst observed at the same time by the Fermi and INTEGRAL gamma ray space telescopes (in Earth orbit) overlapped with the region of the sky identified by LIGO and VIRGO. An optical transient (the afterglow from the event) in that overlap region was first observed hours later by the 1 meter (40 inch) Swope Telescope on Cerro Las Campanas in Chile. The results of this localization process is shown below and is described in more detail in the following LIGO press release:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20171016

The sky map created by LIGO-Virgo (green) showing the possible location of the source of gravitational waves, compared with regions containing the location of the gamma ray burst source from Fermi (purple) and INTEGRAL (grey). The inset shows the actual position of the galaxy (orange star) containing the “optical transient” that resulted from the merger of two neutron stars (Credit: NASA/ESO)

The specific source initially was identified optically as a brilliant blue dot that appeared to be in a giant elliptical galaxy. A multi-spectral “afterglow” persisted at the source for several weeks, during which time the source became a dim red point if light. Many observatories were involved in detailed observations in the optical and infra-red ranges of the spectrum.

Important findings relate to the formation of large quantities of heavy elements (i.e., gold to uranium) in the aftermath of this event, which is known as a “kilonova.” This class of events likely plays an important role in seeding the universe with the heaviest elements, which are not formed in ordinary stars or novae. You’ll find more details on this matter in Lee Billing’s article, “Gravitational Wave Astronomers Hit the Mother Lode,” on the Scientific American website at the following link:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravitational-wave-astronomers-hit-mother-lode1/

The ability to localize gravitational wave sources will improve as additional gravitational wave detectors become operational and capabilities of existing detectors continue to be improved. The current status of worldwide gravitational wave detector deployment is shown in the following figure.

Source: LIGO

The ability to take advantage of “multi-messenger” (multi-spectral) observations will depend on the type of event and timely cueing of observatories worldwide and in orbit. The success of the GW170817 detection and subsequent multi-spectral observations of “kilonova” demonstrates the rich scientific potential for such coordinated observations

Significant Progress has Been Made in Implementing the Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP)

All Posts, Arctic, Environmental protection, Global Climate, Marine Technology, ,

Peter Lobner

The Arctic Council describes itself as, “….the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.” The council consists of representatives from the eight Arctic states:

  • Canada,
  • Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands)
  • Finland
  • Iceland
  • Norway
  • Russia
  • Sweden
  • United States

In addition, six international organizations representing Arctic indigenous people have permanent participant status. You’ll find the Arctic Council’s website at the following link:

http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/

One outcome of the Arctic Council’s 2004 Senior Arctic Officials (SAO) meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland was a call for the Council’s Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group to conduct a comprehensive Arctic marine shipping assessment as outlined in the AMSP. The key result of that effort was The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report (AMSA), which you can download here:

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/54

Source: Arctic Council

This report provided a total of 17 summary recommendations for Arctic states in the following three areas:

I. Enhancing Arctic marine safety

A. Coordinating with international organizations to harmonize a regulatory framework for Arctic maritime safety.

B. Supporting International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards for vessels operating in the Arctic.

C. Developing uniform practices for Arctic shipping governance, including in areas of the central Arctic ocean that are beyond the jurisdiction of any Arctic state.

D. Strengthening passenger ship safety in Arctic waters

E. Supporting development of a multi-national Arctic search and rescue capability.

II. Protecting Arctic people and the environment

A. Conducting surveys of Arctic marine use by indigenous people

B. Ensuring effective engagement with Arctic coastal communities

C. Identifying and protecting areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance.

D. Where appropriate, designating “Special Areas” or “Particularly Sensitive Areas”

E. Protecting against introduction of invasive species

F. Preventing oil spills

G. Determining impacts on marine animals and take mitigating actions

H. Reducing air emissions (CO2, NOx, SO2 and black carbon particles)

III. Building the Arctic marine infrastructure

A. Improving the Arctic infrastructure to support development while enhancing safety and protecting the Arctic people and environment, including icebreakers to assist in response.

B. Developing a comprehensive Arctic marine traffic awareness system and cooperate in development of national monitoring systems.

C. Developing a circumpolar environmental response capability.

D. Investing in hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic data needed to support safe navigation and voyage planning.

The AMSA 2009 Report is a useful resource, with thorough descriptions and findings related to the following:

  • Arctic marine geography, climate and sea ice
  • History of Arctic marine transport
  • Governance of Arctic shipping
  • Current marine use and the AMSA shipping database
  • Scenarios, futures and regional futures to 2020 (Bering Strait, Canadian Arctic, Northern Sea Route)
  • Human dimensions (for a total Arctic population of about 4 M)
  • Environmental considerations and impacts
  • Arctic marine infrastructure

Four status reports from 2011 to 2017 documented the progress by Arctic states in implementing the 17 summary recommendations in AMSA 2009. The fourth and final progress report entitled, “Status of Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report Recommendations; May 2017,” is available at the following link:

https://www.isemar.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Conseil-de-Arctic-rapport-Arctic-Marine-Shipping-Assessment-AMSA-mai-2017.pdf

Source: Arctic Council

Through PAME and other working groups, the Arctic Council will continue its important role in implementing the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. You can download the current version of that plan, for the period from 2015 – 2025, here:

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/413

Source: Arctic Council

For example, on 6 November 2017, the Arctic Council will host a session entitled, “The global implications of a rapidly-changing Arctic,” at the UN Climate Change Conference COP23 meeting in Bonn, Germany. For more information on this event, use this link:

http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/our-work2/8-news-and-events/473-cop23

The Sad State of Affairs of the U.S. Polar Icebreaking Fleet, Revisited

All Posts, Arctic, Marine Technology, Military technology, Naval ships & systems, , , , , , , ,

Updated 4 January 2019

Peter Lobner

In my 9 September 2015 post, I reviewed the current state of the U.S. icebreaking fleet. My closing comments were:

“The U.S. is well behind the power curve for conducting operations in the Arctic that require icebreaker support.  Even with a well-funded new U.S. icebreaker construction program, it will take a decade before the first new ship is ready for service, and by that time, it probably will be taking the place of Polar Star, which will be retiring or entering a more comprehensive refurbishment program.”

You can read my 2015 post here:

https://lynceans.org/all-posts/the-sad-state-of-affairs-of-the-u-s-icebreaking-fleet-and-implications-for-future-u-s-arctic-operations/

Alternatives for modernizing existing U.S. polar icebreakers to extend their operating lives and options for procuring new polar icebreakers were described in the Congressional Research Service report, “Coast Guard Polar icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,” dated 2 September 2015. You can download that report here:

https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RL34391.pdf

While the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 made funds available for “pre-acquisition” activities for a new polar icebreaker, little action has been taken to start procuring new polar icebreakers for the USCG. This Act required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to engage the National Academies (ironically, not the Coast Guard) in “an assessment of alternative strategies for minimizing the costs incurred by the federal government in procuring and operating heavy polar icebreakers.”

The DHS and USCG issued the “Coast Guard Mission Needs Statement,” on 8 January 2016 as a report to Congress. This report briefly addressed polar ice operations in Section 11 and in Appendix B acknowledged two key roles for polar icebreakers:

  • The USCG provides surface access to polar regions for all Department of Defense (DoD) activities and logistical support for remote operating facilities.
  • The USCG supports the National Science Foundation’s research activities in Antarctica by providing heavy icebreaking support of the annual re-supply missions to McMurdo Sound. Additionally, USCG supports the annual NSF scientific mission in the Arctic.

This report to Congress failed to identify deficiencies in the USCG polar icebreaker “fleet” relative to these defined missions (i.e., the USCG has only one operational, aging heavy polar icebreaker) and was silent on the matter of procuring new polar icebreakers. You can download the 2016 “Coast Guard Mission Needs Statement” here:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/United%20States%20Coast%20Guard%20-%20Mission%20Needs%20Statement%20FY%202015.pdf

On 22 February 2017, the USCG made some progress when it awarded five, one-year, firm fixed-price contracts with a combined value of $20 M for heavy polar icebreaker design studies and analysis. The USCG reported that, “The heavy polar icebreaker integrated program office, staffed by Coast Guard and U.S. Navy personnel, will use the results of the studies to refine and validate the draft heavy polar icebreaker system specifications.” The USCG press release regarding this modest design study procurement is here:

http://mariners.coastguard.dodlive.mil/2017/02/23/2222017-five-firm-fixed-price-contracts-awarded-for-heavy-polar-icebreaker-design-studies-analysis/

The National Academies finally issued their assessment of U.S. polar icebreaker needs in a letter report to the Secretary of Homeland Security dated 11 July 2017. The report, entitled, “Acquisition and Operation of Polar Icebreakers: Fulfilling the Nation’s Needs.” offered the following findings and recommendations:

  1. Finding: The United States has insufficient assets to protect its interests, implement U.S. policy, execute its laws, and meet its obligations in the Arctic and Antarctic because it lacks adequate icebreaking capability.
  2. Recommendation: The United States Congress should fund the construction of four polar icebreakers of common design that would be owned and operated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
  3. Recommendation: USCG should follow an acquisition strategy that includes block buy contracting with a fixed price incentive fee contract and take other measures to ensure best value for investment of public funds.
  4. Finding: In developing its independent concept design and cost estimates, the committee determined that the cost estimated by USCG for the heavy icebreakers are reasonable (average cost per ship of about $791 million for a 4-ship buy).
  5. Finding: Operating costs of new polar icebreakers are expected to be lower than those of the vessels they replace.
  6. Recommendation: USCG should ensure that the common polar icebreaker design is science ready and that one of the ships has full science capability. (This means that the design includes critical features and structures that cannot be cost-effectively retrofit after construction).
  7. Finding: The nation is at risk of losing its heavy icebreaking capability – experiencing a critical capacity gap – as the Polar Star approaches the end of its extended service life, currently estimated to be 3 to 7 years (i.e., sometime between 2020 and 2024).
  8. Recommendation: USCG should keep the Polar Star operational by implementing an enhanced maintenance program (EMP) until at least two new polar icebreakers are commissioned.

You can download this National Academies letter report here:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24834/acquisition-and-operation-of-polar-icebreakers-fulfilling-the-nations-needs

There has been a long history of studies that have shown the need for additional U.S. polar icebreakers. This National Academies letter report provides a clear message to DHS and Congress that action is needed now.

In the meantime, in Russia:

To help put the call to action to modernize and expand the U.S. polar icebreaking capability in perspective, let’s take a look at what’s happening in Russia.

The Russian state-owned nuclear icebreaker fleet operator, Rosatomflot, is scheduled to commission the world’s largest nuclear-powered icebreaker in 2019. The Arktika is the first of the new Project 22220 LK-60Ya class of nuclear-powered polar icebreakers being built to replace Russia’s existing, aging fleet of nuclear icebreakers. The LK-60Ya is a dual-draught design that enables these ships to operate as heavy polar icebreakers in Arctic waters and also operate in the shallower mouths of polar rivers. Vessel displacement is about 37,000 tons (33,540 tonnes) with water ballast and about 28,050 tons (25,450 tonnes) without water ballast. When ballasted, LK-60Ya icebreakers will be able to operate in Arctic ice of any thickness up to 4.5 meters (15 feet).

The principal task for the new LK-60Ya icebreakers will be to clear passages for ship traffic on the Northern Sea route, which runs along the Russian Arctic coast from the Kara Sea to the Bering Strait. The second and third ships in this class, Sibir and Ural, are under construction at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg and are expected to enter service in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Arktika (on right), Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant (center), and Sibir (on left) dockside at Baltic Shipyard, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 2017: Source: Charles Diggers / maritime-executive.com

In June 2016, Russia launched the first of four diesel-electric powered 6,000 ton Project 21180 icebreakers at the Admiralty Shipyard in St. Petersburg. The Ilya Muromets, which is expected to be delivered in November 2017, will be the Russian Navy’s first new military icebreaker in about 50 years. It is designed to be capable of breaking ice with a thickness up to 1 meter (3.3 feet). The Project 21180 icebreaker’s primary mission is to provide icebreaking services for the Russian naval forces deployed in the Arctic region and the Far East. The U.S. has no counterpart to this class of Arctic vessel.

Project 21180 military icebreaker Ilya Muromets. Source: The Baltic Post

You’ll find more information on Russia’s Project 21180-class icebreakers here:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/project-21180-class-icebreakers/

Russia’s 7,000 – 8,500 ton diesel-electric Project 23550 military icebreaking patrol vessels (corvettes) will be armed combatant vessels capable of breaking ice with a thickness up to 1.7 meters (5.6 feet). The keel for the lead ship, Ivan Papanin, was laid down at the Admiralty Shipyard in St. Petersburg on 19 April 2017. Construction time is expected to be about 36 month, with Ivan Papanin being commissioned in 2020. The second ship in this class should enter service about one year later. Both corvettes are expected to be armed with a mid-size naval gun (76 mm to 100 mm have been reported), containerized cruise missiles, and an anti-submarine capable helicopter (i.e., Kamov Ka-27 type). The U.S. has no counterpart to this class of Arctic vessel.

Project 23550 icebreaking patrol vessel. Source: naval-technology.com

You’ll find more information on Russia’s Project 23550-class icebreaking patrol vessels here:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan-papanin-project-23550-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/

In conclusion:

It appears to me that Russia and the U.S. have very different visions for how they will conduct and support future civilian and military operations that require surface access in the Arctic region. The Russians currently have a strong polar icebreaking capability to support its plans for Arctic development and operation, and that capability is being modernized with a new fleet of the world’s largest nuclear-powered icebreakers. In addition, two smaller icebreaking vessel classes, including an icebreaking combatant vessel, soon will be deployed to support Russia’s military in the Arctic and Far East.

In comparison, the U.S. polar icebreaking capability continues to hang by a thread (i.e., the Polar Star) and our nation has to decide if it is even going to show up for polar icebreaking duty in the Arctic in the near future. The U.S. also is a no-show in the area of dedicated military icebreakers, including Arctic-capable armed combatant surface vessels.

Where do you think this Arctic imbalance is headed?

Update: 4 January 2019

In September 2018, the Coast Guard renamed its New Icebreaker Program ‘Polar Security Cutter.’  The hull designation will be WMSP. W is the standard prefix for Coast Guard vessels, and MSP stands for Maritime Security-Polar.  However, the revised designation does not alter how the vessel is funded.

10 December 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service, “Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress,” which you’ll find at the following link: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf

With the heavy polar icebreaker Polar Star (WAGB-10) used exclusively to support Antarctic operations, the medium-size cutter Healy (WAGB-20) is the only Coast Guard polar icebreaker serving the Arctic region. Healy was built in 2000 primarily as an Arctic research vessel for the national Academy of Sciences.

“HEALY is designed to conduct a wide range of research activities, providing more than 4,200 square feet of scientific laboratory space, numerous electronic sensor systems, oceanographic winches, and accommodations for up to 50 scientists. HEALY is designed to break 4.5 feet of ice continuously at three knots and can operate in temperatures as low as -50 degrees F. The science community provided invaluable input on lab layouts and science capabilities during design and construction of the ship. At a time when scientific interest in the Arctic Ocean basin is intensifying, HEALY substantially enhances the United States Arctic research capability.

As a Coast Guard cutter, HEALY is also a capable platform for supporting other potential missions in the polar regions, including logistics, search and rescue, ship escort, environmental protection, and enforcement of laws and treaties.”

Coast Guard cutter Healy: Source: U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area / Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew Masaschi

Near-Earth Object (NEO) Sky Surveys and Data Analysis are Refining our Understanding of the Risk of NEO Collisions with Earth

All Posts, Astronomy, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peter Lobner

It seems that every week or two there is a news article about another small asteroid that soon will pass relatively close to the Earth. Most were detected while they were still approaching Earth. Some were first detected very shortly before or after their closest approach to Earth. That must have made the U.S. Planetary Defense Officer a bit nervous, but then, what could he do about it? (See my 21 January 2016 post, “Relax, the Planetary Defense Officer has the watch”).

While we currently can’t do anything to defend against NEOs, extensive worldwide programs are in place to identify and track NEOs and predict which NEOs may present a future hazard to the Earth. Here’s a brief overview of the following programs.

  • NASA Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)
  • International Astronomical Union’s (IAU’s) Minor Planet Center (MPC)
  • NASA’s Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS)
  • National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) NEO sky survey
  • University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory

NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)

WISE was an Earth orbiting infrared-wavelength astronomical space telescope with a 40 cm (16 in) diameter primary mirror. WISE operated from December 2009 to February 2011 and performed an “all-sky” astronomical imaging survey in the 3.4, 4.6, 12.0 and 22.0 μm wavelength bands. NASA’s home page for the WISE / NEOWISE mission is at the following link:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/neowise/mission/index.html

NEOWISE is the continuing NASA project to mine the WISE data set. An important data mining tool is the WISE Moving Object Processing System (WMOPS), which has been optimized to enable extraction of moving objects at lower signal-to-noise levels. A comet detection is shown in the following multiple images that have been combined to show the comet in four different positions relative to the fixed background stars.

Comet C/2013 A1 Siding Spring. Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech

To date, the NEOWISE data mining effort has resulted in the following:

  • Detection of ~158,000 asteroids at thermal infrared wavelengths, including ~700 near-Earth objects (NEOs) and ~34,000 new asteroids, 135 of which are NEOs.
  • Detection of more than 155 comets, including 21 new discoveries.
  • Determination of preliminary physical properties such as diameter and visible albedo for nearly all of these objects.
  • Estimation of the numbers, sizes, and orbital elements of NEOs, including potentially hazardous asteroids
  • Results have been published, enabling a range of other studies of the origins and evolution of the small bodies in our solar system.

The output from NEOWISE is delivered to NASA’s Planetary Data System (PDS), which NASA describes as follows:

“The PDS archives and distributes scientific data from NASA planetary missions, astronomical observations, and laboratory measurements. The PDS is sponsored by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. Its purpose is to ensure the long-term usability of NASA data and to stimulate advanced research. All PDS data are publicly available and may be exported outside of United States under ‘Technology and Software Publicly Available’ (TSPA) classification.”

The link to the NASA Planetary Data System is here:

https://pds.nasa.gov

International Astronomical Union’s (IAU’s) Minor Planet Center (MPC)

The MPC describes itself as the “single worldwide location for receipt and distribution of positional measurements of minor planets, comets and other irregular natural satellites of the major planets. The MPC is responsible for the identification, designation and orbit computation for all of these objects.”

The MPC home page is here:

http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/mpc.html

On this website, MPC lists the following 2017 summary statistics:

Source: MPC

The MPC website offers several short videos that explain the NEO hazard and the challenges of detecting these small objects and determining their orbital parameters with high precision. Key points made in the MPC videos include:

  • The Earth’s cross-section represents only 1/10,000th of the area of the near-Earth region. Earth is a relatively small target area for a NEO.
  • To determine if a NEO is a potential hazard, its orbital parameters must be established with a precision of greater than 1/100th of 1%.
  • There is a “zone of discoverability” (green area in the following diagram) that varies primarily by the size of the object and the aspect of its lighted side to observers on Earth. If an object is outside this rather small zone, then current sky survey instruments cannot detect the object. An example is the 15 February 2013 atmospheric blast that occurred near Chelyabinsk, Russia. This event was caused by a previously undetected NEO that approached Earth at a high relative velocity from the direction of the Sun and vaporized in the Earth’s atmosphere.

            Zone of discoverability (green area). Source: screenshot from MPC video “Asteroid Hazards, Part 2: The Challenge of Detection”

 NASA’s Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS)

CNEOS is NASA’s center for computing asteroid and comet orbits with high precision and estimating the probability of a future Earth impact. CNEOS is operated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and supports NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office.

The CNEOS home page is here:

http://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/about/cneos.html

CNEOS is the home of JPL’s Sentry and Scout programs:

  • The Sentryimpact monitoring system performs long-term analyses of possible future orbits of hazardous asteroids, searching for impact possibilities over the next century.
  • TheScout system monitors the IAU’s MPC database for new potential asteroid discoveries and computes the possible range of future motions even before these objects have been confirmed as discoveries.

The average distance between the Earth and the moon is about 238,855 miles (384,400 km), which equals 1 LD. On the CNEOS website, you can view data on NEO close approaches to Earth at the following link:

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/neo_ca_intro.html

By adjusting the table settings and sorting by a specific column heading, you can create customized views of the close approach data. Just looking at data from the past year for NEOs that passed Earth within 1 LD yielded the following results:

  • 48 NEOs passed within 1 LD of Earth.
  • For these NEOs, object diameters were in the range from 1.8 to 83 meters (5.9 to 272 feet). The NEO that caused the 2013 Chelyabinsk blast was estimated to have a diameter of 10 to 20 meters (32.8 to 65.6 feet).
  • Their relative velocities were in the range from 4.02 to 23.97 km/s (8,992 to 53,620 mph). The NEO that caused the 2013 Chelyabinsk blast was estimated to have a relative velocity of 19.16 km/s (45,860 mph).
  • In the past year, the closest approach was by object 2017 GM, which had a “CA Distance Minimum” (3-signa estimate, measured from Earth center to NEO center) of 0.04 LD, or 15,376 km (9,554 miles). After subtracting Earth’s radius of 6,371 km (3,959 miles), object 2017 GM cleared the Earth’s surface by 9,005 km (5,595 miles).

Looking into the future, the CNEOS close approach data shows two objects that currently have values of “CA Distance Minimum” that are less than the radius of the Earth, indicating that impact is possible:

  • Object 2012 HG2: close approach date on 13 February 2047; modest size of 11 – 24 meters (36 – 79 feet); low relative velocity of 4.36 km/sec (9,753 mph)
  • Object 2010 RF12: close approach date of 6 September 2095; modest size of 6.4 – 14 meters (21 to 46 feet); modest relative velocity of 7.65 km/sec (17,112 mph)

So it looks like we have less than 30 years to refine the orbital data on object 2012 HG2, determine if it will impact Earth, and, if so, determine where the impact will occur and what mitigating actions can be taken. Hopefully, the U.S. Planetary Defense Officer is on top of this matter.

National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) NEO sky survey

On 30 August 2017, NOAO issued a press release summarizing the results of a survey of NEOs conducted using the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) on the 4 meter (157.5 inch) Blanco telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in northern Chile.

“Lori Allen, Director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory and the lead investigator on the study, explained, ‘There are around 3.5 million NEOs larger than 10 meters, a population ten times smaller than inferred in previous studies. About 90% of these NEOs are in the Chelyabinsk size range of 10-20 meters.’”

“David Trilling, the first author of the study,…explained…..‘If house-sized NEOs are responsible for Chelyabinsk-like events, our results seem to say that the average impact probability of a house-sized NEO is actually ten times greater than the average impact probability of a large NEO.’”

You can read the NOAO press release here:

https://www.noao.edu/news/2017/pr1704.php

You can read the draft paper, “The size distribution of Near Earth Objects larger than 10 meters,” (to be published in Astronomical Journal) here.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.04066.pdf

University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory

In October 2017, astronomer Vishnu Reddy presented data on an intriguing NEO known as 2016 HO3, that is a “quasi-satellite” of Earth. The announcement is here:

https://lbtonews.blogspot.com/2017/10/earths-new-traveling-buddy-is.html

As a “quasi-satellite,” 2016 HO3 is not gravitationally bound to Earth, but its solar orbit keeps 2016 HO3 in relatively close proximity to Earth, but in a slightly different orbital plane. As both bodies orbit the Sun, the motion of 2016 HO3 relative to the Earth gives the appearance that 2016 HO3 is in a distant halo orbit around Earth. The approximate geometry of this three body system is shown in the following diagram, with 2016 HO3’s solar orbit represented in red and the halo orbit as seen from Earth represented in yellow.

Source: www.EarthSky.org

You’ll find a video showing the dynamics of 2016 HO3’s halo orbit on the EarthSky website at the following link:

http://earthsky.org/space/near-earth-quasi-satellite-2016-ho3-confirmation?mc_cid=4d2056208e&mc_eid=19a1fde155

Observations of 2016 HO3 were made from the Large Binocular Telescope Observatory (LBTO), which is located on Mt. Graham in Arizona. You’ll find details on LBTO at the following link:

http://www.lbto.org/overview.html

Key parameters for 2016 HO3 are: diameter: 100 meters (330 feet); distance from Earth: 38 to 100 LD; composition appears to be the same material as other asteroid NEOs. With its stable halo orbit, there is no risk that 2016 HO3 will collide with Earth.

For additional reading on NEO discovery:

Myhrvold, “Comparing NEO Search Telescopes,” Astronomical Society of the Pacific, April 2016

Abstract:

“I use simple physical principles to estimate basic performance metrics for the ground-based Large Synoptic Survey Telescope and three space-based instruments— Sentinel, NEOCam, and a Cubesat constellation.”

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/128/962/045004/pdf

S.R. Chesley & P. Vereš, “Projected Near-Earth Object Discovery Performance of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope,” JPL Publication 16-11, CNEOS, April 2017

Abstract:

“LSST is designed for rapid, wide-field, faint surveying of the night sky ….The baseline LSST survey approach is designed to make two visits to a given field in a given night, leading to two possible NEO detections per night. These nightly pairs must be linked across nights to derive orbits of moving objects…… Our simulations revealed that in 10 years LSST would catalog 60% of NEOs with absolute magnitude H < 22, which is a proxy for 140 m and larger objects.”

https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/doc/JPL_Pub_16-11_LSST_NEO.pdf

60th Anniversary of Sputnik 1, the World’s First Man-made Earth-orbiting Satellite

All Posts, Spacecraft and Missions, , ,

Peter Lobner

4 October 1957 was a major milestone in aerospace history, marking the first launch of an artificial satellite into Earth orbit.  Since 1955, a relatively low-key “space race” between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had been underway, with the U.S. openly developing the small Vanguard booster rocket and satellite and planning to launch the first satellite into orbit during the International Geophysical Year (1 July 1957 to 31 December 1958).  Secrecy surrounding the Soviet Union’s space program made the successful launch of Sputnik 1 a significant political coup.  This event served to greatly energized the lagging U.S. space program and prompted calls for more technical education in the U.S.

Source:  The New York Tines

The small spherical Sputnik 1 satellite had a diameter of 23 inches (58 cm) and a weight of 184 pounds (83.6 kg).  Functionally, Sputnik 1 was very simple, consisting of a battery power supply, a radio transmitter, a thermal control system and a remote control switch housed within the nitrogen-pressurized sphere. You’ll find a description of how Sputnik 1 worked at the following link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/news/a28496/how-sputnik-worked/

The satellite transmitted a continuous “beep-beep-beep…” on two frequencies until 28 October 1957, when it went silent.

The four whip antennae provided a spherical radiation pattern for the broadcast radio signals.  Source:  Smithsonian Air and Space Museum

Sputnik 1 interior arrangement. The silver-zinc batteries were in the hexagonal enclosure.  The radio transmitters were in the center of that hexagon.  Source: Space.com

Sputnik 1’s low Earth orbit decayed over the next three months and the satellite reentered the Earth’s atmosphere and was destroyed on 4 January 1958, after about 1,400 orbits.

Sputnik 1 was launched by an R-7 liquid-fueled booster rocket, which was a version of the Soviet Union’s first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the SS-6.  The R-7 booster rocket, which consisted of a liquid-fueled core stage surrounded by four liquid-fueled strap-on boosters, was developed by the design bureau headed by Sergei Pavlovitch Korolev (1906-1966). The strap-on boosters separated about 116 seconds after launch.  The core stage achieved orbit along with the Sputnik 1 satellite and the payload fairing.  The core stage reentered the atmosphere in December 1957.

R-7 booster.  Source: Space.com

The R-7 booster evolved into the launch vehicle for future Soviet Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz missions, and a version continues in use today as the Russian launch vehicle taking astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard updated Soyuz spacecraft.

Evolution of the R-7 booster.  Source:  NASA  / Peter Gorin / Emmanuel Dissais

The R-7 booster launched the larger Sputnik 2 satellite into earth orbit on 3 November 1957, before any satellite launch attempt by the U.S.  Sputnik 2 carried the first living thing into orbit, the “space dog” named Laika. The even larger Sputnik 3 was launched on 15 May 1958.  These first three Sputnik launches had lasting effects on the civilian space race and the military missile race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

The U.S. civilian Earth Satellite Program (aka Project Vanguard) favored by President Dwight Eisenhower, planned to launch the first U.S. earth-orbiting satellite during the International Geophysical Year (IGY, 1 July 1957 – 31 December 1958) using a Vanguard rocket being developed by Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).  Vanguard was quickly eclipsed by the Army Ballistic Missile Agency’s satellite program, which was hastily mobilized after the Sputnik 1 launch. The Army – Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) team, led by Dr. Werner von Braun (Army) and Dr. William Pickering (JPL), was successful on their first attempt and placed the first U.S. satellite, Explorer I, in orbit on 31 January 1958.  After two launch failures, the first Vanguard satellite reached orbit on 17 March 1958.

Thereafter, the Soviet – U.S. space race was a focus of national and international attention, with President John F. Kennedy setting a seemingly optimistic national goal in 1961: “…before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth….”  The U.S. Apollo 11 mission met this goal when the astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, Jr. landed on the Moon on 20 July 1969, just 12 years after Sputnik 1 first reached earth orbit.

Sputnik 1 60thanniversary artwork.Source:  http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/fontman1962/media/

Update 24 September 2018:

This post was updated with additional content.

Remote Sensing Shows the Extent of Flooding from Hurricane Harvey and Other Large Flooding Events

All Posts, Extreme weather, Remote Sensing, , ,

Peter Lobner

Dartmouth Flood Observatory, at the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, integrates international satellite data to develop a worldwide view of surface water issues, and can provide regional maps that show the extent of flooding in areas of interest. Data from many satellite sources are used, including NASA’s MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer) and Landsat, European Space Agency’s (ESA) Sentinel 1, ASI (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana) Cosmos-SkyMed, and Canadian Space Agency’s Radarsat 2.

The Dartmouth Flood Observatory homepage is here:

http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu

The world view of large flooding events as of 26 August 2017 is shown in the graphic.

Source: Dartmouth Flood Observatory

The following 31 August 2017 maps show the areas in Texas and Louisiana that were flooded by Hurricane Harvey also known as DFO flood event 4510). Red represents flooded areas, blue represents normal water extent, and dark grey represents urban areas.

Area mapSource: Dartmouth Flood Observatory

Here’s the link to these detailed flooding maps for Hurricane Harvey:

http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/Events/2017USA4510/2017USA4510.html

This webpage also provides links to other information sources related to Hurricane Harvey.

The Dartmouth Flood Observatory maintains an archive of large flood events from 1985 to present. This archive is accessible online at the following link:

http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/Archives/index.html

Dartmouth Flood Observatory is a member of the Global Flood Partnership (GFP), which describes itself as, “a cooperation framework between scientific organizations and flood disaster managers worldwide to develop flood observational and modeling infrastructure, leveraging on existing initiatives for better predicting and managing flood disaster impacts and flood risk globally.” For more information on the Global Flood Partnership, visit their homepage and portal at the following links:

https://gfp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-us

http://portal.gdacs.org/Global-Flood-Partnership