Environment-Clean-Generations

Environment-Clean-Generations
THE DEFINITIVE BLOG FOR EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT YOU LIVE IN, WITH REFERENCE TO LIFE, EARTH AND COSMIC SPACE SCIENCES, PRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DORU INDREI, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY SPACIALIST
"Life is not about what we know, but what we don't know, craving the unthinkable makes it so amazing, that is worth dying for." Doru Indrei
Custom Search
Showing posts with label sun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sun. Show all posts

Lovejoy Comet Lives after Solar Encounter


You would have been very optimistic if, before Comet Lovejoy's apparent suicidal near-miss of the sun's surface, you'd placed a bet on the icy interloper's survival. But if you did, you'd be laughing all the way to the bank.



This is why I don't gamble -- I was anything but optimistic of the chances the Kreutz Sungrazing comet -- officially designated as C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy) -- would live through the hellish temperatures it endured as it made the death-defying solar dive.

..........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................


But as NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) watched the comet emerge from the other side of the sun Thursday evening, Comet Lovejoy proved the doubters wrong and continued its orbit after passing only 87,000 miles above the sun's photosphere. In doing so, it had endured temperatures of over a million degrees Celsius.
Watch the video of the lucky comet zooming away from the limb of the sun:

Two Behemoth Black Holes Could Swallow Billions of Suns

Astronomers have measured the two most enormous supermassive black holes found so far, vast realms of titanic gravity large enough to swallow 10 of our solar systems. The black holes are much bigger than predicted, suggesting extra-large galaxies and their black holes grow and evolve differently than smaller ones.
One of the monstrous black holes, in the center of the galaxy NGC 3842, weighs as much as 9.7 billion suns. It is about 331 million light-years away in the constellation Leo. The other one, NGC 4889, is of comparable or even greater mass, the researchers say — they’re not positive, but the numbers suggest it could be up to 21 billion solar masses. It's 336 million light-years away in the Coma galaxy cluster.

..........................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................

Behemoth Black Hole This figure shows the immense size of the black hole discovered in the galaxy NGC 3842. The black hole is at its center and is surrounded by stars (shown as an artist's concept in the central figure). The black hole is seven times larger than Pluto's orbit. Our solar system (inset) would be dwarfed by it. Pete Marenfeld

The former heavyweight champ is a dwarf by comparison, tipping the scales at 6.3 billion solar masses. That black hole is at the center of the giant elliptical galaxy Messier 87.
Supermassive black holes of 10-billion-sun magnitude have been predicted based on the brightness of quasars, ultra-luminous distant objects that are largely thought to be spiraling discs surrounding the event horizons of black holes in the very early universe. But this is the first time such enormous black holes have ever been seen. They could be a missing link to the quasars, according to astronomer Michele Capellari, writing in a companion piece to the new black hole paper.




"These objects probably represent the missing dormant relics of the giant black holes that powered the brightest quasars in the early universe," she wrote.
To weigh the black holes, Nicholas McConnell and Chung-Pei Ma at the University of California-Berkeley used the Keck and Gemini observatories to measure the speed of stars moving around the black holes. The faster the stars were moving, the more gravity was needed to keep them in check, so the researchers used these velocities to calculate the black holes’ masses.
They found the black holes were much bigger than predictive math would suggest, which means astronomers still have a lot to learn about how the biggest black holes form and evolve.
“Our measurements suggest that different evolutionary processes influence the growth of the largest galaxies and their black holes,” the researchers write.
The paper will appear in the journal Nature.

Our Own Black Hole, Through Adaptive Optics: Image of the center of our galaxy from laser-guide-star adaptive optics on the Keck Telescope. If a 10 billion solar mass black hole resided at the Milky Way's center, its immense event horizon would be visible, as illustrated by the central black disk. The actual black hole at the galactic center is 2,500 times smaller, however.  Andrea Ghez, Lynette Cook
 BBC
 Environment Clean Generations

LHC Laser Will Tear Apart the Fabric of Space


The Large Hadron Collider didn't destroy Earth, so physicists are  having another go. A team is planning to build an enormously powerful laser that could rip apart the fabric of space.

The Extreme Light Infrastructure Ultra High-Field laser will be 200 times more powerful than the most powerful lasers that currently exist on the planet, says John Collider, a member of the team and the director of the Central Laser Facility at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot. "At this kind of intensity we start to get into unexplored territory, as it is an area of physics that we have never been before," he  told the Telegraph.Environment Clean Generations

The aim is to boil a vacuum. Vacuums are normally thought of as empty space, but physicists believe they actually contain  tiny particles that pop in and out of existence, so fast that it's difficult to prove they exist. By focusing the ELI Ultra-High-Field laser on an area of space, the team believes that the fabric of the vacuum can be pulled apart, revealing these particles for the first time.


The laser will be made up of 10 beams, each providing 200 petawatts of power for less than a trillionth of a second. As 200 petawatts is more than 100,000 times the amount of power produced by the world, the energy will need to be stored up over time in huge capacitors. At the crucial moment, that energy will be released to form metre-wide laser beams that will then be combined and focused down onto a tiny point. At that point, the intensity of the light will be greater than at the centre of the Sun.

In these conditions, it's hoped that these pairs of matter-antimatter particles -- which normally annihilate each other almost as soon as they form -- will be pulled apart, leaving tiny electrical charges, which the team hope to measure. Environment Clean Generations.The research could yield some insight into why the Universe appears to contain far more matter than we've so far been able to detect.

 The location of the laser hasn't yet been decided, but the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory's Central Laser Facility is in the running. Three prototypes for the laser will be constructed in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania, each costing £200 million and scheduled to become operational in 2015. If successful, the final laser will be built -- costing around £1 billion -- in either Britain, Russia, France, Hungary, Romania or the Czech Republic.

Wolfgang Sandner, coordinator of the Laserlab Europe network and president of the German Physics Society,  said: "There are many challenges to be over come before we can do that, but it is mainly a matter of scaling up the technology we have so we can produce the powers needed."

 read more

by"environment clean generations"

Organic Solar Cells


Teams of researchers all over the world are working on the development of organic solar cells. Organic solar cells have good prospects for the future: They can be laid onto thin films, which makes them cheap to produce.

Established printing technologies should be employed for their production of the future. In order to achieve this goal of suitable solar cell architecture as well a coating materials and substrates have to be developed. “This method permits a high throughput, so the greatest cost is that of materials,” says Michael Niggemann, a researcher at ISE.





Nevertheless, organic solar cells are not intended to compete with classic silicon cells – they are not nearly efficient enough to do that just yet. Because they are flexible, however, they can open up new fields of application: Plastic solar cells could supply the power for small mobile devices such as MP3 players or electronic ski passes. Another possibility would be to combine solar cells, sensors and electronic circuits on a small strip of plastic to form a self-sufficient power microsystem.

First Comet Found with Ocean-Like Water



New evidence supports the theory that comets delivered a significant portion of Earth's oceans, which scientists believe formed about 8 million years after the planet itself.


Astronomers have found a new cosmic source for the same kind of water that appeared on Earth billions of years ago and created the oceans. The findings may help explain how Earth's surface ended up covered in water. 

New measurements from the Herschel Space Observatory show that comet Hartley 2, which comes from the distant Kuiper Belt, contains water with the same chemical signature as Earth's oceans. This remote region of the solar system, some 30 to 50 times as far away as the distance between Earth and the sun, is home to icy, rocky bodies including Pluto, other dwarf planets and innumerable comets. 

"Our results with Herschel suggest that comets could have played a major role in bringing vast amounts of water to an early Earth," said Dariusz Lis, senior research associate in physics at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and co-author of a new paper in the journal Nature, published online today, Oct. 5. "This finding substantially expands the reservoir of Earth ocean-like water in the solar system to now include icy bodies originating in the Kuiper Belt."

Scientists theorize Earth started out hot and dry, so that water critical for life must have been delivered millions of years later by asteroid and comet impacts. Until now, none of the comets previously studied contained water like Earth's. However, Herschel's observations of Hartley 2, the first in-depth look at water in a comet from the Kuiper Belt, paint a different picture. 


This illustration shows the locations of various classes of comets in the Solar System, relative to the orbits of the planets. The left panel shows the inner Solar System along with the orbit of Jupiter-Family comet Hartley 2. The central panel shows a larger portion of the Solar System beyond the orbit of Jupiter, as well as the Kuiper Belt, one of the two main reservoirs of comets in the solar system. The right panel shows the Oort Cloud, the other main reservoir of comets located well beyond the outer solar system. Credit: ESA/AOES Medialab 

Herschel peered into the comet's coma, or thin, gaseous atmosphere. The coma develops as frozen materials inside a comet vaporize while on approach to the sun. This glowing envelope surrounds the comet's "icy dirtball"-like core and streams behind the object in a characteristic tail. Herschel detected the signature of vaporized water in this coma and, to the surprise of the scientists, Hartley 2 possessed half as much "heavy water" as other comets analyzed to date. In heavy water, one of the two normal hydrogen atoms has been replaced by the heavy hydrogen isotope known as deuterium. The ratio between heavy water and light, or regular, water in Hartley 2 is the same as the water on Earth's surface. The amount of heavy water in a comet is related to the environment where the comet formed.

By tracking the path of Hartley 2 as it swoops into Earth's neighborhood in the inner solar system every six-and-a-`half years, astronomers know that it comes from the Kuiper Belt. The five comets besides Hartley 2 whose heavy-water-to-regular-water ratios have been obtained all come from an even more distant region in the solar system called the Oort Cloud. This swarm of bodies, 10,000 times farther afield than the Kuiper Belt, is the wellspring for most documented comets.  


Using the Herschel Space Observatory, astronomers have discovered that comet Hartley 2 possesses a ratio of "heavy water" to light, or normal, water that matches what's found in Earth's oceans. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Given the higher ratios of heavy water seen in Oort Cloud comets compared to Earth's oceans, astronomers had concluded that the contribution by comets to Earth's total water volume stood at approximately 10 percent. Asteroids, which are found mostly in a band between Mars and Jupiter but occasionally stray into Earth's vicinity, looked like the major depositors. The new results, however, point to Kuiper Belt comets having performed a previously underappreciated service in bearing water to Earth. 

How these objects ever came to possess the telltale oceanic water is puzzling. Astronomers had expected Kuiper Belt comets to have even more heavy water than Oort Cloud comets because the latter are thought to have formed closer to the sun than those in the Kuiper Belt. Therefore, Oort Cloud bodies should have had less frozen heavy water locked in them prior to their ejection to the fringes as the solar system evolved.
"Our study indicates that our understanding of the distribution of the lightest elements and their isotopes, as well as the dynamics of the early solar system, is incomplete," said co-author Geoffrey Blake, professor of planetary science and chemistry at Caltech. "In the early solar system, comets and asteroids must have been moving all over the place, and it appears that some of them crash-landed on our planet and made our oceans."
 by "environment clean generations"

The New North Pole Ozone Hole

Spawned by strangely cold temperatures, "beautiful" clouds helped strip the Arctic atmosphere of most of its protective ozone this winter, new research shows.
The resulting zone of low-ozone air could drift as far south as New York, according to experts who warn of increased skin-cancer risk.
The stratosphere's global blanket of ozone—about 12 miles (20 kilometers) above Earth—blocks most of the sun's high-frequency ultraviolet (UV) rays from hitting Earth's surface, largely preventing sunburn and skin cancer.

 
But a continuing high-altitude freeze over the Arctic may have already reduced ozone to half its normal concentrations—and "an end is not in sight," said research leader Markus Rex, a physicist for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany.

Preliminary data from 30 ozone-monitoring stations throughout the Arctic show the degree of ozone loss was larger this winter than ever before, Rex said.
Before spring is out, "we may even get the first Arctic ozone hole ... which would be a dramatic development—one which would make it into coming history books," he said.
"It's too early to call, but stay tuned."

Atmospheric chemist Simone Tilmes, who wasn't part of the study, agreed.
"We do not know at the moment how large the ozone hole in the Arctic will grow, because the thinning of the ozone layer is happening right now," said Tilmes, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

Full confirmation may require computer simulations and satellite measurements, which study leader Rex said would "be very useful to provide an independent view of the ozone loss this year."
An ozone hole is an area of the ozone layer that is seasonally depleted of the protective gas—such as the well-known hole over Antarctica.


"Beautiful" Clouds Harbor Ozone-Fighting Chemicals

In the 1980s scientists realized chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting chemicals—then widely used in aerosol hairsprays and refrigerants, for example—were degrading the ozone layer.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol initiated a global phase-out of CFCs, replacing them with alternatives that don't destroy ozone. However, CFCs can persist for decades in the stratosphere—the Antarctic ozone hole is still there, though it's expected to grow smaller in coming decades.

Once in the upper atmosphere, CFCs break down into chlorine atoms, which, when activated by sunlight, destroy ozone molecules.
Cold temperatures speed up this process through polar stratospheric clouds (see picture), "beautiful" and still little understood formations that occur once stratospheric temperatures drop to at least -108 degrees Fahrenheit (-78 degrees Celsius), Rex noted.

The clouds provide "reservoirs" for inactivated byproducts of chlorine. On the surface of the cloud, these byproducts react with each other and release "aggressive" chlorine atoms that attack ozone molecules.
The whole process stops as soon as it gets warmer and the so-called Arctic polar vortex breaks up, Tilmes said.
At about 6 million square miles (15 million square kilometers), or 40 times the size of Germany, the Arctic polar vortex is a frigid air mass that circles the North Pole in winter.

Warming Link to High-Altitude Cold Snap?

The cold snap is no coincidence, research leader Rex added.
"This is the continuation of a long-term tendency that the cold Arctic winters have become colder," Rex said.
And global warming may drive this trend, he added. As greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower levels of the atmosphere, the higher levels tend to cool, he said.
Of course, the "process is more complicated than this simple explanation"—there may be many ways in which greenhouse gases influence high-altitude temperatures, he added.

Low-Ozone Air to Fly South for Spring?

Any spike in UV radiation can impact both the Arctic ecosystem and human health, research leader Rex noted. For instance, more sunlight can slow the growth of certain species of ocean algae that provide food for larger organisms—and whose absence can have reverberations up the food chain.
More worrisome, Rex said, is that ozone-depleted air can catch a ride south to more highly populated areas with the Arctic polar vortex.
Low-ozone air is often pushed southward to 40 or 45 degrees latitude by natural atmospheric disturbances, Rex said.

A low-ozone air mass's southern "excursions" can take it as far as northern Italy in Europe or New York or San Francisco in the United States, he said.
The rapidly shifting vortex might last into April, when people are starting to spend more time outside, NCAR's Tilmes noted.

"A good message for people [is] to just be aware that this is a year where ozone will be likely thinner this spring.
"You should watch out for your skin and put on your sunscreen."
Rex noted that, however, that since the mass is constantly moving, low-ozone episodes would only last a few days in a given region.

Rex also said this winter's decline in ozone doesn't mean that the Montreal Protocol isn't doing its job.
"People could mistake that and say we have banned CFCs and [it] doesn't seem to work," he said.
"That's not the case. It's just the timescale—CFCs take so long to disappear from the atmosphere."
by "environment clean generations"

Deciphering The Earth, A Brief Review


n "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," Arthur Dent has trouble getting his mind around the Vogon Constructor Fleet's destruction of the Earth. He can't process it -- it's just too big. Arthur tries to narrow it down, but thinking of England, New York, Bogart movies and the dollar produces no reaction. Only when he considers the extinction of McDonald's hamburgers does it finally sink in.

After deciding to write about how the Earth works, we felt a little like Arthur Dent. Even though it's tiny compared to the rest of the universe, the Earth is enormous, and it's extremely complex.

But instead of collectively going out for a burger, we decided to take another approach. Rather than examining each of the Earth's parts, we'll look at what ties it all together. Just about everything on Earth happens because of the presence of the sun. 

Power and light

Compared to the rest of the universe, the Earth is very small. Our planet and eight (or maybe nine) others orbit the sun, which is only one of about 200 billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is part of the universe, which includes millions of other galaxies and their stars and planets. By comparison, the Earth is microscopic.

Compared to a person, on the other hand, the Earth is enormous. It has a diameter of 7,926 miles (12,756 kilometers) at the equator, and it has a mass of about 6 x 1024 kilograms. The Earth orbits the sun at a speed of about 66,638 miles per hour (29.79 kilometers per second). Don't dwell on those numbers too long, though; to a lot of people, the Earth is inconceivably, mind-bogglingly big. And it's just a fraction of the size of the sun.

From our perspective on Earth, the sun looks very small. This is because it's about 93 million miles away from us. The sun's diameter at its equator is about 100 times bigger than Earth's, and about a million Earths could fit inside the sun. The sun is inconceivably, mind-bogglingly bigger.
 
But without the sun, the Earth could not exist. In a sense, the Earth is a giant machine, full of moving parts and complex systems. All those systems need power, and that power comes from the sun.

The sun is an enormous nuclear power source -- through complex reactions, it transforms hydrogen into helium, releasing light and heat. Because of these reactions, every square meter of our planet's surface gets about 342 Watts of energy from the sun every year. This is about 1.7 x 1017 Watts total, or as much as 1.7 billion large power plants could generate [source: NASA]. You can learn about how the sun creates energy in How the Sun Works.



When this energy reaches the Earth, it provides power for a variety of reactions, cycles and systems. It drives the circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans. It makes food for plants, which many people and animals eat. Life on Earth could not exist without the sun, and the planet itself would not have developed without it.
To a casual observer, the sun's most visible contributions to life are light, heat and weather. Now we'll look at how the sun powers each of those.

 Night and day

Some of the sun's biggest impacts on our planet are also its most obvious. As the Earth spins on its axis, parts of the planet are in the sun while others are in the shade. In other words, the sun appears to rise and set. The parts of the world that are in daylight get warmer while the parts that are dark gradually lose the heat they absorbed during the day.

You can get a sense of how much the sun affects the Earth's temperature by standing outside on a partly cloudy day. When the sun is behind a cloud, you feel noticeably cooler than when it isn't. The surface of our planet absorbs this heat from the sun and emits it the same way that pavement continues to give off heat in the summer after the sun goes down. Our atmosphere does the same thing -- it absorbs the heat that the ground emits and sends some of it back to the Earth.


The Earth's relationship with the sun also creates seasons. The Earth's axis tips a little -- about 23.5 degrees. One hemisphere points toward the sun as the other points away. The hemisphere that points toward the sun is warmer and gets more light -- it's summer there, and in the other hemisphere it's winter. This effect is less dramatic near the equator than at the poles, since the equator receives about the same amount of sunlight all year. The poles, on the other hand, receive no sunlight at all during their winter months, which is part of the reason why they're frozen.

Most people are so used to the differences between night and day (or summer and winter) that they take them for granted. But these changes in light and temperature have an enormous impact on other systems on our planet. One is the circulation of air through our atmosphere. For example:

  1. The sun shines brightly over the equator. The air gets very warm because the equator faces the sun directly and because the ozone layer is thinner there.
  2. As the air warms, it begins to rise, creating a low pressure system. The higher it rises, the more the air cools. Water condenses as the air cools, creating clouds and rainfall. The air dries out as the rain falls. The result is warm, dry air, relatively high in our atmosphere.
  3. Because of the lower air pressure, air rushes toward the equator from the north and south. As it warms, it rises, pushing the dry air away to the north and the south.
  4. The dry air sinks as it cools, creating high-pressure areas and deserts to the north and south of the equator.
This is just one piece of how the sun circulates air around the world -- ocean currents, weather patterns and other factors also play a part. But in general air moves from high-pressure to low-pressure areas, much the way that high-pressure air rushes from the mouth of an inflated balloon when you let go. Heat also generally moves from the warmer equator to the cooler poles.


Imagine a warm drink sitting on your desk -- the air around the drink gets warmer as the drink gets colder. This happens on Earth on an enormous scale.

The Coriolis Effect, a product of the Earth's rotation, affects this system as well. It causes large weather systems, like hurricanes, to rotate. It helps create westward-running trade winds near the equator and eastward-running jet streams in the northern and southern hemispheres. These wind patterns move moisture and air from one place to another, creating weather patterns. (The Coriolis Effect works on a large scale -- it doesn't really affect the water draining from the sink like some people suppose.)

The sun gets much of the credit for creating both wind and rain. When the sun warms air in a specific location, that air rises, creating an area of low pressure. More air rushes in from surrounding areas to fill the void, creating wind. Without the sun, there wouldn't be wind. There also might not be breathable air at all. 
  
Sun and Moon
  
The Carbon Cycle
 Image courtesy SOHO Consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.






How Do We Know?

As with evolution, the Big Bang Theory has caused some controversy. Here are a few of the reasons scientists think it's accurate:
  • All of the matter in the universe is moving away from all the other matter at a very fast rate. Scientists have proven this by measuring stars' Hubble red shift, or how light waves get stretched out as they rush away from us.
  • Scientists can detect and measure low-level radiation called cosmic microwave background (CMB) or primordial background radiation. This seems to be an aftereffect of the Big Bang. New analysis of the CMB suggests that the universe changed from a microscopic point to an enormous system in a fraction of a second
Planets and stars

The most prominent scientific theory about the origin of the Earth involves a spinning cloud of dust called a solar nebula. This nebula is a product of the Big Bang. Philosophers, religious scholars and scientists have lots of ideas about where the universe came from, but the most widely-held scientific theory is the Big Bang Theory. According to this theory, the universe originated in an enormous explosion.

Before the Big Bang, all of the matter and energy now in the universe was contained in a singularity. A singularity is a point with an extremely high temperature and infinite density. It's also what's found at the center of a black hole. This singularity floated in a complete vacuum until it exploded, flinging gas and energy in all directions. Imagine a bomb going off inside an egg -- matter moved in all directions at high speeds.


As the gas from the explosion cooled, various physical forces caused particles to stick together. As they continued to cool, they slowed down and became more organized, eventually growing into stars. This process took about a billion years.

About five billion years ago, some of this gas and matter became our sun. At first, it was a hot, spinning cloud of gas that also included heavier elements. As the cloud spun, it collected into a disc called a solar nebula. Our planet and others probably formed inside this disc. The center of the cloud continued to condense, eventually igniting and becoming a sun.

There's no concrete evidence for exactly how the Earth formed within this nebula. Scientists have two main theories. Both involve accretion, or the sticking together of molecules and particles. They have the same basic idea -- about 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth formed as particles collected within a giant disc of gas orbiting what would become our sun. Once the sun ignited, it blew all of the extra particles away, leaving the solar system as we know it. Our moon formed in the solar nebula as well.

At first, the Earth was very hot and volcanic. A solid crust formed as the planet cooled, and impacts from asteroids and other debris caused lots of craters. As the planet continued to cool, water filled the basins that had formed in the surface, creating oceans.
Through earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other factors, the Earth's surface eventually reached the shape that we know today. Its mass provides the gravity that holds everything together and its surface provides a place for us to live. But the whole process would not have started without the sun.
by"environment clean generations"

A Planet Orbiting Two Suns



A mournful French horn blows. An angsty Luke Skywalker stomps out of his aunt and uncle's sand hut and peers up at Tatooine's double sunset, his hair blowing in the breeze. It's a memorable scene from Star Wars—but now, a precedent for such a sky with two suns has been found in our universe.
Using data from the Kepler space observatory, scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and SETI have discovered for the first time a planet orbiting a binary star system, passing in front of both its parent stars along its orbit.

The planet, Kepler-16b, resembles Saturn in its mass and gaseous makeup. That mostly rules out the possibility of any living beings being present to enjoy the double sunset view, although chances are good Kepler-16b has an icy, non-gaseous satellite or two, as Saturn does.

The two stars in the system are 20% and 69% as massive as our sun, respectively. The planet orbits at a distance analogous to Venus's orbit in our solar system, which typically would place it within the "habitable zone" of planets that could support life. But since the combined mass of the two stars is still less than our sun, Kepler-16b's Venus-like orbit is most likely a cold one.

An animation of Kepler-16b's orbit:



Binary star systems, first cataloged at length by English astronomer William Herschel in the early 19th century, are key to our understanding of distant stars, since it's easy to derive each star's mass by studying their linked orbit (the two stars in a binary system both orbit around their shared center of mass). But whether or not such systems, which by some estimates account for about half of the stars in the known universe, could form and support orbiting planets has been a contentious topic--making today's finding significant not just for Star Wars fans. 



"It's been pretty much a split vote amongst the theorists," said Alan Boss, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and a co-author of the Kepler 16-b paper. "Some say 'Yeah, we think it's possible to make a Saturn-mass object [in a binary star system].' Other papers say 'Well, no, we don't think it's going to work at all, because those changing gravitational forces from that central binary are going to screw up the process of trying to get little bodies to run into each other and grow bigger and bigger.'"


"One of the exciting things about this is: Kepler, as usual, has answered the question for us," said Boss.
The Kepler observatory's mission is to find and analyze potential Earth-like exoplanets throughout the universe. Today's discovery now significantly expands the working set of stars that could potentially harbor orbiting planets. That means more work for Kepler as it continues what has so far been an extremely successful mission. 




by "environment clean generations"

Uranus Opposes the Sun. Look Up!



September 26th started as a pretty normal day for me; copious amounts of coffee, writing and all the usual morning stuff. Even the weather was the typical dank-grey and drizzle I've come to expect of the onset of British autumn.
But Monday wasn't just any normal day, as yesterday was the day that the mighty planet Uranus was at opposition. This means the "ice giant" is now lying opposite the sun in the sky (from Earth's perspective) giving astronomers the best chance this year to observe it.

"Hang on," I hear you all cry, "...you mean there are good times and bad times to observe the planets?" Well as it turns out, yes, in fact there are some times when they aren't even visible.
Confused? Well, let me explain more about the celestial dance of the planets.

Before looking at all the different terms in my Solar System Jargon Buster below, it's worth remembering that the orbits of the planets aren't circular, they are actually ellipses. As they travel around the sun, they will be moving faster at closest approach (perihelion) and slower when further away (aphelion), in accordance with Johannes Kepler's third law of planetary motion. In addition to this speeding up and slowing down, the planets all move at different average speeds with the closest, Mercury, moving much faster than the more distant Neptune.

You now get the picture of how they move and it's because of the differing speeds, not to mention the vast distances involved, that means their position relative to Earth and the sun changes.

Now fear not, my Solar System Jargon Buster will help you differentiate your conjunctions from your oppositions and your eastern elongations from your western ones!

Opposition: As the planets (Earth included) move around the sun, the sun and planet will appear at changing positions in the sky. When the planet lies in the opposite direction to the sun, it is said to be at opposition. At opposition, when the sun sets, the planet is just rising. It's at this point where the Earth is in between the two and the distance between the two objects is the shortest that year. It's worth noting that due to the elliptical nature of the orbits, some oppositions are closer than others. Also, it's only possible to have the outer planets (relative to Earth) at opposition; Mars through to Neptune. Mercury and Venus, this one isn't for you.



Conjunction: A conjunction exists when astronomical objects lie close to one another in the sky when viewed from Earth. "Inferior conjunctions" occur when the planet, sun and Earth line up, with the planet between us and the sun. "Superior conjunctions" are opposite to opposition! The planet lies on the other side of the sun from us here on Earth. Superior conjunctions are the worst time to observe a planet, whereas inferior conjunctions can offer unique opportunities such as the transit of Venus across the sun's disk in June 2012 which occurs whilst Venus is at inferior conjunction.

Elongations: This term is just for Mercury and Venus, the outer planets lose out. As they move around the sun, neither of the two inner planets are ever far from it in the sky when viewed from Earth. From our viewpoint, they seem to pop out from behind the sun after superior conjunction, move away from the sun, pause (at greatest elongation) and then head back toward it again. They then drift into inferior conjunction.
When the planet reaches its greatest elongation (distance in the sky) from the sun in the morning sky, it's at "greatest western elongation" and when at greatest distance in evening sky it's at "greatest eastern elongation." This is the best time to observe the innermost planets.

 by "environment clean generations"

Can We Control The Weather?



A science fiction writer might imagine a future in which a government official -- the Minister of Weather Modification, perhaps -- dials up the day's weather for his country's citizens. A drought in the West? No problem, we'll just order a few gentle showers. A hurricane threatening the East Coast? Just stay calm, folks, we'll launch a small nuke to blast the storm apart. 

They say truth is stranger than fiction, and such is the case with humans attempting to control the weather. Let's start with a brief history. Numerous Native American tribes, especially those living in semiarid desert country, such as the Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni, engaged in elaborate dances to coax moisture from the rain-stingy skies. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, rainmakers roamed across the western United States, promising to end droughts for a fee.

These itinerant salesmen used a combination of pseudo-science and grand showmanship to convince communities that their technique, often a device or structure used to deliver chemicals or gases into the air, would bring rain in short order. Even the U.S. government got in on the act. In 1891, Congress appropriated $19,000 to conduct rainmaking tests in Texas under the guidance of Robert Dryenforth. Dryenforth's results were inconclusive, and as the century turned, politicians and citizens began to regard rainmakers with increasing skepticism.
It would take another four decades before the scientists involved with weather control began to overshadow the charlatans. The real turning point came in 1946, when Irving Langmuir and Vincent Schaefer, chemists working at General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, N.Y., discovered that they could introduce ice crystals into a supercooled cloud and create snow. They called the process glaciogenic cloud seeding and soon enlisted the help of physical chemist (and brother to novelist Kurt Vonnegut) Bernard Vonnegut.

Vonnegut searched for another crystalline substance that would have a similar effect, and he found it in silver iodide. Over time, the team worked out the basic science of cloud seeding, which goes like this: Often, the drops of moisture in clouds can't freeze without some extra help. If these drops encounter crystals of silver iodide, they glom onto the crystals and freeze. Once the ice grows big enough, it falls from the cloud, either as snow or, if it passes through warmer air, as rain.  


Planting the Seeds of Weather Modification

Finally, scientists had found a way to control the weather -- at least in the lab. For the next 30 years, researchers and entrepreneurs across the world began applying the principles developed by Langmuir, Schaefer and Vonnegut to real-world cloud seeding. They flew airplanes into the clouds, releasing their own clouds of silver iodide as they went, or fired artillery shells filled with silver iodide into clouds. In some cases, these weather modifiers were trying to produce rain in drought-afflicted areas, mitigate hail damage by preventing hailstones from growing so large, or disperse fog banks around airports. Many proprietors of this new technology made audacious claims about their cloud seeding services. Unfortunately, hard science could never substantiate the claims. If anything, rigorous experimentation seemed to suggest that cloud seeding barely worked or, worse, didn't work at all.


Still, enough tantalizing evidence has accumulated over the years to keep interest in weather modification alive. For example, research conducted in South Africa and Mexico has shown that seeding warm rain clouds with salt particles -- what is known as hygroscopic seeding -- is more effective than seeding cold rain clouds with silver iodide. And Chinese scientists believe they have mastered cloud seeding to such a degree that they can guarantee a certain day will be rainy or sunny, like say the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, as this related article describes.

 
It's one thing to control precipitation from a few clouds over a localized area. But is it possible to prevent hurricanes from forming? Some scientists think so. Computer modeling of recent major hurricanes, such as 1992's Andrew, reveals how even one or two small changes could have turned a major catastrophe into a minor storm. This is the heart of chaos theory, a set of scientific principles describing highly complex systems, such as weather systems, where small changes in initial conditions radically change the final results.


Now meteorologists wonder whether they could put chaos to good use to prevent hurricanes from forming in the first place. If they could change one or two variables just as an Atlantic storm is beginning to coil itself into a monster, maybe they could diminish its strength or divert its path. 

Changing sea temperatures seems the most likely scenario, and a few scientists have proposed coating the ocean surface with a thin layer of biodegradable oil. This could, in theory, reduce evaporation, the process that drives hurricane formation. Similar ideas could work on tornadoes, as well. One physicist has proposed disrupting funnel-cloud formation by zapping the atmosphere with beams of microwaves shot from solar-powered satellites.


But right now, this sounds like more science fiction, where controlling the weather remains as easy as flipping a switch on the Weather Modification Machine and dialing up just the right amount of rain, snow or sun. 



by "environment clean generations"

Galactic Danger Zone


 Not every place within a galaxy experiences the same conditions for habitability - some parts are lethal thanks to supernovae, whilst others do not possess enough heavy elements to allow rocky planets and life to develop. Credit: The Hubble Heritage Team, AURA/STScI/NASA

We know for certain that life exists in the Milky Way galaxy: that life is us. Scientists are continually looking to understand more about how life on our planet came to be and the conditions that must be met for its survival, and whether those conditions can be replicated elsewhere in the Universe. It turns out that looking at our entire Galaxy, rather than focusing just on life-giving properties of our planet or indeed the habitability of regions of our own Solar System, is a good place to start.  

How far our planet orbits from the , along with other factors such as , a and the existence of water, has told astronomers much about the conditions that are required for life to not only originate, but to survive on rocky worlds. 

This distance from a star is referred to, quite simply, as the ‘Habitable Zone’ or sometimes the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ because conditions here are neither too hot or too cold for water to be liquid on the planet’s surface -- conditions just right for life as we know it to thrive. 

Copernican theory tells us that our world is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system. This concept has spurred some astronomers to start thinking bigger, way beyond the simplicity of any one planetary system and instead towards much grander scales. Astronomers are exploring whether there is a Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) in our Galaxy – a region of the Milky Way that is conducive to forming planetary systems with habitable worlds. The Galactic Habitable Zone implies that if there are conditions just right for a planet around a star, then the same must go for a galaxy.  

This concept was first introduced by geologist and paleontologist Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, in their book, ‘Rare Earth’. The idea of a GHZ served as an antagonistic view point to the Copernican principle. 

Despite scientists such as Carl Sagan and Frank Drake favoring the theory of mediocrity based on the Copernican model, which supports the probability of the hosting other forms of , Ward and Brownlee were certain our Earth and the conditions within our Galaxy that allowed such life to evolve are both extremely rare. 

Their answer to the famous Fermi paradox – if extraterrestrial aliens are common, why is their existence not obvious? – is that alien life more complex than microbes is not very common at all, requiring a number of factors, each of low possibility, to come into play. In short, Ward and Brownlee were suggesting that much of the Galaxy was inhospitable to complex life. In their view, only a narrow belt around the Galaxy was fertile: the Galactic Habitable Zone.

Since then, many astronomers have looked at the idea of the GHZ. Not all believe that it necessarily supports Ward and Brownlee’s Rare Earth hypothesis.
One recent assessment of the GHZ, by Michael Gowanlock of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, and his Trent University colleagues David Patton and Sabine McConnell, has suggested that while the inner sector of the may be the most dangerous, it is also most likely to support habitable worlds. 

Their paper, accepted for publication in the journal Astrobiology, modeled in the Milky Way based on three factors: supernova rates, metallicity (the abundance of heavy elements, used as a proxy for planet formation) and the time taken for complex life to evolve. They found that although the greater density of stars in the inner galaxy (out to a distance of 8,100 light years from the galactic center) meant that more supernovae exploded, with more planets becoming sterilized by the radiation from these exploding stars, the chances of finding a habitable planet there was ten times more likely than in the outer Galaxy. 

This contradicts previous studies that, for example, suggested the GHZ to be a belt around the Galaxy between distances of 22,800 light years (7 kiloparsecs) and 29,300 light years (9 kiloparsecs) from the galactic center. What’s noticeable is that our Sun orbits the Galaxy at a distance of about 26,000 light years (8 kiloparsecs) – far outside GHZ proposed by Gowanlock’s team. Why is their proposed galactic habitable zone so different? 

“We assume that metallicity scales with planet formation,” says Gowanlock. Heavy elements are produced by dying stars, and the more generations of stars there have been, the greater the production of these elements (or ‘metals’ as they are termed by astronomers). Historically, the greatest amount of star formation has occurred in the inner region of the Milky Way. “The inner Galaxy is the most metal-rich, and the outer Galaxy is the most metal-poor. Therefore the number of planets is highest in the inner Galaxy, as the metallicity and stellar density is the highest in this region.”  

    A supernova sterilizes an alien world in this artist's impression. Credit: David A Aguilar (CfA)

However, amongst so much star formation lurks a danger: supernovae. Gowanlock’s team modeled the effects of the two most common forms of supernovae – the accreting white dwarfs that produce type Ia supernovae, and the collapsing massive stars of type II supernovae. 

Measurements of the galactic abundance of the isotope aluminum-26, which is a common by-product of type II supernovae, have allowed astronomers to ascertain that a supernova explodes on average once every 50 years. Meanwhile, previous studies have indicated that a supernova can have a deleterious effect on any habitable planet within 30 light years. 

“In our model, we assume that the build-up of oxygen and the ozone layer is required for the emergence of complex life,” says Gowanlock. “Supernovae can deplete the ozone in an atmosphere. Therefore, the of land-based complex life is at risk when a nearby supernova sufficiently depletes a great fraction of the ozone in a planet's atmosphere.” 

The team discovered that at some time in their lives, the majority of stars in our Galaxy will be bathed in the radiation from a nearby supernova, whereas around 30% of stars remain untouched or unsterilized. “Sterilization occurs on a planet that is roughly [at a distance] between 6.5 to 98 , depending on the supernovae,” says Gowanlock. “In our model, the sterilization distances are not equal, as some supernovae are more lethal than others.” 

Although the outer regions of the Galaxy, with their lower density of stars and fewer supernovae, are generally safer, the higher metallicity in the inner Galaxy means that the chances of finding an unsterilized, habitable world are ten times greater, according to Gowanlock’s model. However, their model does not stipulate any region of the Galaxy to be uninhabitable, only that it’s less likely to find habitable planets elsewhere.
This explains why our Solar System can reside far outside of the inner region, and it also gives hope to SETI – Gowanlock’s model proposes that there are regions of the Galaxy even more likely to have life, and many SETI searches are already targeted towards the galactic center. 

However, not all are in favor of the new model. Ward and Brownlee noted that the Sun’s position in the Galaxy is far more favorable because planets that dance around stars that are too close to the galactic center are more likely to suffer from a perturbed orbit by the gravity of another star that has wandered too close. Others question some of the assumptions made in the research, such as the accuracy of the percentage of planets that are habitable in the galaxy (1.2 percent), or that tidally-locked worlds can be habitable.

 An artist's impression of a potentially habitable planet around a Sun-like star. The habitability of such worlds not only depends on conditions on the planet and its distance from the star, but may also depend on where in the Galaxy it is located. Credit: ESO/M Kornmesser

“The authors may be making some assumptions that aren’t too well justified,” says Professor Jim Kasting of Penn State University and author of How to Find a Habitable Planet. “They seem well ahead of the rest of us who are still pondering these questions.” 

However, others believe that the research is promising. “This is one of the most complete studies of the Galactic to date,” says Lewis Dartnell, an astrobiologist at University College London. “The results are intriguing, finding that white dwarf supernovae are over five times more lethal to complex life on habitable worlds than core collapse supernovae.” 

The GHZ isn’t static; the research paper written by Gowanlock’s team points out that over time the metallicity of the Galaxy will begin to increase the farther out one travels from the .
“This is why stars that form at a later date have a greater chance of having terrestrial planets,” says Gowanlock. As a result, perhaps the heyday for life in our Galaxy is yet to come.

by "environment clean generations"

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search

Custom Search

 
Design by Wordpress Theme | Bloggerized by Free Blogger Templates | coupon codes