merchants of doubt

A skeptic would find it interesting that many of the players involved in misleading the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke have been recruited by the anti-AGW camp (Dr. Richard Lindzen being one of them). They would also find … Continue reading


A skeptic would find it interesting that many of the players involved in misleading the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke have been recruited by the anti-AGW camp (Dr. Richard Lindzen being one of them). They would also find the leaked API Global Climate Science Communications plan ( http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html ) an interesting read, showing the planning that was going on in the fossil fuel industry to mislead the public about the science of climate change. The skeptic would also find it interesting that about $900 million a year is now being spent to mislead the public about climate science ( http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx ). It would also be interesting to note that where funding for right-wing think tanks and astroturfed climate denial front groups was made openly in the past ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding ), the funding is now done largely through groups like the Donor’s Trust to hide the trail ( http://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust ) .

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17][18] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming “in the pipeline” due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires, via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[19]

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

Are there any advocates of climate science denial who don’t take money from fossil fuel companies?

1) “The emissions that are being put in the air by that volcano are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe.” Senator Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK) – Incoming Chairman, Energy & Natural Resources Committee, $733,144 from oil and gas industry in her career

2) “We have 186 percent of normal snow pack. That’s global warming?” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), $489,933 from oil and gas industry in his career

3) “Calling CO2 a pollutant is doing a disservice the country, and I believe a disservice to the world.” Ex-Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), $977,624 from oil and gas for his 2012 Presidential Campaign

4) “Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,”Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), $1,463,788 from oil and gas industry in his career

4) (tie) “I’m not a scientist,” Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $1,783,169 from oil and gas industry in his career

6) “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL), $295,138 from oil and gas industry in his career

7) “Anybody who’s ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay? I’m not sure anybody exactly knows why.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), $129,305 from oil and gas industry in his career

8) “I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think science does, either.” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), on whether human activity causes climate change, $508,549 from oil and gas industry in his career

9) “And the problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.” Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX), $932,568 from oil and gas industry in his career

10) “How long will it take for the sea level to rise two feet? I mean, think about it, if your ice cube melts in your glass it doesn’t overflow; it’s displacement. I mean, this is some of the things they’re talking about mathematically and scientifically don’t make sense.” Ex-Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), $118,100 from oil and gas industry in his career

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/31/top-10-misguided-climate-deniers-quotes-2014

or this…

Earlier this year, the New York Times exposed the secret relationships between a well known climate change denier and the fossil fuel industry. The Times revealed that Dr.Willie Soon had been paid over 1.6 million dollars to create scientifically dubious studies absolving the fossil fuel industry of any responsibility for climate change. His funders included ExxonMobil, the Koch brothers, and Southern Company, a large coal-fired utility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-S…

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

‘An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming…

67 percent of respondents, including 48 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents, said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who said that human-caused climate change is a hoax…

The poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of independents, say that if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global warming will be a very or somewhat serious problem in the future…

And while the poll found that 74 percent of Americans said that the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change, the support was greatest among Democrats and independents. Ninety-one percent of Democrats, 78 percent of independents and 51 percent of Republicans said the government should be fighting climate change.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/politics/most-americans-support-government-action-on-climate-ch…

There are also some books such as “Don’t even think about it” (http://www.climateconviction.org/ )and projects such as the Yale project on climate change communication: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/ that explore the psychology and sociology of climate change.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2]

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:

  1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]
  2. “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities“, in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]
  3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6]

These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations.[7]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[11][12][13]

Each scientist listed here has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.[B] Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report’s three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

Venus y las Pléyades

Las Pléyades son un puñado de estrellas muy jóvenes. Se formaron hace apenas 100 millones de años, durante la era de los dinosaurios en la Tierra, a partir del colapso de una nube de gas interestelar. Las estrellas más grandes y brillantes del cúmulo son de color blanco-azulado y cerca de cinco veces más grandes … Continue reading Venus y las Pléyades

Las Pléyades son un puñado de estrellas muy jóvenes. Se formaron hace apenas 100 millones de años, durante la era de los dinosaurios en la Tierra, a partir del colapso de una nube de gas interestelar. Las estrellas más grandes y brillantes del cúmulo son de color blanco-azulado y cerca de cinco veces más grandes que nuestro propio Sol.

Arriba: El cielo hacia el oeste después del atardecer del 2 de abril del 2004, visto desde una latitud media en el hemisferio norte. Más mapas celestes: 1o. de abril, 2 de abril, 3 de abril, 4 de abril, 2004.

Las Pléyades no existían cuando Venus emergió de la nebulosa protosolar hace cuatro mil quinientos millones de años. Nadie sabe cómo se veía Venus en aquellos primeros días del sistema solar. Podría haber sido verde y exuberante, semejante a la Tierra. Hoy en día, sin embargo, es infernal. Un efecto invernadero irreversible en la atmósfera de Venus ha sobrecalentado el planeta hasta los 480° C (900° F), lo suficientemente caliente como para derretir plomo. Densas nubes grises que contienen ácido sulfúrico ocultan la superficie de Venus a los telescopios de la Tierra. Las sofocantes nubes son, al parecer, excelentes reflectoras de la luz solar y es por eso que Venus es tan brillante.

Vista desde la Tierra, Venus es aproximadamente 600 veces más brillante que Alcione, la estrella más luminosa de las Pléyades. Durante el fin de semana trate de ver al grupo de estrellas con unos binoculares. Verá docenas de tenues pléyades invisibles al ojo humano desnudo. Entre ellas, Venus parecerá una supernova.

¿Porqué Venus se mueve entre las estrellas?

Porque su órbita no es la misma que la de la Tierra. Venus está más cerca del Sol y viaja a su alrededor más rápido (35 km/s contra 29.7 km/s de la Tierra). Desde nuestro planeta, por lo tanto, Venus parece moverse entre las estrellas — entrando y saliendo de las Pléyades en apenas unas cuantas noches. “La gente no puede sentir a la Tierra moverse en su órbita, pero esta es una excelente oportunidad para que sintamos el efecto visual del movimiento de los planetas”, dice el físico espacial Dennis Gallagher de NASA/MSFC.

La Diosa del Amor Visita a las 7 Hermanas — (Jack Horkheimer).

La Historia y Mitología de las Pléyades — (SEDS)

Las Estrellas Más Brillantes de las Pléyades — (SEDS).

El Cúmulo Estelar de las Pléyades — (APOD) La fotografía más famosa del famoso cúmulo de estrellas.

Un Encuentro de Planetas — (Ciencia@NASA) Venus no es el único planeta que se ve hoy por la noche. ¿Podría usted distinguir los otros cuatro?

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members.  The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers … Continue reading

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. 

The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA‘sorganizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident.[1] NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol‘s design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings (an example of “go fever“) from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed in adequately reporting these technical concerns to their superiors.

What Rogers did not highlight was that the vehicle was never certified to operate in temperatures that low. The O-rings, as well as many other critical components, had no test data to support any expectation of a successful launch in such conditions. Bob Ebeling from Thiokol delivered a biting analysis: “[W]e’re only qualified to 40 degrees …’what business does anyone even have thinking about 18 degrees, we’re in no man’s land.’”

The Challenger accident has frequently been used as a case study in the study of subjects such as engineering safety, the ethics of whistle-blowing, communications, group decision-making, and the dangers of groupthink. It is part of the required readings for engineers seeking a professional license in Canada[66] and other countries. Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics.[67] He argues that thecaucus called by Morton Thiokol managers, which resulted in a recommendation to launch, “constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation.”[68] For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many colleges and universities have also used the accident in classes on the ethics of engineering.[69][70]

Information designer Edward Tufte has claimed that the Challenger accident is an example of the problems that can occur from the lack of clarity in the presentation of information. 

Tufte has also argued that poor presentation of information may have also affected NASA decisions during the last flight of the space shuttle Columbia.[72]

However, Robison, a Rochester Institute of Technology professor, and Boisjoly vigorously repudiated Tufte’s conclusions about the Morton Thiokol engineers’ role in the loss ofChallenger. First they say that the engineers didn’t have the information available as Tufte claimed: “But they did not know the temperatures even though they did try to obtain that information. Tufte has not gotten the facts right even though the information was available to him had he looked for it.” They further argue that Tufte “misunderstands thoroughly the argument and evidence the engineers gave”. They also criticized Tufte’s diagram as “fatally flawed by Tufte’s own criteria. The vertical axis tracks the wrong effect, and the horizontal axis cites temperatures not available to the engineers and, in addition, mixes O-ring temperatures and ambient air temperature as though the two were the same.”[73]


Telecon Meeting (Ethical Decisions – Morton Thiokol and the Challenger Disaster) 

Author(s): Roger M. Boisjoly

The evening telecon meeting between MTI, MSFC and KSC on January 27,1986, was the final event preceding the Challenger disaster. The major activity that day focused upon the predicted 18 °F (-8 °C) overnight low and meetings with Engineering Management to persuade them not to launch below 53 °F (12 °C). My whole being was driven to action for this cause because of my memory of my January, 1985, participation in the inspection of the hardware from the previous coldest launch which had massive hot gas blow-by. The discussion activity concluded with the hurried preparation of fourteen Viewgraphs by various engineering groups which had less then an hour to respond for the scheduled evening telecon.

The following discussion is summarized to show the content of the engineering presentation. Figures labeled as Viewgraphs show the major thrust of the telecon and contain the actual content of the originals as presented, with Sl units added, while others are summarized to give general content for brevity.

The first Viewgraph was a title page. The second Viewgraph showed a table of post history of O-ring damage on SRM field joints. The third, fourth and fifth Viewgraphs are shown as Figures 4., 5., and 6., respectively.

– field joint – highest concern
– erosion penetration of primary seal requires reliable secondary seal for pressure integrity
– ignition transient – (0-600 ms)
– (0-170 ms) high probability of reliable secondary seal
– (170-330ms) reduced probability of reliable secondary seal
– (330-600 ms) high probability of no secondary seal capability
– steady state – (600 ms – 2 minutes)
– if erosion penetrates primary o-ring seal – high probability of no secondary seal capability
– bench testing showed o-ring not capable of maintaining contact with metal parts gap opening rate to meop
– bench testing showed capability to maintain o-ring contact during initial phase (0- 170 ms) of transient

Figure 4. – primary concerns

Figure 4. was taken directly from the August 19, 1985 presentation to NASA headquarters. The last two statements show the reasons for both the high concern and for having a high probability of a secondary seal during the first portion of the transient time zone. The last statement was produced from testing at 50 °F (10 °C) which showed that a seal could maintain contact with its mating surfaces when compressed 0.040 inches (1.02 mm) and only 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) of compression was removed from the seal.

– a temperature lower than current data base results in changing primary o-ring sealing timing function
– srm 15a – 800 arc black grease between o-rings srm 15b – i 100 arc black grease between o-rings
– lower o-ring squeeze due to lower temp
– higher o-ring shore hardness
– thicker grease viscosity
– higher o-ring pressure actuation time
– if actuation time increases, threshold of secondary seal pressurization capability is approached
– if threshold is reached, then secondary seal may not be capable of being pressurized

Figure 5. – Field Joint Primary Concerns SRM 25

Figure 5. was the heart of the discussion at the telecon. The engineering issue was “Would the seals even actuate and seal due to changing their timing function?” This would place us in the category of having a high probability of no secondary seal capability while the primary seal would be experiencing massive blow-by erosion due to its inability to respond to the gap opening of the metal parts. The last two statements summarized the fear of loss of redundancy based upon my remembrance of the January, 1985 post-launch hardware inspection.

Drawing of the field joint as assembled

Inches Milli-meters
0.042 1.07
0.060 1.52

Figure 6. SRM Field Joint

Figure 6. shows the field joint in the “as assembled” configuration, plus the pressurized configuration which shows the gap opening parameter due to outboard radial deflection of the case membrane. The differential deflection between the membrane and the stiffer joint causes the inboard clevis leg to deflect inboard opposite the rotation of the tong, which causes the gap at the seals to open. This results in the secondary seal lifting off its seat at full pressurization without considering seal resiliency parameters.

The sixth Viewgraph showed a comparison of hot gas blow-by by comparing ARC lengths of blackened grease and some descriptive phases for various flights at different launch temperatures. The seventh Viewgraph was a table of O-ring shore hardness versus temperature. The eighth Viewgraph contained the preliminary O-ring resiliency data in a tabular form. Up to this point in the telecon, I was asked several times by NASA to quantify my concerns, but I said that I could not since the only data I had was already presented and that I had been trying to get more data since last October (1985). At this comment, the General Manager of MTI gave me a scolding look as if to say, “Why did you tell them that?” The presentation continued with Viewgraph nine which showed sub-scale test results of cold gas blow-by tests at 75 °F (24 °C) and 30 °F (-1 °C) which showed no leakage. This data was used as an argument by management to say that the joint sealed at 30 °F (-1 °C) but in fact, the tests were not seal tests at all, since the test ring was a solid block of metal which did not have the deflection characteristics of the full-scale joint and was never intended to test anything but incipient blow-by before any joint deflection occurred. Viewgraph ten contained a table of compression set data to aid in the visualization of seal permanent set characteristics. Viewgraph eleven is shown as Figure 7., It provided a comparison of O-ring squeeze for the Challenger joints (SRM 25) versus the previous coldest flight at 53 °F (12 °C) (SRM 15).

Motor FWD CTR AFT
% in mm % in mm % in mm
SRM-15A 16.1 0.045* 1.14 15.8 0.044 1.12 14.7 0.041 1.04
SRM-15B 11.1 0.031 0.79 14 0.039** 0.99 16.1 0.045 1.14
SRM-25A 10.16 0.028 0.71 13.22 0.037 0.094 13.39 0.037 0.094
SRM-25B 13.91 0.039 0.99 13.05 0.037 0.094 14.25 0.40 1.02

* 0.010 in. (0.25mm) erosion

** 0.038 in. (0.97mm) erosion

Figure 7. Field Joint O-Ring Squeeze (Primary Seal)

Viewgraph twelve is shown as Figure 8. The DM designates development motors, QM is qualification motors and SRM is flight motors. This chart showed the current data base versus the predicted Challenger seal temperature of 27 to 29 °F (-3 to -2 °C).

Motor MBT** Ambient O-Ring* Wind
°F °C °F °C °F °C
DM-4 68 20.0 36 2.2 47 8.3 10 mph
DM-2 76 24.4 45 7.2 52 11.1 10 mph
QM-3 72.5 22.5 40 4.4 48 8.9 10 mph
QM-4 76 22.4 48 8.9 51 10.6 10 mph
SRM-15 52 11.1 64 17.8 53 11.7 10 mph
SRM-22 77 25.0 78 25.6 75 23.9 10 mph
SRM-25 55 12.8 26 -3.3 29 -1.7 10 mph
27 -2.8 25 mph

* 1-D Thermal Analysis

** Propellant Mean Bulk Temperature

Figure 8. History of O-ring temperatures

Viewgraph thirteen is shown as Figure 9. The third and fourth statements under the first bullet are actually disclaimers for the development and qualification test data because the joint putty had been altered after assembly and prior to horizontal test firings. Observed holes in the joint putty were repaired since it was thought that the horizontal assembly was very severe on the joints and is what caused the holes in the putty and that vertical assembly would not cause such holes to occur. The reasoning was generally okay but that reasoning was never tested until sometime in 1985 when it was found that vertical assembly could indeed cause holes in the putty. The major faulty thinking lies in the fact that no specific vertical assembly testing was performed to verify the original assumption and that made the original horizontal test firings a series of successful tests without any sea] erosion.

– temperature of o-ring not only parameter controlling blow-by srm 15 with blow-by had an o-ring temp at 53 °F (11.7 °C) four development motors with no blow-by were tested at o-ring temp of 47 to 52 °F (8.3 to 11.1 °C) development motors had putty packing which resulted in better performance
– at about 50 °F (10 °C) blow-by could be experienced in case joints
– temp for srm 25 on 1-28-86 launch will be 29 °F (-1.7 °C) 9 a.m. 38 °F (3.3 °C) 2 p.m.
– have no data that would indicate SRM 25 is different than SRM 15 other than temp

Figure 9. – conclusions

Viewgraph fourteen is shown as Figure 10.

– O-ring temp must be & mac179; 53 °F (11.7 °C) at launch development motors at 47 to 52 °F (8.3 to 11.1 °C) with putty packing had no blow-by SRM 15 (the best simulation) worked at 53 °F
– project ambient conditions (temp & wind) to determine launch time

Figure 10. – Recommendations

This concluded the engineering presentation. Then Joe Kilminster of MTI was asked by Larry Mulloy of NASA for his launch decision. Joe responded the he did not recommend launching based upon the engineering position just presented. Then Larry Mulloy asked George Hardy of NASA for his launch decision. George responded that he was appalled at Thiokol’s recommendation but said he would not launch over the contractor’s objection. Then Larry Mulloy spent some time giving his views and interpretation of the data that was presented with his conclusion that the data presented was inconclusive.

Now I must make a very important point. NASA’S very nature since early space flight was to force contractors and themselves to prove that it was safe to fly. The statement by Larry Mulloy about our data being inconclusive should have been enough all by itself to stop the launch according to NASA’S own rules, but we all know that was not the case. Just as Larry Mulloy gave his conclusion, Joe Kilminster asked for a five-minute, off-line caucus to re-evaluate the data and as soon as the mute button was pushed, our General Manager, Jerry Mason, said in a soft voice, “We have to make a management decision.” I became furious when I heard this, because I sensed that an attempt would be made by executive-level management to reverse the no-launch decision.

Some discussion had started between only the managers when Arnie Thompson moved from his position down the table to a position in front of the managers and once again, tried to explain our position by sketching the joint and discussing the problem with the seals at low temperature. Arnie stopped when he saw the unfriendly look in Mason’s eyes and also realized that no one was listening to him. I then grabbed the photographic evidence showing the hot gas blow-by comparisons from previous flights and placed it on the table in view of the managers and somewhat angered, admonished them to look at the photos and not ignore what they were telling us; namely, that low temperature indeed caused significantly more hot gas blow-by to occur in the joints. I, too, received the some cold stares as Arnie, with looks as if to say, “Go away and don’t bother us with the facts.” No one in management wanted to discuss the facts; they just would not respond verbally to either Arnie or me. I felt totally helpless at that moment and that further argument was fruitless, so I, too, stopped pressing my case.

What followed made me both sad and angry. The managers were struggling to make a list of data that would support a launch decision, but unfortunately for them, the data actually supported a no-launch decision. During the closed manager’s discussion, Jerry Mason asked the other managers in a low voice if he was the only one who wanted to fly and no one answered him. At the end of the discussion, Mason turned to Bob Lund, Vice President of Engineering at MTI, and told him to take off his engineering hat and to put on his management hat. The vote poll was taken by only the four senior executives present since the engineers were excluded from both the final discussion with management and the vote poll. The telecon resumed and Joe Kilminster read the launch support rationale from a handwritten list and recommended that the launch proceed as scheduled. NASA promptly accepted the launch recommendation without any discussion or any probing questions as they had done previously. NASA then asked for a signed copy of the launch rationale chart.

Once again, I must make a strong comment about the turn of events. I must emphasize that MTI Management fully supported the original decision to not launch below 53 °F ( 12 °C) prior to the caucus. The caucus constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation. NASA placed MTI in the position of proving that it was not safe to fly instead of proving that it was safe to fly. Also, note that NASA immediately accepted the new decision to launch because it was consistent with their desires and please note that no probing questions were asked.

The change in the launch decision upset me so much that I left the room immediately after the telecon was disconnected and felt badly defeated and angry when I wrote the following entry in my notebook. “I sincerely hope that this launch does not result in a catastrophe. I personally do not agree with some of the statements made in Joe Kilminster’s summary stating that SRM- 25 (Challenger) is okay to fly.”

After I had a chance to review a copy of Joe’s chart, I realized that I didn’t agree with any of his statements made to support a launch decision. I believe that anyone who has normal powers of reason will question the validity of Figure 11 as a document to support the Challenger launch.

1. calculations show that SRM-25 O-rings will be 20 °F colder than SRM-15 rings
2. temperature data not conclusive on predicting primary o-ring blow-by
3. engineering assessment is that: colder o-rings will have increased effective durometer (“harder’)
4. “harder” O-rings will take longer to “seat”
5. more gas may pass primary O-ring before the primary seal seats (relative to SRM 15)
6. demonstrated sealing threshold is 3 times greater than 0.038″ Erosion experienced on SRM-15.
7. if the primary seal does not seat, the secondary seal will seat
8. pressure will get to secondary seal before the metal parts rotate
9. O-ring pressure leak check places secondary seal in outboard position which minimizes sealing time
10. MTI recommends STS-51l launch proceed on 28 January1986
11. SRM-25 will not be significantly different from srm-15.

Signed by Joe C. Kilminster, Vice President Space Booster Programs

Figure 11. MTI assessment of temperature concern on SRM-25 (51l) launch

The chart lists twelve separate statements. Statements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 actually support a no-launch decision. Statement 3 is actually a lie. There was no engineering assessment made during the caucus. Arnie and I continued to press for retaining the original decision of not launching below 53 °F (12 °C). Statement 7 addresses the erosion margin but erosion was not the primary topic of discussion that evening. We were all discussing whether the seals would even seal before hot gas blow-by would destroy them, this statement is the only one to support a launch but it was not part of the concern that night. Statement 10 neither supports nor is against a launch decision. It is simply a statement of engineering fact which states that when pressure is applied to an O-ring seal, it will move away from the pressure to the opposite side of the groove containing it. Statement 12 is a contradiction of statement 1 because everyone knew that 20 °F (-7 °C) colder seals were very significant as our preliminary test data had shown.

Therefore, MTI senior management reversed a sound technical recommendation without one shred of supporting data and without any re-evaluation of the data they had promised when they requested the caucus.

The next morning I paused outside Arnie Thompson’s office and told him and my boss that I hoped the launch was safe, but I also hoped that when the booster joints were inspected that we would find all the seals burned almost all the way through the joint, and then maybe we could get someone with authority to take a stand and stop the flights until we fixed the joints.

Later, I was walking post the room normally used to watch the launches when Bob Ebeling stepped out to invite me to watch the launch. At first I refused because I didn’t want to watch the launch, but he encouraged me to enter. The room was filled so I seated myself on the floor close to the screen and leaned against Bob’s legs as he was seated in a chair. The boosters ignited and as the vehicle cleared the support tower, Bob whispered to me that we had just dodged a bullet. The reason Bob made this statement was that the propellant experts had told us that the boosters would explode at ignition if we developed a leak in the case. At approximately T+60 seconds, Bob again whispered to me that he had just completed a prayer of thanks to the Lord for a successful launch. Just 13 seconds later we both saw the horror of destruction as the vehicle exploded. We all sat in stunned silence for a short time; then I left the room and went directly to my office where I remained in shock for the remainder of the day. Two of my seal task team colleagues inquired about my condition at my office, but I was unable to speak to them and hold back my emotions, so I just nodded yes I was okay and they left after a short silent stay.

Within a day of the launch, one of my colleagues on the seal task force team told me that he was reviewing the video tape and thought he could see a plume of flame coming from a booster as it exited the explosion. My first thought was that one of the joints had failed, so I postulated several scenarios to fit the observations and one of them turned out to be what was found to cause the disaster. A failure investigation team was formed at MTI on January 31, 1986, which included Arnie Thompson and myself. The team was immediately sent to MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama.

 

Additional Sections

Cite this page: “Telecon Meeting (Ethical Decisions – Morton Thiokol and the Challenger Disaster)” Online Ethics Center for Engineering 5/15/2006 National Academy of Engineering Accessed: Thursday, May 01, 2014 <www.onlineethics.org/Topics/ProfPractice/PPEssays/thiokolshuttle/shuttle_telecon.aspx>

JPL to Assist in Oil and Gas Tech Development

November 22, 2013 Charles Elachi, director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., met with top executives of the Norwegian-based oil and gas company, Statoil, on Friday, Nov. 22, in a ceremonial signing of a new agreement to assist in the development and subsequent transfer of technologies to Statoil and America’s oil and gas […]

November 22, 2013

Charles Elachi, director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., met with top executives of the Norwegian-based oil and gas company, Statoil, on Friday, Nov. 22, in a ceremonial signing of a new agreement to assist in the development and subsequent transfer of technologies to Statoil and America’s oil and gas activities. The focus will be on enabling safe and efficient development and production of U.S. and world fossil fuel reserves.

Technologies developed by JPL for the harsh and difficult environments of space will be applied to the demanding environments of oil and gas production. The agreement also provides an opportunity for JPL to benefit from synergistic technology currently being developed in the oil and gas sector that might be used for space exploration.

Statoil has large holdings in the U.S., in such challenging environments as offshore and tight shale formations. It is number 39 on the Forbes 500 list of the world’s largest companies.

“This agreement is the latest example of how NASA and JPL technologies can benefit us here on Earth. It’s also an example of how collaborations with other industries can be beneficial to space exploration,” said JPL Director Charles Elachi.

In addition to a general tour of JPL prior to the signing ceremony, Statoil representatives also had an opportunity to see JPL’s Microdevices Laboratory, where some of these technologies are being developed.

The California Institute of Technology in Pasadena manages JPL for NASA.

New Microbe Found in Two Distant Clean Rooms

November 06, 2013 A rare, recently discovered microbe that survives on very little to eat has been found in two places on Earth: spacecraft clean rooms in Florida and South America. Microbiologists often do thorough surveys of bacteria and other microbes in spacecraft clean rooms. Fewer microbes live there than in almost any other environment […]

November 06, 2013

A rare, recently discovered microbe that survives on very little to eat has been found in two places on Earth: spacecraft clean rooms in Florida and South America.

Microbiologists often do thorough surveys of bacteria and other microbes in spacecraft clean rooms. Fewer microbes live there than in almost any other environment on Earth, but the surveys are important for knowing what might hitch a ride into space. If extraterrestrial life is ever found, it would be readily checked against the census of a few hundred types of microbes detected in spacecraft clean rooms.

The work to keep clean rooms extremely clean knocks total microbe numbers way down. It also can select for microbes that withstand stresses such as drying, chemical cleaning, ultraviolet treatments and lack of nutrients. Perversely, microbes that withstand these stressors often also show elevated resistance to spacecraft sterilization methodologies such as heating and peroxide treatment.

“We want to have a better understanding of these bugs, because the capabilities that adapt them for surviving in clean rooms might also let them survive on a spacecraft,” said microbiologist Parag Vaishampayan of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., lead author of the 2013 paper about the microbe. “This particular bug survives with almost no nutrients.”

This population of berry-shaped bacteria is so different from any other known bacteria, it has been classified as not only a new species, but also a new genus, the next level of classifying the diversity of life. Its discoverers named it Tersicoccus phoenicis. Tersi is from Latin for clean, like the room. Coccus, from Greek for berry, describes the bacterium’s shape. The phoenicis part is for NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander, the spacecraft being prepared for launch in 2007 when the bacterium was first collected by test-swabbing the floor in the Florida clean room.

Some other microbes have been discovered in a spacecraft clean room and found nowhere else, but none previously had been found in two different clean rooms and nowhere else. Home grounds of the new one are about 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) apart, in a NASA facility at Kennedy Space Center and a European Space Agency facility in Kourou, French Guiana.

A bacterial DNA database shared by microbiologists worldwide led Vaishampayan to find the match. The South American detection had been listed on the database by a former JPL colleague, Christine Moissl-Eichinger, now with the University of Regensburg in Germany. She is first co-author of the paper published this year in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology identifying the new genus.

The same global database showed no other location where this strain of bacteria has been detected. That did not surprise Vaishampayan. He said, “We find a lot of bugs in clean rooms because we are looking so hard to find them there. The same bug might be in the soil outside the clean room but we wouldn’t necessarily identify it there because it would be hidden by the overwhelming numbers of other bugs.”

A teaspoon of typical soil would have thousands more types of microbes and billions more total microbes than an entire cleanroom. More than 99 percent of bacterial strains, as identified from DNA sequences, have never been cultivated in laboratories, a necessary step for the various types of characterization required to identify a strain as a new species.

Microbes that are tolerant of harsh conditions become more evident in clean room environments that remove the rest of the crowd.

“Tersicoccus phoenicis might be found in some natural environment with extremely low nutrient levels, such as a cave or desert,” Vaishampayan speculated. This is the case for another species of bacterium (Paenibacillus phoenicis) identified by JPL researchers and currently found in only two places on Earth: a spacecraft clean room in Florida and a bore hole more than 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) deep at a Colorado molybdenum mine.

Ongoing research with Tersicoccus phoenicis is aimed at understanding possible ways to control it in spacecraft clean rooms and fully sequencing its DNA. Students from California State University, Los Angeles, have participated in the research to characterize the newly discovered species.

The California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, operates JPL for NASA.

Guy Webster 818-354-6278
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
guy.webster@jpl.nasa.gov

???????

Published on Mar 2, 2012 Mythodea – Vangelis Papathanasiou – Mythodea – Nasa Mision 2001 Mythodea — Music for the NASA Mission: 2001 Mars Odyssey is a choral symphony[1] by Greek electronic composer and artist Vangelis. Originally premiered in concert in 1993,[2] it was published in 2001 by Vangelis’ new record label Sony Classical, which […]

Published on Mar 2, 2012

Mythodea – Vangelis Papathanasiou – Mythodea – Nasa Mision 2001

Mythodea — Music for the NASA Mission: 2001 Mars Odyssey is a choral symphony[1] by Greek electronic composer and artist Vangelis. Originally premiered in concert in 1993,[2] it was published in 2001 by Vangelis’ new record label Sony Classical, which also set up the NASA connection and promoted a new concert.[3]

The 2001 version of Mythodea was recorded and played on-stage by: Vangelis on synthesizers and keyboards, the London Metropolitan Orchestra augmented by two harpists, sopranos Kathleen Battle and Jessye Norman, the chorus of the Greek National Opera, and, for the concert only, the Seistron and Typana percussion ensembles. The concert was held in Athens, Greece on June 28, 2001, and the record was officially released on October 23, 2001, to coincide with the 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft entering the orbit of planet Mars. A video of the concert was released in early 2002.[4]

The world premiere of Mythodia (first spelling) took place on July 13, 1993 as a public performance at the Herodes Atticus Theater, in Athens, Greece, for charity purposes. On stage were: Vangelis, who provided the full musical score accompanied by two harpists; mezzo-soprano Markella Hatziana, soprano Lucienne Deval, and the chorus and percussion of the Greek National Lyric Stage, conducted by Yvan Cassar.[2]

Mythodia was then a piece in seven movements.[4] Vangelis not only composed the music, he also wrote the lyrics[5] in Ancient Greek.[6] In an interview with KLEMblad magazine, Vangelis stated “This piece was composed in an hour. Yes, it took me an hour. […] I’m not using the technology in the conventional way. I’m not using computers.”[3] For the encore, Vangelis played a selection of his repertoire, including “La Petite Fille de la Mer” (from the album L’Apocalypse des Animaux), “Chariots of Fire“, “Pulstar” (from the album Albedo 0.39), three tracks from the soundtrack of the film Conquest of Paradise: “Hispañola”, “City of Isabel” and “Conquest of Paradise”, and finished with a performance of the Greek national anthem.[4]

Mythodea would remain unheard in public for the next eight years, but Vangelis kept a recording of the 1993 concert for himself. Around the year 2000, Peter Gelb was the head of Sony Classical and was steering the record company in the direction of crossover music rather than mainstream classical repertoire. He had just signed with Vangelis and was in the process of selecting their first release together. Gelb was listening to some tapes that Vangelis had sent to him when he came upon Mythodea. He described the event in an interview: “When I first heard Mythodea I was in ecstasy with its rhythm and power themes, and with no further hesitation I suggested it was recorded immediately.”[3]

With the approval of Vangelis to record Mythodea with a full orchestra as Gelb had suggested,[3] Sony Classical developed a marketing plan of Mythodea that with the help of Vangelis’ friend and colleague, Dr. Scott Bolton, grew to include a promotional tie-in with NASA, a dedicated website, an audio CD and a live concert that involved the Greek Government and was broadcast on TV and published on video. The deal with NASA made Mythodea the official music of the mission involving the spacecraft 2001 Mars Odyssey. This mission took the spacecraft to the orbit of Mars on October 23, 2001, and the audio CD of Mythodea was scheduled to be officially released on the same day. Vangelis described the connection he felt between the music and the mission on the 2001 Mars Odyssey official website:

I made up the name Mythodea from the words myth and ode. And I felt in it a kind of shared or common path with NASA’s current exploration of the planet [Mars]. Whatever we use as a key — music, mythology, science, mathematics, astronomy — we are all working to decode the mystery of creation, searching for our deepest roots.[7]

The premiere of the new version of Mythodea was held on June 28, 2001. By this date, the album had already been recorded and was finished. The concert was a live performance of the album, with everyone involved in the recording reprising their roles plus additional performers. The setting was the ancient (6th century BC) Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens, Greece, featured on the album and video covers. Vangelis commented on the selection of location in an interview: “The record company wanted to promote this work and asked me ‘where […]?’ and I thought that […] Greece was really appropriate. And at the same time I had a proposition from the Minister of Culture […] and this is what happened.”[3]

The concert was taped for later broadcast on TV and release on DVD. The budget was set at US $7 million, split in half between the record company, Sony Classical, and the Greek government,[8] which considered the concert a good promotion for Greece abroad and included it as part of the Greek Cultural Olympiad leading to the 2004 Summer Olympics. There were some objections raised, mainly by fellow musician Mikis Theodorakis, over the use of both public money and an archaeological site.[9] Vangelis himself, like in 1993, waived payment for his performance.[10]

The spectacle involved 224 musicians on stage, the same involved in the recording: Vangelis, two harpists, the 75-person[11] London Metropolitan Orchestra, the 120-person chorus of the Greek National Opera, plus newcomers Greek percussion ensembles Seistron and Typana, that provided 24 timpani.[12] In the back, a projection screen measuring 180 m in length and 24 m in height[3] showed images of Mars supplied by NASA, combined with elements of ancient Greek mythology.[13]

The number of attending spectators to the ticket-paid event was between 2,000[9] and 2,500,[11] with another 30,000 people watching for free on a giant screen at the nearby Panathinaiko Stadium.[9] The concert lasted just over one hour, after which three encores were played: Chariots of Fire, Conquest of Paradise, and a combination of Movements 9 and 10.[14] Mars itself made a special appearance at the concert as an announcer told the spectators to look for an orange spot shining in the clear sky above the orchestra.[15] The concert was repeated the following day without an audience, to get extra camera angles. Despite not having been announced, around 50 people who showed up at the venue were admitted for free, authorized by Vangelis himself.[12] Mythodea was expected to be performed by other orchestras, without Vangelis’ participation,[11] but as of 2007 that has not happened.

Share

2011 AG5

(CNN) – En un día en que las predicciones de apocalipsis se equivocaron, la NASA tenía más buenas noticias para la Tierra: un asteroide que se temía que tenía un curso de colisión contra nuestro planeta ya no es una amenaza.
La incertidumbre por la órbita del asteroide, conocido como 2011 AG5, había permitido que hubiera una posibilidad menor de 1 % de que impactara la Tierra en febrero de 2040,

(CNN) – En un día en que las predicciones de apocalipsis se equivocaron, la NASA tenía más buenas noticias para la Tierra: un asteroide que se temía que tenía un curso de colisión contra nuestro planeta ya no es una amenaza.
La incertidumbre por la órbita del asteroide, conocido como 2011 AG5, había permitido que hubiera una posibilidad menor de 1 % de que impactara la Tierra en febrero de 2040,

NASA | Computer Model Shows a Disk Galaxy’s Life History

Published on Oct 19, 2012 This cosmological simulation follows the development of a single disk galaxy over about 13.5 billion years, from shortly after the Big Bang to the present time. Colors indicate old stars (red), young stars (white and bright blue) and the distribution of gas density (pale blue); the view is 300,000 light-years […]

Published on Oct 19, 2012
This cosmological simulation follows the development of a single disk galaxy over about 13.5 billion years, from shortly after the Big Bang to the present time. Colors indicate old stars (red), young stars (white and bright blue) and the distribution of gas density (pale blue); the view is 300,000 light-years across. The simulation ran on the Pleiades supercomputer at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., and required about 1 million CPU hours. It assumes a universe dominated by dark energy and dark matter. Credit: F. Governato and T. Quinn (Univ. of Washington), A. Brooks (Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison), and J. Wadsley (McMaster Univ.).

This video is public domain and can be downloaded here:

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011000/a011087/

Like our videos? Subscribe to NASA’s Goddard Shorts HD podcast:

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/iTunes/f0004_index.html

Or find NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/NASA.GSFC

Or find us on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/NASAGoddard

NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft at the far reaches of our solar system

PASADENA, Calif. — NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region at the far reaches of our solar system that scientists feel is the final area the spacecraft has to cross before reaching interstellar space. Scientists refer to this … Continue reading

PASADENA, Calif. — NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region at the far reaches of our solar system that scientists feel is the final area the spacecraft has to cross before reaching interstellar space.

Scientists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because our sun’s magnetic field lines are connected to interstellar magnetic field lines. This connection allows lower-energy charged particles that originate from inside our heliosphere — or the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself — to zoom out and allows higher-energy particles from outside to stream in. Before entering this region, the charged particles bounced around in all directions, as if trapped on local roads inside the heliosphere.

The Voyager team infers this region is still inside our solar bubble because the direction of the magnetic field lines has not changed. The direction of these magnetic field lines is predicted to change when Voyager breaks through to interstellar space. The new results were described at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Monday.

“Although Voyager 1 still is inside the sun’s environment, we now can taste what it’s like on the outside because the particles are zipping in and out on this magnetic highway,” said Edward Stone, Voyager project scientist based at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena. “We believe this is the last leg of our journey to interstellar space. Our best guess is it’s likely just a few months to a couple years away. The new region isn’t what we expected, but we’ve come to expect the unexpected from Voyager.”

Since December 2004, when Voyager 1 crossed a point in space called the termination shock, the spacecraft has been exploring the heliosphere’s outer layer, called the heliosheath. In this region, the stream of charged particles from the sun, known as the solar wind, abruptly slowed down from supersonic speeds and became turbulent. Voyager 1′s environment was consistent for about five and a half years. The spacecraft then detected that the outward speed of the solar wind slowed to zero.

The intensity of the magnetic field also began to increase at that time.

Voyager data from two onboard instruments that measure charged particles showed the spacecraft first entered this magnetic highway region on July 28, 2012. The region ebbed away and flowed toward Voyager 1 several times. The spacecraft entered the region again Aug. 25 and the environment has been stable since.

“If we were judging by the charged particle data alone, I would have thought we were outside the heliosphere,” said Stamatios Krimigis, principal investigator of the low-energy charged particle instrument, based at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. “But we need to look at what all the instruments are telling us and only time will tell whether our interpretations about this frontier are correct.”

Spacecraft data revealed the magnetic field became stronger each time Voyager entered the highway region; however, the direction of the magnetic field lines did not change.

“We are in a magnetic region unlike any we’ve been in before — about 10 times more intense than before the termination shock — but the magnetic field data show no indication we’re in interstellar space,” said Leonard Burlaga, a Voyager magnetometer team member based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The magnetic field data turned out to be the key to pinpointing when we crossed the termination shock. And we expect these data will tell us when we first reach interstellar space.”

Voyager 1 and 2 were launched 16 days apart in 1977. At least one of the spacecraft has visited Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Voyager 1 is the most distant human-made object, about 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) away from the sun. The signal from Voyager 1 takes approximately 17 hours to travel to Earth. Voyager 2, the longest continuously operated spacecraft, is about 9 billion miles (15 billion kilometers) away from our sun. While Voyager 2 has seen changes similar to those seen by Voyager 1, the changes are much more gradual. Scientists do not think Voyager 2 has reached the magnetic highway.

The Voyager spacecraft were built and continue to be operated by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, Calif. Caltech manages JPL for NASA. The Voyager missions are a part of NASA’s Heliophysics System Observatory, sponsored by the Heliophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

For more information about the Voyager spacecraft, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/voyager and http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov .

el hemisferio Oriental de la Tierra

MÉXICO, D.F., febrero 2 (EL UNIVERSAL).- Por que la gente lo pidió, la agencia espacial estadounidense (NASA) publicó en alta resolución el hemisferio Oriental de la Tierra en el que se ve con la mayor calidad alcanzada a los continentes de Áfr…

MÉXICO, D.F., febrero 2 (EL UNIVERSAL).- Por que la gente lo pidió, la agencia espacial estadounidense (NASA) publicó en alta resolución el hemisferio Oriental de la Tierra en el que se ve con la mayor calidad alcanzada a los continentes de África y Europa y parte de Medio Oriente.

Como lo hizo con la cara que mostraba a América en días pasados, las imágenes que tomó el satélite Suomi NPP el