Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Earth Observatory Shows Solar Flare

Posted by timothy on from the and-the-hair-on-your-chinny-chin-chin dept.

staaktdenarbeid writes "In the past few months I became very impressed with the timeliness and quality of NASA's Earth Observatory. When hurricane Isabel struck, their imagery showed me the biggest latte ever made. Now that Southern California is on fire, it takes only a look from outer space to see how bad the sitation really is. And, today, a massive solar flare showed up on their website as soon as it errupted (so to speak). Each of these pictures is accompanied by detailed technical background. And for the rest of us, they also make perfect screen backgrounds. Very cool."

8 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. ... if this were Star Trek... by John+Hansen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, this solar flare calls for the obligatory Star Trek joke:
    If this were Star Trek, we'd all be dead when the solar flare hits.

    That said, the ground images from the Terra satellites are nothing short of amazing. Since I live in Southern California, it really put a perspective on things.

  2. Only damage to the Dollar by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These rampant fires may be wreaking havoc upon insurance companies, but just remember, it is all part of nature. This catastrophe serves to remind us humans we are part of nature, not above it.

    Despite how horrific they appear to be, they serve some beneficial role in the grand scheme of things.

    Bla bla bla

    1. Re:Only damage to the Dollar by Keith+McClary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These rampant fires may be wreaking havoc upon insurance companies, but just remember, it is all part of nature. This catastrophe serves to remind us humans we are part of nature, not above it.

      Despite how horrific they appear to be, they serve some beneficial role in the grand scheme of things.
      In nature forests burn every few decades.
      Governments devote a lot of resources to stamping out fires.
      The effect of these efforts is to increase the number of trees that haven't burned - yet.
      This guarantees that when an unusually dry year comes along there will be a big uncontrollable fire that will be more dangerous to people and more environmentally destructive than what would occur naturally.

      Of course it doesn't help that people love to have that little cedar chalet nestled among the pine trees.

    2. Re:Only damage to the Dollar by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eraser,

      I completely understand and agree with your point - I recently heard that 7 million homes (roughly half) in California are built in extreme fire danger locations (after all, much of California is/used to be desert). I also live in Claremont, and I've watched the fires burn dangerously close 2 times in the past few years.

      Here's my question, and I'll pose it to you and the rest of the Slashdot crowd. Ok, we all understand that it's silly to build these homes where they shouldn't go, but what happens when we have so much money that we can live in places we shouldn't? What happens, when we simply overpopulate an area and there ARE no places left to build but in these dangerous locations?

      Are we going to tell ordinary people who want basically what everyone else has (a normal home, in a decent neighborhood) that they can't have it because there's nowhere else for them to live? I mean, would YOU want to be that person who can't live somewhere because there's simply no more room left? (I'm just playing devil's advocate here)

      I'd love for somebody to answer that one... I for one think more urbanization would have been the answer (build UPWARDS instead of OUTWARDS) but it seems too many people are against it - they want their OWN space.

      What do you all think? At some point, something has to give...

      -6d

    3. Re:Only damage to the Dollar by JulianOolian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If there's anything that California, and the U.S. in general, needs, it's more nuclear plants. Or perhaps you don't remember the rolling blackouts of 2002 or whenever caused by a lack of power partially due to the fatally flawed, so-called "environmentally friendly" philosophy of California.

      Weren't you all pretty-much blackout-free before California's energy industry was deregulated?

      Didn't areas where deregulation isn't fully implemented yet (Los Angeles, I read) go pretty much without blackouts in the 'energy crisis' of 2002?

    4. Re:Only damage to the Dollar by Smallpond · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Yes. Every foreseen risk has been calculated. I've seen the big brown books.

      3 Mile Island

      Chernobyl

      Some risks aren't foreseen, aren't calculated correctly, or the people involved just do something stupid.

  3. I wish .... by Argofickyusilf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that the public could realise how useful NASA is. If they could see the services that they offer, maybe it would be "politically correct" for Congrees to give them the funding that they need.

  4. Is it just me? by Valar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or did we just manage to /. nasa (ok, so this page at nasa, but still)? Or is it normally this unresponsive? If they can't take on /. and survive, maybe they shouldn't be put in charge of so much sensitive equipment/rocket fuel...

    --

    ====
    Crudely Drawn Games