Slashdot Mirror
ESA Launches GOCE To Map Earth's Gravity
DSG2 sends in an ESA press release which reads in part: "This afternoon, the Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) satellite developed by the European Space Agency was lofted into a near-Sun-synchronous, low Earth orbit by a Rockot launcher lifting off from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia. GOCE is the first of a new family of ESA satellites designed to study our planet and its environment in order to enhance our knowledge and understanding of Earth-system processes and their evolution, to enable us to address the challenges of global climate change. In particular, GOCE will measure the minute differences in the Earth's gravity field around the globe." One consequence of mapping the planet's geoid in finer detail is that ocean currents can be limned more accurately. This BBC article from 2007 goes into some detail about this application.
There's that word again; "heavy." Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
what really interests me is the fact that this satellite in such a low orbit that it actually has wings and an aerodynamic body to cope with the small amounts of air on that height. Those wings combined with the ion motor's onboard make it almost a plane/ satellite hybrid.
Article title: ESA Launches GOCE To Map Earth's Gravity ...to enable us to address the challenges of global climate change.
Article quote:
Great. Now we're going to have to start ejecting people into orbit because they stayed under their carbon credits quota, but they had too much gravitational pull and that's damaging the environment. I can just see the green movement in five years: "Stop warping spacetime! Excercise! And screw the whales."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
GOCE is a gravity measuring satellite -- the spiritual successor to the amazing GRACE pair of satellites from a few years ago.
GRACE works by flying two satellites in the same orbit, one a few dozen miles ahead of the other. By monitoring the distance between the satellites with laser rangefinders, one can measure how strong gravity is -- the more gravity, the faster the satellite goes, so the distance between the satellites grows until the second one reaches the same area. This was the state-of-the-art, and GRACE made some amazing measurements. It was able, for instance, to measure the amount of extra groundwater during flooding along the Mississippi.
But GOCE does it all with one satellite. Where the baseline for GRACE was many miles, for GOCE it is just 50 cm.
Now, if you think about it, in any satellite, the amount of gravity you would feel is zero...or at least, very very close to zero, as you are orbiting inertially. But, really, gravity is only zero right at the center of mass of the satellite. You'd feel a tiny amount of acceleration the further you go. As you go toward the center of the earth, you would be in a lower orbit, and you would be pulled down with respect to the satellite.
GOCE measures this microgravity to rediculous precision. By measuring the difference in gravity affecting two test masses 50 cm apart, it can measure how strong gravity is at that point. It should have much better accuracy, and far better resolution, than GRACE.
GOCE is amazing in other ways, too. It flies very low, to get better resolution. So, it has fins! A satellite with fins, to keep it pointing along the direction of travel. Because there is some tiny amount of air drag at the altitude it is flying, GOCE has a tiny xenon ion engine pushing it along to keep it at the same altitude, and to keep the air drag on the satellite from overwhelming the gravity measurement.
Hats off to ESA, this is an amazing machine!
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
For 24 months, GOCE will collect three-dimensional gravity data all over the globe. The raw data will be processed on the ground to produce the most accurate map of the Earth's gravitational field to date and to refine the geoid: the actual reference shape of our planet. Precise knowledge of the geoid, which can be considered as the surface of an ideal global ocean at rest, will play a very important role in further study of our planet and, with any luck, by detecting subtle changes in gravitational potential, it will be able to provide mankind with its first indirect measurement of your girlfriend's mass.
When did "Global Warming" become politically incorrect and "Climate Change" became politically correct?
When they realized they might be wrong.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
As a climate scientist, I've seen that shift in wording too. I think it was largely a PR move, designed to combat fundamental misconceptions that laymen have regarding "Abrupt Climate Change" (the officially accepted title).
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but climate change has me pretty scared. I might live to see some of the effects (drought, famine, extreme weather) and I wonder if my life will be as comfortable as my parents was. I used to assume that advancing technology would make my life much better, and I'm just now coming to grips with the possibility that it won't.
But what really scares me is the ostrich-like manner with which people react to the problem. They seem to be in denial, which is understandable. Scientists aren't bringing good news, so it's natural to be resentful. But I figured that some deep survival mechanism would kick in eventually as people looked at the rigorous nature of the modeling, the diverse data sets all leading to the same conclusions, and the myriad positive feedback effects that makes climate change accelerate on its own.
Instead, people seem to react as though the existence of climate change is somehow a political question rather than a scientific question. They don't seem to be looking at that evidence. Instead, they seem to decide that their political party's position on climate change is "X", so they believe "X". (Note that I'm talking about the existence of anthropogenic abrupt climate change. I realize that our response to climate change is a legitimate political question.)
I've read through their reports and rebuttals, and I've not seen any difference between the science they're reviewing and my own work (or the work of my colleagues or my advisor). In fact, some of my personal research results support their conclusions. I guess that means that my dissertation research is just politically motivated claptrap?
Wow. If you politely asked a climate scientist for details of their model, and got that reaction then you were talking to a pretty bad scientist. Alas, PhDs cannot be revoked...
The science isn't obscured from where I'm sitting, and it isn't for anyone within driving distance of a university library. Those biases you're talking about don't make it into the peer reviewed journals like Geophysical Research Letters. I'd recommend those sources over the secondhand sources that you're reading. They sound like horrible sources of information.
Umm... I'm not writing a scientific journal article right now. It's just an online forum. I definitely wouldn't include statements like that in my article submissions.
What a coincidence! I, too, work with climate scientists. And my experience with scientists in general is that they're much less likely to overstate their case than other people. Scientists are more likely to add caveats to their statements, and less likely to make statements of certainty when all that the evidence supports is "strong probability". What you're describing is just the normal way scientists act.
Show me an experiment from a peer reviewed journal article that you think is politicized. I'll review it and get back to you. On the other hand, if you were talking about Rush Limbaugh's editorial about climate science, then I think we mean different things when we use the word "science".