Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Satellites Keep Aircraft Away From Volcanic Cloud

Posted by timothy on from the hope-it's-not-opposite-day dept.

coondoggie writes "A range of satellites from a host of different nations are pumping out images and data on the Icelandic volcano currently wreaking havoc on commercial airline traffic and aviation in general. The European Space Agency today noted four major satellites that are monitoring the volcano that erupted this week under Iceland's Eyjafjallajoekull glacier. They include NASA's Aqua and Aura as well as the European Space Agency's Envisat and MetOp spacecraft. Other satellites such as NASA's Terra and NOAA's GOES satellite also provide images." Updated 20100416 01:17 GMT by timothy: Apropos that, 2Y9D57 writes with this "Image of the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajökull, after it began erupting on 15 April. Acquired by the German TerraSAR-X synthetic aperture radar satellite from a height of about 500 kilometers / 300 miles."

19 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Space program by seifried · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The next time why someone asks why we should fund space exploration as opposed to simply spending money trying to feed starving people it might be good to point this out (along with weather prediction/mapping capabilities/etc.).

    1. Re:Space program by ZeBam.com · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The objection is usually to manned space exploration, which oddly enough did not play a role here.

      --
      CG Pin-Ups?
    2. Re:Space program by sznupi · · Score: 3, Informative

      ESA / Arianespace did not develop manned spaceflight capability; and yet they have very large chunk of satellite launching business (with 50+% of geostationary ones). Even when their manned spacecraft will show up, it will be probably a modification of unmanned ATV.

      (note: I'm pro manned spaceflight, if done well; just sayin'...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Space program by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do you think those satellites got there? How do you think that technology was refined enough to work? Yeah, MANNED SPACE FLIGHT is what pushes the boundaries. It is what allows all the rest of this.

      History suggests that you have it the wrong way around. It is unmanned flight that pushes the boundaries, human flight trailing along far behind. Sputnik came before Gagarin. Luna-9/Surveyor landed on the moon before Apollo. Voyager/Cassini/Mars Rovers came before - well, before anything at all. Right now, Voyager 1 has passed the heliopause - it has left the solar system. Meanwhile, humans fix the toilets in LEO. How is that pushing the boundary? Humans are the vestigial organ of space exploration and exploitation. They've never been needed, and never will be.

      Unless these satellites have to breath air or produce urine for some reason, chances are that the technology they use owes nothing to human spaceflight.

    4. Re:Space program by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Grandparent is correct. These satellites do not use technology developed from anyone's manned space program. Instead, they use technology that comes from various countries' reconnaissance satellites which are unmanned (sure, manned versions were planned at one time, but they never really contributed). The only other overlap is the launch vehicles which would have been developed anyway.

  2. Re:Eya... what? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok seriously where does this name come from

    "Eyjafjallajoekull" translates to: All your ash are belong to us

  3. Thank goodness by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Without these satellites, there would be no way to communicate where the cloud is:

    Pilot: So where is this eruption at?
    Control: I'm sorry, I've talked to the other three guys here and we don't have a clue how to pronounce the name of this glacier. I don't think we can help you. Good luck!

    --
    My webcomic
  4. Re:Eya... what? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

    Eyjafjallajokull: Eyja - Island. Fjalla - Mountain. Jokull - Glaicer. Island-mountain-glaicer. Icelandic is an agglutinative language like German, so words get strung together to make bigger words.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  5. Raw feeds? by Hazee+Daze · · Score: 4, Informative

    So I guess the /. question is can we see their raw feeds?

    NASA Aqua
    NASA Aura
    NASA's Terra
    European Space Agency's Envisat
    European Space Agency's MetOp
    NOAA's GOES: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
    - http://www.goes.noaa.gov/
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_Operational_Environmental_Satellite

    Space research always pays for itself in the long term. The acronyms in the NOAA GOES got me interested.

  6. The sky over Germany looked clear today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At what density is volcanic ash dangerous to aircraft turbines and what is the damage mechanism? On the satellite images, it looks like the air space south of Scotland was only peripherally affected by the plume coming from the volcano. I wonder if the widely dispersed ash is really that much of a problem.

    1. Re:The sky over Germany looked clear today by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Volcanic ash has this nasty habit of clumping mightily with liquids.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:The sky over Germany looked clear today by Anssi55 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not directly answering your question, but:
      PICTURES: Finnish F-18 engine check reveals effects of volcanic dust
      Finnish fighter jets damaged by volcanic cloud
      Original article of Finnish Air Force (in Finnish)

    3. Re:The sky over Germany looked clear today by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's dangerous in three main ways to an aircraft:

      Least dangerous (relatively) is the st.elmos fire produced by static buildup (you are flying through a good static generator at high speed).

      Next is the fact that you are flying through ash, which is a bit like sandpaper. The result is your turbines get sand blasted, ruining them in many ways. This is not an instant failure, most aircraft will just continue and get the engines repaired/replaced at next stop.

      Most dangerous is the third. The glass, silica and other parts thrown into the air will melt in the high temperature of the turbine combustion chamber. This will then tend to fuse and block further combustion, resulting in the engine shutting down mid-air. Bad situation to be in, made worse by the fact there is no guarantee you can start it up again (normally after a few mins the gunk will solidify and break off, allowing you to restart the engine, but this isn't guaranteed (and this is assuming it breaks off before you impact the ground)

    4. Re:The sky over Germany looked clear today by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also the abrasive effect of the ash can scratch the windows, particularly the forward facing ones the pilots look out of and it can abrade the aluminum skin, particularly the leading edges of the wings. Neither will bring the plane down but they can necessitate expensive repairs and if the windows become opaque enough it can make landing difficult.

    5. Re:The sky over Germany looked clear today by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone know at what density the ash is a hazard? This is the first large scale grounding of commercial aircraft due to a volcanic eruption that I can remember. Wikipedia lists an all engine out on a 747 in 1982 but maybe there are more cases.

      Volcanic ash above some concentration is certainly a hazard, but this seems like a lot of airspace for a modest eruption.

  7. Amazing what they can do these days... by d474 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Satellites Keep Aircraft Away From Volcanic Cloud

    I didn't realize satellites could fly so low, let alone herd airplanes like sheep. Amazing what they can do these days...

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  8. If this is Iceland, the pic is scary. by Hazee+Daze · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T101061035

    1. Re:If this is Iceland, the pic is scary. by symbolset · · Score: 5, Informative

      When this volcano blows a major Katla eruption follows soon after. Katla is about 10 miles East.

      This one shuts down half the air travel in western Europe for a few days. Katla shuts down summer. The farmers are not worried about this volcano:

      "I am not afraid of this eruption but I fear Katla. It might not happen immediately but it will happen. Then we will be talking about much more power," Agnarsson said.

      It has to do with the type of plate tectonics here. The plates are pulling apart, yielding a very deep rift that releases very hot magma from very far down in the mantle, which is saturated with CO2 and when released goes very high, far, thick and long. Naturally this will melt a great deal of Iceland glacier very quickly, impacting the currents in the Atlantic.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:If this is Iceland, the pic is scary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It has to do with the type of plate tectonics here. The plates are pulling apart, yielding a very deep rift that releases very hot magma from very far down in the mantle, which is saturated with CO2 and when released goes very high, far, thick and long. Naturally this will melt a great deal of Iceland glacier very quickly, impacting the currents in the Atlantic."

      This is true for all of the volcanoes in Iceland. They are related to the rifting that occurs along the mid-Atlantic Ridge, where the North American plate is stretching away from the Eurasian Plate. The magma comes up the cracks and eventually erupts onto the surface. CO2 has little or nothing to do with melting the glaciers. The heat of the lava at the vent does, and the contact with the water produces much of the explosiveness that eventually produces ash and lofts it into the atmosphere. The climatic effects are mainly from a combination of the ash particles and aerosols such as sulphur dioxide, and they are mostly cooling effects due to obscuring the Sun, however, Eyjafjallajokull is not a big enough eruption -- so far -- to have a significant climatic effect. Katla, by contrast, is a much larger volcanic center and has historically had much bigger eruptions, hence the worry if that one blows too. The effect on Atlantic ocean water is negligible except around Iceland itself.

      There are plenty of the more technical details at the Nordic Volcanological Center site, including a link to this paper [PDF] that has ample detail about these two volcanoes and their historical and more modern behaviour. It isn't cause for optimism. The key phrase from the introduction is that eruptions at Katla have been up to 2km3 in volume, whereas those at Eyjafjallajokull "have been negligible in historic times and range in the 0.1km3 scale. This is a "small" eruption. Really. Even with that "negligible" volume, the most recent eruption lasted from 1821 to 1823, and was with Katla erupting simultaneously. These eruptions have sometimes A) lasted for many months or years, and B) been much, much larger if Katla erupts too. Not to mention the local effects such as even bigger jokulhlaups than have been triggered so far, and for some eruptions (e.g., Laki in the 1700s), release of toxic gasses such as HF too. Sometimes the eruptions are no big deal, and they wane and stop over a few weeks. Sometimes they are nasty and prolonged. It isn't clear what this one will do, but if there are signs that Katla is going to join in ... be prepared for something much more awful.