"Envy the lumberjacks, for they perform the happiest, most meaningful work on earth," the Washington Post wrote almost two years ago, after analyzing more than 13,000 journals from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' time-use survey. (For the first time the surveys asked how workers felt during the day.) And outdoor forestry jobs "look awesome by that metric, dangerous as they often are in the long run," the Post wrote in a recent follow-up. [Alternate URL.]

But is that really the right metric? "Readers kept reminding us that there's more to a fulfilling job than how happy you are while doing it." What about those wanting jobs where they're meaningfully impacting the world? We didn't have a stellar way to measure other feelings about work, but we kept our eye on an often-overlooked federal data provider: AmeriCorps. The independent agency, which CEO Michael D. Smith described to us as "bite-sized" but "punching well above our weight," funds the Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, part of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey... In 2021 and again in 2023, the researchers behind the CEV asked if you agree or disagree with these four statements:

- I am proud to be working for my employer.
- My main satisfaction in life comes from work.
- My workplace contributes to the community.
- I contribute to the community through my work....


The workers most likely to say they're proud to be working for their employer and that they gain satisfaction from work are — surprise! — the self-employed. The self-employed who are incorporated — a group that often includes small-business owners — are almost twice as likely as private-sector, for-profit workers to strongly profess pride in their employer.

Government and nonprofit workers fall somewhere in the middle on those questions. But they rank at the very top on "My workplace contributes to the community" and "I contribute to the community through my work." Local government workers, who include teachers, take the top spot for strong agreement on both, followed by nonprofit workers. Private-sector, for-profit workers once again lag behind. The jobs that do worse on these measures tend to be in manufacturing or other blue-collar production and extraction jobs, or at the lower-paid end of the service sector. Folks in food services (e.g., bartenders and food prep), janitorial roles and landscaping, and personal services (e.g., barbershops, laundry and hotels) all struggle to find greater meaning in their work. Though some better-paid service jobs also struggle by some measures — think sales, engineering or software development.

On the questions regarding pride in your employer and life satisfaction, we see managers and our old friends in agriculture and forestry take the top spots. But right behind them — and actually in the lead in the other question — lurks the real standout, a set of jobs we'd classify as "care and social services." That includes, most notably, religious workers. Looking a bit deeper at about 100 occupations for which we have detailed data, we see clergy were most likely to strongly agree on every question.
Other observations from the article:

• "As a rule, you feel better about your job as you get older. Presumably, it's some mix of people who love their work delaying retirement, people job-hopping until they find meaningful employment, and people learning to love whatever hand they've been dealt."

• "Most measures of satisfaction also rise with education, often quite sharply. Someone with a graduate degree is twice as likely as a high school dropout to strongly agree their workplace contributes to the community."

• But... "More-educated folks are actually a bit less likely to strongly agree that work is their main satisfaction in life."

Does space need environmentalists, asks the headline from a new article in Noema magazine. "As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson notes, the first trillionaire will be made in space.

"But amid such promising developments are worries among some scientists and environmentalists who fear humans will repeat the errors that resource extraction has wrought on Earth..." If we have mining in space, do we need a preemptive anti-mining campaign to protect our solar system from rampant exploitation before it is too late? Earth-bound environmental advocates and astrobiologists alike have concluded that, indeed, we need an environmental movement in space... [Daniel Capper, an adjunct professor of philosophy at the Metropolitan State University of Denver] is part of a small but growing chorus of intellectuals who argue that we must carve out protections sooner rather than later — backed by a concrete theoretical and legal framework — for certain areas of the solar system. The United Nations has convened a working group on the use of space resources, and the International Astronomical Union has set up a different working group to delineate places of special scientific value on the moon.

Some researchers have proposed creating a planetary park system in space, while others advocate for a circular space economy that minimizes the need for additional resources. The nonprofit For All Moonkind is advocating for the protection of space sites of cultural importance, like the Apollo 11 landing site. And the Astra Carta, backed by Britain's King Charles, advocates for making sustainability a key component of space activities... [Martin Elvis, an astronomer with the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution] proposed setting aside 7/8ths of the solar system as wilderness, in a paper published in 2019 in Acta Astronautica that he coauthored with King's College London philosopher Tony Milligan...

[T]he lack of norms — clear rules and regulations around space — is one of the most pressing threats to the space environment, advocates say. What might happen, for example, if the United States simply began scooping up asteroids for platinum, or if Blue Origin established a mine at the lunar South Pole without securing consensus from others? "We do not have good answers to those questions right now," Hanlon said. "This is something that I'm really concerned about." Much of the legal basis for the space environmentalism movement is currently contained in just one article of the Outer Space Treaty (OST), said Christopher Johnson, the director of legal affairs and space law at the Secure World Foundation. Article 9 of the OST contains the harmful contamination language and says actors must pay "due regard" to the interests of others. It also stipulates that "harmful interference" with the activities of others must be avoided. Those phrases could be interpreted in multiple ways and have yet to be meaningfully tested.
The article cites two concrete proposals moving forward:

• "The Artemis Accords, a set of principles for exploring and using resources in outer space established by the U.S. in 2020, argues that resource extraction does not constitute national appropriation, and is therefore allowed by the OST. It's an initial step toward securing a consensus on space regulations, and one that's to date received the signatures of 47 nations including Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Germany (though China and Russia are notably absent). Signing the Artemis Accords allows nations to participate in the Artemis program, and also play a role in shaping future norms in space, Johnson said, a potentially lucrative incentive... "

• "The UN's COPUOS, the same one responsible for the OST and the Moon Agreement, published a working paper in 2019 that laid out voluntary guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities. Recommendations from the committee's working group on principles for the use of space resources are due in 2027, and Johnson said draft guidelines are likely to emerge in early 2025."

"One day, our descendants might live among the stars," the article concludes. "But we must ask ourselves, what kind of place will they inherit?"

Long-time Slashdot reader smooth wombat writes: Scientist have unlocked the secret to a bacteria dubbed 'Conan the Bacterium' which is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most radiant-resistant life-form. Deinococcus radiodurans can withstand radiation doses 28,000 times greater than that which would kill a human [and every other organism]. In addition, this bacteria can survive on the outside of the International Space Station for three years. It can also withstand acid, cold, and dehydration (a D&D player's worst nightmare). All of this protection comes down to a unique antioxidant.

The antioxidant is formed by a simple group of small molecules called metabolites, including manganese, phosphate and a small peptide, or molecule, of amino acids.
CNN reports: The antioxidant is formed by a simple group of small molecules called metabolites, including manganese, phosphate and a small peptide, or molecule, of amino acids. Together, this powerful trilogy is more effective in protecting against radiation than manganese combined with just one of the other components, according to a new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings could be used to protect astronauts from high doses of cosmic radiation on future deep-space missions across our solar system, according to the study authors.

"We've long known that manganese ions and phosphate together make a strong antioxidant, but discovering and understanding the 'magic' potency provided by the addition of the third component is a breakthrough," said study coauthor Brian Hoffman, the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Chemistry and professor of molecular biosciences at Northwestern University's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, in a statement...

On Earth, the antioxidant could be used for protection against accidents that release radiation.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Magazine: It would be a nightmare lab leak: Synthetic bacteria escape the petri dish and unleash a global plague that life on Earth is incapable of defending itself against. That's the concern raised by a group of eminent researchers in a Policy Forum published online today in Science. The commentary's 38 authors, from a broad range of disciplines, argue that governments worldwide should prohibit research and funding aimed at creating so-called mirror-image bacteria whose chemical makeup differs in a fundamental way from that of naturally existing organisms.

All of life's primary biomolecules can exist in two mirror-image forms, like a left and right hand. But only one form is found in nature. Proteins are left-handed, for example, and DNA and RNA are right-handed. Synthetic biologists have previously synthesized mirror-image proteins and genetic molecules. And mirror-image amino acids and peptides -- the building blocks of proteins -- have been incorporated into several approved drugs. Because natural enzymes struggle to break down mirror-image biomolecules, these components help the drugs survive longer in the body. [...]

The concern, he and others say, is that taking this line of work many steps further could result in fully mirror-image bacteria that could reproduce. Such organisms would likely be able to infect and potentially harm a wide range of microbes, plants, and animals while resisting the molecules that enable predators to kill and digest existing microbes. "They are essentially unassailable to those enzymes," says John Glass, a co-author and synthetic biologist at the J. Craig Venter Institute. Animals' immune systems would also struggle to cope with mirror bacteria. They "would be invisible to the immune system until it was too late," says Timothy Hand, a co-author and immunologist at the University of Pittsburgh. The Policy Forum authors acknowledge it will be at least a decade before synthetic biologists will be capable of creating these life forms. Nevertheless, they recommend halting all research aimed at that goal and urge funding agencies not to support it. "It's hard to overstate how severe these risks could be," says Ruslan Medzhitov, an immunologist at Yale University and one of the authors. "If mirror bacteria were to spread through infected animals and plants, much of the planet's many environments could be contaminated. ... Any exposure to contaminated dust or soil could be fatal."

Jack Szostak, a co-author and a 2019 Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Chicago, adds: "The result could be catastrophic irreversible damage, perhaps far worse than any challenge we've previously encountered."

An area of land nearly a third larger than India has turned from humid conditions to dryland -- arid areas where agriculture is difficult -- in the past three decades, research has found. From a report: Drylands now make up 40% of all land on Earth, excluding Antarctica. Three-quarters of the world's land suffered drier conditions in the past 30 years, which is likely to be permanent, according to the study by the UN Science Policy Interface, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations.

Africa lost about 12% of its GDP owing to the increasing aridity between 1990 and 2015, the report found. Even worse losses are forecast: Africa will lose about 16% of its GDP, and Asia close to 7%, in the next half decade. Ibrahim Thiaw, executive secretary of the UN convention to combat desertification (UNCCD), said: "Unlike droughts -- temporary periods of low rainfall -- aridity represents a permanent, unrelenting transformation. Droughts end. When an area's climate becomes drier, however, the ability to return to previous conditions is lost. The drier climates now affecting vast lands across the globe will not return to how they were, and this change is redefining life on Earth."

Some crops will be particularly at risk: maize yields are projected to halve in Kenya by 2050, if current trends continue. Drylands are areas where 90% of the rainfall is lost to evaporation, leaving only 10% for vegetation. Two-thirds of land globally will store less water by mid-century, according to the report published on Monday.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Scientific advisers to the European Commission are calling for a moratorium across the EU on efforts to artificially cool Earth through solar geoengineering. That includes controversial technologies used to reflect sunlight back into space, primarily by sending reflective particles into the atmosphere or by brightening clouds.

Proponents argue that this can help in the fight against climate change, especially as planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb. But small-scale experiments have triggered backlash over concerns that these technologies could do more harm than good. The European Commission asked its Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (GCSA) and European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) to write up their opinions on solar geoengineering, which were published today alongside a report synthesizing what little we know about how these technologies might work.

There's "insufficient scientific evidence" to show that solar geoengineering can actually prevent climate change, says the opinion written by the GCSA. "Given the currently very high levels of scientific and technical uncertainty ... as well as the potential harmful uses, we advocate for a moratorium on all large-scale [solar geoengineering] experimentation and deployment," writes the EGE in the second highly anticipated opinion.

"Mercedes-Benz is researching a new type of solar modules that could be seamlessly applied to the bodywork of electric vehicles," according to a recent Mercedes-Benz press release.

They describe the 5-micrometer coating as "similar to a wafer-thin layer of paste... significantly thinner than a human hair" — but creating an active photovoltaic surface with an efficiency of 20%. An area of 118.4 square feet (equivalent to the surface of a mid-size SUV) could produce energy for up to 7,456 miles per year under ideal conditions [based on daylight conditions from their testing in Stuttgart]. The energy generated by the solar cells is used for driving or fed directly into the high-voltage battery...

Solar paint has a high level of efficiency and contains no rare earths or silicon — only non-toxic, readily available raw materials. It is easy to recycle and considerably cheaper to produce than conventional solar modules. The Mercedes-Benz research department is currently working to enable use of the new solar paint on all exterior vehicle surfaces — regardless of shape or angle.
Solar paint could power 62% of the travel for a typical Stuttgart driver, their announcement notes. But in a sunnier city like Los Angeles, "It could be used for 100% of their driving, on average." (And "the surplus of energy could be fed directly into the home network via bidirectional charging.")

Mercedes-Benz researchers "initially thought the tech had limited scope for mass production," reports EV Central, "until experiments were carried out with prototypes coated with the paint in real-world scenarios. Instead of just coating the roof and bonnet to form a 1.8-square-metre surface area, one scientist suggested covering an entire car with the new solar paint, ramping up the surface area to more than 11m2. Another difference to the [Mercedes-Benz 2022 Vision EQXX concept] is instead of wiring the body panels to the 12-volt system, scientists hardwired the body panels to the Benz's high-voltage battery and the performance of the paint was well beyond expectations... Available in all colours, engineers admit the solar paint work best in darker shades. When it's launched, the tech should be as durable as regular paint. The photovoltaic surface is protected by at least two protective lacquer finishes to ensure it isn't damaged in daily use.
Mercedes-Benz says the solar paint could mean "increased electric range and fewer charging stops." And this is significant, because "Electric vehicle charging and infrastructure are two major obstacles to EV adoption on a mass scale," writes Autoblog — arguing that Mercedes-Benz "may have a solution... " Alternative methods of energy harnessing could help alleviate range anxiety, increase an EV's driving distance, and reduce charging costs across the board. Not only that but considering the cost of producing Mercedes' solar coating and the lack of rare earth metals, it could be the leading solution to charging concerns... While the German automaker says the solar paint isn't ready for production on a mass scale, research, and development are progressing at a steady rate. If all goes well, we'll hopefully see solar coating as an accessory EV charging solution within the next decade.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

"SpaceX has launched 20 of its Starlink satellites up into Earth's orbit, enabling direct-to-cellphone connectivity for subscribers anywhere on the planet," reports the tech blog New Atlas. That completes the constellation's first orbital shell, following a launch of an initial batch of six satellites for testing back in January. The satellites were launched with a Falcon 9 rocket from California's Vandenberg Space Force Base on December 5 at 10 PM EST; they were then deployed in low Earth orbit. SpaceX founder Elon Musk noted on X that the effort will "enable unmodified cellphones to have internet connectivity in remote areas." He added a caveat for the first orbital shell — "Bandwidth per beam is only ~10 Mb, but future constellations will be much more capable...."

The big deal with this new venture is that unlike previous attempts at providing satellite-to-phone service, you don't need a special handset or even a specific app to get access anywhere in the world. Starlink uses standard LTE/4G protocols that most phones are compatible with, partners with mobile operators like T-Mobile in the U.S. and Rogers in Canada, and has devised a system to make its service work seamlessly with your phone when it's connecting to satellites 340 miles (540 km) above the Earth's surface. The SpaceX division noted it's also worked out latency constraints, ideal altitudes and elevation angles for its satellites, along with several other parameters, to achieve reliable connectivity. Each satellite has an LTE modem on board, and these satellites plug into the massive constellation of 6,799 existing Starlink spacecraft, according to Space.com.

Connecting to that larger constellation happens via laser backhaul, where laser-based optical communication systems transmit data between satellites. This method leverages the advantages of lasers over traditional radio frequency communications, enabling data rates up to 100 times faster, increased bandwidth, and improved security.
The direct-to-cell program was approved last month, the article points out — but it's ready to ramp up. "You'll currently get only text service through the end of 2024; voice and data will become available sometime next year, as will support for IoT devices (such as smart home gadgets). The company hasn't said how much its service will cost. " (They also note there's already competing services from Lynk, "which has satellites in orbit and launched in the island nation of Palau back in 2023, and AST SpaceMobile, which also has commercial satellites in orbit and contracts with the U.S. government, Europe, and Japan.")

Elon Musk's announcement on X.com prompted this interesting exchange:

X.com User: You've stated that purchasing Starlink goes toward funding the journey to Mars, yes?

Elon Musk: Yes.

Today a group of German scientists presented data suggesting Earth is absorbing more sunlight than in the past, reports Ars Technica, "largely due to reduced cloud cover." We can measure both the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun and how much energy it radiates back into space.... The new paper finds that the energy imbalance set a new high in 2023, with a record amount of energy being absorbed by the ocean/atmosphere system. This wasn't accompanied by a drop in infrared emissions from the Earth, suggesting it wasn't due to greenhouse gases, which trap heat by absorbing this radiation. Instead, it seems to be due to decreased reflection of incoming sunlight by the Earth....

Using two different data sets, the teams identify the areas most effected by this, and they're not at the poles, indicating loss of snow and ice are unlikely to be the cause. Instead, the key contributor appears to be the loss of low-level clouds [particularly over the Atlantic ocean]... The drop in low-level clouds had been averaging about 1.3 percent per decade. 2023 saw a slightly larger drop occur in just one year....

So, what could be causing the clouds to go away? The researchers list three potential factors. One is simply the variability of the climate system, meaning 2023 might have just been an extremely unusual year, and things will revert to trends in the ensuing years. The second is the impact of aerosols, which both we and natural processes emit in copious quantities. These can help seed clouds, so a reduction of aerosols (driven by things like pollution control measures) could potentially account for this effect. The most concerning potential explanation, however, is that there may be a feedback relationship between rising temperatures and low-level clouds. Meaning that, as the Earth warms, the clouds become sparse, enhancing the warming further. That would be bad news for our future climate, because it suggests that the lower range of warming estimates would have to be adjusted upward to account for it.
If the decline in reflectivity wasn't just caused by normal variability, the researchers warn, "the 2023 extra heat may be here to stay..."

"Are Primordial Black Holes real...?" asks Universe Today. "If they do exist, a "new paper suggests they may be hiding in places so unlikely that nobody ever thought to look there..." — in planets, in asteroids, and here on earth. Physicists hypothesize that Primordial Black Holes (PBHs) formed in the early Universe from extremely dense pockets of sub-atomic matter that collapsed directly into black holes. They could form part or all of what we call dark matter. However, they remain hypothetical because none have been observed... The authors claim that evidence for PBHs could be found in objects as large as hollowed out planetoids or asteroids and objects as small as rocks here on Earth. "Small primordial black holes could be captured by rocky planets or asteroids, consume their liquid cores from inside and leave hollow structures," the authors write. "Alternatively, a fast black hole can leave a narrow tunnel in a solid object while passing through it."

"We could look for such micro-tunnels here on Earth in very old rocks," the authors claim, explaining that the search wouldn't involve specialized, expensive equipment... "The chances of finding these signatures are small, but searching for them would not require much resources and the potential payoff, the first evidence of a primordial black hole, would be immense," said Dejan Stojkovic [the paper's co-author from the State University of New York]. "We have to think outside of the box because what has been done to find primordial black holes previously hasn't worked...." Cosmology is kind of at a standstill while we wrestle with the idea of dark matter. Could PBHs be dark matter? Could they behave like the authors suggest, and be detected in this manner?

"The smartest people on the planet have been working on these problems for 80 years and have not solved them yet," Stojkovic said. "We don't need a straightforward extension of the existing models. We probably need a completely new framework altogether."

America's next president "announced Wednesday he has selected Jared Isaacman, a billionaire businessman and space enthusiast who twice flew to orbit with SpaceX, to become the next NASA administrator," reports Ars Technica: In a post on X, Isaacman said he was "honored" to receive Trump's nomination. "Having been fortunate to see our amazing planet from space, I am passionate about America leading the most incredible adventure in human history," Isaacman wrote. "On my last mission to space, my crew and I traveled farther from Earth than anyone in over half a century. I can confidently say this second space age has only just begun...."

"Jared Isaacman will be an outstanding NASA Administrator and leader of the NASA family," said Jim Bridenstine, who led NASA as administrator during Trump's first term in the White House. "Jared's vision for pushing boundaries, paired with his proven track record of success in private industry, positions him as an ideal candidate to lead NASA into a bold new era of exploration and discovery. I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm him." Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator during the Obama administration, wrote on X that Isaacman's nomination was "terrific news," adding that "he has the opportunity to build on NASA's amazing accomplishments to pave our way to an even brighter future."

Isaacman, 41, is the founder and CEO of Shift4, a mobile payment processing platform, and co-founded Draken International, which owns a fleet of retired fighter jets to pose as adversaries for military air combat training... Isaacman, an evangelist for the commercial space industry, has criticized some of NASA's decisions on the Artemis program. In several posts on X, he questioned the agency's decision to fund two redundant lunar landers, while not planning for any backup to the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, which costs $2.2 billion per copy, not including expenses for ground infrastructure or the Orion spacecraft itself. One of those casualties might be the SLS rocket. The program is managed by NASA, with suppliers spread across the United States and prime contractors working under cost-plus arrangements with the space agency, meaning the government is on the hook to pay for any delays or cost overruns.
If confirmed he'll be the 4th NASA administrator who's actually flown in space, according to the article.

And according to Wikipedia, Isaacman was the commander of Inspiration4, a private spaceflight using SpaceX's Crew Dragon Resilience that launched in 2021. The crew returned to Earth on September 18, 2021, after orbiting at 585 km (364 mi) in altitude. The mission was part of a fundraiser for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, to which Isaacman pledged to donate $100 million.
Thanks to Slashdot reader FallOutBoyTonto for sharing the news.

A handful of countries should be held legally responsible for the ongoing impacts of climate change, representatives of vulnerable states have told judges at the international court of justice (ICJ). From a report: During a hearing at the Peace Palace in The Hague, which began on Monday, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's special envoy for climate change and environment, said responsibility for the climate crisis lay squarely with "a handful of readily identifiable states" that had produced the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions but stood to lose the least from the impacts.

The court heard how Pacific island states such as Vanuatu were bearing the brunt of rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe disasters. "We find ourselves on the frontlines of a crisis we did not create," Regenvanu said. The hearing is the culmination of years of campaigning by a group of Pacific island law students and diplomacy spearheaded by Vanuatu. In March last year the UN general assembly unanimously approved a resolution calling on the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on what obligations states have to tackle climate change and what the legal consequences could be if they fail to do so.

Over the next two weeks, the court will hear statements from 98 countries, including wealthy developed states with the greatest historical responsibility for the climate emergency, such as the UK and Russia, and states that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions but stand to bear the brunt of their impact, including Bangladesh and Sudan as well as Pacific island countries.

"If NASA establishes a permanent presence on the moon, its astronauts' homes could be made of a new 3D-printable, waterless concrete," writes MIT Technology Review. "Someday, so might yours.

"By accelerating the curing process for more rapid construction, this sulfur-based compound could become just as applicable on our home terrain as it is on lunar soil..." Building a home base on the moon will demand a steep supply of moon-based infrastructure: launch pads, shelter, and radiation blockers. But shipping Earth-based concrete to the lunar surface bears a hefty price tag. Sending just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of material to the moon costs roughly $1.2 million, says Ali Kazemian, a robotic construction researcher at Louisiana State University (LSU). Instead, NASA hopes to create new materials from lunar soil and eventually adapt the same techniques for building on Mars.

Traditional concrete requires large amounts of water, a commodity that will be in short supply on the moon and critically important for life support or scientific research, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. While prior NASA projects have tested compounds that could be used to make "lunarcrete," they're still working to craft the right waterless material.

So LSU researchers are refining the formula, developing a new cement based on sulfur, which they heat until it's molten to bind material without the need for water. In recent work, the team mixed their waterless cement with simulated lunar and Martian soil to create a 3D-printable concrete, which they used to assemble walls and beams. "We need automated construction, and NASA thinks 3D printing is one of the few viable technologies for building lunar infrastructure," says Kazemian.

Beyond circumventing the need for water, the cement can handle wider temperature extremes and cures faster than traditional methods. The group used a pre-made powder for their experiments, but on the moon and Mars, astronauts might extract sulfur from surface soil.
Kazemian and his colleagues recently transferred the technology to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center for further testing...

An anonymous reader shared this report from Reuters: The rapid increase in satellites and space junk will make low Earth orbit unusable unless companies and countries cooperate and share the data needed to manage that most accessible region of space, experts and industry insiders said. A United Nations panel on space traffic coordination in late October determined that urgent action was necessary and called for a comprehensive shared database of orbital objects as well as an international framework to track and manage them. More than 14,000 satellites including some 3,500 inactive surround the globe in low Earth orbit, showed data from U.S.-based Slingshot Aerospace. Alongside those are about 120 million pieces of debris from launches, collisions and wear-and-tear of which only a few thousand are large enough to track... [T]here is no centralised system that all space-faring nations can leverage and even persuading them to use such a system has many obstacles. Whereas some countries are willing to share data, others fear compromising security, particularly as satellites are often dual-use and include defence purposes. Moreover, enterprises are keen to guard commercial secrets.

In the meantime, the mess multiplies. A Chinese rocket stage exploded in August, adding thousands of fragments of debris to low Earth orbit. In June, a defunct Russian satellite exploded, scattering thousands of shards which forced astronauts on the International Space Station to take shelter for an hour... Projections point to tens of thousands more satellites entering orbit in the coming years. The potential financial risk of collisions is likely to be $556 million over five years, based on a modelled scenario with a 3.13% annual collision probability and $111 million in yearly damages, said Montreal-based NorthStar Earth & Space...

[Aarti Holla-Maini, director of the U.N . Office for Outer Space Affairs], said the October panel aimed to bring together public- and private-sector experts to outline steps needed to start work on coordination. It will present its findings at a committee meeting next year. Global cooperation is essential to developing enforceable rules akin to those used by the International Civil Aviation Organization for air traffic, industry experts told Reuters. Such effort would involve the use of existing tools, such as databases, telescopes, radars and other sensors to track objects while improving coverage, early detection and data precision. Yet geopolitical tension and reluctance to share data with nations deemed unfriendly as well as commercial concerns over protecting proprietary information and competitive advantages remain significant barriers. That leaves operators of orbital equipment relying on informal or semi-formal methods of avoiding collisions, such as drawing on data from the U.S. Space Force or groups like the Space Data Association. However, this can involve issues such as accountability and inconsistent data standards.

"The top challenges are speed — as consensus-building takes time — and trust," Holla-Maini said. "Some countries simply can't communicate with others, but the U.N. can facilitate this process. Speed is our biggest enemy, but there's no alternative. It must be done."
Data from Slingshot Aerospace shows a 17% rise in close approaches per satellite over the past year, according to the article. (It adds that SpaceX data "showed Starlink satellites performed nearly 50,000 collision-avoidance manoeuvres in the first half of 2024, about double the previous six months...)

The European Space Agency, which has fewer spacecraft than SpaceX, said in 2021 its manoeuvres have increased to three or four times per craft versus a historical average of one."

United Nations members gathered this week in Busan, South Korea to negotiate the first treaty reducing plastic pollution. But Politico reports that "talks collapsed late Sunday after negotiators failed to resolve their differences and agree on a global plastic treaty. At the heart of the disagreement was a refusal by oil-rich nations led by Saudi Arabia to accept a deal that put limits on plastic production... Throughout the two years of talks, oil-rich and plastic-producing states had repeatedly clashed with nations that wanted to reduce plastic production to solve a worsening plastic pollution crisis. Many went to Busan hopeful differences would be put aside in the name of combatting a common global threat. But in the end this proved too optimistic...

The EU, alongside more than 100 other countries that included the U.K., on Thursday had backed a new proposal spearheaded by Panama pushing for a global target to reduce plastic production to "sustainable levels", drawing a clear battle line for the talks. But three negotiators from countries in the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution — granted anonymity to discuss closed-door talks — told POLITICO Saudi Arabia had coordinated a push from oil-rich and plastic-producing countries to block any proposals for the treaty that threatened to reduce plastic production. The vast majority of plastic is made from oil or natural gas...

Along with disagreements over plastic production, countries were also unable to agree on whether and how to target particularly polluting plastic products, and how to finance the treaty. Two of the "high-ambition" negotiators referenced above suggested the talks were doomed to fail from the beginning, arguing that there was never going to be enough time given the scope of the mandate. "I think the pressure on us to deliver that in 18 months ... was kind of stupid then, and it's still stupid now," said one. "Usually these processes take a number of years — beyond what we are doing...." But many observers and some delegates said the summit's collapse demonstrated the failures of consensus-based environmental multilateralism, arguing that requiring all countries to agree by consensus gave reluctant nations too much veto power. NGOs like the Center for International Environmental Law hope this week's failed talks will serve as a lesson for future U.N. talks...

The date and time of the next round of talks is yet to be announced.
Greenpeace issued a statement saying "over 100 Member States, representing billions of people, rejected a toothless deal that would have accomplished nothing, and stood before the world committing to an ambitious treaty."

And they argued that the message is clear. "Ambitious countries must not allow the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, backed by a small minority of countries, to prevent the will of the vast majority. A strong agreement that protects people and the planet is our only option."

"Spacecraft, satellites, and space-based systems all face cybersecurity threats that are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous," reports CNBC.

"With interconnected technologies controlling everything from navigation to anti-ballistic missiles, a security breach could have catastrophic consequences." Critical space infrastructure is susceptible to threats across three key segments: in space, on the ground segment and within the communication links between the two. A break in one can be a cascading failure for all, said Wayne Lonstein, co-founder and CEO at VFT Solutions, and co-author of Cyber-Human Systems, Space Technologies, and Threats. "In many ways, the threats to critical infrastructure on Earth can cause vulnerabilities in space," Lonstein said. "Internet, power, spoofing and so many other vectors that can cause havoc in space," he added. The integration of artificial intelligence into space projects has heightened the risk of sophisticated cyber attacks orchestrated by state actors and individual hackers. AI integration into space exploration allows more decision-making with less human oversight.

For example, NASA is using AI to target scientific specimens for planetary rovers. However, reduced human oversight could make these missions more prone to unexplained and potentially calamitous cyberattacks, said Sylvester Kaczmarek, chief technology officer at OrbiSky Systems, which specializes in the integration of AI, robotics, cybersecurity, and edge computing in aerospace applications. Data poisoning, where attackers feed corrupted data to AI models, is one example of what could go wrong, Kaczmarek said. Another threat, he said, is model inversion, where adversaries reverse-engineer AI models to extract sensitive information, potentially compromising mission integrity. If compromised, AI systems could be used to interfere with or take control of strategically important national space missions...

The U.S. government is tightening up the integrity and security of AI systems in space. The 2023 Cyberspace Solarium Commission report stressed the importance of designating outer space as a critical infrastructure sector, urging enhanced cybersecurity protocols for satellite operators... The rivalry between the U.S. and China includes the new battleground of space. As both nations ramp up their space ambitions and militarized capabilities beyond Earth's atmosphere, the threat of cyberattacks targeting critical orbital assets has become an increasingly pressing concern... Space-based systems increasingly support critical infrastructure back on Earth, and any cyberattacks on these systems could undermine national security and economic interests.

The world's use of clean energy "is rapidly growing", reports the Washington Post, "but not fast enough to keep temperatures in check..."

Many experts say it will be the economics of clean energy that defines the future of the planet — and how developing countries choose to meet their growing electricity demands. "What happens in emerging and developing economies in the next decade in some sense is the whole ballgame," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Global greenhouse gas emissions could peak as soon as next year, according to the International Energy Agency, but are not on course to drop sharply enough to contain warming. The world would have to cut its emissions roughly in half by 2035 to meet the 1.5 C target, scientists warn, in part because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries.

Instead, the U.N. projects that nations' current policies will lead to 3.1 C of warming by 2100, or as little as 2.6 C if the strongest pledges are kept. This would represent substantial progress from when the Paris agreement was adopted, when scientists expected a 4 C (7.2 F) rise in temperatures by century's end... Still, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "dangerous and widespread disruption" on the current path. The Greenland ice sheet might tip into irreversible collapse, according to the IPCC, threatening cities from New York to Shanghai, while extreme heat and humidity could make large swaths of the world effectively uninhabitable. Scientists also expect a growing toll of disease, crop failures and weather disasters. It would likely take thousands of years for Greenland's ice to completely vanish, but other impacts — like the death of coral reefs worldwide and month-long heat waves — could come in a matter of decades. If countries wish to avoid these consequences, they will have to spend vast sums on adaptation. From now through 2030, poor nations will need up to $387 billion per year to adapt to mounting climate disasters, according to a recent U.N. report...

[Much of the progress on curbing emissions] has come from the United States' switch from coal to natural gas and renewables, and the European Union's rapid embrace of wind and solar power... But the demand for power is also rising, complicating these efforts. According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency, countries are expected to add electricity demand equivalent to the entire nation of Japan every year — thanks to the growth of EVs, the rapid build-out of AI data centers, and a surge in a need for air conditioning in developing countries. That growth in demand means that even as clean energy is added to the grid, fossil fuel use hasn't decreased. And unless countries close coal and gas plants and shut down oil drilling, emissions won't start to come down.

"Two things can both be true: Clean energy is breaking almost every record you can imagine," Bordoff said. "And oil use is going up, and gas use is going up, and coal use is going up."

"Polar oceans constitute emission hotspots during the summer," according to a new paper published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Science Advances. "And including those sea-to-air fluxes in an atmospheric chemistry-climate model "results in a net radiative effect that has far-reaching implications."

The research was led by a team of scientists from Spain's Institute of Marine Sciences and the Blas Cabrera Institute of Physical Chemistry, according to an announcement from the UK's University of East Anglia: Researchers have quantified for the first time the global emissions of a sulfur gas produced by marine life, revealing it cools the climate more than previously thought, especially over the Southern Ocean. The study, published in the journal Science Advances, shows that the oceans not only capture and redistribute the sun's heat, but produce gases that make particles with immediate climatic effects, for example through the brightening of clouds that reflect this heat.

It broadens the climatic impact of marine sulfur because it adds a new compound, methanethiol, that had previously gone unnoticed. Researchers only detected the gas recently, because it used to be notoriously hard to measure and earlier work focussed on warmer oceans, whereas the polar oceans are the emission hotspots...

Their findings represent a major advance on one of the most groundbreaking theories proposed 40 years ago about the role of the ocean in regulating the Earth's climate. This suggested that microscopic plankton living on the surface of the seas produce sulfur in the form of a gas, dimethyl sulphide, that once in the atmosphere, oxidizes and forms small particles called aerosols. Aerosols reflect part of the solar radiation back into space and therefore reduce the heat retained by the Earth. Their cooling effect is magnified when they become involved in making clouds, with an effect opposite to, but of the same magnitude as, that of the well-known warming greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide or methane. The researchers argue that this new work improves our understanding of how the climate of the planet is regulated by adding a previously overlooked component and illustrates the crucial importance of sulfur aerosols. They also highlight the magnitude of the impact of human activity on the climate and that the planet will continue to warm if no action is taken.
The article includes this quote from one of the study's lead authors (Dr. Charel Wohl from the university's Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences). "Climate models have greatly overestimated the solar radiation actually reaching the Southern Ocean, largely because they are not capable of correctly simulating clouds. The work done here partially closes the longstanding knowledge gap between models and observations."

And the university's announcement argues that "With this discovery, scientists can now represent the climate more accurately in models that are used to make predictions of +1.5 degrees C or +2 degrees C warming, a huge contribution to policy making."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

Climate change has intensified hurricane wind speeds by an average of 19 mph in 84% of North Atlantic hurricanes between 2019-2024, according to new research that links warming ocean temperatures to storm intensity for individual hurricanes.

This year, Hurricanes Helene and Milton slammed into Florida, breaking meteorological records and causing catastrophic damage. The study by Climate Central found that higher sea surface temperatures elevated most hurricanes by an entire category on the Saffir-Simpson scale, with three storms, including Hurricane Rafael, seeing wind speeds increase by 34 mph due to warming.

Researchers calculated storm intensity using models of pre-warming ocean temperatures. "It's really the evolution of our science on sea surface temperature attribution that has allowed this work to take place," said lead author Daniel Gilford, noting that hurricane damage increases exponentially with wind speed. For example, a storm with double the wind speed can cause 256 times as much damage. The methodology enables scientists to determine climate change impacts on hurricanes in near-real time.

Record numbers of plastic industry lobbyists are attending global talks that are the last chance to hammer out a treaty to cut plastic pollution around the world. From a report: The key issue at the conference will be whether caps on global plastic production will be included in the final UN treaty. Lobbyists and leading national producers are furiously arguing against any attempt to restrain the amount that can be produced, leaving the talks on a knife-edge.

New analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) shows 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry representatives -- more plastic producers than ever -- are represented at the UN talks in Busan, South Korea. Taken as a group, they would be the biggest delegation at the talks, with more plastic industry lobbyists than representatives from the EU and each of its member states, (191) or the host country, South Korea (140), according to the Centre for International Environmental Law. Their numbers overwhelm the 89 delegates from the Pacific small island developing states (PSIDs), countries that are among those suffering the most from plastic pollution.

Sixteen lobbyists from the plastics industry are at the talks as part of country delegations. China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kazakhstan and Malaysia all have industry vested interests within their delegations, the analysis shows. The plastic producer representatives outnumber delegates from the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty by three to one. Approximately 460m tonnes of plastics are produced annually, and production is set to triple by 2060 under business-as-usual growth rates.