Boeing’s Starliner CST-100 crew spacecraft got off to a great start on its first-ever launch to the International Space Station this morning — but despite the rocket and launch vehicle performing as expected, the Starliner spacecraft itself hit a bit of a snag when it came time for its own post-launch mission to begin.
The Starliner capsule successfully separated from the ULA Centaur second-stage rocket that brought it to its sub-orbital target in space, but when the Starliner was supposed to light up its own engines and propel itself to its target orbit, the requisite burn didn’t happen. Boeing instead said that the spacecraft achieved a stable position to charge up its solar-powered batteries, and that it was working on the ground with its team to figure out which maneuvers come next to get the spacecraft where it needs to be.
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine provided via Twitter at 8:45 AM EST the first substantial update about what went wrong, noting that there was an incident wherein the Starliner spacecraft “believed it was in an orbital insertion burn, when it was not.”
This means its mission clock encountered some kind of bug or error that told the Starliner systems it was at a different point in the mission procedure than it actually should’ve been. As a result, the spacecraft burned more fuel than it was supposed to and missed its intended orbital insertion point. The Starliner has subsequently done a second burn and is in a stable orbit, but it is no longer capable of reaching the International Space Station as planned.
At a press conference that kicked off around 9:38 AM EST, the NASA administrator kicked off remarks by noting that “a lot of things went right” in today’s mission, regardless of the problems encountered.
“When the space craft separated from the launch vehicle, we did not get the desired orbital insertion burn that we were hoping for,” he continued, noting again that the spacecraft believed it was at a different stage in the mission than it actually was. Once ground control was able to send a manual command to correct it, it was “too late” to salvage the full mission of actually reaching the Space Station as planned because too much propellant was already burned.
Bridenstine also speculated that were NASA astronauts actually on board, they would “absolutely” have “been safe,” and that they probably could’ve assisted and overcome the automation error encountered via manual control to save the mission.
ULA CEO Tory Bruno explained that this was a fully successful launch from the perspective of the Atlas V launch vehicle, which flew in a different configuration than usual for the first time, so they consider it a win for their perfect launch record, having “literally hit a bullseye” for their target mission parameters.
“It appears that the vehicle was using a mission elapsed timer that was not the mission elapsed timer that the mission was on,” explained Boeing Senior Vice President of Space and Launch Jim Chilton. “We don’t know why that happened.”
The Starliner is currently in an orbit that will allow it to turn back to Earth in 48 hours, which Bridentstine and Chilton said in itself will be an important test of the landing system. Once on the ground, teams will be better able to figure out what happened on board the spacecraft with the Mission Elapsed Timer (MET) error.
As for what this means for the overall Boeing Commercial Crew mission, and whether this will impact the timing and sequence of the crewed flight test that was supposed to take place next, all parties say it’s too early to tell and they’ll need to do more investigation into what happened before determining whether there’s a need for another full orbital flight test before putting crew on a first test launch.
World strives to limit damage as greenhouse gas levels hit record
Greenhouse gas concentrations hit a record last year and the world is “way off track” on capping rising temperatures, the United Nations said on Monday, showing the task facing climate talks in Glasgow aimed at averting dangerous levels of warming.
A report by the U.N. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) showed carbon dioxide levels surged to 413.2 parts per million in 2020, rising more than the average rate over the last decade despite a temporary dip in emissions during COVID-19 lockdowns.
WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said the current rate of increase in heat-trapping gases would result in temperature rises “far in excess” of the 2015 Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average this century.
“We are way off track,” he said. “We need to revisit our industrial, energy and transport systems and whole way of life,” he added, calling for a “dramatic increase” in commitments at the COP26 conference beginning on Sunday.
The Scottish city of Glasgow was putting on the final touches before hosting the climate talks, which may be the world’s last best chance to cap global warming at the 1.5-2 degrees Celsius upper limit set out in the Paris Agreement.
“It is going to be very, very tough this summit,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said during a news conference with children.
“I am very worried because it might go wrong and we might not get the agreements that we need and it is touch and go, it is very, very difficult, but I think it can be done,” he said.
The German government announced Chancellor Angela Merkel will travel to Glasgow to take part.
STAKES ARE HUGE
The stakes for the planet are huge – among them the impact on economic livelihoods the world over and the future stability of the global financial system.
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince said on Saturday that the world’s top oil exporter aims to reach “net zero” emissions of greenhouse gases, mostly produced by burning fossil fuels, by 2060 – 10 years later than the United States. He also said it would double the emissions cuts it plans to achieve by 2030.
An official plan unveiled in Ottawa showed developed nations were confident they can reach their goal of handing over $100 billion a year to poorer countries to tackle climate change by 2023, three years late.
The plan on how to reach the goal, prepared by Canada and Germany, said developed countries still needed to do more and complained private finance had not lived up to expectations.
A Reuters poll of economists found that hitting the Paris goal of net-zero carbon emissions will require investments in a green transition worth 2%-3% of world output each year until 2050, far less than the economic cost of inaction.
By contrast governments since January 2020 have spent a total of $10.8 trillion – or 10.2% of global output – in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘WE DON’T HAVE TIME’
A “business-as-usual” trajectory leading to temperature rises of 1.6C, 2.4C and 4.4C by 2030, 2050 and 2100 respectively would result in 2.4% lost output by 2030, 10% by 2050 and 18% by 2100, according to the median replies to the survey.
Australia’s cabinet was expected to formally adopt a target for net zero emissions by 2050 when it meets on Monday to review a deal reached between parties in Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s coalition government, official sources told Reuters.
The ruling coalition has been divided over how to tackle climate change, with the government maintaining that harder targets would damage the A$2-trillion ($1.5-trillion) economy.
In London, climate activists restarted their campaign of blockading major roads by disrupting traffic in the city’s financial district, while in Madrid a few dozen people staged a sit-in protest, briefly blocking the Gran Via shopping street.
“Greenhouse gas emissions are provoking climate catastrophes all over the planet. We don’t have time. It’s already late and if we don’t join the action against what’s happening, we won’t have time to save what is still left,” said Alberto, 27, a sociologist who took part in the protest.
(Additional reporting by William James and Kylie MacLellan in London, Zuzanna Szymanska in Berlin, David Ljunggren in Ottawa and Marco Trujillo in Madrid; Writing by Michael Shields, Editing by William Maclean)
New nuclear reactors can help France become carbon neutral by 2050 -RTE
French grid operator RTE said next generation nuclear reactors offer an affordable path to shifting the country’s energy mix away from fossil fuels and make the aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 achievable.
“Building new nuclear reactors is economically viable, especially as it makes it possible to maintain a fleet of around 40 gigawatts (GW) in 2050,” said the RTE in a report examining the different pathways to meet the expected rise in electricity demand.
Industry and government sources say the report is expected to help inform President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to go ahead with plans to build new nuclear plants.
Le Figaro reported last week that Macron wants to announce the construction of six new EPR nuclear reactors by the end of the year.
Achieving future carbon neutral goals without nuclear reactors would require a scale up of renewables faster than the most dynamic electric mixes in Europe, RTE said.
France and several other European countries have pushed to label nuclear energy as green investments in the European Union’s upcoming sustainable finance rules.
The carbon neutral goals will be “impossible” without a significant development of renewable energy, RTE said.
Other supply options include the development of further interconnectors between countries, expanding hydraulic storage, and installing batteries to store renewable power.
New thermal power plants that utilise carbon-free gases, such as “green hydrogen” which is produced through the use of renewable energy, can also be used in order to meet rising consumption forecasts, the operator said.
RTE said the current energy crisis shows Europe’s dependence on hydro-carbons, such as gas and coal, has an economic cost and that low-carbon production in the country is an issue of energy independence.
France’s nuclear safety watchdog ASN in February cleared more than half of the nuclear fleet to operate for a decade longer than originally planned after maintenance work, as 32-900 megawatt reactors are coming to the end of their lifespan.
France currently has about 62.4 GW of nuclear generation capacity provided by 57 reactors, RTE data showed.
Environmental groups decried the report’s emphasis on nuclear energy and supported calls for a quicker build out of renewable generation.
Greenpeace focused on the three pathways which would see the grid operated on 100% renewable energy and called for debates on the energy transition.
“This not only proves that nuclear power is not a necessary evil, but also that, whatever option is chosen, renewable energies need massive development to respond to the climate emergency,” Greenpeace said.
The RTE report said that scenarios with high shares of renewables, or those that extend reactor life beyond 60 years, would “involve heavy bets on technology” to meet carbon neutrality goals.
French Green party members described the report as one-sided and an attempt to justify new nuclear projects while disregarding consumption control measures.
“The goal of the president of the Republic and his government is clear: to justify the revival of nuclear power at any cost,” said Matthieu Orphelin, who used to represent Macron’s party but who has joined the Greens.
The French renewable energy union SER said the scenarios presented in the report represented “a major paradigm shift,” as it is expected that renewables will need to cover at least 50% of demand by 2050.
(Reporting by Forrest Crellin and Dominique Vidalon; Editing by Sudip Kar-Gupta and Mike Harrison)
Explainer: Climate change: what are the economic stakes?
The stakes for the planet are huge – among them the impact on economic livelihoods the world over and the future stability of the global financial system.
Here are 10 climate change-related questions that economic policy-makers are trying to answer:
1) HOW MUCH DOES CLIMATE CHANGE COST? From floods and fires to conflict and migration: economic models struggle with the many possible knock-on effects from global warming. The ballpark IMF estimate is that unchecked warming would shave 7% off world output by 2100. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NFGS) group of world central banks puts it even higher – 13%. In a Reuters poll of economists, the median figure for the output loss in that scenario was 18%.
2) WHERE IS THE IMPACT GOING TO BE FELT HARDEST? – Clearly, the developing world. Much of the world’s poor live in the tropical or low-lying regions already suffering climate change fall-out like droughts or rising sea levels. Moreover their countries rarely have the resources to mitigate such damage. The NFGS report projects overall output losses of above 15% for much of Asia and Africa, rising to 20% in the Sahel countries.
3) WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR INDIVIDUAL LIVELIHOODS? Climate change will drive up to 132 million more people into extreme poverty by 2030, a World Bank paper last year concluded. Factors included lost farming income; lower outdoor labour productivity; rising food prices; increased disease; and economic losses from extreme weather.
4) HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO FIX IT? Advocates of early action say the sooner you start the better. The widely used NiGEM macroeconomic forecast model even suggests an early start would offer small net gains for output thanks to the big investments needed in green infrastructure. The same model warns of output losses of up to 3% in last-minute transition scenarios.
5) WHO LOSES OUT IN A “NET ZERO” CARBON WORLD? Primarily, anyone with fossil fuel exposure. A report by think tank Carbon Tracker in September estimated that over $1 trillion of business-as-usual investment by the oil and gas sector would no longer be viable in a genuinely low-carbon world. Moreover the IMF has called for the end of all fossil fuel subsidies – which it calculates at $5 trillion annually if defined to include undercharging for supply, environmental and health costs.
6) WHAT SHOULD CARBON REALLY COST? Tax or permit schemes that try to price in the damage done by emissions create incentives to go green. But so far only a fifth of global carbon emissions are covered by such programmes, pricing carbon on average at a mere $3 a tonne. That’s well below the $75/tonne the IMF says is needed to cap global warming at well below 2°C. The Reuters poll of economists recommended $100/tonne.
7) WOULDN’T THAT LEAD TO INFLATION? – Anything which factors in the polluting cost of fossil fuels is likely to lead to price rises in some sectors – aviation for example. That could in turn lead to what central banks define as inflation – broad-based and durable price rises across the whole economy. Yet history shows this hasn’t necessarily been the case: carbon taxes introduced in Canada and Europe pushed overall prices lower because they cut into household income and hence consumer demand, a recent study showed. It is also true that doing nothing could lead to inflation: a European Central Bank paper last year warned of food and commodity price rises from extreme weather events and the land shortages being caused by desertification and rising sea levels.
8) ARE GREEN ADVANCES REALLY DECOUPLING EMISSIONS FROM ECONOMIC GROWTH? Genuinely sustainable growth implies that economic activity can grow as needed without adding yet more emissions. This is the holy grail of “absolute decoupling”. But so far, any decoupling has either been largely relative – in the sense of merely achieving higher rates of economic growth than gains in emissions – or achieved by shifting dirty production from one national territory to another. And that is why, for now, global emissions are still rising.
9) WHO BEARS THE BRUNT OF TRANSITION? The idea of “Just Transition” has been espoused by bodies such as the European Union to acknowledge that the transition to net zero should happen in a fair way – for example by ensuring low-income groups are not made worse-off. At a global scale, the rich countries which since their industrial revolutions have generated the bulk of emissions have promised to help developing countries transition via $100 billion of annual transfers – a promise so far not fulfilled.
10) COULD THIS SPARK A FINANCIAL CRISIS? The global financial system needs to be insulated against both the physical risks of climate change itself and the upheavals likely to happen during a transition to net zero. Central banks and national treasuries are calling on banks and other financial players to come clean about the exposure of their books to such risks. The ECB and other regulators have made it clear there is a long way to go on this.
(Editing by Giles Elgood)
Sir David Amess: Priest quits social media over MP last rites abuse – BBC News
Media Advisory: Minister Abbott to Introduce New Accessibility Legislation – News Releases – Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Brown Bolsters Student Financial Aid After 52% Investment Return – BNN
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Sports15 hours ago
Time For Maple Leafs To Admit The Kyle Dubas Experiment Has Failed – The Hockey Writers
Economy18 hours ago
Dollar catches footing as inflation pressures rates outlook
Business17 hours ago
Tesco says online services back up after interference ‘attempt’
Tech17 hours ago
Hal-Con in-person format returns, focuses on local talent and vendors – Global News
Health17 hours ago
Red Cross urges action for Papua New Guinea as COVID-19 overwhelms health system
Health24 hours ago
Fauci says vaccines for kids between 5-11 likely available in November
Health21 hours ago
Today’s coronavirus news: Ontario reports 370 new cases of COVID-19, 1 death; Parents more hesitant to vaccinate kids than themselves, researcher says – Toronto Star
Health17 hours ago
Tennis-Unvaccinated players can compete at Australian Open after quarantine – report