In a July 2008 interview produced by NASA, Canadian astronaut Julie Payette was asked to discuss the most surprising thing about her first spaceflight.
She said, “On my first flight we had a space walk, and...when they came back in, I was the person responsible to repressurize the airlock and then open the hatch. And when I opened the hatch, I thought wow, I'm smelling this kind of cold, aseptic smell, and I thought wow, this is the smell of space. Because the airlock had been exposed to the vacuum of space for several hours, and when we opened the hatch from inside, well, this cold smell, this smell of nothing really, because there's nothing left in there, was the smell of space....”
“Not so fast, Julie,” says Dr. Puff Pants, senior research fellow at the Man-Bunny Center for Astronomy and Cosmology. “I'm sure you smell something, but it ain't space.”
And apparently, among NASA flight crews this perception is fairly widespread. This year, in a March 29 interview with SPACE.com, astronaut Thomas Jones said, “When you repressurize the airlock and get out of your suit, there is this distinct odor of ozone, a faint acrid smell...I like to think of it as getting a whiff of a vacuum!”
“Impossible,” says Dr. Pants. “Vacuums cannot be whiffed.”
So what's going on?
“Well, whatever they’re smelling is the result of materials being exposed to the environment of space. Substances that astronauts are bringing into space are reacting in that environment; producing some substance or set of substances that have a particular odor.”
And according to Dr. Poofy Too, associate professor of otolaryngology at the Man-Bunny Medical Center, “In order for the brain to generate the perception of smell, there has to be present what are called ‘odorant molecules’, which bind to receptors on the nasal epithelium lining the inside of your nose. This sets off an electrochemical cascade, which the brain ultimately interprets as the subjective experience of odor.”
And according to Dr. Pants, it would be impossible for odorant molecules to exist in a vacuum, because there are no molecules in a vacuum.
“Otherwise,” Dr. Pants says, “it wouldn't be a vacuum.”
But in his interview, Dr. Jones offered part of an explanation that the rabbits we spoke to said could be the first step in solving this mystery. According to SPACE.com, Dr. Jones “thinks the odor could stem from atomic oxygen that clings to spacesuit fabric.”
“That's quite likely to be part of the story,” Dr. Pants says.
Inside the shuttle, Dr. Pants explains, atomic oxygen is nearly non-existent, and astronauts are breathing air rich in molecular oxygen, O2, the same substance that keeps both Man and Bunny alive here on Earth. This gas would certainly permeate, and potentially remain trapped in, tiny microscopic spaces inside the fabric of a space suit. By contrast, atomic oxygen, O, is extremely unstable, and so is very rare under atmospheric conditions–those here on Earth, and within the carefully designed artificial atmosphere of the Space Shuttle.
“But,” says Dr. Pants, “once an astronaut steps outside the spacecraft, he or she is exposed to radiation, really tremendous solar radiation.” Much of this is high-energy radiation, what scientists term “ionizing radiation”, and it will split the molecular oxygen, generating large quantities of atomic oxygen.
“So at this point,” Dr. Pants explains, “once the space-walker re-enters the airlock, and the airlock is pressurized with air from inside the shuttle, you have a whole herd of lonely oxygen atoms, and they quickly combine with normal molecular oxygen.” This process is highly favored, Dr. Pants says, and generally produces high concentrations of “tri-atomic oxygen.”
And this would explain why astronauts consistently describe this “smell of space” as similar to the smell of ozone, because tri-atomic oxygen, O3, is precisely that: ozone.
“And yes,” Dr. Too says. “Ozone has a very distinctive odor.”
There still exists a likelihood that there are substances inherent to materials used in space–those generated by solar radiation reacting with compounds other than oxygen, or even from chemicals used in pre-flight cleaning–being forced by the vacuum of space from their microscopic hiding places, and stirred into this molecular cocktail inhaled by our astronauts. But one thing is certain: reports of bizarre odors in space are the result of the astronaut's equipment and activities in space, and are not at all the “smell of space.”
“The astronauts smelt it,” Dr. Pants says, “and they most definitely dealt it.”
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Crude interpretation
On Monday, the New York Times carried an Op-Ed by Michael Lynch, “Peak Oil is a Waste of Energy.” Reaction from industry leaders has been mixed. Mr. Lynch is an energy consultant with the Center for International Studies at M.I.T., and on Tuesday, Valero Energy’s Philip Maelipeck joined U.S. Energy Information Agency analyst Carl Sheplin in a conference call to the Man-Bunny Matrix.
“I liked Michael's article,” Maelipeck said. “Does it sound like it was written by a highly motivated eighth-grader? Sure. Does it abuse historical precedent and misrepresent facts? Here and there. But I enjoyed it.”
But some elements are especially troubling, according to Sheplin, such as Lynch's response to those who say oil is becoming more difficult to extract. He considers this argument “vague and irrelevant”, on the grounds that oil explorers operating mule-drawn rigs in 19th Century Persia, “certainly didn’t consider their work easy.” Advances in technology, Mr. Lynch says, have made oil easier to extract, not more difficult.
“This is an anachronism,” Sheplin said.
And Maelipeck?
“My initial reaction is that Michael Lynch is a guy who knows a thing or two about being vague and irrelevant.”
“Look at it this way,” Sheplin went on. “With access to modern mining equipment, at the push of a button, I could sit in a control room in California and pull hundreds of pounds of gold from the Sierra Nevada right this minute, much more than I could have recovered 150 years ago sitting on a streambed with a steel pan. Does this mean gold hasn’t grown more scarce in California? I guess so. Hey, everybody: Gold! Gold on the American River!”
Maelipeck added, “I say we stuff those Persians into a time machine, let them out into Ahmadinejad’s tired old fields, and the moment they report back and say, ‘I’m sorry, this mule-powered job is no more difficult today than it was 110 years ago’, that’s when Michael Lynch will start making sense.”
Later, Lynch puts forward the assertion that there are “some 10 trillion barrels [of oil] out there”.
“That is bizarre,” Sheplin said. “I don’t know where he’s getting those data.”
“Well, personally,” Maelipeck countered, “I find most geologists to be pretty Gloomy Gus these days, so it’s nice to see someone with the courage to make up such nice numbers.”
But according to Sheplin, there have been dozens of surveys completed since World War II, and the most recent estimate of global proved reserves came in at less than 1.5 trillion barrels. Even stranger, Sheplin says, is that Lynch seems to qualify his figures as a low-ball estimate, explaining that they don’t include quantities of oil which “in time, we may be able to efficiently tap” from oil sands in places like Canada (emphasis added). According to Sheplin, proven reserve estimates from Canadian oil sands stand today at less than 200 billion barrels.
“So yes,” cautions Sheplin, “don’t mislead yourself by forgetting to add 2% to Lynch’s supposed 10 trillion barrels of conventionally available oil.”
Another point generating controversy is the assertion that political instability puts global oil supplies under constant threat of disruption. While this may seem reasonable, Mr. Lynch categorically dismisses it, with the reasoning that “political risk is nothing new.” By way of example, Lynch simply states, “a leading Communist labor organizer in the Baku oil industry in the early 1900s would later be known to the world as Josef Stalin.”
“Well, I guess that clears that up,” Sheplin said.
“This one time, at band camp …,” Maelipeck added.
Sheplin continued, “So, essentially, a young Josef Stalin's presence in an oil field 100 years ago failed to interrupt global supply. Well, there you have it: today's potentially catastrophic political instability seemingly endemic to 90% of the world's oil producing regions--problem solved.”
“And also, yada yada yada…Hitler!” Maelipeck added.
Both Sheplin and Maelipeck were nearly at a loss in dealing with Lynch’s apparently nonsensical use of oil-field water cut numbers in his assertion that increasing water concentrations in Saudi Arabia's Ghawar oil field are not a sign of declining production. Lynch is correct that water cut numbers increase mostly because operators routinely pump seawater into a reservoir to displace oil and maintain field pressure. But, as Maelipeck put it, “why does he think the pressure needs to be propped up in the first place?” Maelipeck ventured that Lynch was “just another M.I.T. idiot who doesn’t understand pressure/volume relationships,” but Sheplin was a bit more nuanced.
“Mr. Lynch makes a lot of the 35% Ghawar water cut comparing favorably with the global average, but the real news isn’t in a snapshot percentage, it's in the trend. Neither of those numbers is particularly heartening, but even starting at 0% water, a rapid increase in water cut while field pressure remains constant can’t ever be considered good news.”
Also included in the first page of Lynch's column is a simple line-drawing of an oil drilling rig, and this illustration caught our reviewers’ attention as well.
“Very cute,” Maelipeck said. “Now, for some reason, this drilling rig appears to have smoke coming out of it. I’ve never seen that before. I think if you burn your oil as it comes out of the ground it becomes harder to turn a profit.”
Sheplin said, “It's a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure why [illustrator] Ted McGrath chose deliberately to make this look like the work of a child.”
“It's appropriate for this column,” Maelipeck said.
“I liked Michael's article,” Maelipeck said. “Does it sound like it was written by a highly motivated eighth-grader? Sure. Does it abuse historical precedent and misrepresent facts? Here and there. But I enjoyed it.”
But some elements are especially troubling, according to Sheplin, such as Lynch's response to those who say oil is becoming more difficult to extract. He considers this argument “vague and irrelevant”, on the grounds that oil explorers operating mule-drawn rigs in 19th Century Persia, “certainly didn’t consider their work easy.” Advances in technology, Mr. Lynch says, have made oil easier to extract, not more difficult.
“This is an anachronism,” Sheplin said.
And Maelipeck?
“My initial reaction is that Michael Lynch is a guy who knows a thing or two about being vague and irrelevant.”
“Look at it this way,” Sheplin went on. “With access to modern mining equipment, at the push of a button, I could sit in a control room in California and pull hundreds of pounds of gold from the Sierra Nevada right this minute, much more than I could have recovered 150 years ago sitting on a streambed with a steel pan. Does this mean gold hasn’t grown more scarce in California? I guess so. Hey, everybody: Gold! Gold on the American River!”
Maelipeck added, “I say we stuff those Persians into a time machine, let them out into Ahmadinejad’s tired old fields, and the moment they report back and say, ‘I’m sorry, this mule-powered job is no more difficult today than it was 110 years ago’, that’s when Michael Lynch will start making sense.”
Later, Lynch puts forward the assertion that there are “some 10 trillion barrels [of oil] out there”.
“That is bizarre,” Sheplin said. “I don’t know where he’s getting those data.”
“Well, personally,” Maelipeck countered, “I find most geologists to be pretty Gloomy Gus these days, so it’s nice to see someone with the courage to make up such nice numbers.”
But according to Sheplin, there have been dozens of surveys completed since World War II, and the most recent estimate of global proved reserves came in at less than 1.5 trillion barrels. Even stranger, Sheplin says, is that Lynch seems to qualify his figures as a low-ball estimate, explaining that they don’t include quantities of oil which “in time, we may be able to efficiently tap” from oil sands in places like Canada (emphasis added). According to Sheplin, proven reserve estimates from Canadian oil sands stand today at less than 200 billion barrels.
“So yes,” cautions Sheplin, “don’t mislead yourself by forgetting to add 2% to Lynch’s supposed 10 trillion barrels of conventionally available oil.”
Another point generating controversy is the assertion that political instability puts global oil supplies under constant threat of disruption. While this may seem reasonable, Mr. Lynch categorically dismisses it, with the reasoning that “political risk is nothing new.” By way of example, Lynch simply states, “a leading Communist labor organizer in the Baku oil industry in the early 1900s would later be known to the world as Josef Stalin.”
“Well, I guess that clears that up,” Sheplin said.
“This one time, at band camp …,” Maelipeck added.
Sheplin continued, “So, essentially, a young Josef Stalin's presence in an oil field 100 years ago failed to interrupt global supply. Well, there you have it: today's potentially catastrophic political instability seemingly endemic to 90% of the world's oil producing regions--problem solved.”
“And also, yada yada yada…Hitler!” Maelipeck added.
Both Sheplin and Maelipeck were nearly at a loss in dealing with Lynch’s apparently nonsensical use of oil-field water cut numbers in his assertion that increasing water concentrations in Saudi Arabia's Ghawar oil field are not a sign of declining production. Lynch is correct that water cut numbers increase mostly because operators routinely pump seawater into a reservoir to displace oil and maintain field pressure. But, as Maelipeck put it, “why does he think the pressure needs to be propped up in the first place?” Maelipeck ventured that Lynch was “just another M.I.T. idiot who doesn’t understand pressure/volume relationships,” but Sheplin was a bit more nuanced.
“Mr. Lynch makes a lot of the 35% Ghawar water cut comparing favorably with the global average, but the real news isn’t in a snapshot percentage, it's in the trend. Neither of those numbers is particularly heartening, but even starting at 0% water, a rapid increase in water cut while field pressure remains constant can’t ever be considered good news.”
Also included in the first page of Lynch's column is a simple line-drawing of an oil drilling rig, and this illustration caught our reviewers’ attention as well.
“Very cute,” Maelipeck said. “Now, for some reason, this drilling rig appears to have smoke coming out of it. I’ve never seen that before. I think if you burn your oil as it comes out of the ground it becomes harder to turn a profit.”
Sheplin said, “It's a nice cartoon, but I'm not sure why [illustrator] Ted McGrath chose deliberately to make this look like the work of a child.”
“It's appropriate for this column,” Maelipeck said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
