Bracing for President Trump [Page 3.14]

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the U.S. caught nearly everyone by surprise, and fingers were immediately pointed in all directions as the election’s losers looked to lay blame. Chad Orzel offers one relevant narrative: “There are a lot of people who feel like they’re being screwed by a system run for the benefit of people in big cities on the coasts who sneer at them as ignorant, racist hicks.” Ethan Siegel extends an olive branch on Starts With a Bang, saying “we all have our biases, even if we ourselves are scientists,” and encourages EVERYONE to accept the responsibility of becoming more informed in a political climate that drips with misinformation and emotional spin.

On Denialism Blog, Mark Hoofnagle examines the conspiracist worldview and what we might expect from a conspiracist White House, noting “we now have a president and vice president elect who have conspiratorial views on vaccines, evolution and climate change, rejecting, effectively, the most important public health intervention of all time, the underpinning of all modern biology, and arguably the greatest threat to human survival on Earth.” Meanwhile, on The Pump Handle, Kim Krisberg sounds a scientific battle cry, writing “public health has plenty of practice confronting and overcoming powerfully entrenched interests for the greater good. Just ask Big Tobacco.”

Finally, John DuPuis has started to document the damage done by Trump to important scientific issues, such as vaccination. On Respectful Insolence, Orac writes “it’s no surprise that antivaxers are very happy about the election of Donald Trump, and they hope to get something out of it.” The true consequences of Trump’s presidency remain to be seen, but his win is a wake-up call to advocates of science and social justice. We must remain vigilant, and we must remember that without effective outreach and communication, we will lose. As Chad Orzel notes, the fight going forward “involves working to treat everyone with respect and decency and empathy,” and not merely casting stones at those who think differently.

See also:

Myron Ebell, Evil Arch Climate Uber Villain on Stoat

Clinton-Trump Gap in Key States on Greg Laden’s Blog

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2gygA7I

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the U.S. caught nearly everyone by surprise, and fingers were immediately pointed in all directions as the election’s losers looked to lay blame. Chad Orzel offers one relevant narrative: “There are a lot of people who feel like they’re being screwed by a system run for the benefit of people in big cities on the coasts who sneer at them as ignorant, racist hicks.” Ethan Siegel extends an olive branch on Starts With a Bang, saying “we all have our biases, even if we ourselves are scientists,” and encourages EVERYONE to accept the responsibility of becoming more informed in a political climate that drips with misinformation and emotional spin.

On Denialism Blog, Mark Hoofnagle examines the conspiracist worldview and what we might expect from a conspiracist White House, noting “we now have a president and vice president elect who have conspiratorial views on vaccines, evolution and climate change, rejecting, effectively, the most important public health intervention of all time, the underpinning of all modern biology, and arguably the greatest threat to human survival on Earth.” Meanwhile, on The Pump Handle, Kim Krisberg sounds a scientific battle cry, writing “public health has plenty of practice confronting and overcoming powerfully entrenched interests for the greater good. Just ask Big Tobacco.”

Finally, John DuPuis has started to document the damage done by Trump to important scientific issues, such as vaccination. On Respectful Insolence, Orac writes “it’s no surprise that antivaxers are very happy about the election of Donald Trump, and they hope to get something out of it.” The true consequences of Trump’s presidency remain to be seen, but his win is a wake-up call to advocates of science and social justice. We must remain vigilant, and we must remember that without effective outreach and communication, we will lose. As Chad Orzel notes, the fight going forward “involves working to treat everyone with respect and decency and empathy,” and not merely casting stones at those who think differently.

See also:

Myron Ebell, Evil Arch Climate Uber Villain on Stoat

Clinton-Trump Gap in Key States on Greg Laden’s Blog

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2gygA7I

Even after the Rana Plaza disaster it is hard to get international clothing brands to do the right thing [The Pump Handle]

A new report by four leading workers’ rights group shows just how hard it is to get international clothing brands to fix problems in their global supply chains despite the fact that 1,100 workers were killed in an instant in an unsafe garment factory in Bangladesh.

Three and a half years after the Rana Plaza building collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, five major clothing brands – Walmart, Gap, VF, Target and Hudson’s Bay – were found to have continuing hazards and dangerous delays in fixing them.  What’s worse is that one of the three international inspection programs in Bangladesh – the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety – has downplayed the problems by moving the due date for hazard correction to July 2018 and then claiming hazardous factories are “on track” to be safe by then.

“Dangerous Delays on Worker Safety” was issued in November by the International Labor Rights Forum, Workers Rights Consortium, Clean Clothes Campaign and Maquila Solidarity Network.  The response of the Alliance was reported in The Guardian (UK) newspaper.

The report looked at 175 garment factories in Bangladesh that are part of international auditing programs – The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety and the Alliance are the two private sector initiatives, while the International Labor Organization is working with the national Bangladesh government.  The report found that of this sample of 175 factory buildings, 47% have major, uncorrected structural problems; 62% lack viable fire exits, and 62% do not have a properly functioning fire alarm system.

Of these factories, 102 plants are producing for Walmart; 37 factories are producing for the Gap; 36 factories are producing for VF Corporation (a holding company which owns multiple brands); 22 factories are producing for Target; and 6 factories are producing for the Hudson Bay company.

The 12-page report points out that:

Any of the hazards in these categories could be the cause of injury or death to workers. Structural problems that factories in the sample have failed to address including loads in multi-story factories heavier than the floors can reliably bear, cracks in beams holding up the floors, over-stressed structural columns, and similar deficiencies. Fire exit deficiencies include stairwells discharging inside buildings rather than leading outside to safety, stairwells lacking fire-rated doors, exit routes compromised by unsealed openings that would allow smoke to enter during a fire, and related issues. Problems with fire alarm systems involved delayed installation of a system or the installation of a system that does not meet standards.

Most of these factories (96% according to the report) were initially inspected more than two years ago, and have approximately 280,000 garment workers in buildings that are unsafe.

These 175 Alliance-covered factories also produce for brands that are covered by the Accord, and this overlap allow researchers to use Accord data to evaluate the status of these dual-covered factories.  At the same time, the Accord reports that 1,400 factories, or 85% of the factories it covers (including most in the 175-factory sample) are “behind schedule” in making repairs of hazards that were identified years ago.

The Accord, to its credit, at least plainly states that the original due dates for hazard corrections have been missed (“behind schedule”), and it provides detailed reports on its website on the status of each identified hazard in inspected factories.  The Alliance, on the other hand, does not provide public factory-by-factory progress reports.

Moreover, sometime this year, the Alliance decided to push the goalposts back for hazard corrections from the original dates (immediately for severe hazards to no more than several months for the most complex correction) to July 2018 when the Alliance will “sunset” or go out of existence.  In the meantime, factories that should have corrected hazards in 2015, but failed to do so, are now considered to be “on track” by the Alliance, which says it is “confident” that the hazards will be addressed 19 months from now, five years after the Alliance began.

The 26 brands that make up the Alliance are all American or Canadian clothing companies.

Why the delays that threaten so many workers?

The underlying reasons why hazard correction have not occurred on schedule include the failure of the international clothing brands to meet their promises and obligations to provide financial resources to their suppliers to fix unsafe factories; the failure of the international funding mechanism to reach factory owners who need loans; and the “itchy feet” of international brands to continue roaming the world for new production locations.

Even under the terms of Accord, which requires signatory brands to ensure that owners of supplier factories have the financial resources required to correct hazards, international clothing companies have failed to provide the funds needed for hazard correction.  The Alliance signatory brands do not have any requirement to assist their suppliers with necessary funds.

In fact, today – three years after Rana Plaza – the brands are paying their suppliers in Bangladesh less per-unit-produced than they paid them at the time of the disaster.

Moreover, few clothing brands have offered long-term orders to their suppliers, so that factory owners will feel able to repay large bank loans with ongoing orders.  The “sweatshop business model” of short-term contracts at the lowest possible price remains in place and ever-dominant.

An international loan fund organized by the International Labor Organization and the World Bank has failed to provide the needed funding as well, according to a recent World Bank study .

Among the reasons for this failure are rampant corruption in the Bangladesh banking sector when funds they receive at 3-4% interest from the World Bank are offered to local factory owners at 10% or higher interest rates – and only offered to existing clients.

The third reason for delays in hazard correction is another aspect of the global supply chain sweatshop business model: the relentless search by transnational corporations to find the lowest production costs and highest profit rates, no matter the social and environmental impacts on the workers and countries involved.

Earlier this year, Rubana Huq, Managing Director of the Mohammadi Group, comprising of 8 garment factories in Bangladesh, spoke at the Chowdhury Center for Bangladesh Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.  Ms. Huq reported that she has already been approached by clothing brands to continue being a supplier – but not with factories in Bangladesh, the brands wanted her company to set up and manage factories in East Africa where wages and compliance costs are even lower than Bangladesh.

How progress is made

It was the world-wide outcry and outrage following the industrial homicide of 1,100 people at Rana Plaza that forced 215+ international clothing brands to sign onto the Accord, and motivated the 26 US/Canadian brands to set up the competing Alliance, which has been forced to match the Accord in a “me-too” arrangement in many – but not all – aspects of hazard identification, hazard correction, worker participation and OHS and management assistance to factory owners.

Progress has been registered, and it should be appreciated.  More than 3,700 garment factories in Bangladesh producing for the international apparel market have had competent safety inspections and the results publicly posted on the internet. Many of the 150,000 identified hazards have been eliminated, and those that have not been fixed are now the source of a new public outcry.

This focus on worker health and safety, led by the Accord, is unprecedented for any global supply chain, in any country, and in any product sector.  The example of independent, competent inspections; public reporting of the results; mandatory hazard correction; and worker participation and OHS training is one that could and should be replicated elsewhere in the global economy.

There is, of course, work to do.  As the report notes:

This partial progress is positive, because it makes factories at least somewhat safer. However, these brands did not promise in the wake of the Rana Plaza collapse to make their supplier factories somewhat safer; they promised to make them safe – and that standard has been very clearly defined in time-bound action plans for each factory.  (emphasis in original.)

Part of the work needed to improve working conditions in Bangladesh is to keep holding the brands’ feet to the fire to meet the promises they made to garment workers in Bangladesh.  Part of the work needed is to demand a change of the dominant sweatshop business model of global supply chains.  Part of the work needed is replace the ineffective and corrupted “corporate social responsibility” monitoring with independent, competent auditing that is publicly reported and carries mandatory hazard corrections and involves meaningful worker participation.

A tall order, but the only way to effectively protect garment workers in Bangladesh, or in East Africa, or in New York City and Los Angeles.

Garrett Brown is a certified industrial hygienist who worked for Cal/OSHA for 20 years as a field Compliance officer and then served as Special Assistant to the Chief of the Division before retiring in 2014.  He has also been the volunteer Coordinator of the Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network since 1993.  He has made five trips to Bangladesh to assist with worker safety projects since 2014.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2g7gD9M

A new report by four leading workers’ rights group shows just how hard it is to get international clothing brands to fix problems in their global supply chains despite the fact that 1,100 workers were killed in an instant in an unsafe garment factory in Bangladesh.

Three and a half years after the Rana Plaza building collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, five major clothing brands – Walmart, Gap, VF, Target and Hudson’s Bay – were found to have continuing hazards and dangerous delays in fixing them.  What’s worse is that one of the three international inspection programs in Bangladesh – the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety – has downplayed the problems by moving the due date for hazard correction to July 2018 and then claiming hazardous factories are “on track” to be safe by then.

“Dangerous Delays on Worker Safety” was issued in November by the International Labor Rights Forum, Workers Rights Consortium, Clean Clothes Campaign and Maquila Solidarity Network.  The response of the Alliance was reported in The Guardian (UK) newspaper.

The report looked at 175 garment factories in Bangladesh that are part of international auditing programs – The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety and the Alliance are the two private sector initiatives, while the International Labor Organization is working with the national Bangladesh government.  The report found that of this sample of 175 factory buildings, 47% have major, uncorrected structural problems; 62% lack viable fire exits, and 62% do not have a properly functioning fire alarm system.

Of these factories, 102 plants are producing for Walmart; 37 factories are producing for the Gap; 36 factories are producing for VF Corporation (a holding company which owns multiple brands); 22 factories are producing for Target; and 6 factories are producing for the Hudson Bay company.

The 12-page report points out that:

Any of the hazards in these categories could be the cause of injury or death to workers. Structural problems that factories in the sample have failed to address including loads in multi-story factories heavier than the floors can reliably bear, cracks in beams holding up the floors, over-stressed structural columns, and similar deficiencies. Fire exit deficiencies include stairwells discharging inside buildings rather than leading outside to safety, stairwells lacking fire-rated doors, exit routes compromised by unsealed openings that would allow smoke to enter during a fire, and related issues. Problems with fire alarm systems involved delayed installation of a system or the installation of a system that does not meet standards.

Most of these factories (96% according to the report) were initially inspected more than two years ago, and have approximately 280,000 garment workers in buildings that are unsafe.

These 175 Alliance-covered factories also produce for brands that are covered by the Accord, and this overlap allow researchers to use Accord data to evaluate the status of these dual-covered factories.  At the same time, the Accord reports that 1,400 factories, or 85% of the factories it covers (including most in the 175-factory sample) are “behind schedule” in making repairs of hazards that were identified years ago.

The Accord, to its credit, at least plainly states that the original due dates for hazard corrections have been missed (“behind schedule”), and it provides detailed reports on its website on the status of each identified hazard in inspected factories.  The Alliance, on the other hand, does not provide public factory-by-factory progress reports.

Moreover, sometime this year, the Alliance decided to push the goalposts back for hazard corrections from the original dates (immediately for severe hazards to no more than several months for the most complex correction) to July 2018 when the Alliance will “sunset” or go out of existence.  In the meantime, factories that should have corrected hazards in 2015, but failed to do so, are now considered to be “on track” by the Alliance, which says it is “confident” that the hazards will be addressed 19 months from now, five years after the Alliance began.

The 26 brands that make up the Alliance are all American or Canadian clothing companies.

Why the delays that threaten so many workers?

The underlying reasons why hazard correction have not occurred on schedule include the failure of the international clothing brands to meet their promises and obligations to provide financial resources to their suppliers to fix unsafe factories; the failure of the international funding mechanism to reach factory owners who need loans; and the “itchy feet” of international brands to continue roaming the world for new production locations.

Even under the terms of Accord, which requires signatory brands to ensure that owners of supplier factories have the financial resources required to correct hazards, international clothing companies have failed to provide the funds needed for hazard correction.  The Alliance signatory brands do not have any requirement to assist their suppliers with necessary funds.

In fact, today – three years after Rana Plaza – the brands are paying their suppliers in Bangladesh less per-unit-produced than they paid them at the time of the disaster.

Moreover, few clothing brands have offered long-term orders to their suppliers, so that factory owners will feel able to repay large bank loans with ongoing orders.  The “sweatshop business model” of short-term contracts at the lowest possible price remains in place and ever-dominant.

An international loan fund organized by the International Labor Organization and the World Bank has failed to provide the needed funding as well, according to a recent World Bank study .

Among the reasons for this failure are rampant corruption in the Bangladesh banking sector when funds they receive at 3-4% interest from the World Bank are offered to local factory owners at 10% or higher interest rates – and only offered to existing clients.

The third reason for delays in hazard correction is another aspect of the global supply chain sweatshop business model: the relentless search by transnational corporations to find the lowest production costs and highest profit rates, no matter the social and environmental impacts on the workers and countries involved.

Earlier this year, Rubana Huq, Managing Director of the Mohammadi Group, comprising of 8 garment factories in Bangladesh, spoke at the Chowdhury Center for Bangladesh Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.  Ms. Huq reported that she has already been approached by clothing brands to continue being a supplier – but not with factories in Bangladesh, the brands wanted her company to set up and manage factories in East Africa where wages and compliance costs are even lower than Bangladesh.

How progress is made

It was the world-wide outcry and outrage following the industrial homicide of 1,100 people at Rana Plaza that forced 215+ international clothing brands to sign onto the Accord, and motivated the 26 US/Canadian brands to set up the competing Alliance, which has been forced to match the Accord in a “me-too” arrangement in many – but not all – aspects of hazard identification, hazard correction, worker participation and OHS and management assistance to factory owners.

Progress has been registered, and it should be appreciated.  More than 3,700 garment factories in Bangladesh producing for the international apparel market have had competent safety inspections and the results publicly posted on the internet. Many of the 150,000 identified hazards have been eliminated, and those that have not been fixed are now the source of a new public outcry.

This focus on worker health and safety, led by the Accord, is unprecedented for any global supply chain, in any country, and in any product sector.  The example of independent, competent inspections; public reporting of the results; mandatory hazard correction; and worker participation and OHS training is one that could and should be replicated elsewhere in the global economy.

There is, of course, work to do.  As the report notes:

This partial progress is positive, because it makes factories at least somewhat safer. However, these brands did not promise in the wake of the Rana Plaza collapse to make their supplier factories somewhat safer; they promised to make them safe – and that standard has been very clearly defined in time-bound action plans for each factory.  (emphasis in original.)

Part of the work needed to improve working conditions in Bangladesh is to keep holding the brands’ feet to the fire to meet the promises they made to garment workers in Bangladesh.  Part of the work needed is to demand a change of the dominant sweatshop business model of global supply chains.  Part of the work needed is replace the ineffective and corrupted “corporate social responsibility” monitoring with independent, competent auditing that is publicly reported and carries mandatory hazard corrections and involves meaningful worker participation.

A tall order, but the only way to effectively protect garment workers in Bangladesh, or in East Africa, or in New York City and Los Angeles.

Garrett Brown is a certified industrial hygienist who worked for Cal/OSHA for 20 years as a field Compliance officer and then served as Special Assistant to the Chief of the Division before retiring in 2014.  He has also been the volunteer Coordinator of the Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network since 1993.  He has made five trips to Bangladesh to assist with worker safety projects since 2014.

 

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2g7gD9M

Aquatic Robotics: Underwater Glider Helps Monitor Great Lakes Water Quality

By Tom Hollenhorst and Paul McKinney

Preparing to deploy the Nokomis

It’s always exciting to be on a boat heading out under the Duluth lift bridge towards the middle of Lake Superior, but last month’s trip was especially thrilling. Our mission was to rendezvous with EPA’s autonomous Slocum glider, the Nokomis.

The glider was returning to the Duluth area after a nearly 40-day deployment in which it travelled over 1000 kilometers across Lake Superior. Acquired in 2014, the glider complements the EPA’s Great Lakes science initiatives by providing high resolution observations of temperature and concentrations of chlorophyll-a, colored dissolved organic matter, and suspended matter. These are important measurements because they tell us about the relative health and productivity of the lake.  These types of data are especially useful if they are collected continuously over a period of time across an area of interest, like the data collected by gliders. And even more useful if the measurements are made in conjunction with other monitoring efforts and data (including remote sensing data).  In addition to continuously collecting data every half second, the gliders can also be out in the lake during storms and adverse conditions, when we wouldn’t want to put lives at risk.

Named after Joshua Slocum, the first person to single-handedly sail around the world, the glider propels itself by changing its buoyancy and adjusting the position of its forward battery pack. The buoyancy changes cause it to rise and fall, and its wings turn the vertical motion into forward motion. This method of propulsion is very battery efficient, allowing the glider to perform extraordinarily long missions. In fact, a Slocum Glider piloted by students at Rutgers University crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. That trip took 220 days. As a result of its unique saw-toothed path, our glider, Nokomis completed over 7000 vertical profiles as it made its way back towards Duluth this summer.

The Nokomis (yellow) in action.

Throughout its mission, Nokomis regularly sent in snippets of the data it was collecting while receiving updated instructions via the satellite phone in its tail. The regular contact provided our team opportunities to pilot the glider towards areas of interest that we had observed in satellite images of the lake’s surface. By combining the remotely sensed data with the high resolution glider data, we expect to increase our understanding of exchange processes between nearshore and offshore areas of the lake. The work is a collaboration with EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office and is part of its collaborative science monitoring initiative.

 

To learn more about our glider work and the recent post-mission recovery, check out the Duluth News Tribune article Gliders provide in-depth scientific data on Lake Superior.

 

About the Authors:

Tom Hollenhorst is an Ecologist at EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecology Division.  He’s been studying the landscapes and watershed in and around the Great lakes for nearly two decades.  He’s especially interested in understanding watershed-nearshore-offshore connections and the transfer of energy and nutrients between them.

Paul McKinney is a National Research Council (NRC) postdoctoral research associate based at EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecology Division. His research is focused on understanding the processes linking nearshore and offshore areas of the Great Lakes.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2gxVs1t

By Tom Hollenhorst and Paul McKinney

Preparing to deploy the Nokomis

It’s always exciting to be on a boat heading out under the Duluth lift bridge towards the middle of Lake Superior, but last month’s trip was especially thrilling. Our mission was to rendezvous with EPA’s autonomous Slocum glider, the Nokomis.

The glider was returning to the Duluth area after a nearly 40-day deployment in which it travelled over 1000 kilometers across Lake Superior. Acquired in 2014, the glider complements the EPA’s Great Lakes science initiatives by providing high resolution observations of temperature and concentrations of chlorophyll-a, colored dissolved organic matter, and suspended matter. These are important measurements because they tell us about the relative health and productivity of the lake.  These types of data are especially useful if they are collected continuously over a period of time across an area of interest, like the data collected by gliders. And even more useful if the measurements are made in conjunction with other monitoring efforts and data (including remote sensing data).  In addition to continuously collecting data every half second, the gliders can also be out in the lake during storms and adverse conditions, when we wouldn’t want to put lives at risk.

Named after Joshua Slocum, the first person to single-handedly sail around the world, the glider propels itself by changing its buoyancy and adjusting the position of its forward battery pack. The buoyancy changes cause it to rise and fall, and its wings turn the vertical motion into forward motion. This method of propulsion is very battery efficient, allowing the glider to perform extraordinarily long missions. In fact, a Slocum Glider piloted by students at Rutgers University crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. That trip took 220 days. As a result of its unique saw-toothed path, our glider, Nokomis completed over 7000 vertical profiles as it made its way back towards Duluth this summer.

The Nokomis (yellow) in action.

Throughout its mission, Nokomis regularly sent in snippets of the data it was collecting while receiving updated instructions via the satellite phone in its tail. The regular contact provided our team opportunities to pilot the glider towards areas of interest that we had observed in satellite images of the lake’s surface. By combining the remotely sensed data with the high resolution glider data, we expect to increase our understanding of exchange processes between nearshore and offshore areas of the lake. The work is a collaboration with EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office and is part of its collaborative science monitoring initiative.

 

To learn more about our glider work and the recent post-mission recovery, check out the Duluth News Tribune article Gliders provide in-depth scientific data on Lake Superior.

 

About the Authors:

Tom Hollenhorst is an Ecologist at EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecology Division.  He’s been studying the landscapes and watershed in and around the Great lakes for nearly two decades.  He’s especially interested in understanding watershed-nearshore-offshore connections and the transfer of energy and nutrients between them.

Paul McKinney is a National Research Council (NRC) postdoctoral research associate based at EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecology Division. His research is focused on understanding the processes linking nearshore and offshore areas of the Great Lakes.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2gxVs1t

3-D Printing: Evolving for Tomorrow Today through Additive Manufacturing

By Air Force Maj. Hank Pflugradt
U.S. Transportation Command

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill., Nov. 30, 2016 — What if a technology existed that allowed troops at forward operating locations to manufacture aircraft parts, tank treads and ship components, on the spot, anytime, anywhere, at the touch of a button? Is this science fiction or a future reality? Neither. 3-D printing is here, today.

3-D printing is starting to turn the world of logistics on its head. Additive manufacturing, the linking of 3-D printing to the production process, is disrupting the way we think about transportation by reducing manufacturing costs and decentralizing production. In this way, 3-D printing is shortening the global supply chain. It is fundamentally changing the way products are made by enabling manufacturing to move closer to the user and eliminating the need to assemble and transport parts in different locations away from the point of intended use. These changes are decreasing the need for massive physical inventories, shortening the supply chain, slashing costs, and ultimately reducing risk.

An airman holds examples of 3-D printed sign brackets at U.S. Transportation Command’s headquarters at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., Nov. 7, 2016. The Transcom Commander’s Action Group demonstrated a proof of concept by using a 3-D printer to create the brackets. This technology offers nearly limitless possibilities for Transcom’s global deploy, sustain and redeploy enterprise. (Air Force photo)

Conceptually, 3-D printing is quite simple. It requires hardware and software. The hardware consists of a 3-D printer and the raw materials used to “print” an object [e.g. plastic, metal, composite, etc.]. The software includes a digital design file, which contains the 3-D blueprint for the object, and the ability to transmit the item to the 3-D printer. When the hardware and software are paired with the user’s imagination, the possibilities for innovation are endless.

Recently, U.S. Transportation Command’s Commander’s Action Group took initial steps to demonstrate the benefits of this emerging technology. What began as a concept to change the way the command thought about logistics, quickly transformed into the design and 3-D printing of functional brackets to display office signs around the headquarters. Although the objects are small, the proof of concept is enormous.

Through research, the CAG discovered 3-D printing community portals on the internet. These websites allow graphic designers from across the world to upload their 3-D design files for free download and use, including everything from coffee cups to cell-phone cases. Using the free digital blueprints, the CAG began to produce widgets as they calibrated the printer settings.

Their next goal, however, was to print an object that was designed from scratch within Transcom. However, creating such a digital file involved a baseline of technical expertise, which the team did not have at that point. Pausing at this temporary roadblock, they reached out to a freelance digital designer who created and donated a 3-D model of the Transcom symbol.

That individual helped the CAG prove the capability of turning Transcom ideas into 3-D designs, albeit through an external source. This did not stifle innovation, but in fact, fueled it. The ability to design and print an object for practical use was now within reach. The CAG just needed to bridge the gap. Enter the Transcom facility managers.

In addition to repairing and maintaining critical systems within the headquarters building, the Transcom facility managers spend a significant amount of time fashioning metal brackets to hang office signs from the ceiling throughout the headquarters building. They do this because the original brackets were discontinued. Recognizing the opportunity to provide a more effective solution at a much lower cost, the CAG turned to 3-D printing to produce the much-needed sign brackets.

Through Google searches and YouTube tutorials, the CAG downloaded free CAD design software and learned the basics of drafting digital 3-D objects. Within a day, they optimally designed, printed, and load-tested new office sign brackets. Where the old metal brackets cost $2.50 each — not including the time and costs associated with shipping, handling, and modification — the 3-D-printed brackets cost 29 cents each in material, an 88 percent cost savings. Where the old metal brackets took weeks to deliver, the 3-D-printed brackets went from creation to installation in a matter of hours. Although the CAG’s additive manufacturing proof of concept was the first of its kind inside the headquarters, this is not where the story ends, this is where it begins.

Imagine how this concept can be applied to your organization, to the Defense Department, and to the nation. This past July, a Navy MV-22B Osprey successfully completed a 1-hour flight using a flight-critical part made by additive manufacturing techniques. It was equipped with a titanium, 3-D-printed link and fitting assembly for one of its engine nacelles.

Transcom’s 3-D printed bracket is not just a proof of concept. It is a call for innovative thought. It is spurring the collective imagination of the command to think about how this capability will impact the future of transportation and logistics. The science fiction of tomorrow is here today. How we harness it, is up to us.

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2gxXE9f

By Air Force Maj. Hank Pflugradt
U.S. Transportation Command

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill., Nov. 30, 2016 — What if a technology existed that allowed troops at forward operating locations to manufacture aircraft parts, tank treads and ship components, on the spot, anytime, anywhere, at the touch of a button? Is this science fiction or a future reality? Neither. 3-D printing is here, today.

3-D printing is starting to turn the world of logistics on its head. Additive manufacturing, the linking of 3-D printing to the production process, is disrupting the way we think about transportation by reducing manufacturing costs and decentralizing production. In this way, 3-D printing is shortening the global supply chain. It is fundamentally changing the way products are made by enabling manufacturing to move closer to the user and eliminating the need to assemble and transport parts in different locations away from the point of intended use. These changes are decreasing the need for massive physical inventories, shortening the supply chain, slashing costs, and ultimately reducing risk.

An airman holds examples of 3-D printed sign brackets at U.S. Transportation Command’s headquarters at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., Nov. 7, 2016. The Transcom Commander’s Action Group demonstrated a proof of concept by using a 3-D printer to create the brackets. This technology offers nearly limitless possibilities for Transcom’s global deploy, sustain and redeploy enterprise. (Air Force photo)

Conceptually, 3-D printing is quite simple. It requires hardware and software. The hardware consists of a 3-D printer and the raw materials used to “print” an object [e.g. plastic, metal, composite, etc.]. The software includes a digital design file, which contains the 3-D blueprint for the object, and the ability to transmit the item to the 3-D printer. When the hardware and software are paired with the user’s imagination, the possibilities for innovation are endless.

Recently, U.S. Transportation Command’s Commander’s Action Group took initial steps to demonstrate the benefits of this emerging technology. What began as a concept to change the way the command thought about logistics, quickly transformed into the design and 3-D printing of functional brackets to display office signs around the headquarters. Although the objects are small, the proof of concept is enormous.

Through research, the CAG discovered 3-D printing community portals on the internet. These websites allow graphic designers from across the world to upload their 3-D design files for free download and use, including everything from coffee cups to cell-phone cases. Using the free digital blueprints, the CAG began to produce widgets as they calibrated the printer settings.

Their next goal, however, was to print an object that was designed from scratch within Transcom. However, creating such a digital file involved a baseline of technical expertise, which the team did not have at that point. Pausing at this temporary roadblock, they reached out to a freelance digital designer who created and donated a 3-D model of the Transcom symbol.

That individual helped the CAG prove the capability of turning Transcom ideas into 3-D designs, albeit through an external source. This did not stifle innovation, but in fact, fueled it. The ability to design and print an object for practical use was now within reach. The CAG just needed to bridge the gap. Enter the Transcom facility managers.

In addition to repairing and maintaining critical systems within the headquarters building, the Transcom facility managers spend a significant amount of time fashioning metal brackets to hang office signs from the ceiling throughout the headquarters building. They do this because the original brackets were discontinued. Recognizing the opportunity to provide a more effective solution at a much lower cost, the CAG turned to 3-D printing to produce the much-needed sign brackets.

Through Google searches and YouTube tutorials, the CAG downloaded free CAD design software and learned the basics of drafting digital 3-D objects. Within a day, they optimally designed, printed, and load-tested new office sign brackets. Where the old metal brackets cost $2.50 each — not including the time and costs associated with shipping, handling, and modification — the 3-D-printed brackets cost 29 cents each in material, an 88 percent cost savings. Where the old metal brackets took weeks to deliver, the 3-D-printed brackets went from creation to installation in a matter of hours. Although the CAG’s additive manufacturing proof of concept was the first of its kind inside the headquarters, this is not where the story ends, this is where it begins.

Imagine how this concept can be applied to your organization, to the Defense Department, and to the nation. This past July, a Navy MV-22B Osprey successfully completed a 1-hour flight using a flight-critical part made by additive manufacturing techniques. It was equipped with a titanium, 3-D-printed link and fitting assembly for one of its engine nacelles.

Transcom’s 3-D printed bracket is not just a proof of concept. It is a call for innovative thought. It is spurring the collective imagination of the command to think about how this capability will impact the future of transportation and logistics. The science fiction of tomorrow is here today. How we harness it, is up to us.

Follow the Department of Defense on Facebook and Twitter!

———

Disclaimer: The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of this website or the information, products or services contained therein. For other than authorized activities such as military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DOD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/2gxXE9f

Watch for earliest sunsets before solstice

Adrian Strand captured this photo on a beach in northwest England.

The winter solstice is the shortest day. It offers the shortest period of daylight. But the earliest sunsets aren’t on the solstice itself. Instead, no matter where you live on Earth, the earliest sunsets come a couple of weeks before your winter solstice. That means that – if you live at the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere – your earliest sunsets are in early to mid-December.

And if you live in the Southern Hemisphere, your earliest sunrises are coming around now. Southern Hemisphere? Click here.

Why isn’t the earliest sunset on the year’s shortest day? To understand it, try thinking about it in terms of solar noon or midday, the time midway between sunrise and sunset, when the sun reaches its highest point for the day.

A clock ticks off exactly 24 hours from one noon to the next. But the actual days – as measured by the spin of the Earth – are rarely exactly 24 hours long.

So the exact time of solar noon, as measured by Earth’s spin, shifts in a seasonal way. If you measured Earth’s spin from one solar noon to the next, you’d find that – around the time of the December solstice – the time period between consecutive solar noons is actually half a minute longer than 24 hours.

So – two weeks before the solstice, for example – the sun reaches its noontime position at 11:52 a.m. local standard time. Two weeks later – on the winter solstice – the sun reaches its noontime position at 11:59 a.m. That’s 7 minutes later.

The later clock time for solar noon also means a later clock time for sunrise and sunset.

The result: earlier sunsets before the winter solstice and increasingly later sunrises for a few weeks after the winter solstice.

The exact date of earliest sunset varies with latitude. But the sequence is always the same. For the Northern Hemisphere, earliest sunset in early December, winter solstice, latest sunrise in early January.

In early December, the Southern Hemisphere is approaching its summer solstice. Sunset on that part of Earth will continue coming later until early July. Photo of sunset with crepuscular rays by Phil Rettke Photography in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.

Meanwhile, if you’re in the Southern Hemisphere, take nearly everything we say here and apply it to your winter solstice in June. For the Southern Hemisphere, assuming you’re at a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunsets come prior to the winter solstice, which is typically around June 21. The latest sunrises occur in late June.

During the month of December, it’s nearly summer in the Southern Hemisphere; the summer solstice comes this month for that hemisphere. So sunsets and sunrises are shifting in a similar way. For both hemispheres, the sequence in summer is: earliest sunrises before the summer solstice, then the summer solstice itself, then latest sunsets after the summer solstice.

As always, things get tricky if you look closely. Assuming you’re at a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunset for the Northern Hemisphere – and earliest sunrise for the Southern Hemisphere – come about two weeks before the December solstice, and the latest sunrise/latest sunset happen about two weeks after.

But at the other end of the year, in June and July, the time period is not equivalent. Again assuming a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunrise for the Northern Hemisphere – and earliest sunset for the Southern Hemisphere – comes only about one week before the June solstice, and the latest sunset/latest sunrise happens about one week after.

The time difference is due to the fact that the December solstice occurs when Earth is near its perihelion – or closest point to the sun – around which time we’re moving fastest in orbit. Meanwhile, the June solstice occurs when Earth is near aphelion – our farthest point from the sun – around which time we’re moving at our slowest in orbit.

View larger. Computed position of the sun looking eastward at the same time each morning from the Northern Hemisphere. December solstice point at lower right and June solstice point at upper left. Solar days are longer than 24 hours long at the solstices, yet less than 24 hours long at the equinoxes. Roughly midway between a solstice and an equinox, or vice versa, the solar day is exactly 24 hours long.

In short, the earliest sunset/winter solstice/latest sunrise and earliest sunrise/summer solstice/latest sunset phenomena are due to the fact that true solar days are longer than 24 hours long for several weeks before and after the solstices. At and around the solstices, the Earth must rotate farther on its axis for the sun to return to its daily noontime position, primarily because the sun is appreciably north or south of the Earth’s equator.

However, perihelion accentuates the effect around the December solstice, giving a day length of 24 hours 30 seconds. And aphelion lessens the effect around the June solstice, giving a day length of 24 hours 13 seconds.

Bottom line: The earliest sunsets and latest sunrises don’t come on the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. Instead, earliest sunsets come some weeks before the winter solstice. Latest sunrises come some weeks after it.

Here are more details about the earliest sunsets.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tNt1eN

Adrian Strand captured this photo on a beach in northwest England.

The winter solstice is the shortest day. It offers the shortest period of daylight. But the earliest sunsets aren’t on the solstice itself. Instead, no matter where you live on Earth, the earliest sunsets come a couple of weeks before your winter solstice. That means that – if you live at the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere – your earliest sunsets are in early to mid-December.

And if you live in the Southern Hemisphere, your earliest sunrises are coming around now. Southern Hemisphere? Click here.

Why isn’t the earliest sunset on the year’s shortest day? To understand it, try thinking about it in terms of solar noon or midday, the time midway between sunrise and sunset, when the sun reaches its highest point for the day.

A clock ticks off exactly 24 hours from one noon to the next. But the actual days – as measured by the spin of the Earth – are rarely exactly 24 hours long.

So the exact time of solar noon, as measured by Earth’s spin, shifts in a seasonal way. If you measured Earth’s spin from one solar noon to the next, you’d find that – around the time of the December solstice – the time period between consecutive solar noons is actually half a minute longer than 24 hours.

So – two weeks before the solstice, for example – the sun reaches its noontime position at 11:52 a.m. local standard time. Two weeks later – on the winter solstice – the sun reaches its noontime position at 11:59 a.m. That’s 7 minutes later.

The later clock time for solar noon also means a later clock time for sunrise and sunset.

The result: earlier sunsets before the winter solstice and increasingly later sunrises for a few weeks after the winter solstice.

The exact date of earliest sunset varies with latitude. But the sequence is always the same. For the Northern Hemisphere, earliest sunset in early December, winter solstice, latest sunrise in early January.

In early December, the Southern Hemisphere is approaching its summer solstice. Sunset on that part of Earth will continue coming later until early July. Photo of sunset with crepuscular rays by Phil Rettke Photography in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.

Meanwhile, if you’re in the Southern Hemisphere, take nearly everything we say here and apply it to your winter solstice in June. For the Southern Hemisphere, assuming you’re at a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunsets come prior to the winter solstice, which is typically around June 21. The latest sunrises occur in late June.

During the month of December, it’s nearly summer in the Southern Hemisphere; the summer solstice comes this month for that hemisphere. So sunsets and sunrises are shifting in a similar way. For both hemispheres, the sequence in summer is: earliest sunrises before the summer solstice, then the summer solstice itself, then latest sunsets after the summer solstice.

As always, things get tricky if you look closely. Assuming you’re at a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunset for the Northern Hemisphere – and earliest sunrise for the Southern Hemisphere – come about two weeks before the December solstice, and the latest sunrise/latest sunset happen about two weeks after.

But at the other end of the year, in June and July, the time period is not equivalent. Again assuming a mid-temperate latitude, the earliest sunrise for the Northern Hemisphere – and earliest sunset for the Southern Hemisphere – comes only about one week before the June solstice, and the latest sunset/latest sunrise happens about one week after.

The time difference is due to the fact that the December solstice occurs when Earth is near its perihelion – or closest point to the sun – around which time we’re moving fastest in orbit. Meanwhile, the June solstice occurs when Earth is near aphelion – our farthest point from the sun – around which time we’re moving at our slowest in orbit.

View larger. Computed position of the sun looking eastward at the same time each morning from the Northern Hemisphere. December solstice point at lower right and June solstice point at upper left. Solar days are longer than 24 hours long at the solstices, yet less than 24 hours long at the equinoxes. Roughly midway between a solstice and an equinox, or vice versa, the solar day is exactly 24 hours long.

In short, the earliest sunset/winter solstice/latest sunrise and earliest sunrise/summer solstice/latest sunset phenomena are due to the fact that true solar days are longer than 24 hours long for several weeks before and after the solstices. At and around the solstices, the Earth must rotate farther on its axis for the sun to return to its daily noontime position, primarily because the sun is appreciably north or south of the Earth’s equator.

However, perihelion accentuates the effect around the December solstice, giving a day length of 24 hours 30 seconds. And aphelion lessens the effect around the June solstice, giving a day length of 24 hours 13 seconds.

Bottom line: The earliest sunsets and latest sunrises don’t come on the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. Instead, earliest sunsets come some weeks before the winter solstice. Latest sunrises come some weeks after it.

Here are more details about the earliest sunsets.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1tNt1eN

Updating TGO OS

This morning, the ExoMars Trace Gas orbiter received an updated ‘operating system’ – the basic software that runs the craft just like the Windows® software that runs a PC.

This week's 'fresh install' is the second such update for TGO since launch, and will include fixes and patches for a number of issues discovered since launch.

Credit: ESA/ATG medialab

We posted a detailed description of the last update, and the procedure for today was substantially similar to that one, done in April.

Today's update activates 3 MB of new code, that was transmitted a few days ago via ESA's 35-m diameter deep-space station at New Norcia. Today's critical action was centered on rebooting the computer, triggering a restart with the new software.

In particular, this OS update will ensure the craft is more robust, especially in the event of any unexpected problems, during the upcoming aerobraking campaign, set to start in March and last until early 2018.

During aerobraking, the craft will skim the wispy tops of the martian atmosphere, causing a tiny amount of drag that will slow TGO and steadily lower it onto the required 400-km science orbit (we'll post more news on aerobraking preparations shortly).

The spacecraft, by the way, is in excellent health.

To date, TGO has only experienced one ‘safe mode’ – when a glitch causes the spacecraft to reboot itself and wait for corrective commands. That happened during preliminary in-flight testing of the main engine, where a faulty configuration was quickly identified and fixed. The craft later performed highly accurate burns of the engine for several deep-space manoeuvres and the Mars orbit insertion.

from Rocket Science http://ift.tt/2fLMrjq
v

This morning, the ExoMars Trace Gas orbiter received an updated ‘operating system’ – the basic software that runs the craft just like the Windows® software that runs a PC.

This week's 'fresh install' is the second such update for TGO since launch, and will include fixes and patches for a number of issues discovered since launch.

Credit: ESA/ATG medialab

We posted a detailed description of the last update, and the procedure for today was substantially similar to that one, done in April.

Today's update activates 3 MB of new code, that was transmitted a few days ago via ESA's 35-m diameter deep-space station at New Norcia. Today's critical action was centered on rebooting the computer, triggering a restart with the new software.

In particular, this OS update will ensure the craft is more robust, especially in the event of any unexpected problems, during the upcoming aerobraking campaign, set to start in March and last until early 2018.

During aerobraking, the craft will skim the wispy tops of the martian atmosphere, causing a tiny amount of drag that will slow TGO and steadily lower it onto the required 400-km science orbit (we'll post more news on aerobraking preparations shortly).

The spacecraft, by the way, is in excellent health.

To date, TGO has only experienced one ‘safe mode’ – when a glitch causes the spacecraft to reboot itself and wait for corrective commands. That happened during preliminary in-flight testing of the main engine, where a faulty configuration was quickly identified and fixed. The craft later performed highly accurate burns of the engine for several deep-space manoeuvres and the Mars orbit insertion.

from Rocket Science http://ift.tt/2fLMrjq
v

Solar in Your Community Challenge: Apply Today!

About the Author: Caroline McGregor is the acting Soft Costs Program Manager at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative.

One million solar energy systems across the country are powering homes, businesses and communities with renewable, affordable and clean energy. And yet, nearly 50 percent of homes lack the appropriate roof structure to go solar. Beyond that, many homeowners simply can’t afford the upfront cost to install their own system and have difficulty accessing affordable financing options. These limitations are especially burdensome for many low income families who could benefit from lower energy costs, but don’t have the extra money to invest in home renovations.

To spur solar adoption by these communities, the Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative launched the $5 million Solar in Your Community Challenge, which expands solar access to Americans who have been left out of the growing solar market.

In order to make solar energy more accessible for every American, the Solar in Your Community Challenge encourages the development of innovative financial and business models that serve low and moderate-income communities. Offering $5 million in cash prizes and technical assistance over 18 months, the challenge supports teams across the country to develop projects or programs that reach underserved customers in their communities, while proving that these business models can be widely replicated and scaled up.

To ensure that communities with environmental justice concerns benefit from this challenge, we have designed the challenge rules with these communities in mind. Teams that successfully demonstrate new ways of opening up solar for low- and moderate-income communities will be eligible to compete for the grand prize of $500,000.

Do you want your community to participate in this challenge?

We are hosting an informational webinar to provide further instructions on how to participate! Make sure you reserve your spot by registering today.

Date/Time: Thursday, December 1, 2016; 2 to 3 p.m. ET

Register at: http://ift.tt/2gIF6TX 

If you have questions regarding the webinar, please contact Michele Boyd.

The early application deadline to participate in the challenge is January 6, 2017, and the regular deadline is March 17, 2017. Visit the Solar in Your Community Challenge website to learn more about the challenge and to apply today!

Given the current growth of the energy market, solar installations will continue to grow at an unprecedented rate. And we want you to be part of that bright future!

We look forward to speaking with all of you during the upcoming and we are excited to review your applications.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2gkzDod

About the Author: Caroline McGregor is the acting Soft Costs Program Manager at the U.S. Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative.

One million solar energy systems across the country are powering homes, businesses and communities with renewable, affordable and clean energy. And yet, nearly 50 percent of homes lack the appropriate roof structure to go solar. Beyond that, many homeowners simply can’t afford the upfront cost to install their own system and have difficulty accessing affordable financing options. These limitations are especially burdensome for many low income families who could benefit from lower energy costs, but don’t have the extra money to invest in home renovations.

To spur solar adoption by these communities, the Department of Energy’s SunShot Initiative launched the $5 million Solar in Your Community Challenge, which expands solar access to Americans who have been left out of the growing solar market.

In order to make solar energy more accessible for every American, the Solar in Your Community Challenge encourages the development of innovative financial and business models that serve low and moderate-income communities. Offering $5 million in cash prizes and technical assistance over 18 months, the challenge supports teams across the country to develop projects or programs that reach underserved customers in their communities, while proving that these business models can be widely replicated and scaled up.

To ensure that communities with environmental justice concerns benefit from this challenge, we have designed the challenge rules with these communities in mind. Teams that successfully demonstrate new ways of opening up solar for low- and moderate-income communities will be eligible to compete for the grand prize of $500,000.

Do you want your community to participate in this challenge?

We are hosting an informational webinar to provide further instructions on how to participate! Make sure you reserve your spot by registering today.

Date/Time: Thursday, December 1, 2016; 2 to 3 p.m. ET

Register at: http://ift.tt/2gIF6TX 

If you have questions regarding the webinar, please contact Michele Boyd.

The early application deadline to participate in the challenge is January 6, 2017, and the regular deadline is March 17, 2017. Visit the Solar in Your Community Challenge website to learn more about the challenge and to apply today!

Given the current growth of the energy market, solar installations will continue to grow at an unprecedented rate. And we want you to be part of that bright future!

We look forward to speaking with all of you during the upcoming and we are excited to review your applications.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/2gkzDod