This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Devastatingly Bad Weather Headed For Johnson Space Center

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 24, 2017
Filed under
Devastatingly Bad Weather Headed For Johnson Space Center

Harvey forecast to slam Texas coast as major hurricane with ‘devastating’ flood potential
“An incredible amount of rain, 15 to 25 inches with isolated amounts of up to 35 inches, is predicted along the middle and upper Texas coast, because the storm is expected to stall and unload torrents for four to six straight days. The National Hurricane Center said it expects “devastating and life-threatening” flash flooding.”
Houston, we have a problem. Or do we?, NASA Sea Level Change
“Since JSC sits just 13 feet above sea level at its lowest part and 22 feet up at its highest …”
Heavy Rainfall In Intensifying Hurricane Harvey, NASA
Watching Hurricane Harvey ApproachTexas From Orbit, NASA

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

46 responses to “Devastatingly Bad Weather Headed For Johnson Space Center”

  1. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Sooo dramatic!!! How about, just be prepared.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Now that you mention it, these days a hurricane can be significantly easier to deal with than other natural disasters like an earthquake. You get days of advanced warning. Curtsey of Earth-observing satellites.

      I’ll bore some of the regulars by repeating something my grandfather told me. He grew up in Charleston, SC, a bit over a century ago. He would have been about ten when a major hurricane hit the city (the one which prompted construction of the current sea wall). Their only warning was something his aunt said a few hours in advance: “There’s going to be a big storm. All the birds are flying inland.”

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Sooo dramatic!!! How about, just be prepared.

      I’m wondering how high the death-toll had to reach before you thought, maybe that was a stupid thing to say, said in the most childishly stupid way?

  2. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    The major problem with Harvey as far as JSC is concerned will not be storm surge (which could flood JSC if it hit Galveston Bay), but flooding of the surrounding area due to large amounts of rain. With current predictions, there will be widespread flooding of the roads and areas near bayous in the area. JSC is in the 500 year floodplain, but the many of the surrounding roads are in the 100 year floodplain and could be blocked for significant periods of time.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      A few years ago, I told a friend from Iowa that they can’t really talk about a 100-year flood level anymore. They’ve hit that line a few times in the last fifteen years.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        When I was at NM Tech one of the engineering professors told us of how he designed a mine facility to resist an estimated 500 year flood. Back to back 700 year floods took it out. The lesson he was teaching is to be wary of XXX year estimates and simply build to take care of the maximum the terrain allows. That is what Las Vegas NV did after the flooding in the 1990’s. Designing the holding areas as parks and ball fields created near term recreation in between the storms.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I know that both Dr. Crary and Dr. Matula are quite familiar with statistics: the chances of an event are not affected by previous event episodes.

          Last night I was at a meeting in which the residents of a 2400 acre PUD wanted an explanation for the flooding they were seeing (recall that many parts of SW Florida received 18″ or more rain). A couple of houses experienced water in backyard swimming pools from rising adjacent lakes.

          These are the problems of the 1%.

          Anyway, the audience was instructed on how we use 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year flood events to establish minimum built elevations. In this case the rain event was nearly in the 100 year category.

          This type of community includes a golf course and a number of lakes. The lakes were sized and located to facilitate required fill and to build “lake view” homes. Lakes are always interconnected. Moreover, even a large parcel like this must accept water that naturally flows from offsite, and must discharge the water in a manner similar to the pattern before the project was constructed.

          The only reason they had flooding? Lake managers are not allowed to tamper with the weirs that control the elevation of stored water absent a certainly-worded forecast from the National Weather Service; and since this unnamed tropical event wasn’t forecast, the lakes couldn’t be lowered, so a couple of pool decks were splashed.

          This would be an example of rational planning, something that Houston has avoided.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Excellent points. With adequate planning quite a bit of stormwater can be accomodated without damage to structures. However the land allocated to water storage cannot be used for homes, and some developers will fight such requirements with every legal strategy available.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Even without commercial developers, that can be a debate. We just had one in Boulder, over undeveloped property the University owns. They want to start building (or at least start planning to build) and land allocated to flood mitigation (and avoiding a repeat of 2013) was very definitely an issue. No one was not to devote some land to this, but there were many opinions on how much was enough. I would have thought that a technical exercise in hydrology, not politics.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “I would have thought that a technical exercise in hydrology, not politics.”

            That’s hilarious.

            More to the point though is the underlying value of the property. Though I am quite the leftist, I do understand the concept of private property; and especially in the case of undeveloped land, values depend to a large extent on zoning and/or any comprehensive plan.

            That being the case, what to do with flood plain property currently zoned residential, for instance? Or industrial? The courts have rightly found that this amounts to taking without due process. In other words, some governmental agency would need to buy the property (this gets sticky, factoring raw costs with potential development profit, something i’ve been involved with over the years).

            So, is it politics? Mostly it’s just money. Shortsighted money. I imagine that at some point the insurance companies will effectively decrement the value of these marginal lands (which by the way experience increasing development pressure as the easy pieces are already developed).

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I guess that was a fairly stupid comment. I should have known better than to think (let alone say) than something shouldn’t get political.

            I guess I meant that there should be some purely technical issues. For a given size flood, how many acres would be needed to avoid damage? Given the location, how much damage would be prevented? How often do you expect a flood of that size? Or even, can it be dry, empty land most of the time, and only under water a fraction of the time? (One plan is to build subsidized housing for University employees, since, for what the University pays, housing in Boulder can be an issue.) If the residents kids can play soccer on those acres most of the time, it’s not quite unused.

            I’d expect those would be technical issues that aren’t a matter of opinion or debate (except by experts on exactly how to do it.) Then, given those facts, I actually would expect plenty of debate over how much money and land should go to avoiding how much of a risk. At least from what I saw in the local paper, the debate strayed further into questioning the technical analysis than I’d like. That reminds me of the less local debates over climate change, although in a mild form.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Spoken like a scientific true-believer who actually wants the world to make sense 🙂

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      Well there is a scenario of Harvey being static for a few days and soak the Texas coast with lots of rainfall. Then move back to the Gulf and travel North East along the coastline as a “weak.” hurricane. If this scenario plays out, most of the greater Houston area will be flooded with severe disruption to utilities. It’s scary that parts of a major metropolitan area like Houston could be without running water & electricity along with drastically reduced road transportation for a prolong period of time.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      Most likely problem would be loss of power and resultant damage from loss of cooling.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Something like that happened to the Huygens probe before launch. They were doing some final testing at Kennedy (in the summer…) when the building’s climate control went out. When you replace the previously cooled and dehumidified air with ambient Florida summer air, and the hardware is nice and cool itself, you get condensation all over everything.

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    How will Houston be affected if sea level rises due to global warming climate change unknown natural forces that are not the result of human activities?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Houston is 40 miles inland from the ocean. If the sea level rises the predicted 1 to 2 ft from global warming it will just increase the depth of the sea channel so deeper draft vessels will be able to use it. Since the channel was built through a swamp they might need to add another foot or so to the levies, but since that would come from dredging the channel it will just make it easier for tankers to reach it.

      But storm surge was never a problem for Houston. The problem, being built on a swamp is the rainfall pooling in the low areas. A decade ago UH had its computers damaged and lost a lot of books in the library because they built both below ground like they were on solid ground instead of being on swamp land.

      Galveston which was wiped out by a hurricane in 1900 just raised the entire city by 14 ft in response with early 1900’s technology, placing it 7 ft above sea level. They may need to add a foot or two, but that shouldn’t be hard with 21st Century technology.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        When I lived in Galveston (76-80) subsidence was a problem due to extraction of oil from the underlying strata. The main barrier to storm surge was the seawall, which has its limits. I readily concede that rising sea level is more of a concern in Florida.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          The concern in Florida is more about constructing buildings on barrier islands. The barrier island sand washing away has been used by the media as an example of global warming, but this has gone on for a long long time. History has shown they come and go as hurricanes and other storms pass through.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Well, yes, but that’s not the point, which is the frequency, intensity, and duration of the storm events, no?

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            The number of hurricanes striking the US has noticeably decreased in the last 20 years. Statistical blip? Or a positive effect of Climate change? Not related to Climate change?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Its related to a proposed 60 year cycle. Here is the link.

            http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Sea level is clearly rising, and the rate of CO2 increase is itself increasing. The first thing we need is more accurate data and better modeling, which we won’t have if funding is cut for climate research, or if researchers are forced to toe a political line.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, barrier islands are just that, barriers to storm waves. As a result the current come and go all the time.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Except for the development on the islands. When they put in sea walls, the sand doesn’t come and go as freely. That ends up increasing erosion at other places along the islands. South Carolina put some serious restrictions about beachside development on the islands, mostly because (1) it’s just not a bright idea and (2) it cost them an arm and a leg in emergency services after hurricane Hugo.

      • JadedObs says:
        0
        0

        So the challenge with GLOBAL warming is how to mitigate it in coastal Texas and how it will enable more utilization of the shipping channel? Wow – so much for the islands in Micronesian that can’t magically add 7 feet of land or the tens of millions in Bangladesh and other poor places living right near sea level in an overcrowded land! And don’t forger New Orleans.
        I do not wish anyone in Texas ill and I have a number of friends in Houston but I hope this storm finally gets Reps. Babin, Culberson, Palazzo and Senator Cornyn, among others in the Republican Party to wake up to see climate change as more than just a polarizing partisan talking point and to actually support funding for NASA Earth science and laws reducing US CO2 output.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          That’s if it rate increases as has been predicted. So far, it appears fairly steady the past 130 years.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          River deltas and coral islands have been disappearing since the Ice Age, look at some of the submerged cites along the Nile Delta. In Bangledash they need to do what the Dutch did when the ocean started eating their land away, which was to build dikes. But unforunately the government that Bangledash has is corrupt and wastes most of the foreign it gets.

          • JadedObs says:
            0
            0

            Sure, sea level goes up and down over time – but not at the rate it is now due to ice melting and sea water expansion due to heating. This is just as much established science as eclipse forecasting and it is astonishing to hear some presumably educated space professionals take a Fox News approach to ignoring it. And, of course, since the ocean is rising due to human induced warming – 50% of which is tied to prior US CO2 emissions – the Bangladeshis should build dikes… and given how high they will need to be (20 feet if just Greenland melts not including cyclone impacts) they’d better get started! Amazing.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The Dutch never had a problem with the ocean “eating their land away.” Most of what is now North and South Holland used to be either shallow sea or salt water marsh. The Dutch in what is now the rest of the Netherlands decided they could use extra farm land more than swamps. So they started putting in dikes and canals and windmills (which are now iconic tourist attractions, but were originally there just to drive the pumps.) An old expression is, “God made the world, but the Dutch made Holland.”

        • Granit says:
          0
          0

          I see no issues with Micronesia sea levels:
          https://tidesandcurrents.no…. nor with Bangladesh: https://tidesandcurrents.no
          Sea level trends look pretty linear, maybe even staying steady, not much evidence of man-made global warming to date at these places that I observe.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        So it’s basically gone up 2 ft since 1900 and will go up another couple of feet by the end of the century as I guessed, depending on how far Galveston subsides from oil extraction activities.

        Just a thought, but I wonder how far they could reverse the subsidence by injecting sea water, or pure water, into the old oil field. But given how small the sea level is increasing just adding to the sea wall would probably work.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Relying on seawalls and dikes works for the Dutch. However, they don’t get hurricanes and my impression is that they are extremely serious about maintaining the infrastructure. Katrina and New Orleans are an example of mixing dikes, a hurricane and insufficiently maintained infrastructure.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            From an engineering point of view the two sites aren’t really comparable. Recall that the gulf coast of North America has been constructed in large part by a meandering Mississippi River, creating very poor and unstable subsurface conditions.

            Buildings depend on friction piles, for instance, rather than reaching for bed-rock (which isn’t present).

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s a point, but I still felt better when I heard New Orleans was hiring Dutch contractors to help rebuild after Katrina. Another point is that, if the Mississippi is hard on this sort of work, by virtue of being an alluvial plain, how would you (or rather Mr. Matula) describe most of Bangladesh?

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I’d describe Bangladesh as a human sewer berift of sensible family planning.

            Oops. That’s a different website.

          • KptKaint says:
            0
            0

            The Dutch learned the hard way too. They have had a series of North Sea storms over the last 1200 years several of which overwhelmed their dike system. The 1953 hurricane storm and flood was the most recent where 1800 died, but it was not the worst storm. Starting in the late 1950s they built several dams and storm surge barriers to control storm surges. The UK built a title surge barrier on the Thames for the same reason. Interestingly the Dutch once commented on the levee system around New Orleans and asked where was the storm barrier for Lake Pontchartrain? It has been stopped by a environmental law suit in 1977. The storm surge from Katrina caused the New Orleans levees next to the lake to fail.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.c

            http://www.deltawerken.com/

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Lost in all of the excitement, Florida is experiencing unusually heavy rains driven for the most part by a low-pressure system that started over in Africa someplace.

    Don’t get me wrong. We get a lot of rain here. about 65″ a year, mostly in the summer from June through October or so. Afternoon torrents >2″ are not even newsworthy. An occasional 4″ over the course of an hour or so won’t earn a headline.

    This is a little different, but manageable. I’ve had 13.5″ here at my place over the past 36 hours, with much more coming. Persistent, steady rain, hammering a neighborhood drainage system designed before more learned and experiential techniques drove higher floor elevations and better water control. We will likely see 18″ total in the week before it is over.

    “Florida is just sand!”, you would exclaim. This would be true. But sand easily saturates, and that’s what we are experiencing. It will be gone in a week or so, but for now a huge mess. (Parenthetically, the heavy rains explain why it is necessary to fertilize plants in Florida).

    On the other hand, I did do my usual beach perusal this morning, getting completely soaked in the process. The air temperature is in the high 80’s; the water temperature, usually around 90° or more this time of year, has fallen due to rain and due to the persistent low pressure sucking heat from the surface. Sea temperature now about 87°. It’s like a kid playing in the rain.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I can see 18 inches of rain being a problem, even in a state that’s already mostly swamp (sorry, I know that’s not a fair description.) But I’m more concerned with San Antonio. The soil there is mostly clay, and hardly drain at all. Even a couple inches of rain can cause flooded streets, and they’re likely to get over a foot in the next few days.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Turns out SA was mostly spared. My brother in law lives there; most of the storm stayed east; they are seeing a lot of refugees, according to NPR this morning.

  5. Zen Puck says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s JWST is in Thermal Vac at JSC now. Lets hope they don’t run into any problems with flooding!

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      If it’s actually in the chamber, it should be fine. Vacuum chambers are fairly water-tight. But that won’t help all the equipment outside the chamber. Flooding that could really mess with their schedule. This is a common question at spacecraft design reviews: What’s the plan if an [insert natural disaster] closes down critical facilities? And it’s happened before, e.g. the ultra stable oscillator for Juno’s radio had the roof come down on it during the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake.