Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab Closed Due to Raging LA Fires (space.com) 56

Posted by BeauHD from the scary-times dept.
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), located at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains just north of Los Angeles, has been temporarily shuttered due to the nearby Eaton fire. "JPL is closed except for emergency personnel. No fire damage so far (some wind damage) but it is very close to the lab. Hundreds of JPLers have been evacuated from their homes & many have lost homes. Special thx to our emergency crews. Pls keep us in your thoughts & stay safe," JPL Director Laurie Leshin announced via X today (Jan. 8). Space.com reports: JPL is federally funded but managed by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The center runs many of NASA's high-profile robotic missions, such as the Perseverance and Curiosity Mars rovers and the $5 billion Europa Clipper, which recently launched to explore an intriguing ocean moon of Jupiter.

The Eaton fire sparked up on Tuesday evening (Jan. 7) near Altadena, which is just north of Pasadena. It has burned at least 1,000 acres (400 hectares) to date, according to CBS News, which cited the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). The Eaton fire is one of several big blazes churning through the Los Angeles area, driven and spread by record-setting winds. The biggest and most destructive is the Palisades Fire, which is laying waste to the Pacific Palisades neighborhood on the west side of the city.

NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab Closed Due to Raging LA Fires More | Reply

NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab Closed Due to Raging LA Fires

Comments Filter:

  • Prevention (Score:3)

    by cowdung ( 702933 ) on Thursday January 09, 2025 @04:34AM (#65074661)

    These fires are just insane.

    Are there no barriers that can be built to stop their rapid propagation?
    Firewalls?
    Trenches?
    Artificial rivers?

    Now that so much has been destroyed can it be rebuilt so that this doesn't happen again?

    • Re:Prevention (Score:5, Insightful)

      by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Thursday January 09, 2025 @04:51AM (#65074679)

      No. The problem with these very large fires is the wind. Embers from them blow downwind by miles, and spread the fire sometimes as fast as 15mph. Tiny little trenches (even ones hundreds of meters wide) don't stop them. They can jump across them easily.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CEC-P ( 10248912 )
        No, it's lack of water to put them out and PG&E running power lines through forests without clearing X amount of feet away from them because it's cheaper.

        • Well no, it's the winds. The water and the budget cuts are just media fodder. The winds have been so bad, there is almost nothing to do but try and contain the files.
            Also PG&E doesn't operate in that part of California. So that shows how much you know.

          • Well no, it's the winds. The water and the budget cuts are just media fodder. The winds have been so bad, there is almost nothing to do but try and contain the files.

            You are both mistaken, it's not wind, it's not water, ... it's fuel mitigation. The fuel is nowadays allowed to accumulate. No more removal, no more controlled burns.

            FYI - The winds are nothing new. They are massive every year. Overturned big rig trucks on the 60 freeway are an annual occurrence during the Santa Ana's for example. They were, in part, the motivation for fuel mitigation. Everyone knew they were coming and would make fire fighting impossible IF there was abundant fuel.

            Now, radicals preve

            • Now, radicals prevent removal and controlled burns. Requiring environmental studies and other paper barriers.

              No it's not and you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Just STFU with this idiotic right-wing talking point.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          running power lines through forests

          That's more of a Northern California problem.

          Does anyone know how these fires were started? Not the "blowing embers" b.s. Because embers have to come from somewhere. Even a homeless camp meth cooking operation.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            Does anyone know how these fires were started? Not the "blowing embers" b.s. Because embers have to come from somewhere. Even a homeless camp meth cooking operation.

            No one knows because everyone who can figure it out is busy fighting the fires.

            But there are two main causes - natural and human. Natural causes typically are ones like lightning. Human causes are much more varied and can range from failing infrastructure (power lines), to human activities like campfires or other fires. Another cause is engine e

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            Because embers have to come from somewhere. Even a homeless camp meth cooking operation.

            I've been hiking and camping in remote areas north of LA. In the dry seasons you can pick up a piece of dead wood and see and feel how ready to combust it is if you have any experience creating campfires (which you would not do under those conditions, stoves only). It's scary seeing how ready a whole hillside is ready to burn. Minor sparks could ignite something. When its like that its time to take the dirt bikes out the the desert. Pretty much anything that can create a spark is dangerous.

      • By having a goal of zero fires, when the big one hits there is so much undergrowth everywhere that there is no stopping it. This is still a case of poor land management. At least no earthquakes have gotten in the way..

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          By having a goal of zero fires, when the big one hits there is so much undergrowth everywhere that there is no stopping it. This is still a case of poor land management. At least no earthquakes have gotten in the way..

          Which is why the prevailing wildfire treatment is as long as the fires are isolated, to let them burn. Just because a fire pops up doesn't mean we have to put it out - instead let them burn and only attack when they get close to human settlements

          You can bet a lot of this fire is simply being l

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 )

      Not a lot. Once a fire is big enough theres sweet FA except a very good fire department that can slow it down.

      The good news is that the three best fire departments in the world are the Aussies, Canadians and importantly here, the Californians. If it was in summer, you might even have a a few of those aussies (who are the masters of fighting highly explosive eucalypt fires which are similar in behavior to redwood fires), alas its not summer and the australians are back at home fighting big fires back in AU.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 )
      Perhaps we should not have built a gigantic city in the middle of a desert?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ksw_92 ( 5249207 )

        We're talking about LA, not Las Vegas. The greater LA area is comprised of several climate types that are mostly variants of the Mediterranean type.

    • Now that so much has been destroyed can it be rebuilt so that this doesn't happen again?

      Between FEMA handing out $750 checks as “good enough” after a disaster and Greed in insurance charging six figures for fire insurance policies, I promise you that your concerns about this being rebuilt are not valid.

      California will be lucky if it has dirt left to tax in the areas being destroyed. And American insurance better learn to get a fucking grip on their incessant greed problem. Otherwise that burnt California dirt will remain about as valuable as a Ukrainian exclusion zone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        Between FEMA handing out $750 checks as “good enough” after a disaster

        Ah, the disinformation is strong with this one!

        The $750 was just an immediate payment in the moment. More appropriate funds can be had via the usual application process. Here is the official take from FEMA [fema.gov].

        Other sources: WPTV [wptv.com] (west palm beach, FL ABC affiliate), WSPA [wspa.com] (Spartanburg, Ga CBS affiliate), Marketplace [marketplace.org], Yahoo [yahoo.com], Al Jazeera [aljazeera.com]. Hell, even Fox News [foxnews.com] explains that the $750 was just an immediate needs payment, and

      • Re:Prevention (Score:4, Informative)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Thursday January 09, 2025 @08:51AM (#65074993) Journal

        Greed in insurance charging six figures for fire insurance policies... And American insurance better learn to get a fucking grip on their incessant greed problem.

        While there is certainly a profit seeking motive in providing insurance, the above is just a stupid take.

        Fire insurance rates are going up because the risk is going up. Insurance is risk pooling, plain and simple. When you have a loss, your claim is paid from the premiums paid by you and, more importantly, the people who didn't have losses. More fires, more claims? Everyone's premiums are going up and those who have the highest risk see the highest rise in their premiums. If you have a house in the middle of wildfire country that's going to cost seven figures to rebuild and replace your personal property, a six figure fire insurance policy probably represents the actual risk. There is a reason that insurance companies are leaving the state and refusing to write new policies.

      • Re:Prevention (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Thursday January 09, 2025 @11:48AM (#65075569) Homepage
        Sure blame the insurance companies. Not poor land management, government de-funding, and over priced housing. Sure insurance will take a profit, but most of those premiums are to rebuild your fucking increasingly overpriced house over and over (and over) on a fire zone or flood plain.

        Be glad I don't run insurance, there would be a two strike rule - you get to rebuild once, the second time you get the money but can only use it to build in a less risk prone spot.

        Constantly rebuilding for the same reason is idiocy.

  • Thankfully... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CEC-P ( 10248912 ) on Thursday January 09, 2025 @08:52AM (#65074995)
    The smelt are okay! Those poor fish! I don't know what I'd do if anything happened to them. We better keep rerouting water to them instead of humans and not build a simple dam to stop the saltwater from coming inland.

    • I believe that fish are also affected by wildfires...

    • You have no idea what you are talking about. The Bay Delta region is predominantly freshwater and there are hundreds of dikes and dams through the area. The controlling factor for how much water goes to Southern California is called the State Water Project and that is dependent on snow melt from the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east. No snow, no flow. No rain, no snow. Because of a normal snow pack during last year, Southern California is expected to have most of it's allotment from the State Water Projec

Slashdot Top Deals

You have mail.

Close