Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
Massive Black Cube UFO appears above the Sun's Surface
-
Similar Topics
-
By NASA
Explore This Section Earth Earth Observer Editor’s Corner Feature Articles Meeting Summaries News Science in the News Calendars In Memoriam Announcements More Archives Conference Schedules Style Guide 21 min read
Summary of the 11th ABoVE Science Team Meeting
Introduction
The NASA Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) is a large-scale ecological study in the northern regions of North America (Alaska and western Canada) that was developed to understand environmental changes in the region and the implications of those changes for society. Funded primarily by the NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program, this 10-year campaign has included field, airborne, and satellite remote sensing research to address its overarching scientific question of how environmental change in the Arctic and boreal region of western North America will affect vulnerable ecosystems and society.
ABoVE deployed in three phases: 1) ecosystem dynamics (2015–2018); 2) ecosystem services (2017–2022); and 3) analysis and synthesis (2023–present). Now in the last year of the third phase, the Science Team (ST) consists of 67 active NASA-funded projects with more than 1000 individuals participating. The ABoVE ST has met yearly to discuss the progress of individual teams, plan joint field work, and discuss synthesis activities. ABoVE was featured in a 2019 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the 2019 ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [July–August 2019, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 19–22], as well as a 2022 The Earth Observer article, titled “Summary of the Eighth ABoVE Science Team Meeting” [September–October 2022, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp. 28–33].
Meeting Overview
The 11th – and final – ABoVE Science Team Meeting (ASTM11) was held May 12–15, 2025, with 96 registered in-person attendees meeting at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) and 67 registered virtual attendees – see Photo 1. The meeting included presentations from Phase 3 projects and synthesis reports from thematic working groups (WGs). ABoVE partners, including collaborators [e.g., the Department of Energy’s Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment-Arctic (NGEE-Arctic), Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR), the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), and the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] and representatives from upcoming NASA campaigns focusing on the Arctic, shared updates on their activities. Additionally, the meeting featured sessions highlighting cross-project activities, e.g., ABoVE’s participation in regional fire workshops. The meeting also focused on collaborations with the Scotty Creek Research Station in Canada, the many types of science communication activities during ABoVE, and projects conducting collaborative research with community or regional partners.
Photo 1.The 11th Arctic–Boreal Vulnerability Experiment Science Team (ABoVE) meeting group photo of in-person and virtual participants. Photo credit: Peter Griffith, Leane Kending, and David Stroud The meeting included additional team activities designed to encourage collaboration and understanding between team members. There were opportunities for multiple field trips for in-person attendees, including visits to the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the Geophysical Institute, the Permafrost Tunnel operated by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), the Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail, and the Arctic Research Open House at UAF – see ABove Field Trips section to learn more. The meeting offered early career researchers a chance to receive feedback on their posters and participate in an Early Career lunch event. The meeting even hosted an ABoVE bingo competition, which encouraged attendees to make new scientific and social connections – see Photo 2.
Photo 2. Scott Goetz [University of Northern Arizona—ABoVE Science Team Lead] poses with ABoVE BINGO winner Wanwan Liang [University of Utah]. Photo credit: Wanwan Liang Meeting Opening
The first day of the meeting began with a series of opening remarks from the ABoVE leadership team. Peter Griffith [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science Systems and Applications, Inc. (SSAI)—Chief Scientist, Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Office (CCEO)], Scott Goetz [Northern Arizona University (NAU)—ABoVE ST Lead], and Ryan Pavlick [NASA Headquarters (HQ)—ABoVE Program Manager] all noted the significance of this final meeting and discussed the major scientific advances of ABoVE made possible through the dedication of ST members, WG leads, planning committees, and contributors who have made ABoVE a success. Goetz reviewed the meeting goals and objectives:
receive updates about currently funded projects; receive reports on Thematic WG advances with an emphasis on multiple WG and cross-phase synthesis activities; receive updates on research connections with partners and collaborators; discuss, reflect, and document the history of ABoVE, including major advances, lessons learned, and items to accomplish in the time remaining; and celebrate ABoVE success stories, with advice for potential future NASA large-scale coordinated campaigns. Working Group Presentations and Breakouts
Throughout the first few days of the meeting, leads for the thematic working groups (WG) presented synthetic overviews of the research efforts of their group members, identified current gaps in planned or completed research, and discussed potential future work. Following these presentations, breakout groups convened to discuss future activities of the WGs. Short summaries of each presentation are available below. Together, these presentations demonstrate the highly interconnected nature of carbon cycles, hydrology, permafrost dynamics, and disturbance regimes in Arctic–boreal ecosystems. The presentations also showcase the substantial ongoing WG efforts to synthesize findings and identify critical knowledge gaps for future research priorities.
Vegetation Dynamics Working Group
WG Leads: Matthew Macander [Alaska Biological Research, Inc. (ABR)] and Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc.]
The Vegetation Dynamics WG discussed new advances in understanding Arctic–boreal vegetation structure and function that have been made over the past 10 years through comprehensive biomass maps and multidecadal trend analyses. ABoVE research revealed a critical boreal forest biome shift with greening in nitrogen-rich northern forests and browning in drought-stressed southern forests. The group has identified key knowledge gaps in predicting post-fire vegetation recovery and detecting pervasive declines in vegetation resilience across southern boreal forests. The results suggest higher vulnerability to abrupt forest loss that could dampen the expected increase in carbon sequestration under future climate scenarios.
Spectral Imaging Working Group
WG Leads: Fred Huemmrich [GSFC/University of Maryland Baltimore County] and Peter Nelson [Laboratory of Ecological Spectroscopy (LECOSPEC)]
Over the past year, the Spectral Imaging WG focused on the fundamental scale problem in Arctic ecology, which refers to the mismatch between observation scales and ecological process scales, which span spatial scales from leaf level to larger study areas and temporal scales from minutes to decades. The Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) and AVIRIS-3 datasets provide the first broad-area and high-spatial and spectral resolution coverage of high-latitude terrestrial ecosystems. The WG is now completing a scaling synthesis paper and preparing for the new era of data-rich spectral imaging with improved capabilities in data management, machine learning, and modeling applications for high-latitude research.
Modeling Working Group
WG Lead: Josh Fisher [Chapman University]
The Modeling WG aims to reduce model uncertainties in simulations and projections in the Arctic–boreal region across all ABoVE ecosystem indicators. The WG had polled the ST to determine the variables most needed for their Earth system models and is now using the field, airborne, and satellite datasets to better constrain these models. This WG discussed the benefits to the modeling community of transforming the more than 100 ABoVE datasets into a common grid and projection format used by modelers.
Carbon Dynamics Working Group
WG Leads: Jonathan Wang [University of Utah] and Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center (WCRC)]
The Carbon Dynamics WG has focused its recent work on three areas: decadal syntheses of carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from eddy covariance towers, machine learning approaches to upscaling wetland and lake methane (CH4) emissions, and carbon flux modeling across the Arctic–boreal zone. The research integrated atmospheric CO2 observations to improve carbon flux estimates and examined wildfire impacts on both carbon emissions and albedo changes. A significant component of the work involved comparing top-down versus bottom-up carbon flux models, with particular attention to permafrost and peatland regions.
Hydrology-Permafrost-Wetlands Working Group
WG Leads: Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University], David Butman [University of Washington], John Kimball [University of Montana], and Melissa Schwab [University of California, Irvine]
The Hydrology–Permafrost–Wetlands WG focused on the processes controlling changes in permafrost distribution and properties and their impacts. There was discussion about the nature, causes, and consequences of hydrologic change (e.g. water storage, mobility, and distribution) and about ecosystem water, energy, and carbon cycle linkages. The presenters mentioned integration of ABoVE datasets with NASA satellite missions [e.g., NASA–Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) and Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) missions]. WG members discussed the connections between ABoVE research and several crosscutting initiatives, including two NASA Arctic coastlines efforts [e.g., Frontlines Of Rapidly Transforming Ecosystems Earth Venture Suborbital (FORTE EVS) campaign and NASA’s Arctic-COastal Land Ocean InteRactionS (COLORS)] and the WCRC’s Permafrost Pathways.
Disturbance Working Group
WG Leads: Dong Chen [University of Maryland, College Park] and Jinhyuk Kim [University of California, Irvine]
The Disturbance WG leads presented their decade-long perspective on disturbance-related research in the ABoVE domain. The presentation incorporated artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summaries of ABoVE-affiliated research across multiple disturbance types, including boreal wildfires, tundra wildfires, and thermokarst/permafrost degradation processes. Chen and Kim acknowledged the extensive contributions from researchers and WG members while outlining future directions for disturbance research.
Success Stories
Four “Success Story” presentations and panels took place during ASTM11, which showcased efforts of ABoVE ST members and the leadership team to create and coordinate engagement efforts that spanned individual projects.
Success Story 1: ABoVE Participation in Regional Fire Workshops
A substantial portion of ABoVE research has focused on wildfire, and many members of the ST have participated in domestic and international wildfire efforts, connecting researchers with land managers across Alaska and Canada. Randi Jandt [UAF] discussed the Alaska Fire Science Consortium workshops (held in 2017 and 2022). Jenn Baltzer [Wilfred Laurier University (WLU), Canada] discussed Northwest Territories workshops (held in 2014 and 2025), both of which occurred in response to extreme fire seasons in the region. Laura Bourgeau-Chavez outlined ABoVE’s participation in all of these workshops. The workshops facilitated knowledge exchange and collaboration on critical wildfire management priorities, including fire risk assessment, real-time modeling, post-fire effects, and climate change impacts on fire regimes. Key features included small focus groups, field trips to command centers and fire-affected areas, and integration of Indigenous knowledge with new technologies to inform management practices and climate preparedness strategies.
Success Story 2: Collaborations with Scotty Creek Research Station (SCRS)
ASTM11 participants watched the film, “Scotty Creek Research Community – The Spirit of Collaboration,” about the SCRS, Canada’s first and only Indigenous-led research station. Following the film, station team members participated in a panel discussion. Ramona Pearson [Ramona Pearson Consulting, Canada], Maude Auclair [WLU], Mason Dominico [WLU], Michael McPhee [Sambaa K’e First Nation, Canada], and William “Bill” Quinton [WLU] discussed their decade-long collaboration with ABoVE. The partnership involved ABoVE collecting airborne hyperspectral, lidar, and radar imagery, while SCRS researchers provided field data for calibration and validation. In 2022, management of the station transitioned to Łı́ı́dlı̨ı̨ Kų́ę́ First Nation (LKFN, Canada), and ABoVE continued collaborating through knowledge exchange, including with early-career researchers and interns. When a 2022 fire destroyed the field station and surrounding area, ABoVE flew additional flights to capture airborne imagery observations to allow comparison of pre- and post-fire conditions.
Success Story 3: Science Communication
During the ABoVE field campaign, ST members and CCEO staff engaged in multiple strategies to communicate research results to the public. The activities included interactive engagement through airborne open houses and guest flights, ST member narratives in the “Notes from the Field” blog posts on the NASA Earth Observatory website, and professional multimedia production, including Earth Observatory content and award-winning videos. This multifaceted strategy demonstrates effective scientific communication through direct public engagement and high-quality, multimedia storytelling, making complex research accessible to diverse audiences.
Success Story 4: Engagement Activities
This session highlighted several examples of community engagement across the ABoVE domain. Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] discussed synthesizing ecosystem responses and elder observations in western Alaska for his ABoVE project. In another example, ABoVE researchers from Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI) partnered with Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) and local organizations. Dana Redhuis [MTRI] and Rebecca Edwards [DUC] described their on-the-land camps that provide hands-on training for Northwest Territories youth in wetlands education and ecological monitoring. Kevin Turner [Brock University, Canada] showcased his work with members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in Old Crow Flats, Yukon, evaluating how climate and land cover change influence water dynamics and carbon balance. These activities demonstrate collaborative research that integrates Indigenous and Western knowledge approaches to address climate change impacts.
ABoVE Phase 3 Project Presentations
Project leads of the 20 NASA-funded ABoVE Phase 3 projects presented updates that were organized by scientific theme. The presentations spanned multiple days of the meeting. Table 1 below provides all the project titles, presenter names, and links to each project and presentation. Science results from four of the presentations are shown in Figures 1–4 below as indicated in the table.
Table 1. An overview ofABoVE Phase 3 projects and presenters. The Project name includes the last name of the Principal Investigator, NASA funding program (TE for Terrestrial Ecology), the year of the NASA solicitation funding the research, and provides a hyperlink to the Project Profile. A hyperlink to each presentation is provided as either PowerPoint (PPT) file or PDF.
Project Carbon Presenter(s) Bloom (TE 2021): Using CO2, CH4 and land-surface constraints to resolve sign and magnitude of northern high latitude carbon-climate feedbacks [PDF] Eren Bilir [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)]; Principal Investigator (PI): Alexis (Anthony) Bloom [NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)] Butman (TE 2021): Do changing terrestrial-aquatic interfaces in Arctic-boreal landscapes control the form, processing, and fluxes of carbon? [PPT] David Butman [University of Washington] – see Figure 1 Watts (TE 2021): Contributions of tundra and boreal systems to radiative forcing in North America and Russia under contemporary and future conditions [PPT] Jennifer Watts [Woodwell Climate Research Center] Miller-S (TE 2021): A synthesis and reconciliation of greenhouse gas flux estimates across the ABoVE domain [PDF] Scot Miller [Johns Hopkins University] Michalak (TE 2021): Quantifying climate sensitivities of photosynthesis and respiration in Arctic and boreal ecosystems from top-down observational constraints [PDF] Wu Sun and Jiaming Wen [both Carnegie Institution for Science, CI]; PI: Anna Michalak, [Carnegie Institution for Science] Fire Presenter(s) Bourgeau-Chavez (TE 2021): Integrating remote sensing and modeling to better understand the vulnerability of boreal-taiga ecosystems to wildfire [PPT] Laura Bourgeau-Chavez [Michigan Technological University (MTU)] Walker (TE 2021): Drivers and Impacts of Reburning in boreal forest Ecosystems (DIRE) [PDF] Jeremy Forsythe [Northern Arizona University (NAU)]; PI: Xanthe Walker [NAU] Wang (TE 2021): Quantifying disturbance and global change impacts on multi-decadal trends in aboveground biomass and land cover across Arctic-boreal North America [PPT] Jonathan Wang [University of Utah]– see Figure 2 Wildlife Presenter(s) Boelman (TE 2021): The future of the Forest-Tundra Ecotone: A synthesis that adds interactions among snow, vegetation, and wildlife to the equation [PPT] Natalie Boelman [Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University] French (TE 2021): Informing wetland policy and management for waterfowl habitat and other ecosystem services using multi-frequency synthetic aperture radar [PPT] Nancy French [MTU] – see Figure 3 Hydrology / Permafrost Presenter(s) Du (TE 2021): High resolution mapping of surface soil freeze thaw status and active layer thickness for improving the understanding of permafrost dynamics and vulnerability [PPT] Jinyang Du [University of Montana] Miller (TE 2021): Enhanced methane emissions in transitional permafrost environments: An ABoVE phase 3 synthesis investigation [PPT] Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL] Tape (TE 2021): Characterizing a widespread disturbance regime in the ABoVE domain: Beaver engineering [PPT] Kenneth Tape [University of Alaska, Fairbanks] Zhuang (TE 2021): Role of linked hydrological, permafrost, ground ice, and land cover changes in regional carbon balance across boreal and Arctic landscapes [PDF] Qianlai Zhuang [Purdue University] Vegetation Structure Presenter(s) Duncanson (TE 2021): Mapping boreal forest biomass recovery rates across gradients of vegetation structure and environmental change [PPT] Paul Montesano [GSFC/ADNET Systems Inc]; PI: Laura Duncanson [University of Maryland]—see Figure 4 Lara (TE 2021): ABoVE-Ground characterization of plant species succession in retrogressive thaw slumps using imaging spectroscopy [PPT] Mark Lara [University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign] Vegetation Dynamics Presenter(s) Frost (TE 2021): Towards a warmer, less frozen future Arctic: Synthesis of drivers, ecosystem responses, and elder observations along bioclimatic gradients in western Alaska [PPT] Gerald “J.J.” Frost [ABR] Goetz (TE 2021): Mapping and modeling attributes of an Arctic-boreal biome shift: Phase-3 applications within the ABoVE domain [PPT] Scott Goetz [NAU] Liu (TE 2021): Characterizing Arctic-boreal vegetation resilience under climate change and disturbances [PPT] Yanlan Liu [The Ohio State University] Townsend (TE 2021): Functional diversity as a driver of gross primary productivity variation across the ABoVE domain [PPT] Philip Townsend [University of Wisconsin] Determining Aboveground Biomass Density Using ICESat-2 Data and Modeling
Figure 1. Despite their relatively small coverage, surface water extent across boreal and arctic lowlands significantly impacts landscape-scale estimates of carbon emissions. The red points on the map in the figure indicates locations of available lake chemistry data derived from ABoVE-supported research, from collaborators, and from a preliminary literature search. Figure credit. David Butman Figure 2. The Arctic-boreal carbon cycle is inextricably linked to vegetation composition and demography, both of which are being altered by climate change, rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and climate-induced changes in disturbance regimes. The map in the figure shows above-ground biomass (AGB) change across Arctic-boreal North America (2022–1984) created using a machine learning model of AGB trained on from more than 45,000 field plots and 200,000 km2 of airborne lidar data. Figure credit: Wanwan Liang Figure 3. Wetlands provide many ecosystem services, including waterfowl habitat, carbon sequestration, and water quality. Northern wetlands Iin the ABovE study area) are threatened from both land use expansion and climate change disruptions, prompting the need for informed management strategies. Copernicus Sentinel 1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data have been used to create this map of flooding (hydroperiod) in wetland areas around the Great Slave Lake in Canada The color code on the map corresponds to the number of times the SAR imagery indicated a place was flooded (inundated). Such information is helpful for predicting within-season changes in wetland extent. Figure credit: Nancy French Figure 4. Advances have been made in mapping aboveground biomass density (AGBD). Shown here as an example is an AGBD map created using stata from the ICESat-2 pan-Boreal 30-m (98-ft) tree height and biomass data product [left] and the ensemble mean of the standard deviation of AGBD, aggregated to modelling tiles [right]. Current research aims to expand these maps and understand regional vegetation changes. Figure credit. Laura Duncanson/data from ORNL DAAC ASTM11 Poster Sessions
ASTM11 featured 41 research posters across three sessions, organized by thematic area – see Table 3 and Photo 3. The Poster Session agenda details the range of topics that spanned airborne synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and satellite imagery to northern ecosystem fieldwork. Key research topics that emerged included CO2 and CH4 emissions from terrestrial and aquatic systems, ongoing permafrost thaw, fire impacts on carbon cycling, vegetation mapping and biomass estimation, and the impacts of wildlife on the landscape.
Table 2. A breakdown of ASTM11 poster presentations by science theme.
Poster Theme Poster Count Carbon Dynamics 5 Crosscutting, Modeling, or Other 6 Fire Disturbance 5 Permafrost, Hydrology, and Wetlands 13 Vegetation Dynamics and Distribution 7 Vegetation Structure and Function 4 Wildlife and Ecosystem Services 1 Photo 3. Poster presentations and sessions during ASTM11 offered opportunities for presenters to share their latest research findings with meeting participants. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy ABoVE Field Trips
ASTM11 offered multiple field trip options across the Fairbanks region of Alaska. The fieldtrips provided ST members an opportunity to interact with the research community – see Photo 4.
Trip to Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) and Geophysical Institute
ASF is a data archive for many SAR datasets from a variety of sensors and has multiple ground station facilities. During the tour, participants visited the ASF operations room and ASF rooftop antenna. The Geophysical Institute tour also featured the Alaska Earthquake Center, Wilson Alaska Technical Center, and Alaska Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration.
Trip to Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Permafrost Tunnel
The U.S. Army Core of Engineers CRREL Permafrost Tunnel is located in Fox, AK – about 15 km (9 mi) north of Fairbanks. Over 300 m (984 ft) of tunnel have been excavated, exposing Pleistocene ice and carbon-rich yedoma permafrost that ranges in age from 18,000 to 43,000 years old. The tunnel exposes mammoth and bison bones and a variety of permafrost soils. Ongoing projects in the tunnel cover a range of topics, including engineering and geophysical work, Mars analog studies, and biogeochemistry and microbiology of permafrost soils.
Wildfire Walk: Yankovich Road Fire Interpretive Trail
On July 11, 2021, a wildfire burned 3.5 acres (14,164 m2) of UAF land. In 2024, the UAF Alaska Fire Science Consortium, Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service, and local artist Klara Maisch collaborated with others to develop the Wildfire Walk at the site. The interpretive trail is an outdoor learning experience with interpretive wayside markers that describe the fire incident, the relationship between wildfire and the boreal forest, fire science and environmental change, and wildfire prevention – see Figure 1.
UAF Arctic Research Open House
The UAF Arctic Research Open House was an opportunity for ST members and the public to explore the wide range of research happening at UAF and meet other scientists. ABoVE hosted an information table at the event.
Photo 4: Collage of images collected during a series of field trips, including [top] the Wildfire Walk along the Alaska Fire Science Consortium, [middle] the Permafrost Tunnel with Tom Douglas [Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory], [bottom left] UAF Arctic Open House ABoVE Table with Margaret “Maggie” Wooton [NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)], Elizabeth Hoy [GSFC/Global Science & Technology Inc.], and Qiang Zhou [GSFC/SSAI], talking with Logan Berner [Northern Arizona University], [bottom right] the Alaska Satellite Facility ground receiving antenna. Photo credit: Elizabeth Hoy Research Connections
The success of ABoVE as a large-scale research study over the Arctic and boreal regions within and outside the United States depended on collaboration with multiple organizations. Many of the ABoVE collaborators were able to present at ASTM11.
Andrew Applejohn [Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR)] provided details about the scope, mandate, and facilities available through POLAR, a Canadian government agency that has partnered with the ABoVE ST for the duration of the campaign.
Ryan Connon [Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT)] discussed the decade-long collaboration between ABoVE and the GNWT, including knowledge sharing of wildlife collar data, field-data ground measurements, and remote sensing analyses.
Gabrielle Gascon [Canadian Forest Service (CFS), Natural Resources Canada] explained the scope of Canada’s National Forest Inventory and the current CFS focus on wildfire and the CFS’s other areas of research related to the northern regions. Another presentation featured information about various vegetation mapping initiatives where Matthew Macander discussed an Alaska-based effort called AKVEG Map, a vegetation plot database, and Logan Berner [NAU] detailed a pan-Arctic plant aboveground biomass synthesis dataset.
Brendan Rogers [WCRC] showcased research from Permafrost Pathways, designed to bring together permafrost-related science experts with local communities to inform Arctic policy and develop adaptation and mitigation strategies to address permafrost thaw. NGEE-Arctic is another U.S. government effort that partnered specifically with ABoVE for the duration of the two efforts, and Bob Bolton [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)] provided updates on the project.
Tomoko Tanabe [Japan’s National Institute of Polar Research (JNIPR)] gave a presentation about NIPR to better inform ABoVE scientists about other international Arctic efforts, including a new Japanese Arctic research initiative called the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability III (ArCS III), designed to address social issues related to environmental and social changes in the Arctic.
Additional Presentations
An additional presentation aimed to keep the ABoVE ST informed of future NASA Arctic research efforts. Kelsey Bisson [NASA HQ—Program Scientist for the Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry Program] discussed NASA Arctic-COLORS and Maria Tzortziou [City University of New York/Columbia University, LDEO] discussed the FORTE EVS campaign. The proposed Arctic-COLORS field campaign would quantify the biogeochemical and ecological response of Arctic nearshore systems to rapid changes in terrestrial fluxes and ice conditions. The NASA FORTE EVS campaign will fill a critical gap in understanding Alaska’s northernmost ecosystems by investigating eroding coastlines, rivers, deltas, and estuaries that connect land and sea systems, using airborne platforms.
Scott Goetz continued with a presentation on U.S. efforts to plan the International Polar Year, scheduled for 2032–2033. Ryan Pavlick provided details on the NISAR mission, which launched after the meeting on July 30, 2025, and discussed other possible future NASA missions.
A Career Trajectory panel featured Jennifer Watts, Jonathan Wang, Brendan Rogers, and Xiaoran “Seamore” Zhu [Boston University]. The panelists discussed opportunities for researchers from different academic backgrounds and at different career stages, and they provided details about how ABoVE has impacted their careers. They also discussed how NASA campaigns offer opportunities for early career scientists to join a team of peers to grow their abilities throughout the duration of the decade-long research.
Klara Maisch, a local artist, discussed her work creating science-informed artwork through interdisciplinary collaborations with scientists and other creators – see Figure 5. Maisch described the benefits of partnering with artists to share science with a broad audience and showcased artwork she has created.
Figure 5. Lower Tanana Homelands – 2022 Yankovich Fire – Plot Painting [left], with original plot reference photograph [right]. Image Credit: Klara Maisch Overarching Presentations
A series of presentations on the overall structure and outcomes of ABoVE were held during ASTM11. Charles “Chip” Miller [NASA/JPL—Deputy ABoVE ST Lead, ABoVE Airborne Lead] provided details about SAR, hyperspectral, and lidar airborne measurements collected between 2017 and 2024 for the ABoVE Airborne Campaign.
ABoVE Logistics Office members Daniel Hodkinson [GSFC/SSAI], Sarah Dutton [GSFC/SSAI], and Leanne Kendig [GSFC/Global Science & Technology, Inc. (GST, Inc.)] discussed the many field teams and activities supported during ABoVE. Overall, more than 50 teams were trained in field safety topics, with more than 1,200 training certificates awarded. Elizabeth Hoy [NASA GSFC/GST, Inc.] and Debjani Singh [ORNL] discussed the more than 250 data products developed during the ABoVE program and how to access them through NASA Earthdata. Example visualizations of ABoVE data products can be found in Figure 6.
Figure 6. ABoVE logo created with different data products from the campaign used to compose each letter.A: Active Layer Thickness from Remote Sensing Permafrost Model, Alaska, 2001-2015;. Tree (inside A): Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) Trends across Alaska and Canada from Landsat, 1984-2012;. B: Landsat-derived Annual Dominant Land Cover Across ABoVE Core Domain, 1984-2014;; O: Wildfire Carbon Emissions and Burned Plot Characteristics, NWT, CA, 2014-2016;; V: AVHRR-Derived Forest Fire Burned Area-Hot Spots, Alaska and Canada, 1989-2000;; E: Lake Bathymetry Maps derived from Landsat and Random Forest Modeling, North Slope, AK; and Underline (under O): Plot lines from the ABoVE Planning Tool visualizer. Figure credit: Caitlin LaNeve The Collaborations and Engagement WG held a plenary discussion to highlight the many activities that ABoVE researchers have been involved in over the past decade. The discussion highlighted the need for individual projects and campaign leadership to work together to ensure participation and understanding of planned research at local and regional levels.
A highlight of the meeting was the “Legacy of ABoVE” panel discussion moderated by Nancy French [MTU]. Panelists included Eric Kasischke [MTU], Scott Goetz, Chip Miller, Peter Griffith, Libby Larson [NASA GSFC/SSAI], and Elizabeth Hoy. Each panelist reflected on their journey to develop ABoVE, which included an initial scoping study developed more than 15 years ago. Members of the panel – all a part of the ABoVE leadership team – joined the campaign at different stages of their career. Each panelist arrived with different backgrounds, bringing their unique perspective to the group that helped to frame the overall campaign development. Following the panel, all ST members who have been a part of ABoVE since its start over a decade ago came to the front for a group photo – see Photo 5.
Following the panel, the ABoVE ST leads presented their overall thoughts on the meeting and facilitated a discussion with all participants at the meeting. Participants noted the important scientific discoveries made during ABoVE and enjoyed the collegial atmosphere during ASTM11.
Photo 5. A group photo of participants who have been with ABoVE since its inception: [left to right] Ryan Pavlick, Chip Miller, Elizabeth Hoy, Libby Larson, Peter Griffith, Fred Huemmrich, Nancy French, Scott Goetz, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, Eric Kasischke, and Larry Hinzman. Photo credit: Peter Griffith Conclusion
Overall, ASTM11 brought together an interdisciplinary team for a final team meeting that showcased the many accomplishments made over the past decade. The group outlined current gaps and needs in Arctic and boreal research and discussed possibilities for future NASA terrestrial ecology campaigns. The synthesis science presentations at ASTM11 highlighted the advances ABoVE has made in understanding carbon and ecosystem dynamics in Arctic and boreal regions. It also highlighted the need for further study of cold season and subsurface processes. While this was the last meeting of this ST, research for some projects will continue into 2026, and more publications and data products are expected from ST members in the near term.
Elizabeth Hoy
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Global Science & Technology Inc. (GSFC/GST,Inc.)
elizabeth.hoy@nasa.gov
Libby Larson
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Science System and Applications, Inc. (GSFC/SSAI)
libby.larson@nasa.gov
Annabelle Sokolowski
NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
Caitlin LaNeve
NASA GSFC Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Intern
Share
Details
Last Updated Sep 10, 2025 Related Terms
Earth Science View the full article
-
By USH
Three U.S. military veterans, two from the Air Force and one from the Navy, took the stand Tuesday during the third congressional hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs), the government’s sanitized new term for UFOs.
The most shocking moment came when Congressman Eric Burlison of Missouri unveiled never before seen military footage: a U.S. drone firing a hellfire missile at a mysterious object off the coast of Yemen on October 30, 2024.
The grainy black and white video shows the 100 pound precision weapon streaking toward the target, only to ricochet off harmlessly as the object shot away at impossible speed. Just as baffling, three smaller spheres hovered in formation around the craft, undisturbed by the impact.
Reactions were mixed. Skeptics immediately dismissed the video, claiming it could be nothing more than a misidentified balloon, its apparent speed exaggerated by the drone’s telephoto lens. Others suggested the missile was part of a weapons test rather than a failed strike on something otherworldly.
But the testimony didn’t stop with the video. Two veterans alleged the government has been actively silencing witnesses, threatening those who came forward, and even blacklisting service members who refused to stay quiet. Dylan Borland, a former Air Force geospatial intelligence specialist, testified that multiple agencies conspired to destroy his career blocking jobs, forging documents, and tampering with his security clearance.
For some, this hearing represented a breakthrough in UFO transparency. For others, it was little more than political theater. As one observer put it: it looks like it is just another carefully staged distraction, the UFO spectacle might just be a smokescreen for something deeper.
View the full article
-
By USH
Everything we know about 3I/ATLAS to date:
On July 1, 2025, the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) station at Río Hurtado, Chile, detected something extraordinary: a fast-moving object flagged with the provisional designation A11pl3Z, later named 3I/ATLAS, also cataloged as C/2025 N1 (ATLAS).
At first glance, it was classified as a comet. But almost immediately, astronomers realized that this visitor was anything but ordinary.
3I/ATLAS imaged by the James Webb Space Telescope's NIRSpec on 6 August 2025.
Why 3I/ATLAS is different.
1. Interstellar Origins Like ʻOumuamua (1I/2017 U1) and Borisov (2I/2019 Q4) before it, 3I/ATLAS is only the third confirmed interstellar object to enter our solar system. Its steep hyperbolic orbit—with an eccentricity greater than 1.02—proves it is not gravitationally bound to the Sun.
2. A Composition Unlike Any Comet Most comets are rich in water ice. Not 3I/ATLAS. Spectroscopic analysis from both the Hubble Space Telescope and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) revealed it is dominated by carbon dioxide with one of the highest CO₂-to-water ratios ever measured. This makes it chemically alien compared to the comets that formed in our own solar system.
3. A Tail That Breaks the Rules Comets typically sprout tails pointing away from the Sun, driven by sublimating ice. 3I/ATLAS, however, displays a dust plume angled toward the Sun—a tail in the “wrong” direction. This phenomenon has never been observed in a natural comet and suggests either unusual physics or engineered behavior.
4. Perfectly Aligned Trajectory Instead of cutting randomly across the solar system, 3I/ATLAS travels almost exactly along the ecliptic plane, the flat orbital path where Earth, Mars, and most of the planets reside. Statistically, the odds of a random interstellar object aligning this precisely are less than 0.005%.
5. Unexplained Acceleration Data from radar tracking and JWST confirm subtle but persistent non-gravitational acceleration. Normally, such changes are explained by outgassing jets. Yet Webb detects no coma, no jets, no thermal signature to explain the push. Instead, the acceleration resembles controlled propulsion, similar to how an ion engine expels dust or gas for thrust.
6. Forward-Facing Glow: Instead of a tail behind it, 3I/ATLAS shines with a glow ahead of its motion, almost as if it were illuminating its path.
7. Stabilized Rotation: Unlike natural tumbling comets, it appears to maintain attitude control, consistent with artificial stabilization.
8. Speculations of nuclear propulsion: Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb, already known for his bold ʻOumuamua interpretations, has highlighted its non-gravitational acceleration and trajectory. He even speculated that 3I/ATLAS might be nuclear-powered technology, perhaps venting dust as thrust.
9. 3I/ATLAS will not simply zip past and leave. Its calculated path takes it past several key planets: Venus flyby – August 2025 Mars encounter – September 2025 Jupiter flyby – late 2026
Tilted view of 3I/ATLAS's trajectory through the Solar System, with orbits and positions of planets shown. Such a sequence of planetary passes looks less like coincidence and more like a deliberate survey trajectory.
Finally, on October 30, 2025, the object will reach perihelion, its closest approach to the Sun. Crucially, at that moment it will be hidden directly behind the Sun from Earth’s perspective, a perfect opportunity for a stealth maneuver if it is indeed under intelligent control.
10. And the latest news on this object is that 3I/ATLAS shows signs of alien electroplating. Astronomers using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have detected something never before seen in a natural comet, a plume of pure nickel gas, laced with cyanide, but completely lacking iron.
This is not how comets behave. In every known case, nickel and iron are paired together in space rocks, asteroids, and cosmic debris. The absence of iron in 3I/ATLAS makes it impossible to explain through natural processes.
The nickel-cyanide combination looks eerily familiar to something we know from human technology: nickel-cyanide electroplating. This industrial process is used to coat and protect metals like iron, creating a corrosion-resistant shell. When heated, such a coating releases nickel vapor and cyanide gas, the exact chemical fingerprint astronomers now see venting from 3I/ATLAS.
Renowned astrophysicist Avi Loeb has already highlighted this bizarre discovery, stressing that the nickel-only signature matches industrial alloy production rather than anything we’d expect from natural comet chemistry.
Pure nickel without iron: impossible in natural comets. Nickel + cyanide plume: matches electroplated coatings. Artificial signature: hallmark of industrial processes.
Putting it all together, so far: It is an interstellar visitor on a hyperbolic escape path. It has a carbon dioxide–dominated composition, nearly devoid of water. It has a dust plume points toward the Sun, breaking cometary rules. It has a trajectory which is perfectly aligned with the ecliptic plane. It shows mysterious acceleration without visible outgassing. It exhibits a forward glow, possible radio emissions, and signs of stabilization. It will perform planetary flybys. It probably has nuclear propulsion. It has an electroplated shell.
Mainstream astronomers remain cautious, still labeling 3I/ATLAS as a comet, but with mounting evidence, we may be staring at the first tangible proof of alien technology crossing our solar system, a probe from another civilization on a reconnaissance mission, silently mapping habitable worlds before making contact.View the full article
-
By USH
The first video, beginning around the 1:02 mark, was captured on a dash cam while driving eastbound on a four-lane freeway. Suddenly, a large triangular craft entered the frame, flying approximately 300 to 400 feet above the road.
Although the exact location remains unknown, the sighting is remarkable for its level of visible detail:
A blinking light with two dull orange lights in the center. A large circular feature on the underside, possibly an energy source. A distinctly aerodynamic triangular design. What appears to be an energy field or interference surrounding the craft. An estimated width of 75 to 100 feet, with no audible sound, suggesting non-conventional technology.
When viewed in slow motion, the footage stands out as one of the most striking nighttime captures to date, raising the question: is this a black-budget military project, or evidence of something extraterrestrial? Interestingly, the triangular craft bears a strong resemblance to the rumored TR-3B black manta, an alleged anti-gravity alien reproduction vehicle.
Additional almost similar sightings in Texas and Florida.
Austin, Texas: A dark craft hovering silently in the night sky, completely stationary throughout the entire recording. Sarasota, Florida: Three energy sources forming a triangular pattern while hovering in the night sky. It looks like it could be one of those triangle crafts.
Today, many aerial craft, whether human-made or not, are observed using technologies that remain beyond our current understanding.
View the full article
-
By USH
NASA’s 1991 Discovery shuttle video shows UFOs making impossible maneuvers, evading a possible Star Wars railgun test. Evidence of secret tech?
In September 1991, NASA’s Space Shuttle Discovery transmitted live video that has since become one of the most debated UFO clips ever recorded. The footage, later analyzed by independent researchers, shows glowing objects in orbit performing maneuvers far beyond the limits of known physics.
One object appears over Earth’s horizon, drifts smoothly, then suddenly reacts to a flash of light by accelerating at impossible speeds, estimated at over 200,000 mph while withstanding forces of 14,000 g’s. NASA officially dismissed the anomalies as ice particles or debris, but side by side comparisons with actual orbital ice show key differences: the objects make sharp turns, sudden accelerations, and fade in brightness in ways consistent with being hundreds of miles away, not near the shuttle.
Image analysis expert Dr. Mark Carlotto confirmed that at least one object was located about 1,700 miles from the shuttle, placing it in Earth’s atmosphere. At that distance, the object would be too large and too fast to be dismissed as ice or space junk.
The flash and two streaks seen in the video resemble the Pentagon’s “Brilliant Pebbles” concept, a railgun based missile defense system tested in the early 1990s. Researchers suggest the shuttle cameras may have accidentally, or deliberately, captured a live Star Wars weapons test in orbit.
The UFO easily evaded the attack, leading some to conclude that it was powered by a form of hyperdimensional technology capable of altering gravity.
Notably, following this 1991 incident, all subsequent NASA shuttle external camera feeds were censored or delayed, raising speculation that someone inside the agency allowed the extraordinary footage to slip out.
View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.