LIDAR screws with radio astronomy.
LIDAR screws with radio astronomy.
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
And
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
And
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done
effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
Given how hugely expensive putting stuff in space is, having to move
stuff to space is likely to be a big problem. There will be far fewer >observatories, and hence far fewer observations, of the types that
are affected.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problemsIt wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth. But that's
for astronomy.
not going to happen soon.
And
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done
effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
Given how hugely expensive putting stuff in space is, having to moveIt's getting cheaper all the time to put things into space. Hardly any
stuff to space is likely to be a big problem. There will be far fewer >observatories, and hence far fewer observations, of the types that
are affected.
ground based astronomy is significantly impacted by human activities,
so we don't need all that many operations in space to cover the few
that are.
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 8:50:46 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:It wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth. But that's
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
not going to happen soon.
It's getting cheaper all the time to put things into space. Hardly anyAnd
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done
effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
Given how hugely expensive putting stuff in space is, having to move
stuff to space is likely to be a big problem. There will be far fewer
observatories, and hence far fewer observations, of the types that
are affected.
ground based astronomy is significantly impacted by human activities,
so we don't need all that many operations in space to cover the few
that are.
That's the problem, cheaper it gets the more pollution dumped into the upper atmosphere.
That's what happened with cars or anything else in the last 100 years.
More cars, more pollution, more hoomans, population expended exponentially, all hoomans wanted cars to impress girlfriends, wives, drive to the store to pick up milk etc...
Now comes the rockets, space tourism or what have you!
Space-X's Falcon rocket 1/2 million lbs of trust can burn 140 kg/sec methane CH4 and 510 kg/sec oxygen O2, 22/78% mixture ratio.
Burning methane still produces lot of CO2, specially at the above rate. >Burning 1 kg of methane produce 750 gr or .75 kg carbon.
.75 kg x 140 =105 kg carbon/sec pumped into the air.
Worst greenhouse gas is methane if released into the atmosphere, that's the scariest part, I think!
We're really ready to f*** up this planet for good, but for what, travel to the stars?
LOL!
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 01:05:21 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 8:50:46 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >It wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth. But that's
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people. >> >> And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
not going to happen soon.
It's getting cheaper all the time to put things into space. Hardly anyAnd
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done
effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
Given how hugely expensive putting stuff in space is, having to move
stuff to space is likely to be a big problem. There will be far fewer
observatories, and hence far fewer observations, of the types that
are affected.
ground based astronomy is significantly impacted by human activities,
so we don't need all that many operations in space to cover the few
that are.
That's the problem, cheaper it gets the more pollution dumped into the upper atmosphere.Methane is much less of a problem than CO2, because it has such a
That's what happened with cars or anything else in the last 100 years.
More cars, more pollution, more hoomans, population expended exponentially, all hoomans wanted cars to impress girlfriends, wives, drive to the store to pick up milk etc...
Now comes the rockets, space tourism or what have you!
Space-X's Falcon rocket 1/2 million lbs of trust can burn 140 kg/sec methane CH4 and 510 kg/sec oxygen O2, 22/78% mixture ratio.
Burning methane still produces lot of CO2, specially at the above rate. >Burning 1 kg of methane produce 750 gr or .75 kg carbon.
.75 kg x 140 =105 kg carbon/sec pumped into the air.
Worst greenhouse gas is methane if released into the atmosphere, that's the scariest part, I think!
We're really ready to f*** up this planet for good, but for what, travel to the stars?
LOL!
short lifetime.
As I suggested above, all these problems are related to too many
people. And as we commercialize space, pollution from rockets may well
become problematic. But the amount of pollution generated by launching
space observatories and solar system exploration missions will never
rise above the noise of other sources.
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 8:50:46 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >It wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth. But that's
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people. >> >> And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
not going to happen soon.
It's getting cheaper all the time to put things into space. Hardly anyAnd
things that make our societies run better aren't going to be
sacrificed for a few observatories.
The bottom line is that while most astronomy can continue to be done
effectively from the ground, there are certain things that are just
going to need to be moved to space. Which probably isn't a big
problem.
Given how hugely expensive putting stuff in space is, having to move
stuff to space is likely to be a big problem. There will be far fewer
observatories, and hence far fewer observations, of the types that
are affected.
ground based astronomy is significantly impacted by human activities,
so we don't need all that many operations in space to cover the few
that are.
That's the problem, cheaper it gets the more pollution dumped into the upper atmosphere.Methane is much less of a problem than CO2, because it has such a
That's what happened with cars or anything else in the last 100 years.
More cars, more pollution, more hoomans, population expended exponentially, all hoomans wanted cars to impress girlfriends, wives, drive to the store to pick up milk etc...
Now comes the rockets, space tourism or what have you!
Space-X's Falcon rocket 1/2 million lbs of trust can burn 140 kg/sec methane CH4 and 510 kg/sec oxygen O2, 22/78% mixture ratio.
Burning methane still produces lot of CO2, specially at the above rate. >Burning 1 kg of methane produce 750 gr or .75 kg carbon.
.75 kg x 140 =105 kg carbon/sec pumped into the air.
Worst greenhouse gas is methane if released into the atmosphere, that's the scariest part, I think!
We're really ready to f*** up this planet for good, but for what, travel to the stars?
LOL!
short lifetime.
As I suggested above, all these problems are related to too many
people. And as we commercialize space, pollution from rockets may well
become problematic. But the amount of pollution generated by launching
space observatories and solar system exploration missions will never
rise above the noise of other sources.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
It wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth.
If you imagine too many people on the planet then start with yourself.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 9:14:25 AM UTC-6, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
If you imagine too many people on the planet then start with yourself.That's an old way to stifle debate on an important problem.
A compassionate individual would want to ensure that everyone
has enough to eat.
The Earth, being a sphere, has finite surface area, so, at any given
time, based on the technology available, potential agricultural
production - and potential _sustainable_ agricultural production -
is bounded.
There are ways to address this issue without mass slaughter of
humans, which it is agreed is very wrong.
John Savard
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 9:50:46 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 19:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 7:54:44 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
The real threat to ground-based astronomy is simple: too many people.
And that's not a problem that's going to go away anytime soon.
I _hope_ not. However, I can't claim to be completely sure of that.
Of course, if that were the case, it would create other worse problems
for astronomy.
It wouldn't hurt anything if we simply stopped our growth.
That's true. But my point, of course, was that I can't be completely
sure that a disaster which drastically reduces the human population
won't happen... soon.
Methane is much less of a problem than CO2, because it has such a
short lifetime.
As I suggested above, all these problems are related to too many
people. And as we commercialize space, pollution from rockets may well
become problematic. But the amount of pollution generated by launching
space observatories and solar system exploration missions will never
rise above the noise of other sources.
Methane has 10-15 years life in the atmosphere, less than CO2, but it's worst as a green house gas.
Everything produces methane on Earth from life to melting tundra etc...
But these rockets produce CO2 and H2O by burning CH4.
So we are back to square one.
acceptance of manipulative disinformation, our path to a happy outcome
is getting increasingly narrow.
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 3:37:01 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
...and the growth of ignorance and the
acceptance of manipulative disinformation, our path to a happy outcomeManipulative disinformation indeed !.
is getting increasingly narrow.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210922.html
The Royal Society academics have a lot to answer for, after all, that satellite imaging was manipulated to suit a wandering RA/Dec Sun-
http://astro.dur.ac.uk/~ams/users/solar_year.gif
For people who do care, the Earth looked like this on the Equinox as viewed from its only proper point of view- its orbital plane-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory#/media/File:EpicEarth-Globespin-tilt-23.4.gif
The sad part is that they had to manipulate imaging to show the proper orientation to the Sun and orbital plane.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:03:23 |
| Calls: | 6,646 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,327,170 |
