111–120 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have references for this, but my understanding is that you have more to worry about space debris that is higher/faster than lower/slower. The atmospheric drag is such that any out of control craft at [some threshold] or under will deorbit themselves fairly quickly, and the debris will burn up entirely. I believe that threshold is around 450-500km, but it’s also probably not a literal height, more of a gradien…
Higher orbits are slower, not faster. Very low orbits as you say though are less an issue due to atmospheric drag deorbiting debris. A bit higher and debris will stay up much longer, even higher up though and there's so much room we can't possibly put out enough material to fill the orbits yet. The mid point of that scale is the dangerous region.
A technically correct, but insignificant headline which appears dangerous at first glance; yeah that seems par for the course of modern journalism.
Not being able to tell the difference between a news article and a blog post is par for the course of modern society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. (They can just be awfully hard to count, no matter who counts.)
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Glad to hear it! Because I know a large family that doesn't have a computer. I'll send you their address so you can mail them yours!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not seem like a big issue but it speaks to the attitude of billionaires. I am no longer free to vent personal amounts of coolant from a refrigerator but Elon Musk can punch all of the holes he wants with his expensive rockets.
I wonder what the total carbon footprint is of the Musk Empire. (Tesla + SpaceX + X + Boring Company + …)
Seems like this isn't considered to be a big issue, beyond that it is a very visible thing that instinctively 'feels' like a bad idea. > Rocket engines spray water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ionosphere, quenching local ionization by as much as 70%. A complicated series of charge exchange reactions between oxygen ions (O+) and molecules from the rocket exhaust produce photons at a wavelength of 6300 Å–the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you want the ability to vent such potent greenhouse gasses? I'd like the ability to visit space at some point in my life, and I'd like our species to become experienced at doing things in space. Like, if we need to be able to deploy something in space to decrease the amount of heat we're taking in to try and buy more time to decarbonize before we're completely F'd because of all the people venting potent green…
The space industrial complex would pollute a whole lot more than today, and let’s hope space tourism it’s not something too feasible, aside from stroking egos it wouldn’t do much, space is very human unfriendly after all. I for one hope we move slower not faster.
I saw the launch from southern california. My first ever seeing a rocket go up. It was pretty amazing to watch the thing streak across the sky. Sadly, missed the red glow though.
Seems like this isn't considered to be a big issue, beyond that it is a very visible thing that instinctively 'feels' like a bad idea. > Rocket engines spray water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ionosphere, quenching local ionization by as much as 70%. A complicated series of charge exchange reactions between oxygen ions (O+) and molecules from the rocket exhaust produce photons at a wavelength of 6300 Å–the…
Who measures light wavelengths in angstroms rather than nm?
Apparently, angstrom was invented exactly for measuring light wavelength.
Its (arguably more common today?) usage for atoms and other microscopic structures actually came after that.