31–40 of 100 posts
Sometimes it seems like some people have a pathological need to be a doomer about any human activity. See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
If metallic dust from burnt up satellites can affect the magnetosphere on earth, could we do the same to create a magnetosphere on mars?
The paper from this article says that only 450kg of charged material from meteorites enters the relevant part of the atmosphere each year. Yet the total amount of meteorites entering is somewhere in the range of 10^7 to 10^9kg per year [0]. I know the really small stuff slows down too quickly to burn up completely, but does anyone know why such a small fraction of the meteorites burns up in this region compared to sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the profits. The problem is solved only if the cost of fighting regulations (misinformation, lobbying, discrediting, defaming, bribing and sabotage) is less than the profits people make by causing the problem in the first place. There are several examples of this - but none more obvious than the climate catastrophe.
The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of already getting ~…
All those claims ring hollow after all the serious damage to the biosphere that has been done and the rate at which the world is barreling down into a catastrophe. We have still not settled on where the current temperature rise will settle. What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed?
> The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue.
The excess CO2 PPM would have been significantly lesser if the scientists were taken seriously when it mattered. The first paper on the global greenhouse effect was is 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was more than enough time to develop and switch to something else. Instead we got everything from misinformation campaigns, political double speaks, sabotaged careers and research - all so that some people could protect their comfortable, but exploitative revenue streams. This goes back to the fundamental problem I was talking about - problems will be solved as long as it doesn't stand in the way of profits. Otherwise, any collateral damage is acceptable to some.
If metallic dust from burnt up satellites can affect the magnetosphere on earth, could we do the same to create a magnetosphere on mars?
If metallic dust from burnt up satellites can affect the magnetosphere on earth, could we do the same to create a magnetosphere on mars?
Sometimes it seems like some people have a pathological need to be a doomer about any human activity. See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
There is value in investigating the downside of technology because it helps us address problems before they occur. Of the the more famous modern example is CFCs and The Montreal Protocol. There was a genuine risk to all life on earth found via similar science, we got together and agreed on a solution plus we still have whipped cream in a can and refrigerators.
There is a fundamental difference between doomerism and investigating potential risk. Of course we should avoid doomerism but saying “hey guys this might be an issue let’s think about it a bit” is an important part of technological advancement.
Sometimes it seems like some people have a pathological need to be a doomer about any human activity. See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
Almost every technology gets assigned its own existential crisis. I’m not sure what that’s about. (I trace it all back to Jurassic park. It trained an entire generation to be afraid of technology.)
Apparently not enough, given where we're headed.
Sometimes it seems like some people have a pathological need to be a doomer about any human activity. See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
Mega constellations could prevent other nations from entering space just by blocking launch windows or hell equip them with energy or kinetic weapons a group can block off space for others..
I suspect that the reason stuff like this gets traction is because of the current crop of satellite visualizations. Most of them make it look like Earth is absolutely blanketed in satellites. But that's primarily a pixel size limitation - it's not possible to show how small satellites actually are in a reasonably sized image.
If you think about it logically - there are a couple thousand cars in orbit: what percent of the surface does that cover? Not much - that doesn't even cover much of a 2nd tier city. And they have very predictable trajectories.
In short, yes - it's theoretically possible. But not a realistic concern. Especially with current launch prices. One of the only reasons Starlink is so big is because SpaceX gets to launch at cost instead of at market price.