31–40 of 42 posts
What would be the number of reentries in the near future? 5-20 satellites daily? At first glance, it seems negligible. On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.
Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to find ways to slash wasteful spending, I'd urge you to look at wars: these are really eat a lot of money and give nothing back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good catch. I doubt it's even a rounding error right now, but with the space market undergoing a rather rapid growth (good thing!), it's a good time to start tracking this and hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem. Ron Howard's voice "They didn't." But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites. Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem. Ron Howard's voice "They didn't." But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites. Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.
It's funny, one of the benchmarks I've used when trying to decide when things went off the rails was that banning CFCs was a relatively uncontroversial thing in the 1990s. Now, I agree with your pessimism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What do you mean? Especially by “ignorance of meteors”? Are you opposed to all launches if your preference is zero? Please consider that I’m very familiar with natural and artificial meteor falls if you choose to respond
Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
Science give us knowledge rooted in hard evidence, science give us models that can be reused as is or used to refine other models. The article mentions how hard it is to monitor atmosphere at 60-80km because it is too high for weather balloons and too low for satellites, now they are doing something about it. Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to f…
It is the same daft shit as trying to colonise Mars. Fuck off. If you cannot tame earth, its deserts, its extremes, why, why?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science give us knowledge rooted in hard evidence, science give us models that can be reused as is or used to refine other models. The article mentions how hard it is to monitor atmosphere at 60-80km because it is too high for weather balloons and too low for satellites, now they are doing something about it. Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to f…
Nice strawman. I did not say spending money on science is a waste of money. Spending a bunch of money which is quantifiably not an issue. It is the same daft shit as trying to colonise Mars. Fuck off. If you cannot tame earth, its deserts, its extremes, why , why ?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science give us knowledge rooted in hard evidence, science give us models that can be reused as is or used to refine other models. The article mentions how hard it is to monitor atmosphere at 60-80km because it is too high for weather balloons and too low for satellites, now they are doing something about it. Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to f…
Nice strawman. I did not say spending money on science is a waste of money. Spending a bunch of money which is quantifiably not an issue. It is the same daft shit as trying to colonise Mars. Fuck off. If you cannot tame earth, its deserts, its extremes, why , why ?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
This research is science, you've said it is waste of money,... well, I see now, that it is not the same as "science is waste of money", you argue that this particular research project is a waste of money?
But my objections still stand: the research allow us to get new data, and it is pretty interesting data. There is a lot of talk of going hypersonic for various reasons, and there are issues that no one knows how exactly things break up when burning at hypersonic speeds. So there is a gap in our knowledge and this "plasma tunnel" can help to fill it. Why do you think it is a waste of money?
> It is the same daft shit as trying to colonise Mars.
I don't see any similarities. To colonize Mars is a practical endeavor, and if we wanted to justify it we would refer to some practical benefits we could reap from colonizing. The research of how things burn in atmosphere is a theoretical research, the goal is to gain new knowledge. To argue that it is a waste of money, we need to show that there is no new knowledge to look for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem. Ron Howard's voice "They didn't." But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites. Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.
You seem to assume it'll be a problem. My bet is group 1 is right and everyone agrees with them except a few nutters on the internet who like to fantasize about environmental damage from everything good.