It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
Real chemtrails are already invisible. When you see a contrail it's because the jet engines have been poorly maintained to cut costs and increase quarterly returns to the shareholders.
Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
171–180 of 206 posts
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#172It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
Real chemtrails are already invisible. When you see a contrail it's because the jet engines have been poorly maintained to cut costs and increase quarterly returns to the shareholders.
How are contrails related to engine maintenance?
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#173How much will it cost in fuel (additional miles) and time (flyers’ lives) to reroute?
The article addresses this in detail.
It covers the impact of fuel quite thoroughly but it brushes over the time element which I think is actually a bigger factor in why they don't really do it. Passing on the fuel cost to the customer they could probably get away with but given how tightly packed the flight schedules are (particularly short haul) the cumulative extra time across even a day could be enough that they have to drop a flight from the schedule.
When you consider that RyanAir don't have seat back pockets specifically because of the extra cleaning time to clear them between flights, you can see why the extra 2 minutes flight time might matter.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s always been something disturbing about public internet advertisements of military equipment. I suppose it’s dual use, but it seems like baiting a malicious actor to play with it in detail.
B-2 is not dual use. There is no civilian use for it.
Search and rescue? /s
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're ever in DC, you should check out the ads in the metro stops near the Pentagon. Seeing those kinds of ads in real life is even more shocking.
I saw some photos of those ads on twitter a few years back about a certain manufacturer's engine being the correct choice for a specific in-development military plane. It's weird seeing physical advertising be so targeted. Like, multiple physical ads to target less than a dozen people total.
If you think advertising to a dozen people is wild, wait till you hear about bribery of six! It's more efficient!
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#176Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems pretty useless in an age with super cheap 8k cameras and novice ability to do a delta-recorded image.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
> This is not much to determine what craft is approaching us.
Why do you have to do that exactly? Aircraft identification and aircraft detection are very different tasks. For detection, you need a tiny fractional difference in illumination (The Youtube channel Consistently Inconsistent has been doing a series on optical detection, after an offhand Elon Musk comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFiubdrJqqI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZkLQsv3huo
Anything detected can be subjected to closer inspection with radars, optical telescopes, and infrared telescopes.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s always been something disturbing about public internet advertisements of military equipment. I suppose it’s dual use, but it seems like baiting a malicious actor to play with it in detail.
If you're ever in DC, you should check out the ads in the metro stops near the Pentagon. Seeing those kinds of ads in real life is even more shocking.
The billboards at Canberra airport almost exclusively advertise defence contractors.
Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and Qinetiq know how to reach their audience.
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s always been something disturbing about public internet advertisements of military equipment. I suppose it’s dual use, but it seems like baiting a malicious actor to play with it in detail.
B-2 is not dual use. There is no civilian use for it.
We can bomb immigrants and protestors. Let your imagination soar in these innovative times!
Re: Eliminating contrails from flying could be cheap
#180Related context: Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation of how the greenhouse effect works -- it's interesting and weird: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8