as I generally don't notice astronauts croaking an sooner than they'd likely do otherwise.
Radiation is a serious problem for astronauts, but they are partially protected by earth's magnetic field, the space station, their short stay, and the body's own repair system. For panels in geostationary orbit, the magnetic field is weaker, the panels aren't protected and they must operate for years.
In space you could use extremely thin panels with little or no support.
Except that in geostationary orbit they would have to be tracking the sun, while the downlink needs to stay focused on the ground station. So, they still need some rigidity.
he leaves out the fact that a space based PV system operates 24/7 with continuous output compared to an earth based system that has to deal with the vagaries of weather and that pesky thing called "night".
Isn't that represented by the higher "I" factor for space based cells ?
CO2 emissions have gone up and up over the last two decades with almost no increase in heat over that period of time.
As you can see from this graph, temperatures before 1995 and temperatures after 1995 are both in agreement with the same long term trend line: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
On a decadal scale, there's plenty of noise, sure. Maybe you got confused by that.
No, glaciers sneaking up on us aren't going to be a problem. But they do illustrate nicely what a few degrees temperature difference means. It is possible that some places on earth get overrun by sea level rise if we hit certain tipping points in West Antarctica.
Best estimates for climate sensitivity are centered around 3 degrees, and the 2 degree limit is based on pre-industrial conditions when CO2 levels were around 280ppm. Experts have put the corresponding upper CO2 limit on 550 ppm.
All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models, yet the Earth's long term climate ON ITS OWN, has swung widely over recorded history.
Natural swings have occurred, but they all have their causes, and scientists run the same models on historic climate events to verify their understanding. Your use of "yet" suggests a contradiction that isn't there.
And even if we all of the sudden say "Stop everything, we're at 2 degrees!" and somehow manage to do it, it's not going to stop because we want it to just like that. It's not a static system.
The idea behind the 2 degree limit is that we stop sooner, and let the momentum continue to take it up, until it reaches a +2 degree steady state.
I don't have the recording, but the investigators have it, and they used it to write the conclusion that the prosecutor has told the press. Of course, the leaked transcript may be in error, but given that the prosecutor agrees with the conclusions, it's unlikely to differ in a significant way.
A voice recorder most certainly does not tell you that at all
If you hear sounds of the captain banging on the door, it certainly tells you he was locked out.
There can be a plane electrical failure, cockpit fire, release of noxious fumes..
Doesn't explain the constant breathing, reprogramming of the flight system to descend, and the captain being locked out. Even if the co-pilot was unconscious, the captain should be able to unlock the door. And if there was a fire and noxious fumes, the co-pilot would put on his oxygen mask.
pilot's house to dig about in his personal belongings from which you can extrapolate *anything*
It's kinda hard to extrapolate a note from a doctor if it wasn't there, unless you want to accuse the investigators of fabricating evidence.
You're just continually shooting around in the dark with nothing to say.
On the audio recording there's dialog of the captain saying he needed to use the bathroom, the co-pilot telling him that he can leave, and the captain asking the co-pilot to take control. Later, when he's locked out, he identifies himself. Also, from the breathing noises they can tell which of the two headsets was still in use. Unless you believe the prosecutor is lying, there's no confusion as to who left and who stayed.
No, even if the battery didn't weight anything, the thrust of ion engines in measure in milli-Newtons, so they wouldn't even be able to lift themselves.
Unless of course, somebody calmly walks the front of the plane, enters the cockpit, and takes over the controls by force. You don't need to inform the passengers first.
The crash and the plane gets investigated first. Without that anything else is ridiculous speculation and simply leading
If the voice recorder clearly tells you that the pilot was locked out of the cockpit, and at the same time the plane enters a steep but controlled descent, that is not "ridiculous speculation". At best, there's a small chance of an alternative explanation, but it's certainly not ridiculous to start with the most logical one.
nothing official to detail what's happening as you would normally get...
Normally you wouldn't get anything official either, in the days after the crash. These investigations usually takes weeks-months, sometimes even years before the official report comes out. Of course, if they had kept quiet for months, and then came out with the voice recorder tapes, people like you would have cried conspiracy because it took so long.
Slashdot Mirror
as I generally don't notice astronauts croaking an sooner than they'd likely do otherwise.
Radiation is a serious problem for astronauts, but they are partially protected by earth's magnetic field, the space station, their short stay, and the body's own repair system. For panels in geostationary orbit, the magnetic field is weaker, the panels aren't protected and they must operate for years.
Wow, someone made a stupid blog and you use it as evidence?
It's his own blog. But it doesn't matter who wrote it, as you can easily verify the math.
In space you could use extremely thin panels with little or no support.
Except that in geostationary orbit they would have to be tracking the sun, while the downlink needs to stay focused on the ground station. So, they still need some rigidity.
I can't see any particularly good reason why a space-based system should be shorter-lived than a ground-based system.
Radiation. Damage by micrometeorites.
he leaves out the fact that a space based PV system operates 24/7 with continuous output compared to an earth based system that has to deal with the vagaries of weather and that pesky thing called "night".
Isn't that represented by the higher "I" factor for space based cells ?
CO2 emissions have gone up and up over the last two decades with almost no increase in heat over that period of time.
As you can see from this graph, temperatures before 1995 and temperatures after 1995 are both in agreement with the same long term trend line:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
On a decadal scale, there's plenty of noise, sure. Maybe you got confused by that.
And in the 50's they thought nuclear would provide energy "too cheap to meter".
No, glaciers sneaking up on us aren't going to be a problem. But they do illustrate nicely what a few degrees temperature difference means. It is possible that some places on earth get overrun by sea level rise if we hit certain tipping points in West Antarctica.
Life goes on, just like it has in the past ice ages, despite 1000 metre thick glaciers covering much of Europe and N. America.
I don't think much life goes on if it was covered by 1000 meter thick glaciers.
Best estimates for climate sensitivity are centered around 3 degrees, and the 2 degree limit is based on pre-industrial conditions when CO2 levels were around 280ppm. Experts have put the corresponding upper CO2 limit on 550 ppm.
But all of a sudden when it comes to global warming, we can't agree on anything, funny that.
Probably the rich people can't find anything that wouldn't impact their own luxury lifestyle.
All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models, yet the Earth's long term climate ON ITS OWN, has swung widely over recorded history.
Natural swings have occurred, but they all have their causes, and scientists run the same models on historic climate events to verify their understanding. Your use of "yet" suggests a contradiction that isn't there.
And even if we all of the sudden say "Stop everything, we're at 2 degrees!" and somehow manage to do it, it's not going to stop because we want it to just like that. It's not a static system.
The idea behind the 2 degree limit is that we stop sooner, and let the momentum continue to take it up, until it reaches a +2 degree steady state.
I don't have the recording, but the investigators have it, and they used it to write the conclusion that the prosecutor has told the press. Of course, the leaked transcript may be in error, but given that the prosecutor agrees with the conclusions, it's unlikely to differ in a significant way.
A voice recorder most certainly does not tell you that at all
If you hear sounds of the captain banging on the door, it certainly tells you he was locked out.
There can be a plane electrical failure, cockpit fire, release of noxious fumes..
Doesn't explain the constant breathing, reprogramming of the flight system to descend, and the captain being locked out. Even if the co-pilot was unconscious, the captain should be able to unlock the door. And if there was a fire and noxious fumes, the co-pilot would put on his oxygen mask.
pilot's house to dig about in his personal belongings from which you can extrapolate *anything*
It's kinda hard to extrapolate a note from a doctor if it wasn't there, unless you want to accuse the investigators of fabricating evidence.
You're just continually shooting around in the dark with nothing to say.
No, that would be you.
On the audio recording there's dialog of the captain saying he needed to use the bathroom, the co-pilot telling him that he can leave, and the captain asking the co-pilot to take control. Later, when he's locked out, he identifies himself. Also, from the breathing noises they can tell which of the two headsets was still in use. Unless you believe the prosecutor is lying, there's no confusion as to who left and who stayed.
No, even if the battery didn't weight anything, the thrust of ion engines in measure in milli-Newtons, so they wouldn't even be able to lift themselves.
The article is mainly talking about improving the technology to take off from earth and mars, so how is this the "wrong focus" ?
No, but the door lock mechanism could be malfunctioning in other ways.
Any number of things could have happened here.
Name one.
You can run many simulations with different initial conditions and verify that they all work correctly with a certain design.
He's the only one making conclusions from it though.
No, he's the only one talking to the press about what the conclusions are. Which is pretty typical.
Unless of course, somebody calmly walks the front of the plane, enters the cockpit, and takes over the controls by force. You don't need to inform the passengers first.
The crash and the plane gets investigated first. Without that anything else is ridiculous speculation and simply leading
If the voice recorder clearly tells you that the pilot was locked out of the cockpit, and at the same time the plane enters a steep but controlled descent, that is not "ridiculous speculation". At best, there's a small chance of an alternative explanation, but it's certainly not ridiculous to start with the most logical one.
nothing official to detail what's happening as you would normally get...
Normally you wouldn't get anything official either, in the days after the crash. These investigations usually takes weeks-months, sometimes even years before the official report comes out. Of course, if they had kept quiet for months, and then came out with the voice recorder tapes, people like you would have cried conspiracy because it took so long.