Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Bellend Sebastian]

18 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Drivers sometimes keep their engines running to keep things like the heating, the air con, the headlights or the stereo working, without caning the battery. Ironically, its caning the battery that can cause the stop-start system to cease working correctly.

Your battery would have to be pretty knackered not to power the stereo for half an hour. The heating/air con might make a bit of sense but half the time when I see people doing it they've got their windows open anyway.

 

Whatever the reason, I think it's outweighed by churning out dozens of cubic metres of toxic crap for everyone to breathe in, including the driver and his passengers, of course.

 

In fairness, I don't think the general populace have got a clue how grim exhaust emissions are, especially those from diesel engines, as it's not really talked about. CO2 should be on folks' radar though, but even if it isn't, don't they notice that their fuel economy is falling through the floor?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56941979

 

A decent look at all sides of the problem.

[leicsmac]

Good yarn from a science writer I follow on FB. Just to show that the US and the USSR weren't the only ones engaging in heinously unethical activities during the Cold War:

 

"Stories about nuclear ****ery or Australia tend to be big hits here.

 

I just had to go digging for a story of nuclear ****ery in Australia and hooboy, it’s a terrifying look into one of the deadliest animals in Australia: humans.

 

Today’s Moment of Science… the British are bombing.

 

After World War II, the hottest new trend all over the world was getting your hands on a mother****ing nuke. The problem with that, especially for smaller countries, is that they needed to test the technology out... somewhere. Somewhere safe. Somewhere remote where nobody lives and where no human is likely to accidentally stumble on the newly created radioactive wasteland.

 

If you’re Britain, the fact that your island nation is roughly the size of Tinkerbell’s panties presents a challenge.

 

So the UK was like “the commonwealth has a continent, right?” And indeed they did. They proceeded to bomb the shit out of Australia with the complete approval and support of the Australian government.

By which I mean Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies approved it with virtually no input or oversight.

From 1952 to 1963 the UK tested nuclear materials in Montebello Islands off the northwestern coast, along with Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. They dropped a dozen nuclear bombs between the three locations, categorized as “major trials.”

 

When your “minor trials” also use radioactive materials, and when you conduct six hundred of them, they eventually add up to a major problem. Amongst a laundry list of things they wanted to better understand about nuclear materials, one was how they dispersed when detonated. Using conventional (non-nuclear) explosions, they scattered plutonium, beryllium, and uranium like ****-everything confetti across Australia. For observational purposes. As you do.

The British dropped 8,000kg of uranium in the minor trials.

You might be thinking “at least it was in the middle of nowhere away from everyone.”

Well.

 

Because there’s no story that can’t and won’t be made worse by gross human rights abuses, of course Maralinga had been home to a few Aboriginal tribes. They’d been uprooted before the nuclear ****ery for other British military testing purposes, and the government was like “what Aboriginal tribes?” The upheaval led to social and economic unrest in their community. So when the tribes were further impacted by ongoing health problems from the nuclear bullshit, the government was like “what nuclear bullshit?”

 

They were forgotten about in every step of planning and testing. Warning signs were put up around the test areas, but not in a language the Aboriginal people typically spoke or read. One of the blasts at Emu Field produced a black mist that was followed by a rash of sickness and fatalities in the local tribe. It’s difficult to say exactly what the extent of the health effects have been, and no robust epidemiological studies have been performed.

 

After a massive clean-up effort, you can book a tour to go check out Maralinga. Emu Field and Montebello Islands are not entirely what I’d call “fixed.”  But it’s Australia, and a little radiation might just be the least likely thing on the continent to kill you. Much like the Chernobyl exclusion zone, they’ve become tourist attractions, and people risk it despite the radiation levels being a tad iffy.

 

Montebello Islands is now a “marine park.” A lovely tourist brochure for the area warns, “Slightly elevated radiation levels still occur close to the test sites. As radiation effects on health are cumulative over your lifetime, be sure to limit visits to the affected areas (marked on the map) to one hour per day. Do not disturb the soil in these areas and do not handle or remove any relics associated with the tests as they may still be radioactive.” Straya.

 

In the 1990s, the Australian government tried suing the British government for their share of the cost for the environmental clean up and to properly compensate the Aboriginal people. The British government has never offered an admission of guilt or an apology.

 

This has been your daily Moment of Science, letting you know that more people died from incidents involving cows and horses in Australia than any of the more nightmare-inducing critters."

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57004604

 

Took a few attempts, but they've got it right! Good signs going forward.

[SpacedX]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57004604

 

Took a few attempts, but they've got it right! Good signs going forward.

I still think this resembles something from The Eagle comic, a Jules Verne story or a 1930s Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon film. 

 

Look at the payload to LEO capacity of the Saturn V. Still the boss. 

[String fellow]

49 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I still think this resembles something from The Eagle comic, a Jules Verne story or a 1930s Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon film. 

 

Look at the payload to LEO capacity of the Saturn V. Still the boss. 

..... or maybe a vertical take-off version of Fireball XL5.

[leicsmac]

58 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I still think this resembles something from The Eagle comic, a Jules Verne story or a 1930s Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon film. 

 

Look at the payload to LEO capacity of the Saturn V. Still the boss. 

I can see what you're saying. I believe in the capacity to anywhere beyond LEO the Starship will be outperforming the Saturn V though.

 

Personally I'm just annoyed that we're having to play catchup like this because the powers that be decided manned spaceflight programs weren't important for half a century and because some plonker threw out the Saturn V plans in a NASA spring clean back in the day.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56998291

 

Income inequality results in people doing highly unethical things like trafficking endangered species parts shocker.

[yorkie1999]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57004604

 

Took a few attempts, but they've got it right! Good signs going forward.

I don't get why they would want to do this. I know it's all very fancy looking and demonstrates their technology but, surely you would need to carry the same amount of fuel to bring it back down as what you would need to send it up, or even more as you would need to counter the approach speed  from space as you come into earth's atmosphere, in other words you would need to slow it down from 20,000 mph, which also means it would take twice the amount of fuel/power to get it up in the first place because of the weight. 

[samlcfc]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56998291

 

Income inequality results in people doing highly unethical things like trafficking endangered species parts shocker.

 

Yep. You'll struggle to deter those with few opportunities and little money, by punishing them with prison sentences. Firstly, there are plenty of poverty stricken people to who will take their place and secondly, they'll go straight back to it once released from prison and their situation remains the same or worse as before they went in. 

 

Anecdotal, but I went to check out the Gibbons a while back and speaking to a park warden, he described how it was mostly wealthy people who feed the market for those being trafficked. He believed that if you were caught in possession of one as a pet, you'd get off pretty lightly. Whereas if you were caught trafficking, you'd get a prison sentence. The wealthy people purchasing them would just pay a fine, have the animal taken away and then just buy another one if they fancied it. The demand remains consistent, and the flow of people desperate enough to traffic them is ever present.

Edited 6 May 2021 by samlcfc

[samlcfc]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't get why they would want to do this. I know it's all very fancy looking and demonstrates their technology but, surely you would need to carry the same amount of fuel to bring it back down as what you would need to send it up, or even more as you would need to counter the approach speed  from space as you come into earth's atmosphere, in other words you would need to slow it down from 20,000 mph, which also means it would take twice the amount of fuel/power to get it up in the first place because of the weight. 

They can reuse the parts of the rocket that they land, which they'd otherwise have to rebuild. I assume the cost of fuel to bring them back is cheaper than that of rebuilding. Especially when it saves time that can be spent launching payloads for which people are paying you. 

[reporterpenguin]

14 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't get why they would want to do this. I know it's all very fancy looking and demonstrates their technology but, surely you would need to carry the same amount of fuel to bring it back down as what you would need to send it up, or even more as you would need to counter the approach speed  from space as you come into earth's atmosphere, in other words you would need to slow it down from 20,000 mph, which also means it would take twice the amount of fuel/power to get it up in the first place because of the weight. 

It's a lot lighter when it comes back down, so you don't need anywhere near as much fuel to accelerate (or decelerate) it when it's nearly empty. 

 

The atmosphere does the vast majority of the slowing the ship from orbital speeds for you. During reentry the kinetic (and gravitational) energy it had while in orbit is lost as heat as it plummets through the atmosphere. You only need to slow down a little (less than 100mph IIRC) from orbital speed to drop enough into the atmosphere to reenter. It then ends up in the "skydive" position falling towards the landing pad at around 100m/s, only needing to fire the engines for a few seconds to flip it and touch down softly. The atmosphere has scrubbed of the rest of the velocity.

 

So to go from orbit to landing, you need enough fuel to decelerate about 100mph to drop your orbit into the atmosphere, and then enough to fly the last few hundred metres and touch down softly. All in all I've read that it's about 25 tons for landing, plus maybe another 10 tons or so to deorbit. Not much at all compared to the 120+ tons of the empty ship, and 1200 tons of fuel it launches with.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I don't get why they would want to do this. I know it's all very fancy looking and demonstrates their technology but, surely you would need to carry the same amount of fuel to bring it back down as what you would need to send it up, or even more as you would need to counter the approach speed  from space as you come into earth's atmosphere, in other words you would need to slow it down from 20,000 mph, which also means it would take twice the amount of fuel/power to get it up in the first place because of the weight. 

Adding to what @samlcfc
said above, you don't need the same amount of fuel to re-enter the earth's atmosphere and slow down as you did to get out of it. The Apollo modules did it with none!

 

And that's because you can use the atmosphere and parachutes and the wonders of air resistance to do the work of slowing down for you, without firing engines and using fuel. The technique is called "aerobraking", and it's a staple of space missions because of the fuel it saves. 

 

Therefore, having reusable modules being able to come and go as they please from Earth (or anywhere else with appreciable atmosphere) is a massive bonus in terms of saving resources and money.

 

NB. A mission coming home from a distant planet is going to be moving very fast sure to orbital dynamics, but again you can use the atmosphere (with care) to slow it down enough to bring it into orbit and then again to get it safely to terra firma, all without a drop of fuel used, if necessary, as long as the maths is done correctly.

 

16 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

 

Yep. You'll struggle to deter those with few opportunities and little money, by punishing them with prison sentences. Firstly, there are plenty of poverty stricken people to who will take their place and secondly, they'll go straight back to it once released from prison and their situation remains the same or worse as before they went in. 

 

Anecdotal, but I went to check out the Gibbons a while back and speaking to a park warden, he described how it was mostly wealthy people who feed the market for those being trafficked. He believed that if you were caught in possession of one as a pet, you'd get off pretty lightly. Whereas if you were caught trafficking, you'd get a prison sentence. The wealthy people purchasing them would just pay a fine, have the animal taken away and then just buy another one if they fancied it. The demand remains consistent, and the flow of people desperate enough to traffic them is ever present.

Yep.

 

I've said before here that on this you don't need to go after the foot soldiers, you have to go after the generals. With harsh financial and imprisonment penalties.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837

 

Not surprising, still alarming.

[SpacedX]

On 06/05/2021 at 10:37, leicsmac said:

Personally I'm just annoyed that we're having to play catchup like this because the powers that be decided manned spaceflight programs weren't important for half a century and because some plonker threw out the Saturn V plans in a NASA spring clean back in the day.

It's actually a myth. The Saturn V blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents whilst Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late1960s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart. However, recreating such a programme requires more than original blueprints. The technology was left to lie fallow and the expertise (remember these engineers worked by slide-rule), was retired. Whilst Isaac Newton was in the driving seat the 1960s technology behind Apollo is simply outmoded today. The physics of course remains the same. 

 

On 06/05/2021 at 12:36, leicsmac said:

Adding to what @samlcfc
said above, you don't need the same amount of fuel to re-enter the earth's atmosphere and slow down as you did to get out of it. The Apollo modules did it with none!

 

And that's because you can use the atmosphere and parachutes and the wonders of air resistance to do the work of slowing down for you, without firing engines and using fuel. The technique is called "aerobraking", and it's a staple of space missions because of the fuel it saves. 

 

Therefore, having reusable modules being able to come and go as they please from Earth (or anywhere else with appreciable atmosphere) is a massive bonus in terms of saving resources and money.

 

NB. A mission coming home from a distant planet is going to be moving very fast sure to orbital dynamics, but again you can use the atmosphere (with care) to slow it down enough to bring it into orbit and then again to get it safely to terra firma, all without a drop of fuel used, if necessary, as long as the maths is done correctly.

 

Absolutely this. The fastest that a manned vehicle was the returning Apollo 10 capsule 24,791 mph which was able to splash down in the Pacific owing to a stack of Newtonian mathematical calculations and the primitive Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC). Oh, and some bloody clever engineering and an ablative heat shield. The Apollo command module having separated from the Service Module reentered with the center of mass offset from the center line which enabled the capsule to assume an angled attitude through the air, providing sufficient lift that could be used for directional control. Strictly speaking, it did actually "use fuel" but not as you correctly say to decelerate, only in the form of the reaction control system thrusters which were designed to orient the capsule by rotating the lift vector. From memory, Hydrazine and Dinitrogen Tetroxide has been employed since Mercury. The fumes are highly toxic which is why the rescue divers had to take precautions and fumes around the stationary space shuttle on the runway needed to be tested and purged before the astronauts alighted. You still see the same checks with Crew Dragon This is interesting:

 

https://hackaday.com/2019/07/01/nasas-green-fuel-seeks-safer-spaceflight-by-finally-moving-off-toxic-hydrazine/

 

Edited 7 May 2021 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

 

Overpopulation might not become the elephant in the room that the neo Malthusians believe it to be. Of course, such a drastic demographics change is going to need pretty careful handling and a stable population is better socially than both a continually increasing or decreasing one.

Edited 11 May 2021 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57095347

 

That last administration cost the US four years it really didn't have.

[nnfox]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/57116938

 

Latest edition of Climate Check.  

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57152169

 

Good.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56994449

 

This is absolutely spot on.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57261670

 

 

The clock is ticking. But there is still time.

[WigstonWanderer]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57261670

 

 

The clock is ticking. But there is still time.

But it’s only 1.2 degrees 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57322511

 

Good.

[stripeyfox]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/03/united-airlines-boom-supersonic-overture-airliner-concorde

 

United Airlines aims to revive Concorde spirit with supersonic planes

Company places order for 15 Boom Overture jets capable of travelling twice as fast as modern airliners

 

Boom Supersonic’s Overture, which can fly at 1,300mph, could enter commercial service in 2029. Photograph: Boom Supersonic/PA Media

 

Staff and agency

Thu 3 Jun 2021 19.16 BST

 

•  
•  
•  

 

 

United Airlines has bought 15 planes capable of travelling at twice the speed of modern airliners as it aims to bring back supersonic travel 18 years after Concorde’s final flight.

The airline agreed to purchase the Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic, with the planes able to fly at Mach 1.7 (1,300mph), potentially halving the transatlantic journey from Newark to London to three and a half hours.

 

Trial flights are scheduled to begin in 2026, with commercial use coming three years later.

 

The rise and fall of Concorde and supersonic passenger flight - podcast

Read more

United has an option on an additional 35 planes from the Denver-based manufacturer. The initial order will be finalised once the aircraft meet “demanding safety, operating and sustainability requirements”.

The Overture will carry fewer passengers than existing subsonic passenger jets, with 65 to 88 seats – less capacity than Concorde – which will initially be priced at business class fares.

Environmental campaigners have criticised the use of supersonic aircraft, which require more fuel per passenger than regular airliners.

Advertisement

But United, which has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050, said the Overture was expected to be the first large commercial aircraft to use 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

The airline’s chief executive, Scott Kirby, said: “United continues on its trajectory to build a more innovative, sustainable airline and today’s advancements in technology are making it more viable for that to include supersonic planes.

“Boom’s vision for the future of commercial aviation, combined with the industry’s most robust route network in the world, will give business and leisure travellers access to a stellar flight experience.”

Blake Scholl, the chief executive of Boom Supersonic, said: “The world’s first purchase agreement for net-zero carbon supersonic aircraft marks a significant step toward our mission to create a more accessible world.”

The Civil Aviation Authority in the UK and the US Federal Aviation Administration must grant approval for the return of supersonic passenger planes to the skies. And noise pollution campaigners and residents living under flight paths could set themselves in opposition to the plan.

Concorde holds the record for the fastest transatlantic flight by a civilian plane – two hours, 52 minutes and 59 seconds – between New York and London in 1996. But the airliner was retired from service in 2003, with British Airways and Air France blaming a downturn in passenger numbers and rising maintenance costs.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/03/united-airlines-boom-supersonic-overture-airliner-concorde

 

United Airlines aims to revive Concorde spirit with supersonic planes

Company places order for 15 Boom Overture jets capable of travelling twice as fast as modern airliners

 

Boom Supersonic’s Overture, which can fly at 1,300mph, could enter commercial service in 2029. Photograph: Boom Supersonic/PA Media

 

 

Staff and agency

Thu 3 Jun 2021 19.16 BST

 

•  
•  
•  

 

 

United Airlines has bought 15 planes capable of travelling at twice the speed of modern airliners as it aims to bring back supersonic travel 18 years after Concorde’s final flight.

The airline agreed to purchase the Overture aircraft from Boom Supersonic, with the planes able to fly at Mach 1.7 (1,300mph), potentially halving the transatlantic journey from Newark to London to three and a half hours.

 

Trial flights are scheduled to begin in 2026, with commercial use coming three years later.

 

The rise and fall of Concorde and supersonic passenger flight - podcast

Read more

United has an option on an additional 35 planes from the Denver-based manufacturer. The initial order will be finalised once the aircraft meet “demanding safety, operating and sustainability requirements”.

The Overture will carry fewer passengers than existing subsonic passenger jets, with 65 to 88 seats – less capacity than Concorde – which will initially be priced at business class fares.

Environmental campaigners have criticised the use of supersonic aircraft, which require more fuel per passenger than regular airliners.

Advertisement

But United, which has pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050, said the Overture was expected to be the first large commercial aircraft to use 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

The airline’s chief executive, Scott Kirby, said: “United continues on its trajectory to build a more innovative, sustainable airline and today’s advancements in technology are making it more viable for that to include supersonic planes.

“Boom’s vision for the future of commercial aviation, combined with the industry’s most robust route network in the world, will give business and leisure travellers access to a stellar flight experience.”

Blake Scholl, the chief executive of Boom Supersonic, said: “The world’s first purchase agreement for net-zero carbon supersonic aircraft marks a significant step toward our mission to create a more accessible world.”

The Civil Aviation Authority in the UK and the US Federal Aviation Administration must grant approval for the return of supersonic passenger planes to the skies. And noise pollution campaigners and residents living under flight paths could set themselves in opposition to the plan.

Concorde holds the record for the fastest transatlantic flight by a civilian plane – two hours, 52 minutes and 59 seconds – between New York and London in 1996. But the airliner was retired from service in 2003, with British Airways and Air France blaming a downturn in passenger numbers and rising maintenance costs.

Supersonic flight comes with an absolute clown car of engineering problems, especially when it comes to making such flight economical.

 

It would be excellent and cool if we could crack those problems, though.