The rocket doesn't magically lose its velocity because it escaped Earth's orbit. You still need a delta-v of 65,000mph in the opposite direction of Earth's trajectory. That's a lot. So much so that it's actually more energy-efficient to travel to Jupiter first and use it for a gravity assist.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
OK. Understood. I admit it was a stupid idea in the first place.
At least you have ideas. Many good ideas arise from adaptations of what people at the time thought were stupid. We need a lot more Arthur C Clarke's in this world.
Thank you for saying that. I am an aero engineer by trade but am very interested in science.
I am optimistic about the future of the UK providing we maintain our focus on science, technology, engineering and maths.
I think everyone who watched superman 3 as a kid has asked that question tbh.
I realise sarcasm makes you sound much cleverer than a teenage girl, but the following tweet explains what she actually means. (Note that "1.5C carbon budget" means the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere we can afford to have, that will lead to a 1.5 degree rise in average global temperatures).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thank you for that graphic. It really shows the urgency of CO2 reduction.
Sad thing is, after looking at that graphic , that I dont believe we can reach that 1.5C goal any longer.
Pretty frightened stuff.
I just wish that this data which is easy to understand was shown to the masses. Because people need to be made fully aware of the real and present danger.
yep, no chance in hell. it would be difficult to achieve even if we had mass concensus on a global scale, which we currently clearly do not.
My guess is we achieve about 10% of the needed cuts. The only thing that might cut emissions to the needed level is a pandemic or global war.
A lot will depend on the next US president though. Of all the possible futures that see us making the needed reductions, Trump being in power surely isn't in any of them.
"government is the shadow cast on society by big business "
Are the UK and EU not in the process of negotiating a trade deal with Japan.
Surely they have a moral obligation to tell Japan that this is totally unacceptable.
But as we all know, morals count for absolutely nothing. It is as usual all about money.
So. I completely agree with your description.
So what about"The meek shall inherit the earth" … it seems that precious few want to be meek?
Homo-sapiens are acknowledged as being the species at the top of the evolutionary scale on earth and there is no evidence (or precious little) that humans are able to backtrack, or put the genie back in the bottle, so what makes anyone think efforts to arrest climate change will work?
Surely we will have to 'evolve' ourselves out of this mess and AI may well provide some answers, a planet where robots adopt the mantle of meekness?
Don't agree.
I would never underestimate human ingenuity.
As you say, we got ourselves into this mess so we have to come up with solutions.
In the first instance, we should work with nature which already knows how to take masses of carbon out of the atmosphere.
A massive and worldwide programme of tree planting in the trillions is at least a start and would demonstrate a willingness to actually do something instead of just hand wringing.
I certainly don't have the answers but while we try to find technology that will work why not allow nature to help.
I can think of no situation whereby the human race gives up on its only home.
I'm not, that's the point we need human ingenuity like never before, A.I. etc.
My point was that as a species we are not good at turning the clock back, even after great plagues, the A-bomb and many other mad made disasters we don't go backwards, no reverse gear, as many now seem to be suggesting as a solution today.
Ultimately we are 'programmed' to go further and farther in search of better ways to live, unfortunately its usually at the expense of other species and of the environment; since the days of hunter-gathers we have laid waste to our habitat then moved on to find another, laid waste again. Even the Agricultural Revolution didn't stop us, we just got more efficient as we ripped up the environment.
To rescue the planet the human race will have to do something its never done before as a species, i.e. become 'meeker' in its appetites, its appreciation of its environment, etc.... then we might just inherit the earth.
With all the new laws for carmakers and emissions how come all motorsports aren`t banned as it is just sport .
I'm guessing because it'll open up for questions like "why not football?".
True , I suppose. It just makes little things I do seem pointless like car sharing , walking, using the bike when Lewis Hamilton probably spunks more co2 in a practise session than I do in months. Make them drive electric cars?
It was probably covered in this thread, but in case you missed it potholer54 on youtube has playlist of videos dedicated to climate change. He covers a lot of topics from scientific explanations to debunking myths.
I think there's an E-Formula 1 on its way actually. I know shit all about motorsports mind.
It is just one of those things that I will never understand I suppose. I used to car share with a guy that would get out between 5 and 15 mins later than me everyday and it used to piss me off no end when it was cold as feck . Then you see motorsports , drag racing , salt flat racing and think what is the point as the whole sport is about making co2.
It's been around for a few years already. Unfortunately it's like watching paint dry.
Should we ban all sports then? Football could be banned because of the CO2 emission generated from all the coaches/trains/cars transporting the teams and fans pretty much every week in all parts of the world nearly every week. Not to mention the electrical energy needed for fans to watch all the football games broadcast on TV. If you combine all of that and put a total CO2 emitted per year, it could well surpass the total emission from the F1 sport.
We already have many of the solutions determined:
1) Eelectrical or hydrogen fuel cell cars to replace diesel/petrol cars and coaches/buses
2) Solar panels, wind turbuines and nuclear to replace coal, oil and gas for electrical generation
3) Electrifying all railways to replace diesel trains
The main hurdle for these three areas is encouraging governments to invest the necessary infrastructure. Unfortunately, at least in the UK it seems painfully slow. Outside of these areas, at the top of my head I'd say the biggest issues which remain are now aircraft and plastic usage. I don't see any significant improvement to aircraft engines outside of identifying better fuels - biofuels or nanofluids may be promising here. I don't think we have reached a stage yet where we can significantly reduce our dependency on plastics either.
Aircraft gas turbine engines have been improved and their efficiency increased hugely compared to traditional petrol and diesel engines.
Just one example:
An internal combustion engine has a typical compression ratio (how much the air is compressed by the pistons) of 10 or 11 to 1 and its temperature before adding the fuel would be about 150C.
In the latest gas turbine engines, this pressure ratio is over 60 to 1.
So if the air entering the engine is at 15C, by the time it exits the compressor it is at 900C. And that is before the fuel is added. So far less fuel is required for combustion.
To accelerate a typical 250 tons aircraft and lift it into the air requires a massive amount of power with each engine producing up to 100,000 pounds of thrust.
To do that by electricity instead of kerosene is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve.
@Buster15 the news over the last few days is seriously getting apocalyptic now
I agree. Sorry, my point was more about "diminishing returns" and that we have reached perhaps a maturity with combustion (outside of using completely new fuels).
Just so I understand the physics, so the cold air at 15C enters the engine (forget the bypass air), and the air is compressed:
From the ideal gas law, we have PV~RT, so why does the temperature increase?
I think the next step could be some hybrid scramjet/turbojet engine.
Indeed and if we don't significantly reduce CO2 emissions it will be more than the news that is apocalyptic.
Air pressure and temperature are a function of eachother. Increase pressure and its temperature increases by the same amount.
The maximum temperature the kerosene can burn at is 2500C.
So. The higher you can compress the air the higher its temperature and the lower the amount of fuel you need to achieve that temperature.
Older gas turbines (25+ years) typically achieved about 20 to 1 pressure ratio. So the compressor exit temperature was about 300C. So you had to add more fuel to achieve 2500C.
In the latest engines with compressor exit of 900C you have correspondingly far less fuel to reach full combustion.
However, air is a fluid and squeezing it 60 fold is difficult to achieve because air wants to flow from high to low and not low to high pressure.
Modern gas turbine engines are a marvel of technology.
That actually sounds more entertaining than F1 to be honest
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You underestimate greed and ignorance. Two traits that define humanity.
Idiot. Everyone knows that was Superman 4. Tsk.
Seems like a ready-made solution to a like-for-like sport replacement exists already then!
Wish I could disagree. Buy you are unfortunately quite correct.
I always forget the 3rd one wasn't a fever dream and actually happened.
After Australia has suffered 16/17 years of drought in last 23 years, culminating in the revent unprecedented fires we now have the worst floods in 30+ years. The frequency of these severe events is escalating 
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
Just a reminder of an article laying out the various scenarios at different temp rises.
Scary stuff.
Just a reminder of an article laying out the various scenarios at different temp rises.
Scary stuff.
Nature was just getting jealous of all the animals trying to kill you down there.After Australia has suffered 16/17 years of drought in last 23 years, culminating in the revent unprecedented fires we now have the worst floods in 30+ years. The frequency of these severe events is escalating
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date