Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

I think NGAD holds a lot of promise as a much better way to design and deploy airplanes. The way the US has been doing it, they're almost obsolete before the first one rolls off the assembly line.

 

I've been reading about it obsessively over the last couple of days.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2020/09/15/the-us-air-force-has-built-and-flown-a-mysterious-full-scale-prototype-of-its-future-fighter-jet/

 

I really hate the "one fighter plane as a Swiss army knife that's supposed to do everything" mentality which took over the joint strike fighter program. And NGAD seems to be a HUGE step away from that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the realization that the human pilot, with its inherent acceleration limits, may find itself out of future air forces, may be behind this.  USAF is led by people who worship the solo guy in a plane holding the stick between his legs (i.e., themselves).  The elephantine projects to build The Next Great Single-Seat Combat Plane have contributed to the push toward UAVs in as many combat roles as possible, and the fighter jock mentality would strike back against that heresy in pretty much this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cancer said:

I suspect the realization that the human pilot, with its inherent acceleration limits, may find itself out of future air forces, may be behind this.  USAF is led by people who worship the solo guy in a plane holding the stick between his legs (i.e., themselves).  The elephantine projects to build The Next Great Single-Seat Combat Plane have contributed to the push toward UAVs in as many combat roles as possible, and the fighter jock mentality would strike back against that heresy in pretty much this way.

 

well-you-see-its-because-i-was-inverted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cancer said:

 

This is why I think we're heading for a monumental crash.  The pandemic has shattered the illusion that Truth Will Set Us Free;  the willfully blind will deny, deny, deny, and/or seek to blame anyone but themselves.  Nothing will get done until Florida is underwater...at which point it's far too late, of course...because it's inconvenient, expensive, reduces profit, costs jobs, etc.  Then the screaming happens, as 10s, even probably 100s of millions of people lose much/all of their life's work, and gazillions of dollars get washed away.  The second part of the crash is, where the HECK are you going to put all of them???

 

Not saying this will be in my lifetime...or the lifetime of anyone here for that matter.  But I simply don't see adequate will to fix the core problems before we trash this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Nothing will get done until Florida is underwater....

 

In my experience, nothing will get done.  Period.  The vast majority of people that I talk to who have a problem with climate change activism do not deny the climate is radically changing.  They deny that climate change is man-made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

The vast majority of people that I talk to who have a problem with climate change activism do not deny the climate is radically changing.  They deny that climate change is man-made.

 

I can understand the broad outlines of that argument. We know that the climate radically changed several times before man could have been a factor.

 

After man could have been a factor, it changed several times more. What is now the northern Sahara was fields of grain during the days of the Roman Empire. In times before that, what is now Israel and Palestine were considered lushly vegetated rather than being a mostly desert as it is today. In historical times, grapes flourished in what was a mild climate in northern England as if they were being grown in the wine regions of France.

 

Regardless...

 

Personally, I'd switch the whole world over to using molten salt thorium reactors for centralized power generation, put solar or windmills on every rooftop, and call it a day. We'd probably still have to use fossil fuels for some shipping, agriculture, and aircraft purposes, but it'd be a tiny fraction of the carbon output and pollution that we have today. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, archer said:

 

 

 

Personally, I'd switch the whole world over to using molten salt thorium reactors for centralized power generation, put solar or windmills on every rooftop, and call it a day. We'd probably still have to use fossil fuels for some shipping, agriculture, and aircraft purposes, but it'd be a tiny fraction of the carbon output and pollution that we have today. 

 

 

 

This is no longer sufficient.  There is already too much carbon in the atmosphere.  If it is not actively removed, all glaciers and ice caps will melt.  Greenland alone will be sufficient to raise sea levels by 24 feet.  Current projections are for 4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, and I expect this estimate to be too conservative, like all other climate projections so far. 

 

I mean, we do need to stop pumping carbon out of the ground and burning it.  Badly.  It's just that I don't think people realize how inexorable and dire the situation is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old Man said:

 

This is no longer sufficient.  There is already too much carbon in the atmosphere.  If it is not actively removed, all glaciers and ice caps will melt.  Greenland alone will be sufficient to raise sea levels by 24 feet.  Current projections are for 4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, and I expect this estimate to be too conservative, like all other climate projections so far. 

 

Instead, we have enormous swaths of rain forest...THE BEST carbon remover, because its byproduct is oxygen...getting cut down year after year, and being burned extensively this year.

 

Which also argues that the projections are going to prove to be, not just conservative, but exceptionally so.

 

There's also extensive evidence of ocean damage.  The ocean's another carbon sink, but in doing so, it changes the pH harmfully.  This is destroying the coral reefs, one of the other top, rich and diverse habitats we have.  IIRC, jellyfish like it;  tuna and the like, don't.  (Altho here, of course, the refusal to slow down the overfishing is probably the bigger issue.)

 

The other side of this is, as the planet really starts feeling the crunch, the contraction itself will become violent.  Where are you gonna move 50 million or so people on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts?  What will the impact on food production be, because where's the free space to put them?  Farmland...????  Do we create our own boicatastrophe by the direct and indirect climate effects...more bad storms causing more crop losses, or continued loss of honey bees...critical to food production, and the like.  Civil meltdown may finish even before glacial meltdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

This is no longer sufficient.  There is already too much carbon in the atmosphere.  If it is not actively removed, all glaciers and ice caps will melt.  Greenland alone will be sufficient to raise sea levels by 24 feet.  Current projections are for 4 feet of sea level rise by 2100, and I expect this estimate to be too conservative, like all other climate projections so far. 

 

I mean, we do need to stop pumping carbon out of the ground and burning it.  Badly.  It's just that I don't think people realize how inexorable and dire the situation is.

 

Do you have a favorite method or methods for capturing and sequestering the carbon which you would recommend be put into place today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Do you have a favorite method or methods for capturing and sequestering the carbon which you would recommend be put into place today?

 

"Favorite" is a poor term, because all current sequestration technologies suck.  However, separating CO2 from the atmosphere via refrigeration and forcing it into olivine-rich rock has been shown to be effective.  It's pointless, though, unless the energy to do so comes from renewable sources.  And from an efficiency standpoint, renewable energy needs to be spent on replacing fossil fuel generation first, then used for sequestration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...