PDA

View Full Version : NASA to make more Global Warming!



Supercool Dude
October 24th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Have you guys seen the two new new rockets that will replace the Space Shuttle?

Both of them use the very same type of Solid Rocket Boosters that the shuttle uses.

What has me very upset is that these type of SRB's pollute like crazy and release Greenhouse gases which are helping tp melt the Earth's ice polar caps and glaciers and cause these Superhurricanes to attack America like it is a magnet for Hurricanes.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffith is a dunce!

The World is in a state of Global Warming and he is adding to the problem and not helping.

He has ordered NASA to build two new rockets to replace the Space Shuttle.

They employ Solid Rocket Booster exactly like the Shuttle does.

These boosters use a heavy pollutant that causes Global Warming.

No one in Congress or the press, and not even Greenpeace has any objections.

And with no cure for Global Warming, NASA has decided to continue polluting with these SRB's.

We don't need these SRB's

The Saturn V rockets did not use SRB boosters.

The Delta IV Heavy uses Hydrogen & Oxygen.

Michael Griffith looks like a dunce!

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

Ninjahedge
October 24th, 2005, 03:54 PM
SCD, you need to get a grip.

The solid core boosters are not the chief polluting source, by FAR, in the environment.

Write your letters to the automobile industry who, if they increased their average MPG on their models as modestly as a few MPG, would make more of an impact that all the exhaust fumes generated by all of the launches in history.


Until these shuttles become airbusses, we really do not have to worry about them melting the polar caps.

China will do that for us!!!! ;)

Supercool Dude
October 24th, 2005, 09:03 PM
No! You do not realize the amount of pollutants the SRB's make.

There have been 114 shuttle missions, which translates into 228 SRB flights.

That is a huge amount of Solid Rocket Propellants and it leaves behind smoke and salty dust and it ejects this stuff high into the upper atmosphere and you know that can decimate the Ozone Hole which just keeps getting bigger.

All of this GW is melting the glaciers causing too much fresh water into the North Atlantic which appears to be changing the Gulfstream and the ecology...................

But you do not care and have become apathetic towards the way we burn fuels......

I haven't got an answer to gas and diesel cars..............:(

ZippyTheChimp
October 24th, 2005, 10:45 PM
Before we can discuss this intelligently, you need to be specific on exactly what pollutant is being released by solid rocket propellants that is absent from liquid propellants. Statements such as:

These boosters use a heavy pollutant that causes Global Warmingare of no use.


No! You do not realize the amount of pollutants the SRB's make
No, I guess we don't. Why don't you tell us?

The consensus is that carbon dioxide is the main contributor to global warming because it persists in the atmosphere longer than other gases such as methane. I'm sure dust and smoke are contributors, but sold particulates settle out in a relatively short time. Just think how many rocket launches it would take to equal one volcanic eruption.

A rocket launch looks spectacular, and clogged highways are boring, so it may be a common mistake to downplay the importance of the automobile as a polluter, but there are millions of them, and they are out there every day.

Eliminating a few hundred rocket launches is a drop in the bucket.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp

Gulcrapek
October 25th, 2005, 08:21 AM
Right. There are far more extensive things to worry about.

I'm guessing SRBs leave some kinda ammonium perchlorate crap?

The fact remains, however, that the boosters are incredibly powerful and that power cannot be achieved with current liquid engines. Designing new ones would take billions of dollars the government is not willing to spend.

BrooklynRider
October 25th, 2005, 10:23 AM
... Designing new ones would take billions of dollars the government is not willing to spend.

The Aliens living underground could tell them how to do it....;)

NYatKNIGHT
October 25th, 2005, 12:10 PM
That's why they need to build this. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7413)

Supercool Dude
October 26th, 2005, 01:20 PM
The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of an ammonium perchlorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate) (oxidizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizer), 69.6 percent by weight), aluminum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum) (fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel), 16 percent), iron oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide) (a catalyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst), 0.4 percent), a polymer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer) (a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an epoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxy) curing agent (1.96 percent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster

Here, you read and decide for yourself!:eek:

I think we should use the Delta 4 Heavy for the CEV instead. It uses Hydrogen & Oxygen and leaves steam for exhaust.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

Ninjahedge
October 26th, 2005, 04:06 PM
Supercool, look at how much is put in there and start doing the calculations.

Wikpedia does not expouse the ramifications of solid fuel boosters on global warming.

The ammounts listed seem significant until you see the rate of discharge per year of these substances and compare that to things such as Oil refineries, coal power plants, and other emmissions.

On top of that, you have consumer exhaust that is doing quite a bit more.

Also, there is the whole issue of the modernization of mainland China. What happens when they get as electricity hungry as us? Their car emmision standards are behind us as it is, do you think there is no possibility of them firing up a few coal power plants to fill the need? We have already discussed doing the very same thing!


Also, where do you think all that hydrogen and oxygen comes from? We would not be getting that stuff from solar power? Also, how do we keep it cold? How do we transport it? How MUCH do you need for the same amount of propulsion? How much would this cost, and would the environmental impact of the generation, transportation storage and actual lifting of that much fuel up with the craft on takeoff?

I laud your environmental concern, but you must ALWAYS research your topic before you cruisade for it, because even if you are right in what you are saying, people will not listen if most of the other things you say are easily disproven....

Supercool Dude
October 27th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Ever hear of the straw that broke the Camels back?

These SRB's are the last straw!

They are not taking us in the right direction.

These SRB's will just make GW worse.

I have written to a number of politicians on Capitol Hill.............

All I get is apathy.

Even Greenpeace doesn't give a damn!:(:confused:

Ninjahedge
October 27th, 2005, 10:57 AM
Greenpeace has some common sense.


Stop talking about the straw that broke the camels back. I would be more concerned about removing the Mac Truck from its back first before I worry about brushing the dust off it's forehead.

ZippyTheChimp
October 27th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Ever hear of the straw that broke the Camels back?

These SRB's are the last straw!
In a perfect world, we would have unlimited resources (money) to tackle every cause of a problem. That world does not exist.

If you waste money eliminating the minor causes of a problem, that money is not available to deal with the major causes. The result is, your efforts will have less of an impact on the problem.

Also, if you grab at every issue and turn it into a a major threat just to draw attention to the problem, an unwanted result will be that opponents to the very concept of Global Warming will use these insignificant issues to discredit your entire argument.

It isn't the straw that broke the camel's back. It's a fart in a hurricane.

Supercool Dude
October 27th, 2005, 10:33 PM
You know, maybe I should sue NASA!

Ninjahedge
October 28th, 2005, 09:22 AM
You know, maybe I should sue NASA!


I am detecting a sarcastic BS thread.

I HOPE it is sarcasm, because if it isn't, this is getting scary........

:eek:

IrishInNYC
March 8th, 2013, 02:29 PM
Global warming is epic, long-term study says
By Ben Brumfield , CNN
updated 6:57 AM EST, Fri March 8, 2013
CNN.com



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130308025815-ice-core-story-top.jpg
A scientist looks at an ice core from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide coring site.

(CNN) -- Global warming has propelled Earth's climate from one of its coldest decades since the last ice age to one of its hottest -- in just one century.
A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, said climatologist Shaun Marcott, who worked on a new study on global temperatures going back that far.
"If any period in time had a sustained temperature change similar to what we have today, we would have certainly seen that in our record," he said. It is a good indicator of just how fast man-made climate change has progressed.
A century is a very short period of time for such a spike.

It's supposed to be cold
The Earth was very cold at the turn of the 20th century. The decade from 1900 to 1909 was colder than 95% of the last 11,300 years, the study found.
Fast forward to the turn of the 21st century, and the opposite occurs. Between 2000 and 2009, it was hotter than about 75% of the last 11,300 years.
If not for man-made influences, the Earth would be in a very cold phase right now and getting even colder, according the joint study by Oregon State University and Harvard University. Marcott was the lead author of the report on its results.
To boot, the range of temperatures from cold to hot produced since the industrial revolution began are about the same as the 11,000 years before it, said Candace Major from the National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127133), "but this change has happened a lot more quickly."


Far from natural warming
Variations in how the Earth is tilted and its orbit around the sun make for a pattern of planetary warming phases followed by cooling phases across the millennia.
The team's research shows the Earth's overall temperature curve dipping down over about the past 4,000 years, but the downward plod comes to an abrupt halt in modern times.
"If you were to predict -- based on where we are relative to the position of the sun and how we are tilted -- you would predict that we would be still cooling, but we're not," Marcott said.
Instead, the planet is warming up. It hasn't been quite this warm in thousands of years. And it's getting hotter.
By 2100, the Earth will be warmer than ever before, Marcott said. If emissions continue as currently predicted until then, global temperatures will rise "well above anything we've ever seen in the last 11,000 years."
That could be a rise of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the NSF.


What a long range study means
To get a view on global temperatures that long ago, the researchers studied 73 sediment and polar ice samples, taken from all over the globe. Chemicals found in fossils deep down in the samples span the ages and are good indicators of historic temperatures on Earth, Marcott said.
The scientists did the study to put the global temperature trends into a long-range perspective, Marcott said. Critics of climate change research, which has generally covered the last 1,500 to 2,000 years, have complained that it has been too short-sighted.
They argue that the shorter studies have not taken into account that the warming Earth is seeing today could have happened before naturally -- thousands of years ago.
These shorter studies have been based on methods that are very different from the Harvard-OSU research, but in the 2,000 years that they overlap, the results have been basically the same.
"Our data shows that ... they didn't miss anything," Marcott said. And the parallel results corroborate the precision of the new research as well, he said.


Humanity in the last 11,500 years
The scientists chose the period of time known as the "Holocene" for their research, because it is the most recent natural warm phase in Earth's history. It began at the end of the last Ice Age about 11,500 years ago, and we are still in it.
The Holocene has also been the epoch of human achievement, the beginning of civilization. Stable weather patterns helped people do more of everything they wanted to, partly because they no longer had to fight the cold of an ice age.
They began farming, which extended their own life spans and increased population on Earth. They built cities and roads, made art, developed languages and laws. They formed empires and nations.
Eventually, they invented machines, landing themselves in the industrialized age, driven by engines and turbines, which are powered by combustible fuel.
Thus began man-made greenhouse gases.


The world tomorrow
The main culprit is carbon dioxide, and its levels have jumped in the last 100 years, Marcott said. In the 11,000 years prior, it only changed "very slowly," he said.
Marcott is concerned about people's ability to adapt to a perhaps drastically changed climate.
"As civilization has grown, we're kind of set up for things not to change too much," he said.
The last time Earth has been as warm as it is projected to be by 2100 was before the last Ice Age started -- over 130,000 years ago. That's too long ago to gather reliable data on, he said.
He didn't want to speculate on what the world will look like, if global warming continues.
"I certainly hope we can pull ourselves out of it," he said.
A report on the study has been published in the March 8 issue of the journal Science

IrishInNYC
March 8th, 2013, 02:41 PM
I don't know what to make of this whole global warming issue but the more I read about it the more I lean into the "not buying it" camp.

In the sense that I don't deny for a moment that the earth's atmosphere is warming but I really don't buy that mankind is having that big an impact on it.

The earth has gone through countless ice ages over millions of years, the last of which ended 11,300 years ago. Was Al Gore out banging a drum then? Complaining about the retreat of the North American ice sheet?

The article above states that 2000-2009 was hotter than 75% of the last 11,300 years. So, 2825 years were hotter than that decade. That's a lot no? That's a lot of years where it was really hot and there was no man made industry adding to the problem?

I'm all for reducing pollution but the global warming and hole in the ozone (remember that?) gang has lost my attention. Like I said, I just don't buy it.

The earth is getting warmer, but there's nothing we can do to slow, stop OR add to it. It will, in due course, get cold again.

I can here the cries now "the Westchester County glacier has wiped out White Plains and has set it's sights on Yonkers!....I blame it on the Tesla Motors!!"

Ninjahedge
March 8th, 2013, 04:49 PM
When we are due for an ice age and we are getting record high temperatures for several years (not just one), I would worry.

I would worry more about what will happen if we do not have the natural cooling phase and we shortcut to the natural warming on top of what we have started...