SUV's bad for the environment
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
SUV's bad for the environment
is now passe'. The new frontier for the wacko environmentlist is space:
"Since Sputnik first orbited Earth, mankind has shot into space thousands of tons of hi-tech gubbins. Much still streaks through the firmament as so-called "space junk". Now a US rocket company is offering the highest bidder the chance to lob a package onto the Moon. Are we guilty of interplanetary littering?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3623239.stm
"Since Sputnik first orbited Earth, mankind has shot into space thousands of tons of hi-tech gubbins. Much still streaks through the firmament as so-called "space junk". Now a US rocket company is offering the highest bidder the chance to lob a package onto the Moon. Are we guilty of interplanetary littering?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3623239.stm
The slap heard around the world.The article wrote:The items range from whole broken-down satellites [...]even a glove lost by the US astronaut Edward White during a 1965 spacewalk [...] this assorted space junk can travel at phenomenal speeds - 18,000mph if it orbits 600 miles above Earth - and can do phenomenal damage if it strikes anything
It would be really nice if someone could develop some sort of unmanned "space cleaners." You could probably get rid of most of the debris by just shifting it into an unstable orbit, causing it to harmlessly burn up in the atmosphere. There are some things up there, however, that would be worth saving. As a side note, does anyone know if any early sattelites (e.g. Sputnik), or if any lunar/service modules from the Apollo missions, are still in orbit? I know it's highly unlikely, but wouldn't it be great to bring back something along the lines of Sputnik or the Eagle lunar module from Apollo 11?
i'm a "planet hugger" rofl
space junk is a problem though. it sounded like you were saying it is not a problem at all.
if you said "space junk is a problem, but the pollution was nessesary for early exploring, so i think it was worth it", i would have agreed with you and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
but... wouldn't this have been outof character?
i mean, you HAVE to bash any points of the political left don't you, otherwise what's the use in posting right?
space junk is a problem though. it sounded like you were saying it is not a problem at all.
if you said "space junk is a problem, but the pollution was nessesary for early exploring, so i think it was worth it", i would have agreed with you and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
but... wouldn't this have been outof character?
i mean, you HAVE to bash any points of the political left don't you, otherwise what's the use in posting right?
this spacejunk problem isn't anything new
http://www.zzz.com.ru/zzz_original_site/114.html (look at last article, the one before the burning videocard, we wrote this in Jan2002, but it was nothing new then either.)
you can't say it's not a problem... just coz you don't like it.
we (that being earth) currently track space debris as much as we can, to avoid problems. why don't you ring up a space agency like nasa and tell them that they are wasting their time organising the tracking of these objects because you know better, "it's not a problem".
talk about head in the sand.
http://www.zzz.com.ru/zzz_original_site/114.html (look at last article, the one before the burning videocard, we wrote this in Jan2002, but it was nothing new then either.)
you can't say it's not a problem... just coz you don't like it.
we (that being earth) currently track space debris as much as we can, to avoid problems. why don't you ring up a space agency like nasa and tell them that they are wasting their time organising the tracking of these objects because you know better, "it's not a problem".
talk about head in the sand.
i'm pretty sure the distances from earth are not eggsadurated (i'll relearn and remember howto spell this one day).
the captions accompanying the pictures are as such (if you won't goto zzzonline):
"some of the known pieces of junk - this represents a tiny fraction of the total"
"The dots are not actual size they just represent the positions of known debris".
the dots are not ment to 'indicate size and therefor instil fear'. it's a graphical representation, and knowing what i know about interfaces, i can tell you that there's no other way to graphically do it.
please, just take my word for it.
i don't think "MIA hand-gloves" are marked on these diagrams here, the marked dots would be the biggest (and easiest trackable) debris. if you wanted to mark every single bit of debris on a pic that size: you wouldn't be able to see the earth in the picture.
the captions accompanying the pictures are as such (if you won't goto zzzonline):
"some of the known pieces of junk - this represents a tiny fraction of the total"
"The dots are not actual size they just represent the positions of known debris".
the dots are not ment to 'indicate size and therefor instil fear'. it's a graphical representation, and knowing what i know about interfaces, i can tell you that there's no other way to graphically do it.
please, just take my word for it.
i don't think "MIA hand-gloves" are marked on these diagrams here, the marked dots would be the biggest (and easiest trackable) debris. if you wanted to mark every single bit of debris on a pic that size: you wouldn't be able to see the earth in the picture.
- Sergeant Thorne
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4641
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Indiana, U.S.A.
- El Ka Bong
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada