20 ms·

MIT researchers propose Brazil-sized fleet of “space bubbles” to cool the Earth

• hnplj 4y ago
• thebiss 4y ago
  From the PDF, these won't just park in the gravity well at L1. "An active stabilization mechanism is needed and will have to be designed, preferably through geometry modification [aerospace engineering, planetary sciences, robotics]" See https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AABLA5kYXUrrZfidUpPrUCCva/Space%20Bubbles_press%20material_May%202022.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AABLA5kYXUrrZfidU...
• excalibur 4y ago
  I hate to burst their bubble, but it's unclear how they intend to keep their bubbles from bursting prematurely. They could easily be popped by space debris, or solar flares, or projectiles launched by a rogue state, or just because that's what bubbles do.
  • dtx1 4y ago
    Build a bubble machine that constantly replaces popped bubbles
    • nomel 4y ago
      I wonder if they could use a material that would "dry" or "freeze" in the shape of the bubble. Maybe harden from the UV. If the James Webb telescope gives a reasonable indication for the amount of stuff floating around these Lagrange points, it would be popped around once per month [1]! 1. Four hits after 5 months: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/06/james-webb-telescope-meteoroid-hit-damage/661272/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/06/james-we...
  • jsty 4y ago
    Perhaps it's as simple as "blow another one" - since they propose constructing them in space one might keep the construction mechanism nearby to replace any that are prematurely popped
  • beanjuice 4y ago
    Space debris, solar flares, and rogue states are issues that would impact other solar-shield type solutions (unlike popping). What the bubbles do address immediately is the manufacture of something in space with a high planar surface area compared to the volume and density (for getting it into space).
  • dr_orpheus 4y ago
    They are proposing putting the bubbles out at the Earth-Sun L1 point which is far outside where most of our current satellites are. Space debris is not really a concern there and I wouldn't put projectiles launched by a rogue state up there (there's plenty of closer things they would want to hit first). There are plenty of inflatable space-based structures that have been proposed and some number of them tested (large inflatable antennas, inflatable elements to increase drag and bring space debris in, inflatable space habitats). Granted, nothing is even within a few orders of magnitude of what they are proposing building so there are certainly still technical challenges. Edit: Another technical challenge is the L1 lagrange point is not a stable point, so the bubbles will require some sort of control system (i.e. thrusters) to perform small orbit adjustments and remain in that spot.
    • yupper32 4y ago
      I agree that space debris isn't too much of a concern if they have a very large grid of these bubbles. A percentage popping over a decade will be calculated in. But L1 doesn't mean it won't get hit. James Webb has already been hit at its point in space.
  • sholladay 4y ago
    Looks like they are optimizing for having the ability to easily destroy the solar shield if, for example, the cooling effect is greater than intended. I think that’s a wise precaution. If the bubbles can also be produced easily, which seems plausible, then perhaps losing some of them to harsh conditions won’t be such a big deal. With reusable rockets becoming a thing, replacing them could become more cost effective and simpler as time goes on.
• charliea0 4y ago
  Seems like the key consideration is the mass of the bubbles. If they are light enough then this could be feasible.
  • charliea0 4y ago
    My napkin math is that a bubble with a shadow the size of Brazil and made out of graphene weighing 0.77 mg per square meter would weigh about 25 million kg. Using multiple smaller bubbles could reduce this by at most a factor of four. At a cost of $1,000-$10,000 per kg it seems possible to get this to space with a total cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. You could do a estimate of the graphene itself but I think the cost would be similar.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Disaster is disaster, however much money you save. Civilization collapse is cheapest of all, but has perhaps undesired side effects. Every bit of money and attention spent on this or any other "shade the earth" scheme just brings collapse nearer.
  • charliea0 4y ago
    By comparison, direct air capture of CO2 costs something like $600/ton. At 40 billion tons of global CO2 emitted per year it could cost 24 trillion per year to remove current emissions. That said, I would bet there’s better economies of scale / ability to innovate lower cost zero-carbon energy sources with direct air capture rather than a giant space project.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      And, removing carbon delays global catastrophe, while space bubbles bring it sooner.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• GrumpyNl 4y ago
  What could possibly go wrong?
  • ElijahLynn 4y ago
    The article suggests that the bubbles are reversible if something does go wrong, and one of the safer options out there for reducing the amount of energy that is being captured by the atmosphere. It seems pretty hopeful to me, which is what we need right now. The climate trauma is intense these days. This is hope.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Reversing it at that point would make things radically worse.
      • ElijahLynn 4y ago
        It could, having the option is important here.
  • btbuildem 4y ago
    Human civilization could collapse to the point where we lose space exploration, then we're stuck with some space bubbles limiting how much sunlight the planet gets. As effects of climate change wear off, we are slowly plunged into an eternal, global ice age. All life on earth is exterminated, save for some most resilient microorganisms.
    • marshray 4y ago
      Make them so that they automatically pop after a time unless they regularly receive a command from earth.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      On the plus side, even attempting it guarantees civilization collapse. So there's that.
    • 4y ago
• cirrus3 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• credabablity 4y ago
• kosyblysk666 4y ago
• ParksNet 4y ago
  Excess CO2, and the impacts on human cognition from it, are the great threat to civilization. We need geoengineering to strip CO2 out of the atmosphere. Iron seeding* and global Carbon Taxes seem like the best options. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
  • gravypod 4y ago
    Cody's lab has a great video on this topic. This would also, in thousands of years, create new deposits of oil.
    • gojomo 4y ago
      Thousands of years, or millions?
  • pastor_bob 4y ago
    the rich will be able to afford CO2 scrubbers for their airtight houses. Way cheaper
    • easytiger 4y ago
      Are you suggesting that the general atmospheric co2 will be so high air will be unbreathable?
      • pastor_bob 4y ago
        They can rise high enough that general indoor levels (which are usually higher) will be high enough to cause constant cognition problems
        • easytiger 4y ago
          Modern building techniques and energy efficient designs can ensure that anyway. Regardless of external co2 levels.
      • 4y ago
• pastor_bob 4y ago
  What is the benefit of a bubble over a super thin reflective sheet?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Civilization collapses either way, so that is a wash.
• headcanon 4y ago
  There's a good video on this that talks about how a similar technique might be used to terraform Venus over hundreds of years [0] The main physics problem I see is that Langrange points are naturally unstable [1], so the bubbles would need to be constantly correcting their orbit. This problem would be compounded by solar radiation "blowing" the bubbles back to Earth. There are clever ways to mitigate this for other designs which are addressed in the video, but I don't see it addressed in the article. Edit: it looks like it is addressed somewhat in the source article linked in another comment, by placing the bubbles a bit further towards the sun than the L1 point to compensate for solar winds. Also, If a bubble does eventually become unstable, they may be cheap enough to destroy it and send another one up. However, the primary problem I see with this approach is that we are simply not politically ready as a species to attempt a global-scale engineering project like that. Some countries may find that climate change actually benefits them [2], or may even impact a geopolitical rival even worse. These countries may be inclined to send a few missiles toward L1 if thats the case. Edit: Additionally, even if this does succeed, countries may see this as an excuse to keep burning stuff despite the additional negative consequences of carbon emissions [3] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-WO-z-QuWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-WO-z-QuWI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit#:~:text=In%20practice%2C%20any%20orbits%20around%20Lagrangian%20points%20L1%2C%20L2%2C%20or%20L3%20are%20dynamically%20unstable%2C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit#:~:text=In%20p... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russia-climate-migration-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russ... [3]: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification#:~:text=Because%20of%20human%2Ddriven%20increased,the%20ocean%20becomes%20more%20acidic https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co....
  • yupper32 4y ago
    > However, the primary problem I see with this approach is that we are simply not politically ready as a species to attempt a global-scale engineering project like that. What's the point of bringing this up? Are you saying that their research is futile and that they shouldn't bother? That we should be funding something else? There are separate groups of people working on the social aspects. Let MIT and other research institutions deal with coming up with solutions, and let politicians and activists deal with getting the world ready. From everything I've seen, it'll take a global-scale engineering project of some sort to solve this problem. Might as well have the group of solutions ready for when/if the world is ready.
• gmuslera 4y ago
  Wasting a lot dealing with a symptom while still failing to address the real problem is the kind of solution that is not solution at all.
  • ElijahLynn 4y ago
    There are plenty of "us" still working towards addressing the real problem too, there is hope here.
    • wiz21c 4y ago
      Please do make videos so that we can quickly forget the one from the article which is totally absurd...
  • anigbrowl 4y ago
    So does posturing. People disagree on the real problem: some think it's fossil fuels, some thinks it's overpopulation, some think it's industrialization. Can you be briefly specific about your focus and preferred outcome?
    • gmuslera 4y ago
      Reduce greatly the extraction and use of fossil fuels (cleaner energy sources, efficient and not for leisure travel) at the same time than massive carbon capture efforts. And I mean not to keep emissions as something is being captured, as some "green" alternatives are trying to be sold, like capture carbon into fuels that will be released shortly anyway. At a big enough scale, GHG may start to reduce globally. That is the disease. Without that won't be any solution, just fragile mitigations in our way to the end of civilization as we know it. No matter how expensive or damaging it looks, the alternative will be always worse. If, besides doing that, you want to add some mitigation to the warming, and that don't slow down nor stop GHG reduction, be may guest. But applying nail polish instead of stopping an hemorrhage is somewhat shortsighted, priorities should be clear.
  • julienb_sea 4y ago
    Fantasizing that we can eliminate and reverse fossil fuel emissions without dramatically affecting global standard of living (acutely in less developed societies) is also a non-solution. We are going to have to deal with slowing but non-zero emissions for a long time, which essentially implies we will need to "deal with the symptom" as a primary remediation action.
• gpm 4y ago
  Their website has a direct link to the press release and associated material if you want to get information straight from the horses mouth Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AADfZbzC8xISX-lTmEkJJ7V2a?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AADfZbzC8xISX-lTm... Press release: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AAAaHVK7WNKCUN2rlpHtws-7a/Space%20Bubbles%20Press%20Release.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AAAaHVK7WNKCUN2rl... PDF with more information: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AABLA5kYXUrrZfidUpPrUCCva/Space%20Bubbles_press%20material_May%202022.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gk415yke8shtb84/AABLA5kYXUrrZfidU... --- They don't give more information about the size than "brazil", they do state the density as ~1.5g/m^2. Just multiplying that by the area of brazil we get 1.3×10^13 grams or 13 million metric tons. That's a ton (heh) of mass, but within the realms of what SpaceX is claiming they want to make possible (at least if they launch it over a decade or two): https://wccftech.com/spacex-aims-to-haul-more-than-a-million-tons-of-cargo-in-a-year-says-musk/ https://wccftech.com/spacex-aims-to-haul-more-than-a-million...
  • vagrantJin 4y ago
    > but within the realms of what SpaceX is claiming they want to make possible Is it possible to talk about space faring without mentioning spaceX theories? Why not talk about companies that have been sending stuff up there for decades?
    • gpm 4y ago
      For this amount of mass, no. No one else has suggested that they are anywhere close to lifting this amount of mass, or even have any future plans that might change that. For reference, all time total mass to orbit so far is < 20k tons.
      • philsnow 4y ago
        Lunar regolith seems to be about 20% silicon (by mass). We could try to lift that much silicon from earth's gravity well, or try to build a refinery and launch system on the moon, with ~1/6th the gravity of earth.
• edgefield 4y ago
  Or instead of relying on essentially magic we could deploy current and known solutions that will solve the problem, but we will have to invest real $, conserve, and consume less. Sadly, there’s no chance practical solutions that require worldwide coordination will work as humans, especially those with money and power, are generally selfish.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Current known solutions cost much less than carrying on as we are. Current economic winners, who are personally responsible for the looming catastrophe, would take in less.
• stuaxo 4y ago
  Amazing how what we will consider so we don't give up fossil fuels.
  • spockz 4y ago
    At this point it isn’t about giving up fossil fuels anymore and more about acting to revert the damage already done. We appear to already be to late to prevent the 1.5degree global warming and even 2.5 which could cause a runaway effect. The only viable option is to let less energy hit the earth.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Making "less energy hit the earth" brings on disaster just that much more quickly.
  • baggy_trough 4y ago
    That is because giving up fossil fuels is very difficult.
    • dredmorbius 4y ago
      "How did you give up fossil fuels?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."
      • baggy_trough 4y ago
        A fossil fuels bankruptcy is not in the cards.
        • ncmncm 4y ago
          Collapse of civilization will sharply reduce CO2 output, with some side effects.
          • baggy_trough 4y ago
• parkingrift 4y ago
  Planet scale geoengineering that may or may not be possible with existing or near technology. Or Just blast sulfur, calcium carbonate, or some other particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Elon Musk could do this by himself. Single digit billions with technology we've perfected decades ago. Waiting patiently for a a majority of people to realize it's the only realistic path to buy us enough time to transition to renewables.
  • ElijahLynn 4y ago
    The article address that a bit, bubbles are safer and reversible if needed. The particle injection is not reversible.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Bubbles are not safe. Reversing it partway is far worse than not starting. Even starting would be disastrous, to the exact extent it distracted from doing something that works. We know what works: cut CO2 emission. Nothing else does.
    • parkingrift 4y ago
      Particles don’t last long enough to consider reversing it. We would have to keep launching more of them into the stratosphere indefinitely. The only point is to buy us time, not permanently change anything.
  • jimmygrapes 4y ago
    Blocking or reflecting sunlight does not seem like a great path forward for wind or solar energy, considering that both require that sunlight that's being blocked. Hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, maybe. Until we get a nice little ice age and the water freezes too much. Maybe a better solution here would be to just accept that civilization as we know it needs to adapt rather than forcing the entire planetary ecosphere to adapt around us.
    • parkingrift 4y ago
• piyh 4y ago
  Reducing sunlight to slow warming seems like the most desperate move with unintended consequences. The planet has evolved for billions of years with a constant amount of sunlight. Greenhouse gas sequestering is the most direct reaction to a Greenhouse gas problem.
  • javajosh 4y ago
    Indeed. The amount of photosynthesis going on is proportional to inbound sunlight. So you might be able to reduce the temperature of the planet in this way but you will also reduce the amount of photosynthesis happening.
    • UncleOxidant 4y ago
      And with less photosynthesis happening, less CO2 is being absorbed from the atmosphere.
    • Melatonic 4y ago
      Depends where you reduce it though. Theres not a ton of photosynthesis happening in the middle of the REALLY brutal deserts and reducing some sunlight would also reduce the heat and maybe increase plant life and photosynthesis. Thats assuming you can control it that granularly though.
      • guelo 4y ago
        A shield at Langrangian L1 can't be very selective, it would basically shade the whole planet.
    • manmal 4y ago
      If the bubbles can be coated, then the filtered spectrum can be influenced. Eg if 20-300Thz is filtered out, then we only lose heat that’s probably not really useful to plants.
      • javajosh 4y ago
        Yes, this would be ideal (although I've rarely seen light measured like that - isn't wavelength almost always used?) If you could have a bandpass filter allowing in ~400-700nm light that would be kind of awesome - definitely a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too moment. (of course with our luck there will be some process we need that we don't know about that requires the rest of the spectrum too)
• tuyguntn 4y ago
  So, instead of fixing the problem, we are introducing temporary patch? As usual "temporary" becomes permanent. I wish this solution won't be implemented
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    It could not be permanent, as civilization would collapse shortly after.
• kristov 4y ago
  It does assume we will be capable of popping these bubbles if we need to. We can not guarantee we will retain the capability to go into space. It would be better perhaps to engineer it so it naturally falls out of its location after some X years.
  • NegativeLatency 4y ago
    Seems like simulating a volcano eruption would be preferable to shooting stuff into space. It will naturally decay in a predictable amount of time, and you don't end up wasting energy on as many launch vehicles and creating space debris.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Since it would bring on global catastrophe and civilizational collapse, spaceflight would end too. Fortunately, it would collapse and blow away before long. Unfortunately, that would make things even worse, for a while.
• MikeHolman 4y ago
  Even if we did somehow get the political will to fund a project of this magnitude, it could never work. The bubbles would get blamed for every single snowstorm, unseasonably cold day, and any other weather that happened after it was put in place. I don't think it would last a year before it was taken down, regardless of whether or not it did what it was supposed to do or was responsible for any meteorological event.
  • tyleo 4y ago
    I like this take. I think I agree with it, though I wonder if there is a limit. For example, if warming gets bad enough that there are obvious issues causing millions, would it be enough for folks to realize, "the negative consequences are worth it"? I truly don't know.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      I do. It would make things strictly worse, as CO2 continued on up, poisoning the oceans until its food chain collapses. That has happened before, immediately before massive global extinction events. It would be a mistake not to avoid that.
• WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
  Better direct link (and cooler page): https://senseable.mit.edu/space-bubbles https://senseable.mit.edu/space-bubbles For those who think this is absurd, this is a "what if, emergency solution" as it explains.
• artingent 4y ago
  Given that we've already crossed the point-of-no-return, I think some form of geo-engineering is the only way to prevent rising sea-levels, inhabitable conditions and human extinction. But I hope there's a way to do some sort of controlled experimentation first before committing to a "solution" and statements like this aren't very comforting: "Once those aerosols were released, though, we wouldn’t have a straightforward way to recapture them if the plan didn’t work or had unforeseen negative consequences."
• PeterStuer 4y ago
  I always said climate change would not do us in as the 'Geo-engineering' zealots would beat it to the punch for the price of a few publications and a fistful of VC spin-out capital.
• zwilliamson 4y ago
  Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson covers this topic well via some insightful sci-fi story telling. I think his concept of a sulfur cannon(s) is more realistic and likely to be implemented in near future.
  • jpindar 4y ago
    It's also a fail-safe solution since we could stop sending up more sulfur as soon as any unintended consequences were noticed.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      It would bring global climate catastrophe that much closer. And, the moment you stop, things get much worse much faster.
• ttiurani 4y ago
  Reminder that the problem isn't just "too much GHG", but crossing most planetary boundaries[1] at the same time. I get why MIT has done the research, but this publicity is poised to create yet another distraction and delay necessary actions. We have to stop focusing on the symptoms and have the courage to go after the root causes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
  • kbenson 4y ago
    > this publicity is poised to create yet another distraction and delay necessary actions. More knowledge and options are always better. It's up to the people we've chosen to lead us to actually choose an option and follow through, and I don't think one more option there is really what's preventing that. Preventing more options from being presented is just a way to attempt to control the populace by restricting information. Necessary action won't be taken unless there's strong leadership willing to make it a priority, and there's already enough options on the table that whether none or 100 new ones pop up, it makes no functional difference to getting started seriously, but it does possibly allow for a better option to be chosen when we do.
    • ckastner 4y ago
      > More knowledge and options are always better. That's not even true in theory. Given a simple problem A, when adding more options, at some point, choosing among the options requires more effort than solving the simple problem, if only by brute force. There's a reason why RDBMS sometimes skip indexes. And in practice, GP is right: with humans, too many options eventually only distract from the problem.
      • SapporoChris 4y ago
        Well illustrated by Munroe as always. https://xkcd.com/309/ https://xkcd.com/309/
      • ragle 4y ago
        > Given a simple problem A, when adding more options, at some point, choosing among the options requires more effort than solving the simple problem, if only by brute force. Hick's Law, more or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law
• samiam_iam 4y ago
  problem solved. moving on.
• taylorius 4y ago
  I read that reforesting large areas would help reduce the CO2, which makes sense. Is that considered a viable plan these days? (At first glance it seems a less risky strategy than blocking out the sun with a load of space bubbles.
  • jpindar 4y ago
    It would help, but maybe not enough. Humanity isn't the only reason the planet isn't covered in trees, they just don't grow in many places such as deserts, mountaintops, etc.
  • Skunkleton 4y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong here: trees are part of the regular carbon cycle. They don’t live very long on a geological scale, and when they die their carbon is repurposed. The big issue is that we are taking a ton of carbon that was effectively sequestered and releasing it into the atmosphere. There is no known biological mechanism to resequester that volume of carbon.
  • dredmorbius 4y ago
    Forestry is amongst the land-use mitigations which are discussed in the IPCC AR6 WG III report. See page 84 of the Technical Summary, "TS. 5.6 Agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and food systems" https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_TechnicalSummary.pdf https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_... Keep in mind that net emissions is the concern, and simply stopping ongoing deforestation would contribute much. The total Agriculture, Forestry, and other Land Uses (AFOLU) sector accounts 13--21% of present greenhouse gas emissions (2010--2019), and could absorb about 1/3 of total human emissions. So yes, forestry, among other land uses is a partial and probably necessary but not sufficient mitigation.
  • lalaland1125 4y ago
    Reforesting doesn't take that much CO2 out of the system long-term.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
• natch 4y ago
  How do they plan to deal with small bits of rock that tend to be out there hurtling at high speed on various trajectories?
• prashantsengar 4y ago
  A list of things that can go wrong - the wind patterns on Earth change, resulting in climate change. Seasons will alter. Rains will be affected. Widespread famines and floods. - Point 1 rendering a lot of solar and wind energy farms unusable. - Less sunlight results in less photosynthesis. This again causes chimate change, loss of biodiversity. What else?
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Civilization collapses shortly after the ocean ecosystem, as acidification continues on up. Then, CO2 levels off as input falls off. Over millennia, CO2 declines. Over millions of years, biodiversity recovers.
• Bantros 4y ago
• cebu 4y ago
  How comparable was getting an mRNA vaccine to market in a year to these type of geoengineering moonshots?
• undert0wn 4y ago
  Why not add solar cells and capture energy to power satellites or other space vehicles?
• brokencode 4y ago
  What happens if you set this up and then something (like a comet or asteroid) suddenly knocks those bubbles out of L1? I assume that Earth would heat up more rapidly than ever in human history. This would be especially bad if we keep on emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gasses in the meantime. Seems like a misguided idea to me, and one which wouldn’t solve the root cause of our climate problems.
  • troutwine 4y ago
    In a crisis the name of the game is triage: solve enough incidental problems to buy yourself time to deal with systematic issues. This proposal, ignoring whether it's suitable or not, appears to be squarely in triage territory.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      No, it is strictly disastrous. There is no possible desirable outcome. Unless you really like the idea of ocean ecosystem collapse.
      • troutwine 4y ago
        I think you might be responding to something I didn't write. I was trying to draw attention to the distinction between triage and the projects that go into triage versus work that addresses issues systematically. The GP's comment correctly noted that the idea under discussion doesn't necessarily address the systematic problem at hand, which is true, but that doesn't mean that triage is not valuable. I also specifically said that the proposed bubbles in space idea may or may not be viable; it's irrelevant to the point I was making.
        • ncmncm 4y ago
          A "triage" response that makes the situation strictly worse is no triage at all. It is just more harm piled on top.
          • 4y ago
• OliverJones 4y ago
  'Cmon. "MIT" didn't propose this. A group of researchers affiliated with the Institute proposed this. It's an idea. Not a budget request. Let's not blow it out of proportion.
  • akira2501 4y ago
    The space is already filled with ideas and zero action. It's annoying that people affiliated with the university are using it's name to capture journalists and simply put yet another incomplete idea out there. If this is truly a "life and death" situation as some people cast it, then this is less than useless behavior and is probably an actively malicious plan to just make money off the whole morass.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Yes. A pernicious distraction. We know what must be done. Distractions slow or prevent that.
• kokanator 4y ago
  Not the first time MIT has proposed pushing a cloud of debris into orbit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
• salimmadjd 4y ago
  We spent $6 trillion on the “War on terror” [0] We do know we’ve had mini ice age as a result of "Grand Solar Minimum" [1] (in addition to volcanic activities) which means reducing the solar output does reduce surface heat. At this point we need to really focus on taking action an approaching this from many facets. As cutting of greenhouse gases alone will not work. It requires the entire globe (at least the G20) countries to invest in such endeavors. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/us-taxpayers-spent-8000-each-2-trillion-iraq-war-study-2020-2?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/us-taxpayers-spent-8000-each... [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/ https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-i...
  • joe_the_user 4y ago
    At this point we need to really focus on taking action an approaching this from many facets. Right now, we're effectively lying about how much action we're taking in just one facet. Adding "many facets" just allows those who fail to make hard choices to hide their bullshit in more places. Only once there are strong controls on carbon emissions could doing other things make sense - not just because carbon emissions are the source of the problem but also if we allow geoenigeering to be done to the standard of "carbon credits" and other worthless hokum, it too will be hokum. We need something - a popular political movement, strong institutions, a coalition leaders, something - that force this stuff 'cause the failure is now and visible.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Anything that is not cutting CO2 input to the atmosphere brings global climate catastrophe, civilization collapse, and mass extinction nearer. Dressing up temperature helps not at all, but makes it look like something is being done as it steals capital from doing anything actually useful.
• vfclists 4y ago
  The usual expensive boondoggles most of these shill organizations pretending to be think tanks and expert institutions come up with.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Yes. Even promoting the idea brings global catastrophe nearer, as it distracts from what we already know we must do.
• tacticaldev 4y ago
  Did they not see the Matrix Movie(s)?!
• marcodiego 4y ago
  Russia tried to opposite of it in the 90's: orbited a mirror to warm Siberia: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/12/science/russians-to-test-space-mirror-as-giant-night-light-for-earth.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/12/science/russians-to-test-...
• cs702 4y ago
  Interesting, but the title borders on linkbait, making it sound as if an important institution, MIT, is formally proposing launching a giant fleet of bubbles into space. Nothing of the sort is happening. The reality is much less newsworthy, much more mundane: A group of researchers at MIT is exploring a radical new technology to cool the earth. In other words, this was an ordinary day at MIT.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    More ordinary than you know: ignorant half-measures, half thought through, but promoted already. Fewer ordinary days at MIT would be a plus. A few days of actually thinking beyond hare-brained scheming would improve MIT and its graduates.
• seoaeu 4y ago
  Perhaps obvious, but the title would be less clickbait-y if it were “MIT researchers propose…”
• cletus 4y ago
  Eventually we're going to have to reduce the sunlight hitting the Earth because the Sun is getting ~6% hotter every billion years [1]. The Earth is set to become uninhabitable in ~1.6 billion years [2] because of it. Here's what I think will actually make sense: put space orbitals and power collectors at the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrange point (roughly 1.5M km from Earth). This is readily accessible in terms of planetary distances, will involve minimal communication delay with Earth and if you build enough of them you can reduce the solar output hitting the Earth however much you want with little to no visible impact from Earth. [1]: https://usm.maine.edu/planet/sun-getting-hotter-if-so-why-will-earth-eventually-become-too-hot-life https://usm.maine.edu/planet/sun-getting-hotter-if-so-why-wi... [2]: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-got-15-billion-years-left-habitable-earth-180949360/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-got-15-billio...
  • philipswood 4y ago
    Why does everyone want these at L1? The first time I saw the plans for the Starlink fleet I started wondering if you could use a fleet of satellites to manage incoming solar radiation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18474244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18474244 Maybe more an idea for a science fiction novel than a serious plan, but I like the sound of it.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Great, do that a million years from now, instead of distracting us from work to prevent imminent global catastrophe.
• nothrowaways 4y ago
  Cool. A big umbrella for earth !
• LinuxBender 4y ago
  What impact might this have on astronomers both professional and amateur? Thinking about recent Starlink complaints
  • tgv 4y ago
    Most probably don’t look at the Sun. And TBH, if it would be a really great idea, I wouldn’t care about astronomy.
• citizenpaul 4y ago
  I cannot believe that there is not a single critical comment yet from supposed logical HN programmers. Maybe we don't know how to engineer the earth and we should just focus on terrestrial efforts before we die from HUBRIS of something this drastic. jeeze.... that don't look up movie had it right.
  • mhh__ 4y ago
    You can't read very well then. I see at least a few with a time stamp older than yours
  • s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Terrestrial efforts are just as drastic if not more. What makes this hubris but not those?
    • citizenpaul 4y ago
      Yes both are very delusional. However this is a new level. Though to be real it is probably just the foundation work for some huge government sponsored thing that will never get off the ground and the money will disappear.
• cuteboy19 4y ago
  It might probably be more productive to cover the Sahara desert in mirrors
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    That would be radically cheaper, but equally disastrous.
• seltzered_ 4y ago
  Somewhat related on the geoengineering front, see https://www.meer.org/global https://www.meer.org/global (via https://jembendell.com/2022/03/31/where-wisdom-and-geoengineering-meet/ https://jembendell.com/2022/03/31/where-wisdom-and-geoengine... )
• lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  Actions like this, (or sprinkling iron fillings in the ocean to breed carbon-fixing cyanobacteria or aluminium dust in the atmosphere to reflect back sunlight) are all valid geo-engineering and all can look like aggressive military / eco-system attacks even if you are only mildly paranoid. The issue is not having MIT do it, but the Russians and chinese and indians and Jakarta and Alberta and ... The UN would be a good place to put a geo-engineering shared facility where all these ideas are experimentally tested, with scientists from dozens of countries so they can go home with accurate models and say "yeah nah, that's not an attack". And while we are at it we can set up panels on reducing car use, better routing of airplanes to avoid contrails (see recent podcast from freakonomics). We have the answers - but there is no single solution - just intelligent long term society wide changes that are not sexy or populist and won't pay off for decades. We might struggle to find politicians
  • titanomachy 4y ago
    Wow, I was totally unaware of the climate impact of contrails! I knew that airplanes release a lot of greenhouse gases, but I'd never heard that the contrails themselves are a problem. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58769351 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58769351
    • tonmoy 4y ago
      The linked article does not give absolute numbers in tons of CO2 equivalent but rather says reduce impact of contrails in climate by 60%.
  • moralestapia 4y ago
    Sorry, out of the loop, what's the deal with Alberta?
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Anything Alberta does is a provocation?
    • lifeisstillgood 4y ago
• rthomas6 4y ago
  This seems like an overengineered, cost-ineffective solution compared to just building big white rafts in the ocean to raise Earth's albedo. Same end result with much less engineering challenge.
  • orthecreedence 4y ago
    Just start making all single-use plastics white and you've got your ocean raft!
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Cheap or expensive, invited disaster is disastrous.
• jyounker 4y ago
  This does nothing for ocean acidification, nor the fundamental restrictions that decreasing O2 percentages have respiration tracheal respiration systems.
  • beanjuice 4y ago
    It may however slow the general heating of the planet which has implications for the weather patterns that currently provide water to much of the world.
    • jyounker 4y ago
      Yes, it is just a band-aid for one portion of the problem. It's not any sort of a long-term solution. At some point we have to stop spewing carbon into the atmosphere, and the sooner we do that the better. The situation is even more dire when you consider that increasing CO2 levels inhibit cognitive function.
• mrfusion 4y ago
  We should consider using this on Venus or mercury.
  • hotpotamus 4y ago
    It's been considered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtTLj0E9ODc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtTLj0E9ODc
• malikNF 4y ago
  I think the only reason this idea is getting posted all over the internet is because someone at MIT decided to propose this. Whole thing sounds like someone trying to fix a badly written, buggy, slow program by adding more ram. We need to fix the root of the problem, we need to find sustainable alternatives to energy production, protect natural ecosystems, find sustainable ways to make use of resources, not put some god damn sunroof over our heads and get an extension on dealing with this problem.
  • avgcorrection 4y ago
    We need both since climate change has already advanced too much for comfort.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • lesstyzing 4y ago
    Why can’t we do both? We clearly need more time so why not try to get it if we can while still also trying to deal with the root causes?
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Yes: creating shade instead of removing carbon means the ocean ecosystem collapses, and access to protein for a billion+ people vanishes. Among other things. We cannot "do both" because money is fungible. Spending on a space boondoggle means not spending those dollars on PV and wind generating capacity that displaces fossil combustion.
• lukev 4y ago
  This is a radical and somewhat risky plan. But I think we should fully explore it. The best plan, Plan A, would be drastically and immediately decarbonize and cut CO2 emissions globally. However, we have ample evidence that that is not going to happen, or at least not fast enough. This is a tremendously difficult problem because it requires a supermajority of actors to agree on a course of action, despite some game-theoretic reasons not to. Without a dramatic geopolitical shift, it's simply not going to happen. Geoengineering is Plan B, strictly inferior to plan A. But it has the advantage that one sufficiently wealthy state or actor can do it unilaterally, meaning there is a non-zero chance of it actually happening. Right now I am pessimistic enough about Plan A that I expect Plan B may be necessary if we want to avoid the horrors of a +4.5c climate change. And I sincerely hope someone eventually has the balls to do it (after a massive amount of scientific due diligence to mitigate risks like termination shock.)
  • baggy_trough 4y ago
    Your Plan A is not the best plan because it ignores human nature and is consequently unrealistic, as you recognize. The best plan should be achievable.
  • LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    So you think that the obstacles in front of the worldwide de-industrialization stem only from game-theoretic reasons and have nothing to do with massive economic consequences that will disturb the welfare of all people on Earth including precarious populations?
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Worldwide transition from extractive to renewable energy would bring on prosperity like nothing else you can imagine.
      • LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        > drastically and immediately
• conductr 4y ago
  Anyone else thinking of Mr. Burns’ sun blocker?
• eloff 4y ago
  This is a solution for climate change that's been tossed around for a while in various forms. I think it may just be one of the most viable thanks to SpaceX bringing down the cost of space launch. With starship this might just be one of the cheapest solutions. Certainty cheaper than building seawalls around all our coastal cities - something that no reduction in emissions will save us from now. To be clear, we have to reduce emissions, but it's obvious now to me that it will be too little, too late. We'll need something more radical as well. Currently emissions are still increasing and the rate of emissions is even accelerating still. We're pretty fucked overa long time span.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Each dollar spent on window dressing is a dollar that cannot be spent on the actual problem. But disaster comes on just as fast, however much you make it look like it is not. Blocking sunlight, by whatever means, is a disastrously bad idea.
    • eloff 4y ago
      It's not window dressing, it address the symptoms, not the cause. But it's the symptoms that are causing the problem for us, it's enough to address them. We need to buy time to solve the root cause. Why would blocking sunlight be a bad idea?
      • ncmncm 4y ago
        Blocking sunlight takes off pressure to stop driving up CO2. Rising CO2 is acidifying the oceans, something shade helps not at all. Resulting ocean ecosystem collapse eliminates access to protein for a large fraction of humanity. Mass famine provokes global war. War halts sun blocking activity. Temperature shoots up faster than ever. Furthermore: rising CO2 is already interfering with cognition. Shade helps with that not at all. Money is fungible. Money spent on shade is money not spent on addressing the cause of multiple identified problems that shade does not help. How much more heat forcing do you suppose would be driven by burning enough rocket fuel to put millions of tons of crap into orbit? The whole prospect is BS, but it exerts a sick fascination that is harmful by itself, as it makes it seem like disaster can be averted any time with no fundamental change.
• adamredwoods 4y ago
  Curious, I couldn't find any information on how to make bubbles in space. I assume it will need compressed gas from Earth? Did they determine how much gas? The actual MIT website is fancy, but lacks specifics.
  • intrasight 4y ago
    I had pitched a similar idea here on HN a few years ago, and have recently done some more design. Rather than "bubbles", I would have a robot go capture metallic asteroids, and use them as the raw material to build a sun screen. I personally cannot think of any viable alternative to building some kind of sun screen at L1. My new design envisions a robot spider which basically weaves a web.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      A disastrously bad idea by any other means remains a disastrously bad idea.
      • intrasight 4y ago
        Alternative?
        • ncmncm 4y ago
          Build out renewables. Displace fossil fuel burning. Unblock capital for building out renewables. Stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction. Tax fossil fuel extraction and burning, and use the money to subsidize build-out. Outlaw fossil fuel burning where taxes would not suffice.
          • intrasight 4y ago
            While I agree that a high carbon tax is both necessary and desirable, I think it's just too late. Would have had to have that a decade ago.
  • 4y ago
• robbomacrae 4y ago
  I don't see anywhere in the article what they would do about micrometeoroids? At what rate would they expect bubbles to get punctured? Would those punctures result in movements as the trapped gas escapes? The JSTW at L2 has already been hit by 4 as of June 11th [0]. Are we expecting fewer at L1? [0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/06/11/the-webb-telescope-has-been-hit-by-something-heres-what-it-means-for-science/?sh=68c5f9345309 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/06/11/th...
• Devasta 4y ago
  It really is easier to imagine the end of the world before the end of capitalism.
• orthecreedence 4y ago
  Oh look, another reason to favor fission energy.
  • nathanaldensr 4y ago
    No! You are not allowed to suggest real solutions that have actually been tried and work! No, you must accept Hare-Brained Technocratic Scheme #42398!
• sandbx 4y ago
  if it could act like shutters and open and close it would be very useful to controlling the climate for humans
• civilized 4y ago
  I understand people's concerns about this, but I think we need to get real here. This is what the world's yearly CO2 emissions look like: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi... For us to not fry the planet, this graph needs to start going down. Fast. And it needs to go into negative territory. Now look at what's happening in the world today. Russia invades Ukraine. Gas and oil supplies get disrupted. Now inflation is running rampant, the people of the developed world are angry, and their leaders are desperately looking for fossil fuels to keep their economies moving. They're decommissioning nuclear plants and bringing coal plants back online. Biden wants to kill the gas tax to keep from getting swamped in November. Meanwhile, China and India are being flooded with cheap Russian oil. Does this sound like a world that is moving in the right direction to imminently push that emissions curve way down? Pie-in-the-sky moralizing about what humanity should do does not keep the planet from frying. Let's consider other options and accept some risk in exchange for the opportunity to avoid a looming, inevitable catastrophe.
  • sjtindell 4y ago
    There is no centralized way to drive that change on the needed scale. Most humans don’t even view what we’re doing in civilization as shared project, let alone agree that this is required to protect it. I think they fundamentally lack the abstract thinking required. They won’t change until they feel the pain themselves. A poor fit for an abstract, not quite “here yet” problem. In the United States we can’t even get them to agree it’s a problem at all. But I think once we are collectively feeling the pain, solutions will be swift and surprising.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    Your "other option" means certain disaster, sooner. We already know what to do: build out renewables. Tax and otherwise cut burning fossil fuels. Renewables are already radically cheaper than any energy source ever devised, so the faster they are built out, the cheaper it gets. Anything else is a dangerous distraction. Any big enough distraction is disastrous.
    • civilized 4y ago
• myshpa 4y ago
  Maybe we should stop searching for solutions in outer space and look for solutions already existing and proven. Plants "geo-engineered" the planet once and could do it again. Animal husbandry is one of the main culprits of global warming, pandemics, deforestation, ocean pollution, world hunger, destruction of ecosystems, continuous extinctions, and much more. That's the fact. With stopping "the burning machine" and also "the killing machine", we could reforest most of our agriculture lands (more than double our forested lands) and solve all this problems in one go. It's THE HACK we need. https://climatehealers.org/the-science/animal-agriculture-position-paper/ https://climatehealers.org/the-science/animal-agriculture-po... tldr: https://climatehealers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Climate-Bathtub-Analogy-3-scaled.jpg https://climatehealers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Climat... P.S. If you live in Europe and would like to support two days old initiative "End the Slaughter Age" to transfer animal ag. subsidies to alt-protein (plant-based & cultivated meat/dairy), read more & sign at https://eci.ec.europa.eu/025/public/#/screen/home https://eci.ec.europa.eu/025/public/#/screen/home and https://www.endtheslaughterage.eu/ https://www.endtheslaughterage.eu/
  • nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Good luck.
• TedShiller 4y ago
  What could possibly go wrong?
• witrak 4y ago
  Short question: how these bubbles can be kept in the proper place? Did the proponents consider the effect of light pressure? Such a bubble is a classic solar sail, right?
• worik 4y ago
  Greed, selfishness, and hubris. We need to reform the crazy polluting way we run our economies. There is no pareto optimal path, any more, so some very powerful people are going to have to loose a lot. It can be peaceful, violent, or the world can burn. The Earth will survive. I expect civilisation will too. But the losses will be catastrophic Arrogant schemes like these have a purpose: to cover up the underlying corruption.
• pontifier 4y ago
  Wow... Very interesting idea. Bubbles in space! My mind is spinning thinking about the physics and pressures and what would different types of foam be like if they were made in a vacuum... I love it!
• hiyer 4y ago
  The easy and practical solutions are staring us in the face - eat less meat, use less oil. Wouldn't the research budget at MIT be better utilized in advancing those goals than such impractical moonshots?
• disambiguation 4y ago
  Step 1 build a dooms day weapon to pump up the atmospheres CO2 ppm Step 2 build another dooms day weapon that blocks out the sun to counter act the first doomsday weapon Step 3 nations start selectively blocking out the sun for Russia because they invaded Poland Step 4 Russia builds a space fleet to attack and hijack the space array directly Step 5 western nations build a space fleet to defend it ... Step 66 the sith have infiltrated the senate