5 ms·

It doesn't help that "global warming" gets renamed to "climate change". I see that NASA hasn't moved sea-level facilities, and private space companies are acti

It doesn't help that "global warming" gets renamed to "climate change". I see that NASA hasn't moved sea-level facilities, and private space companies are actively building at sea level. Then you have eg the BBC trying to make a gigantic fuss about the first hot day of summer - rightly mocked by all. The efforts to emphasise the narrative are blatantly... hot air.

maxbond 4y ago
Space facilities need to be close to the ocean so that they can ditch rockets without hitting cities. They need to be as close to the equator (so in North America, as far south) as possible to get the most centrifugal boost from the Earth (use the least fuel) possible. Perhaps NASA isn't taking it seriously enough wrt facility placement, but they're hardly alone in that. And lots of people are making huge investments, eg, the city of Venice is building sea walls that they haven't previously needed, despite always having been on the coast. Global Warming was confusing because, while global average temperatures are rising, the effect locally can be unintuitive, eg, destabilizing the polar vortex had resulted in harsher winters in the northern US. Science communication is hard and it turns out people are pretty bad at it. I'd agree that doesn't help matters. But climate change is indeed real and a huge problem.
- leethargo 4y ago
  I think the parent comment was not (only) about facilities close to the coast, but, more importantly, at a low altitude, more prone to floods. Couldn't the launch facilities be constructed near the coast, but at higher altitude, say on top of cliffs of 50m or so?
  - nonameiguess 4y ago
    Where? I don't believe Florida has any seaside cliffs. There's California, but the cliffside beach regions are subject to wildfires and mudslides. There's Hawaii, but I imagine transporting the equipment there would be a challenge, and they're not going to move all manufacturing facilities to Hawaii.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      California isn't an option, either. The ideal launch site: 1) As close to the equator as possible. 2) Has open water to the *east* of the launch site. (Wasteland is also acceptable, that's what Russia does. They also care less if they drop it on somebody's head. China doesn't seem to care--we've seen them drop a rocket on a village.) 3) Has a huge amount of open space around it in case the rocket goes boom on the pad. California fails the east requirement, it's used for polar launches (where you want water to either the north or south) but you can't insert into a normal equatorial orbit from there. Hawaii fails the space requirement. Not to mention all the logistics hassles it would cause. Thus Florida it is and assume the infrastructure will in time be lost.
secretsatan 4y ago
You mean the hottest day ever recorded in the UK?
- heywherelogingo 4y ago
  No, I don't.
8note 4y ago
On average, it's warming, but an average is an average. Some places will cool, but not cool as much as cold places will warm and other warm places will warm

maxbond 4y ago

Space facilities need to be close to the ocean so that they can ditch rockets without hitting cities. They need to be as close to the equator (so in North America, as far south) as possible to get the most centrifugal boost from the Earth (use the least fuel) possible. Perhaps NASA isn't taking it seriously enough wrt facility placement, but they're hardly alone in that. And lots of people are making huge investments, eg, the city of Venice is building sea walls that they haven't previously needed, despite always having been on the coast. Global Warming was confusing because, while global average temperatures are rising, the effect locally can be unintuitive, eg, destabilizing the polar vortex had resulted in harsher winters in the northern US. Science communication is hard and it turns out people are pretty bad at it. I'd agree that doesn't help matters. But climate change is indeed real and a huge problem.

leethargo 4y ago
I think the parent comment was not (only) about facilities close to the coast, but, more importantly, at a low altitude, more prone to floods. Couldn't the launch facilities be constructed near the coast, but at higher altitude, say on top of cliffs of 50m or so?
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  Where? I don't believe Florida has any seaside cliffs. There's California, but the cliffside beach regions are subject to wildfires and mudslides. There's Hawaii, but I imagine transporting the equipment there would be a challenge, and they're not going to move all manufacturing facilities to Hawaii.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    California isn't an option, either. The ideal launch site: 1) As close to the equator as possible. 2) Has open water to the *east* of the launch site. (Wasteland is also acceptable, that's what Russia does. They also care less if they drop it on somebody's head. China doesn't seem to care--we've seen them drop a rocket on a village.) 3) Has a huge amount of open space around it in case the rocket goes boom on the pad. California fails the east requirement, it's used for polar launches (where you want water to either the north or south) but you can't insert into a normal equatorial orbit from there. Hawaii fails the space requirement. Not to mention all the logistics hassles it would cause. Thus Florida it is and assume the infrastructure will in time be lost.

secretsatan 4y ago

You mean the hottest day ever recorded in the UK?

heywherelogingo 4y ago
No, I don't.

8note 4y ago

On average, it's warming, but an average is an average. Some places will cool, but not cool as much as cold places will warm and other warm places will warm