First solar shield to L1 to be launched by the planetary society

http://www.newscientistspace.com/art...ise-again.html

"NASA may also offer a Centennial Challenge for a solar sail to fly at
L1"


Hopefully we will soon have some information and results for designing
a sun shield that could be used to control the Earths temperture
against global warming etc.

"steve" wrote in
ups.com:

Hopefully we will soon have some information and results for designing
a sun shield that could be used to control the Earths temperture
against global warming etc.

Stupid Space Nerds to be Launched as Soylent Green Shield against Global
Warming

We have a huge surplus of dumbass nerds using resources and doing nothing
good or useful. Might as well launch them and get something out of the
loafers.

Retief LIED! Retief Got Caught!!! wrote:
"steve" wrote in
ups.com:


Hopefully we will soon have some information and results for designing
a sun shield that could be used to control the Earths temperture
against global warming etc.


Stupid Space Nerds to be Launched as Soylent Green Shield against Global
Warming

We have a huge surplus of dumbass nerds using resources and doing nothing
good or useful.

Yes indeed.

YOU for instance

The advantage of having a competition for this is Nasa could award
prizes or payment by the surface area of a shield positioned at L1 and
then also for the time such a shield was functional and held in the
desired position.
The more and bigger the shields the better (as long as they dont damage
each other).

In article . com,
wrote:
The advantage of having a competition for this is Nasa could award
prizes or payment by the surface area of a shield positioned at L1 and
then also for the time such a shield was functional and held in the
desired position.

Note that NASA is not pursuing this idea because of interest in planetary
sunshades. The interest in solar sails at L1 is because they offer a way
to station solar-wind monitoring packages farther "upwind" of Earth than
can be done with normal orbits. (Sloppily speaking, L1 is the point where
Earth's gravity plus centrifugal force from the circular orbit balances
the Sun's gravity. With a solar sail providing an additional outward
force -- one that consumes no fuel -- you can park a spacecraft on the
Earth-Sun line considerably farther sunward than L1.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
Note that NASA is not pursuing this idea because of interest in planetary
sunshades. The interest in solar sails at L1 is because they offer a way
to station solar-wind monitoring packages farther "upwind" of Earth than
can be done with normal orbits. (Sloppily speaking, L1 is the point where
Earth's gravity plus centrifugal force from the circular orbit balances
the Sun's gravity. With a solar sail providing an additional outward
force -- one that consumes no fuel -- you can park a spacecraft on the
Earth-Sun line considerably farther sunward than L1.)
--


How much closer would we be able to get a sun-shield with a solar sail
to the Sun ?

This would make the shield more efficient as long as the shadow does
not extend outwards from the Earth.
With solar powered plasma engines we could probably arrange for the
shield to be much closer than L1 and thus achieve optimum position for
the max. cooling from a fixed size shield.

steve wrote:
Hopefully we will soon have some information and results for designing
a sun shield that could be used to control the Earths temperture
against global warming etc.

Stupid idea. A "sunshield" could kill more humans than global warming.


- Ed Kyle

Stupid idea. A "sunshield" could kill more humans than global warming.


- Ed Kyle

You do not block out 100 % of the light. All you do is reduce the
amount of light reaching the Earths surface by a small percentage. This
being enough to cancel out global warming.

Probably less than 0.1 %

The shield would appear as just a small dot (if visible to the human
eye).

In article . com,
wrote:

You do not block out 100 % of the light. All you do is reduce the
amount of light reaching the Earths surface by a small percentage. This
being enough to cancel out global warming.

Probably less than 0.1 %

The shield would appear as just a small dot (if visible to the human
eye).

It's still a stupid idea. Increased temperatures are only one effect of
increased CO2 levels. The other major effect is acidification of the
oceans, and blocking sunlight will do nothing to address that. We need
to reduce the CO2 we're pouring into the atmosphere, not try to
compensate for it by major fiddling with other things.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:12:04 -0700, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article . com,
wrote:

You do not block out 100 % of the light. All you do is reduce the
amount of light reaching the Earths surface by a small percentage. This
being enough to cancel out global warming.

Probably less than 0.1 %

The shield would appear as just a small dot (if visible to the human
eye).

It's still a stupid idea. Increased temperatures are only one effect of
increased CO2 levels. The other major effect is acidification of the
oceans, and blocking sunlight will do nothing to address that. We need
to reduce the CO2 we're pouring into the atmosphere, not try to
compensate for it by major fiddling with other things.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...C-new_05112006

"First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice
ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of
temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look
similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The
UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes
in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at
the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a
geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article
reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole
data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science,
I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists
working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who
would pervert science in the service of social and political causes.
One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of
climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that
said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "