Bad for the Environment...
Good for space?
by Carol Pinchefsky
by Carol Pinchefsky
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, global warming will wreck havoc on the environment by the year 2040. But thinning the air at the upper end of the atmosphere, the "thermosphere," may have one actual benefit:
"[I]n another 10 years the thin air up there will become 3 percent less dense and will reduce drag on every object that orbits in space...That means those objects, whether manned or unmanned, will remain in space longer, require less fuel to launch them, and potentially save millions of dollars."
In other words, if we devastate our planet, we may give ourselves cheaper access to space. This, of course, is not a good news/bad news scenario: it's terrible, catestrophic news, with a tiny light at the end of the tunnel.
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, global warming will wreck havoc on the environment by the year 2040. But thinning the air at the upper end of the atmosphere, the "thermosphere," may have one actual benefit:
"[I]n another 10 years the thin air up there will become 3 percent less dense and will reduce drag on every object that orbits in space...That means those objects, whether manned or unmanned, will remain in space longer, require less fuel to launch them, and potentially save millions of dollars."
In other words, if we devastate our planet, we may give ourselves cheaper access to space. This, of course, is not a good news/bad news scenario: it's terrible, catestrophic news, with a tiny light at the end of the tunnel.
