Space Karen wrote:
"Planting additional trees at high elevation could also absorb (the fancy schmancy term is sequester) carbon and greenhouse gases resulting in a cleaner and clearer atmosphere at high altitude. Creating better conditions for astronomy."
Look, I get it that you care, but please understand what people are telling you. Planting cherry or maple trees above the tree line on Mauna Kea isn't going to work, nor will planting any other kind of tree; they won't grow. It's a dead zone for trees; there is not enough water or nutrients in the soil to support tree growth. And how on earth are you going to convince anyone that trying to grow non-native trees on Mauna Kea's summit area is a good idea? Even the so-called protectors of the mountain brought invasive species there.
There are so many other things you've said in this thread that is so silly it beggars belief. No, the atmosphere doesn't act as a lens, gases in the atmosphere do the absolue opposite of "function as a giant lense to amplify and clarify light as it reaches earth from space.".
Finally:
"There is one thing that stands out about video shot of the moon landing. There are no visible stars in the sky. The sky is pitch black"
I can't believe I have to explain this yet again. The reason you don't see stars in the photos from the moon landings is that they were on the surface of the moon in bright sunlight. In order to take photos of the mission, they had to use short exposures, just like you would on a bright sunny day on earth. Those short exposures weren't long enough to capture light from other stars. Try it yourself - get a camera that you can set the exposure time and take a photo of the sky at night using something like a 1/250-sec exposure. You won't see stars either.
And when the JWST runs out of fuel in 10 to 20 years and the ground-based extremely large telescopes are in operation, at a significantly lower cost and carrying out observations the JWST can't do today, with lifespans of five or more decades, what happens then?
"Planting additional trees at high elevation could also absorb (the fancy schmancy term is sequester) carbon and greenhouse gases resulting in a cleaner and clearer atmosphere at high altitude. Creating better conditions for astronomy."
Look, I get it that you care, but please understand what people are telling you. Planting cherry or maple trees above the tree line on Mauna Kea isn't going to work, nor will planting any other kind of tree; they won't grow. It's a dead zone for trees; there is not enough water or nutrients in the soil to support tree growth. And how on earth are you going to convince anyone that trying to grow non-native trees on Mauna Kea's summit area is a good idea? Even the so-called protectors of the mountain brought invasive species there.
There are so many other things you've said in this thread that is so silly it beggars belief. No, the atmosphere doesn't act as a lens, gases in the atmosphere do the absolue opposite of "function as a giant lense to amplify and clarify light as it reaches earth from space.".
Finally:
"There is one thing that stands out about video shot of the moon landing. There are no visible stars in the sky. The sky is pitch black"
I can't believe I have to explain this yet again. The reason you don't see stars in the photos from the moon landings is that they were on the surface of the moon in bright sunlight. In order to take photos of the mission, they had to use short exposures, just like you would on a bright sunny day on earth. Those short exposures weren't long enough to capture light from other stars. Try it yourself - get a camera that you can set the exposure time and take a photo of the sky at night using something like a 1/250-sec exposure. You won't see stars either.
(07-11-2022, 05:12 PM)MyManao Wrote: But no matter.. now that ground based astronomy is about to become passé I suspect the TMT guys will be reassessing their options. I would. I mean, what's all that money stuck to the top of a mountain really worth when compared to the likes of the James Webb? Nah, my bet is on the TMT guys realizing they could get a whole lot more bang for their buck and realigning their priorities.. and thanking the Hawaiians for helping them see the error of their ways..
And when the JWST runs out of fuel in 10 to 20 years and the ground-based extremely large telescopes are in operation, at a significantly lower cost and carrying out observations the JWST can't do today, with lifespans of five or more decades, what happens then?