In 2050 Ground based astronomy will be impossible

[lost_in_space]

As part of his research into the development of the Extremely LargeTelescope, Professor Gerry Gilmore has extrpolated air traffic control figures and deduced that ground based telescopes will be worthless and astronomy will be impossible by the year 2050 due to aircraft condensation (contrail) polution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755996.stm
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive...s_by_2050.html

Maybe by then the discount air fares that are causing this will apply to space travel and it will be cheap enough to get above the atmosphere for far better views than we currently get from earth.

[cjmarsh81]

That is very bad. I dare say it won't affect most of us in our lifetimes, but it is still very bad.

My opinion is that their logic is flawed. They are saying that air-travel will increase due to cheap air-fares and therefore we will have much more contrails in the atmosphere. I do not think they have taken into account the growing trend for people to work from home and not commute to work. I believe people are destined to be house potatoes ordering everything they require over the internet so they don't leave the house. Bleak I know, but look at America, they are already heading down that track. If the rest of the world does the same, we will not have so much pollution from planes/cars/buses. So perhaps Astronomy will survive for those couch potatoes who are able to peel themselves out of their chairs and go outside (or look through their skylights).

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

I can appreciate the concern he has Lost. I wonder if in his calculations he has factored in the increasing cost of airfuel as an inverse proportion to the availability of fuel. I wonder if by that time the "average" person will be able to afford to fly. It will be an interesting next 40 years to see which way it does.

[barees63]

I wonder if in his calculations he has factored in the increasing cost of airfuel

Yes, I think he's way off.. cheap airfares are a temporary phenomenom, we are already getting fuel surcharges.. by 2050, assuming there has been no sudden progress on alternative fuels, air travel will have to be much more expensive than it is now and this would logically mean less air traffic?

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Hell I'll be in my early 90's then if I'm alive
If my eyes can still see and my mind still works
and my body doesn't go to sleep by 7pm
I'll still be watchin' the stars at night

[ving (David)]

it would appear that the statement wasn't completely thought out... with rising fuel prices cheap fares will become a thing of the past (ie now), and withpoeple doing everything from home over the internet travel in general should be reduced... well commuter travel anyhow. you will still get poeple going on holidays and what not tho.

hmm...

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

I reckon light pollution will probably continue to be the biggest threat to astronomy as the population grows.

[ThunderChild (Chris)]

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

I reckon light pollution will probably continue to be the biggest threat to astronomy as the population grows.

I think you're correct there cometcatcher. Light would surely be the biggest threat for most people.
Another thought on air travel is that commercial flights don't just fly anywhere they feel like it - they all adhere to well worn routes and fly up and down imaginary "channels" between cities. So I would imagine that any increase in air travel would make it bad for the unlucky people under or near those standard flight paths, but wouldn't be too bad for others who are out of the way.

[RapidEye]

Another shining example of "politically biased" Doom and Gloom Science.The Earth has been hotter/colder/cloudier/wetter/drier/etc/etc/etc at different points in its history. I see no reason why it won't continue. Getting your panties all in a knot over something that we have no control over (by trying to attribute it to something besides just good old cycles in nature) is time poorly spent.-(climbs down from stump)-

[ThunderChild (Chris)]

Originally Posted by RapidEye

Another shining example of "politically biased" Doom and Gloom Science.The Earth has been hotter/colder/cloudier/wetter/drier/etc/etc/etc at different points in its history. I see no reason why it won't continue. Getting your panties all in a knot over something that we have no control over (by trying to attribute it to something besides just good old cycles in nature) is time poorly spent.-(climbs down from stump)-

"What the ?????"
While like RapidEye, I did not agree with the original premise, this statement strikes me as odd. Since when do we not have any control over either light pollution or aircraft jet stream???

How is aircraft jetstream another one of those good old "cycles in nature"????
I can almost hear the discussion our neanderthal great grand parents had when they were lamenting the jetstream from the 747's flying overhead.

[DougAdams]

Interesting - I wonder if that's a northern hemisphere perspective. I was in Europe late last year and I couldn't believe the number of contrails all over the sky. We have it good here.

[RapidEye]

Originally Posted by ThunderChild

Since when do we not have any control over either light pollution or aircraft jet stream???

I agree we have control over light pollution, and contrails. I don't believe that the amount of aircraft in the sky is driving us to global warming/cooling or whatever the premise of choice is this week! My point is that we are going to get colder and/or hotter because of nature's cycles - nothin' we can do about it, period!