All UK balloons have a parachute already. The speed of ascent is insufficient to inflate them.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 10:44 Stephen Salter, <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew > > What about an upside down parachute deployed at the right time? > > Stephen > > *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 02 March 2023 09:50 > *To:* Stephen Salter <[email protected]> > *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] SATAN > > > > *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.* > > You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the > email is genuine and the content is safe. > > One of the key research findings was that the volume of the gas in the > balloon rises quicker than the vent or pump can dispose of the gas. It > can't be stopped. You can't recover the canopies unless you slow the ascent > to a unsafe speed. > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 09:24 Stephen Salter, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All > > You could delay balloons bursting by fitting a pressure relief valve to > vent gas when the outside pressure fell below some chosen value. > > Stephen > > *Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design* > > *School of Engineering* > > *University of Edinburgh* > > *Mayfield Road* > > *Edinburgh EH9 3DW* > > *Scotland* > > *0131 650 5704 or 0131 662 1180* > > *YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change* > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* 02 March 2023 08:58 > *To:* Daniele Visioni <[email protected]> > *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] SATAN > > > > *This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.* > > You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the > email is genuine and the content is safe. > > Dan, > > > > Thanks for raising your concerns, although an initial private discussion > would have been preferred. > > > > I believe you have had sight of the abstract a few weeks ago, via the > GeoMIP conference submission. It's therefore surprising that you've chosen > now to raise this issue. Did you have any concerns with the abstract > specifically? If so, I would have welcomed your direct comments at the > time. I can also make a preprint copy available to you personally, if you > believe you may have comments that would help with revising the manuscript. > > > > As you were one of perhaps a very small group access to the abstract, > perhaps you could detail the steps you took to secure work that was of > interest to the media? I am sure I'm not the only one who's mindful of > leaks in the academic process. It would be nice to be able to submit > abstracts and drafts without worrying they will be illicitly distributed. > > > > I think you may be implying concerns about the experiment name. Could you > perhaps describe why "stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation" was > an unsuitable name for an experiment designed to test craft for inducing, > and later monitoring, stratospheric aerosol transport and nucleation? If > your concerns are with some other aspect of the work, perhaps you could > explain your views on what should or should not have been done? FWIW, I've > never challenged your right to conduct research, nor anyone else's. If you > choose to challenge mine, a proper discussion of your reasoning would be > good to hear. > > > > Finally, I'm sorry that you regard me as "unserious". The facts might > cause others to reach a different conclusion. I've been active in the > geoengineering community for over a decade (I think you would have been > high school, when I started). Despite never being paid, I've built up an > h-index of 7. Simultaneously, I've supported this list, the CDR group, the > @geoengineering1 twitter handle, and latterly the Reviewer 2 Does > Geoengineering podcast - generally spending much more time supporting > other's careers than in furthering my own. > > > > You are of course free to set up better community resource, if you think > mine are "unserious". > > > > As a final note, you may wish to note that I've got a paper submitted > after revisions about the legitimacy of private geoengineering. That may > prompt a calmer discussion of views on the matter. > > > > Andrew Lockley > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023, 08:18 Daniele Visioni, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Glad you had fun, Andrew. > > > > For me, this is clear proof of your unseriousness and childishness - not > to mention the overall threat you pose to this research field as a whole > towards any kind of legitimacy. > > > > I personally don’t want to be associated even remotely with anything you > do now or in the future, so this will be my last message on this group > before I unsubscribe. > > > > > > On 2 Mar 2023, at 09:07, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/01/1069283/researchers-launched-a-solar-geoengineering-test-flight-in-the-uk-last-fall/ > > > > Researchers launched a solar geoengineering test flight in the UK last fall > > The experiment, largely designed to test equipment, took place despite > deep concerns about the technology. > > > > By James Temple archive page > > March 1, 2023 > > sun shines through the clouds > > GETTY IMAGES > > Last September, researchers in the UK launched a high-altitude weather > balloon that released a few hundred grams of sulfur dioxide into the > stratosphere, a potential scientific first in the solar geoengineering > field, MIT Technology Review has learned. > > > > Solar geoengineering is the theory that humans can ease global warming by > deliberately reflecting more sunlight into space. One possible means is > spraying sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, in an effort to mimic a > cooling effect that occurs in the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions. It > is highly controversial given concerns about potential unintended > consequences, among other issues. > > > > The UK effort was not a test of or experiment in geoengineering itself. > Rather, the stated goal was to evaluate a low-cost, controllable, > recoverable balloon system, according to details obtained by MIT Technology > Review. Such a system could be used for small-scale geoengineering research > efforts, or perhaps for an eventual distributed geoengineering deployment > involving numerous balloons. > > > > The “Stratospheric Aerosol Transport and Nucleation,” or SATAN, balloon > systems were made from stock and hobbyist components, with hardware costs > that ran less than $1,000. > > > > Andrew Lockley, a research associate at University College London, led the > effort last fall, working with European Astrotech, a company that does > engineering and design work for high-altitude balloons and space propulsion > systems. > > > > They have submitted a paper detailing the results of the effort to a > journal, but it has not yet been published. Lockley largely declined to > discuss the matter ahead of publication, but he did express frustration > that the scientific process was being circumvented. > > > > “Leakers be damned!” he wrote in an email to MIT Technology Review. “I’ve > tried to follow the straight and narrow path and wait for the judgment day > of peer review, but it appears a colleague has been led astray by > diabolical temptation.” > > > > “There’s a special place in hell for those who leak their colleagues’ > work, tormented by ever burning sulfur,” he added. “But I have taken a vow > of silence, and can only confirm that our craft ascended to the heavens, as > intended. I only hope that this test plays a small part in offering mankind > salvation from the hellish inferno of climate change.” > > > > European Astrotech didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry. > > > > Test flights > > The system included a lofting balloon filled with helium or hydrogen, > which carried along a basketball-size payload balloon that contained some > amount of sulfur dioxide. An earlier flight in October 2021 likely also > released a trace amount of the gas in the stratosphere, although that could > not be confirmed and the system was not recovered owing to a problem with > onboard instruments, according to details obtained by MIT Technology > Review. > > > > During the second flight, in September of 2022, the smaller payload > balloon burst about 15 miles above Earth as it expanded amid declining > atmospheric pressure, releasing around 400 grams of the gas into the > stratosphere. That may be the first time that a measured gas payload was > verifiably released in the stratosphere as part of a geoengineering-related > effort. Both balloons were released from a launch site in Buckinghamshire, > in southeast England. > > > > There have, however, been other attempts to place sulfur dioxide in the > stratosphere. Last April, the cofounder of a company called Make Sunsets > says, he attempted to release it during a pair of rudimentary balloon > flights from Mexico, as MIT Technology Review previously reported late last > year. Whether it succeeded is also unclear, as the aircraft didn’t include > equipment that could confirm where the balloons burst, said Luke Iseman, > the chief executive of the startup. > > > > The Make Sunsets effort was widely denounced by researchers in > geoengineering, critics of the field, and the government of Mexico, which > announced plans to prohibit and even halt any solar geoengineering > experiments within the country. Among other issues, observers were > concerned that the launches had moved ahead without prior notice or > approval, and because the company ultimately seeks to monetize such > launches by selling “cooling credits.” > > > > Lockley’s experiment was distinct in a variety of ways. It wasn’t a > commercial enterprise. The balloons were equipped with instruments that > could track flight paths and monitor environmental conditions. They also > included a number of safety features designed to prevent the balloons from > landing while still filled with potentially dangerous gases. In addition, > the group obtained flight permits and submitted what’s known as a “notice > to airmen” to aviation authorities, which ensure that aircraft pilots are > aware of flight plans in the area. > > > > > > Some observers said that the amount of sulfur dioxide released during the > UK project doesn’t present any real environmental dangers. Indeed, > commercial flights routinely produce many times as much. > > > > “This is an innocuous write-up or an innocuous experiment, in the direct > sense,” says Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University and > the author of Geoengineering: The Gamble. > > > > Public engagement > > But some are still concerned that the effort proceeded without broader > public disclosures and engagement in advance. > > > > Shuchi Talati, a scholar in residence at American University who is > forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice issues in solar > geoengineering, fears there’s a growing disregard in this space for the > importance of research governance. That refers to a set of norms and > standards concerning scientific merit and oversight of proposed > experiments, as well as public transparency and engagement. > > > > Advertisement > > > > “I’m really concerned about what the intent here is,” she says. “There’s a > sense of them having the moral high ground, that there’s a moral imperative > to do this work.” > > > > But, she says, forging ahead in this way is ethically dubious, because it > takes away any opportunity for others to weigh in on the scientific value, > risks, or appropriateness of the efforts before they happen. Talati adds > that part of the intent seems to be provocation, perhaps to help break what > some perceive to be a logjam or taboo holding up stratospheric research in > this area. > > > > David Keith, a Harvard scientist who has been working for years to move > ahead with a small-scale stratospheric balloon research program, questioned > both the scientific value of. the effort and its usefulness in terms of > technology development. In an email, he noted that the researchers didn’t > attempt to monitor any effect it had on atmospheric chemistry. Nor did the > work present a feasible “pathway to use this method for deployment at > reasonable cost,” he wrote. > > > > “So in some deep sense, while it’s much more thought out, much less cowboy > than Make Sunsets, I see it [as] similar,” Keith said. > > > > > > When asked if being provocative might have been a partial goal of the > effort, Keith said: “You don’t call something SATAN if you’re playing it > straight.” > > > > Lockley stressed that the effort was “an engineering proof-of-concept > test, not an environmentally perturbative experiment,” and that they > obtained the standard approvals for such flights. > > > > “I’m unaware of any prior approval process which should have been followed > but was not,” he wrote in an email. “A review body may be useful, if it was > able to provide good-faith and practical feedback on similar low-impact > experimental proposals in future.” > > > > Moral hazards and slippery slopes > > There are a variety of concerns about deploying solar geoengineering, > including the danger that carrying it out on large scales could have > negative environmental side effects as well as uneven impacts across > various regions. Some fear that even discussing it creates a moral hazard, > undermining the urgency to address the root causes of climate change, or > that researching it sets up a slippery slope that increases the chances > we’ll one day put it to use. > > > > Advertisement > > > > But proponents of research say it’s crucial to improve our basic > understanding of what such interventions would do, how we might carry them > out, and what risks they could pose, for the simple fact that it’s possible > that they could meaningfully reduce the dangers of climate change and save > lives. To date, though, not much has happened outside of labs, computer > models and a handful of efforts in the lower atmosphere. > > > > Several earlier proposals to carry out research in the stratosphere have > been halted or repeatedly delayed amid public criticism. Those include the > SPICE experiment, which would have tested a balloon-and-hose stratospheric > delivery system but was halted in 2012, as well as the Harvard proposal > that Keith is involved with, known as SCoPEx. > > > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has begun conducting > stratospheric flights, using balloons and more recently jets, as part of a > growing US geoengineering research program. But its stated intention is to > conduct baseline measurements, not to release any materials. One hope > behind the efforts is to create an early detection system that could be > triggered if a nation or rogue actor moves forward with a large-scale > effort. > > > > The challenges in conducting even basic, small-scale outdoor experiments > that carry minimal environmental risks has increasingly frustrated some in > the field—and left at least a few people willing to move forward without > broad public disclosures in advance, perhaps in part to force the issue. > > > > > > Scientists routinely conduct outdoor experiments without seeking up-front > public permission, when doing so doesn’t present clear dangers to public > health or the environment, and reveal their studies and peer-reviewed > results in journals only after the fact. > > > > The question is whether solar geoengineering research demands greater > up-front notification, not because the experiments themselves are > necessarily dangerous but because of the deep concerns about even > discussing and researching the technology. > > > > Columbia’s Wagner says the field should err on the side of transparency. > But he also says it’s important to strike the right balance between how > much researchers must reveal in advance, how easily carefully designed > projects can be blocked, and how much support major research institutions > provide for an important area of inquiry. > > > > “This sort of thing is a direct response to other institutions’ reluctance > to proceed with even seemingly innocuous research,” he says. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04sdd%2BL-NkkbVvgaxnkBH5mE14A_V8kw7ZeFMVKp9-shQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04sdd%2BL-NkkbVvgaxnkBH5mE14A_V8kw7ZeFMVKp9-shQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/54C5A1F4-D3FD-41D2-80E3-7D01CDC6FDFC%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/54C5A1F4-D3FD-41D2-80E3-7D01CDC6FDFC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o%3Dj1EodrjMmWi%2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0%3DN_WTQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07tzg2o%3Dj1EodrjMmWi%2Br7t8k58iNF69xHMxQm0%3DN_WTQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, > with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an > Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07MJYf4_zAWi0cUJa0TdAxouoz68jeX90T6NtdvMK4oKA%40mail.gmail.com.
