Telescopes 'worthless' by 2050

Wyrdo · 2 Mar 2006 at 18:48

Just been reading this article on BBC and I'm quite astonished really, I never even thought the trails left by aircraft could cause this sort of problem.

Have a read.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755996.stm

Hugogo · 2 Mar 2006 at 18:53

That would be so upsetting! Not being able to see the stars would be horrible!

cheets64 · 2 Mar 2006 at 19:34

It would be sad but its near impossible to see stars at night now from the light pollution from towns and cities. I can see a couple of stars at night with the naked eye.

Soogs · 2 Mar 2006 at 19:35

i love the stars... cant really see any in london anymore but the skys lovely down in brighton tho

Jokester · 2 Mar 2006 at 19:37

Some amazing shots of the con-trails from space there. This will just hasten the building of orbital arrays which should allow us to direct view planets round other stars.

Jokester

leaskovski · 2 Mar 2006 at 20:54

I wouldn't worry because according to the scientists we will all be dead by then thanks to global warming (*cough*ice*cough*age*!!!)

ethan · 2 Mar 2006 at 21:30

I won't be around for 2050 but it is a shame for those that will :eek:

basmic · 2 Mar 2006 at 21:35

Hang about - what with fuel prices going through the roof, how will those planes actually be profitable to run? :confused:

frosty03 · 2 Mar 2006 at 21:35

the article assumes there will be enough oil left to sustain the growth of cheap air travel... seeing as how we are near or have passes peak oil, i doubt that will come to pass.

Ren.182 · 2 Mar 2006 at 21:48

I would hate not to be able to see the stars. I know it's hard to see them now, but if you're out in the country the sky really is beautiful

. It'd be a shame for us and future generations.

Though i doubt it'll get that bad we wont be able to see any.

RandomTom · 2 Mar 2006 at 21:51

That's depressing, although by 2050 I want to have got closer to the stars in some way, I love star gazing.

Ugley_Matt · 2 Mar 2006 at 22:32

It was interesting that they noticed the difference in temperature on Sept 12 when all air traffic was closed down post 9/11.

I would hope that by 2050 we would have massive telescopes build on the moon,

Stringy · 2 Mar 2006 at 22:46

By then all the imagery worth having will be taken from space itself surely? Not that its the answer, theres clearly more important consequences beyond this...

Moredhel · 3 Mar 2006 at 00:50

Best place for a space telescope or array of optical and radio telescopes, is the dark side of the moon. It's in the shadow of both the earth and the sun all the time, so no light polution and none of the constant stream of radiowaves we chuck out.

Mickey_D · 3 Mar 2006 at 08:46

Moredhel said:
Best place for a space telescope or array of optical and radio telescopes, is the dark side of the moon. It's in the shadow of both the earth and the sun all the time, so no light polution and none of the constant stream of radiowaves we chuck out.

Not quite true. There is no such thing as "the dark side of the moon". It's just that one side is always facing away from Earth. As the moon revolves around the earth and comes between us and the sun, the side facing us becomes "the dark side" and the back side is full on facing the moon.

The only time the back side is dark is when we are between the moon and the sun.

Moredhel · 3 Mar 2006 at 09:54

I always thought it was in the L5 point, always in the same point in regards to the sun and the earth, however, as soon as I stopped to think about it, that would mean solar eclipses and lunar eclipses would be impossible, and that the moon is millions of miles away instead of a few hundred thousand. It IS always sheilded from earth though, so the radio telescope thing is valid at least.