| > You wanted to see the computations, I provided you with them No, you didn’t. I asked for evidence this had happened. I read the ‘23 paper two years ago. It’s neat. But it’s a model. We don’t have great model parameters for high-atmosphere nanoparticles. We also have great surveillance of the ozone layer, and aren’t seeing damage. > other then some NSF science grants to study potential solution Yeah, I agree with this. (It may have been DOGE’d.) We need to know what we’re up against. We need to know if it’s a problem that call for a pause, or a mandate that aluminum structures to transitioned to steel and carbon, or if the problem goes away as satellites get bigger and burn up less. > When you are disputing this you are disputing top engineers and scientists in astronomy I really am not. I’m taking them at their word that this is a potential problem. Again, if you have evidence this is currently a problem, the language I originally objected to, I’d love to see it. |