PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 26 Nov 2002, 18:23 · from urth-v0211.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2261 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2261.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Charles,

I didn't mean to direct my Ahem at you; you are hardly the first
to get involved in the orbit trap in discussing the mechanics of
the Bleen system. I've seen some of our smartest list members go
on at great length about possible orbits (including some extreme
cases like a sort of W-shaped orbit that actually works but that
I really doubt would be stable for a planetary pair for any long
period of time).

Nor had I thought of this possibility prior to today, so I'm not
claiming any special credit for brilliance here ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Reed [mailto:cmreed at link.com]=3D20
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:41 AM
> To: urth at urth.net
> Subject: Re: (urth) PLAN[E]T ENGINEERING 101
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Ahem back.
>=3D20
> You're right, of course.  My training is in mathematics, not=3D20
> geological/planetary science.  Still, I should have thought=3D20
> of that.  My=3D20
> tendency seems to be jumping in with my "ideas" without fully=3D20
> examining=3D20
> other alternatives.
>=3D20
> Still, there's no denying that even if Green orbits Blue, it doesn't=3D20
> orbit it in the same way that Lune orbits Urth.  That was one of the=3D20
> points I was trying to make and I got sidetracked talking=3D20
> about orbits=3D20
> and such.
>=3D20
> Sheepishly,
>=3D20
> Charles
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
>=3D20
> >Ahem.
> >
> >It seems to me that we can explain the difference in climate between
> >Green and Blue, without resorting to a radical difference in their=3D20
> >respective orbits ... for example, by invoking a difference in the=3D20
> >chemical composition of their atmospheres. Suppose that Green simply=3D20
> >has a very high percentage of "greenhouse gasses" -- including but=3D20
> >not necessarily limited to CO2? And that Blue has a relatively low=3D20
> >percentage thereof? Or put it in terms of albedo, and say that Blue's
> >is higher than Green's, so that the same amount of incident solar
> >raditation produces a higher degree of insolation. Will that not
> >produce the -- relatively small; they're both "life zone"=3D20
> planets! --=3D20
> >difference in their average surface temperature?=3D20
> >
> >Frustrated,
> >
> >--Blattid
> >
> >
> >
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
> --=3D20
> http://www.urth.net/ To unsubscribe: send > "unsubscribe" to=3D20
> urth-request at urth.net
>=3D20
>=3D20


--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net