Setting aside whether answers like "don't know, several grams" are sufficient in this context, I don't recall seeing anything about safety protocols, consultations, or permits. Did you talk to Mexican authorities before doing this?
Josh On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luke Iseman <l...@makesunsets.com> wrote: > Josh, > > I believe I've addressed all of these I can. You'll get a lot more detail > when I fly telemetry, particularly if I can recover the balloons after the > flight. To recap: > locations: Baja California > flight descriptions: the balloons were intentionally underinflated and > went up. guesstimate 25-30km burst altitude. as i have made clear, i cannot > confirm with 100% certainty that they reached the stratosphere. > release altitudes and amounts: don't know, several grams > safety protocols, consultations, permits, funding, etc.? nothing to add > here that hasn't been covered. > > These were self-funded, initial flights. They were meant to demonstrate > (mainly to me) that I could launch balloons containing some small amount of > sulfur dioxide. > > -------------------- > Luke Iseman > make sunsets <https://makesunsets.com/> : global cooling > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 8:03 AM Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I want to repeat a set of questions I publicly posed to Luke on December >> 9, few if any of which have been fully answered (despite the statement >> "Happy to answer any questions"). >> >> Hi Luke, >> >> Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight >> descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols, >> consultations, permits, funding, etc.? >> >> Josh Horton >> >> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 8:07:48 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote: >> >>> Luke, Make Sunsets has tweeted invoking "trade secrets ' in denying >>> simple requests to quantify how much helium is needed per >>> " cooling credit". >>> This lack of transparency cannot stop anyone , policy analysts included >>> from running the numbers . >>> >>> Dimensional analysis based on handbook and commercially disclosed >>> values of the physical constants of air, helium and SO2 indicates that you >>> can at best hope to lift 1.01 Kg per STP cubic meter of 97% pure balloon >>> grade He. >>> >>> Since SO2 vapor's molecular weight makes it over twice as dense as air >>> ( ~64/29), even if if the dead weigh of the balloon and its telemetry >>> are completely disregarded it will still take a tonne or more of helium >>> to loft a tonne of aerosol feedstock to stratospheric elevation. >>> >>> As you must be aware, the short supply of helium ( the US strategic >>> reserve acquired after WWII was largely sold off by 2021) has already >>> quadrupled its cost., and at present , annual global production is >>> below100,000 tonnes and recoverable reserves stand at around 30 million >>> tonnes globally. >>> >>> Using NOAA's numbers: >>> >>> https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2756/Simulated-geoengineering-evaluation-cooler-planet-but-with-side-effects >>> it is clear that your scheme would require lofting of a megatonne or >>> more of SO2 a year per degree K of cooling: which is not only an order of >>> magnitude more that present production can bear, but enough to completely >>> deplete known reserves and resources by 2050. >>> >>> Finally, US helium is almost exclusively a byproduct of natural gas >>> production , and so entails substantial release of methane and other >>> hydrocarbons that are greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 >>> >>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 6:09:51 PM UTC-5 lu...@lukeiseman.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with >>>> critiques here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few >>>> things: >>>> >>>> *Honesty: * >>>> We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we >>>> will), we'll correct it. >>>> *Radiative Forcing:* >>>> I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David >>>> Keith's research: >>>> "a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by >>>> high-flying jets, could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon >>>> dioxide, a factor of 1 million to 1." >>>> <https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/whats-right-temperature-earth> >>>> and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of >>>> particles in the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of >>>> carbon dioxide." >>>> <https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/> >>>> By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1 >>>> year," I was trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am >>>> correcting "carbon" to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit >>>> description right now, and I'm adding a paragraph at the start of the post >>>> stating that estimates vary, but a leading researcher cites a gram >>>> offsetting a ton. >>>> For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold, >>>> I'll be providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 2 >>>> grams per cooling credit. >>>> Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our >>>> blog explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released >>>> at 20km altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will >>>> include language of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse >>>> what we are doing. >>>> I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on >>>> instrumentation we should fly to improve the state of the science here. >>>> Again, I'm happy to do this with disclaimers about how researchers we fly >>>> things for are not endorsing our efforts. Or even without revealing who the >>>> researchers are: we'll fly test instruments and provide data, no questions >>>> asked:) >>>> *Telemetry: * >>>> My first 2 flights had no telemetry: in April, this was still in >>>> self-funded science project territory. After burning some sulfur and >>>> capturing the resultant gas, I placed this in a balloon. I then added >>>> helium, underinflating the balloon substantially, and let it go. There is >>>> technically a slim possibility that neither of these balloons reached the >>>> stratosphere, as I acknowledged to the Technology Review reporter. I will >>>> add Spot trackers to my next flights. These cut out at 18km, so I'l be able >>>> to confirm that I achieve at least this altitude. If (and this is a big if) >>>> I'm able to recover the balloons, I'll have a lot more data from the flight >>>> computer >>>> <https://www.highaltitudescience.com/collections/electronics/products/eagle-flight-computer>. >>>> I will eventually switch to Swarms >>>> <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/19236?utm_campaign=May%206%2C%202022&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=212205037&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9EyQOQ6C-9XuSOHa7CggOC8Pf2tEow_Fppo5pXgTHO8-7gV-aHrrYpnPcliws6Ju8j2PBAX3Tkog0oVpwk8XqWX2xo0w&utm_content=212206499&utm_source=hs_email>, >>>> which should let me transmit more data regardless of balloon recovery. >>>> *Pricing: * >>>> Bala, you're totally right that this should be priced much lower. We're >>>> trying to make enough with our early flights to stay in business until we >>>> get meaningful traction with customers, and we plan to eventually drop >>>> prices to $1 per ton or less. >>>> *Reuse: * >>>> We are not yet reusing balloons, and Andrew is correct that latex UV >>>> degradation will limit our ability to do so with weather balloons. Given >>>> that balloon cost is our main expense per gram, even a few uses per balloon >>>> will dramatically improve the economics here. >>>> >>>> I expect to disagree with some of you, but I hope we can do so politely >>>> and assuming good intentions. >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/l5fmgzA34HY/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e5064fb5-6850-4960-a425-e1854ddee44en%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e5064fb5-6850-4960-a425-e1854ddee44en%40googlegroups.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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAASHmp4uLXtXRzbUAJv5qL4EJawEsL5rZdn558YfPZ3-Py-iKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
