I caught this in the Austin Statesman:
CLIMATE CHANGE
UT scientist drops research that he says pollutes
Astronomer pulls out of NASA project that involves a plane.
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, November 30, 2008
“Going with his conscience, an astronomy professor at the University of Texas has decided to back out of a NASA project that he spent about a decade working on because he thinks it excessively harms the environment.
“An instrument developed by John Lacy, considered one of the top physicists in the country, will be used along with a telescope in the back of a modified Boeing 747 to determine the chemical makeup of objects light-years away. For the project, the jet will fly about four times a week for up to 12 hours at a time.
“Lacy said the flights will emit too much fossil-fuel pollution in the name of science”
.
.
.
“Lacy first made his intentions known to his colleagues at UT in the spring during a presentation about the project. For Neal Evans, chairman of the UT Astronomy Department, the news came out of left field. “I was at least somewhat taken aback by this,” Evans said.
“Everybody here has to operate on their own judgment about their science and any ethical issues,” Evans said, adding that he personally doesn’t have any ethical issues with the project.
“When Lacy’s instrument is ready, Evans said he will have no problems using it for his own research in infrared astronomy”
I always though astronomy didn’t really benefit the public (I mean really.. when society collapses, the best we will be able to do is leverage our eclipse-predicting skills into some manner of astrology-based high-priesthoods… or navigate ships. Oh wait.. there will probably still be compasses.)
I guess though that I never really thought we might be actively harming the public. I mean, besides all those ways the Army takes astronomical technology and uses it for things like its laser spy satellites, or weapons that project microwave beams that make people think they’re on fire.
A Modest Proposal
But the good news is, we can offset this! Yes, we astronomers can make our profession a little more carbon-neutral, which is to say not very carbon-neutral at all. You see, Astronomers routinely fly to telescopes to take data, thus egregiously polluting the skies. The grand polluter itself, SOFIA, is a modified Boeing 747-SP that will fly approximately 8-12 hours, four times a week. Such a plane, in civilian use, would seat about 230 passengers. If astronomers travelled less to their observing sites, we could make up for this.
A typical astronomer’s flight might involve travel to California, Hawai, or Chile- so on average lets say these are 5 hour flights, with an average of one graduate student accompanying a professor. This is then two people each taking two five hour flights. In order to balance out SOFIA, we would need to have 460 fewer such observing runs each week, (ideally resulting in cancelled flights).
Now, even for an observatory such as Keck, one does not usually have more than two teams observing each night, so there are only 14 possible observing slots each week. Observing runs are also generally about 2 nights long, so really one would not expect more than about seven possible observing runs per telescope per week.
Therefore, to balance out SOFIA, there would need to be 67 telescopes that operated entirely independently of observers. This could either be a queue observing system, such as that in use at Gemini, or remote observing, such as that in use at Keck.
So consider this, astronomers, for the sake of the children. Apply to observatories with queues, or choose to make that next observing run remote. The earth, and her skies, will thank you for it.
And now, a picture of an octopus.

(Presumably raping and pillaging)








