3 ms·

Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. If it ran on hydrogen, you'd probably have to use electrical energy to produce that. Even

by morsch 10y ago

Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. If it ran on hydrogen, you'd probably have to use electrical energy to produce that. Even if you somehow got the hydrogen "for free", there are other things you could use it for. This is all quite separate from the moral issue, to which I have nothing to add.

coryfklein 10y ago
> Doesn't really matter what it exhausts, it expends energy either way. Energy usage is not the only consideration, and it certainly does matter what it exhausts. Exhausting an inert gas is definitely preferable to a greenhouse gas, which would be preferable to exhausting anthrax, etc. The composition of the exhaust is going to affect the positivity of the public reaction to a billionaire burning it into public air space for leisure.
- morsch 10y ago
  Even in the ideal case (inert gas, no anthrax rocket, the first stage duly recycled), the energy usage would remain as a consideration. You may have a point regarding the public perception; don't really care to weigh in.
- manicdee 10y ago
  Water is a greenhouse gas too.
hamandcheese 10y ago
> the moral issue Uhh, what moral issue, exactly?