5 ms·
Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meanin
by mikestew 6y ago
Your list went from most efficient to least efficient, and finally to "my g-d, could we possibly burn any more resources just to get where we're going?". Meaning it went the wrong way. Which, because it's the 60s in the hypothetical example, is fitting. The next revolution is the quantum of transportation: the electric scooter. I jest, but only a little. It gets me to work just fine, gets me there in only five minutes more than the car, and I don't have to pedal. And I can power it with the 400W of solar panels on the roof of our RV. Seeing how fast one can dump fuel into an engine in 2020 isn't what I'd call a "revolution".
- bryanlarsen 6y agoSpace ships aren't necessarily less efficient than airplanes for intercontinental travel. Yes, they burn an incredible amount of fuel for a couple minutes, but then they can travel through space without using any fuel because there is no atmospheric drag. So in the end the fuel usage is comparable. Space ships also have the advantage that they can use "green" fuel, fuel that is synthesized from green energy, water and atmospheric CO2 rather than using fossil fuels. (Jet planes could also run on green fuel, but jet fuel is significantly more expensive to synthesize than hydrogen or methane). Methane and hydrogen rockets also burn much cleaner than jets. The fuel is almost pure, and the oxidizer is pure oxygen rather than air, so there is almost no sulfates, NOx or soot. Still pretty inefficient compared to an electric scooter, though. :)