3 ms·

Personally, I think it looks beautiful. I hope it works. Generation 3 of the flying wing. A worthy tradition and a genuine problem to solve. Also, for the recor

Personally, I think it looks beautiful. I hope it works. Generation 3 of the flying wing. A worthy tradition and a genuine problem to solve. Also, for the record, I think military operations get a different category on emissions. Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. I live by a major cargo hub airport with occasional military traffic. The occasional C-5 Galaxy doing a few touch and go practices, a pair of F-18s or trainers. The airshow is this month and I’m lucky to be at a waypoint for the aerobatic demonstration team. Last year Super Hornets at 500 feet for 3 days. Heaven! Can you imagine how gorgeous the photo would be of this refueling a B2? Or dust off the last up to it Sr71 and buzz Ukraine and Crimea for an afternoon. Yes it is all ridiculous but most military might is proverbial dick waving in the first place, so might as well add some confetti and glitter to the mix.

adastra22 4y ago
> Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. How so? Usually it’s just nitrate fertilizer. You can actually measure the greening effect that certain large 20th century ears (WW2, Korea, Vietnam) have had on global bio mass.
- yabones 4y ago
  Most munitions have a toxic concentration of heavy metals. I really wouldn't want to eat anything grown in a field that was heavily shelled or bombed.
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  I tend to think about the unexploded stuff as having a long-term negative pollution effect - agreed that the chemicals themselves aren't really a culprit. In my view though, after watching tons of combat videos especially during WWII (and even with Syria and Ukraine examples) it's not the ordinance it's what they hit with it. Damaging infrastructure and chemicals and whatnot can have lasting effects by way of the ordinance dropping. Otherwise planes flying over taking recon photos are a different story. Also I was just considering scale of military flights versus civilian. Yes they burn a lot of gas and haul ass, but there are way many more passenger and cargo flights day in and day out. I do love the idea of improving cargo shipping by sky in my lifetime. As my Uncle pointed out once, having dealt with Passengers and Cargo, "Cargo doesn't complain."

adastra22 4y ago

> Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. How so? Usually it’s just nitrate fertilizer. You can actually measure the greening effect that certain large 20th century ears (WW2, Korea, Vietnam) have had on global bio mass.

yabones 4y ago
Most munitions have a toxic concentration of heavy metals. I really wouldn't want to eat anything grown in a field that was heavily shelled or bombed.
6stringmerc 4y ago
I tend to think about the unexploded stuff as having a long-term negative pollution effect - agreed that the chemicals themselves aren't really a culprit. In my view though, after watching tons of combat videos especially during WWII (and even with Syria and Ukraine examples) it's not the ordinance it's what they hit with it. Damaging infrastructure and chemicals and whatnot can have lasting effects by way of the ordinance dropping. Otherwise planes flying over taking recon photos are a different story. Also I was just considering scale of military flights versus civilian. Yes they burn a lot of gas and haul ass, but there are way many more passenger and cargo flights day in and day out. I do love the idea of improving cargo shipping by sky in my lifetime. As my Uncle pointed out once, having dealt with Passengers and Cargo, "Cargo doesn't complain."