4 ms·
> nobody wants to live in a carbon free world if every company is as abusive as Tesla to its employees. I don't see that at all. I mean, by any reasonable sta
by ajross 4y ago
> nobody wants to live in a carbon free world if every company is as abusive as Tesla to its employees.
I don't see that at all. I mean, by any reasonable standard Tesla is... just another employer. It's true that the tenor of the discussion around them is quite frankly batshit. But... they're just a company. Every big corporation has a laundry list of terrible accusations, that's just the way capitalism works.
I mean, take Musk and all his nonsense off the board and tell me if you really believe Tesla is a worse place to work at than Walmart or FedEx or UnitedHealth or wherever. I just don't see it.
So... yeah. Bring on the carbon-free world of occasionally abusive capitalist overlords, please.
- cma 4y agoThe carbon free world of point to point passenger rocket travel on methane rockets.
- enslavedrobot 4y agoCarbon neutral.
- signatoremo 4y agoI thought HN of all place is free of faked outrage or ignorance? Even if Starship was the dirtiest of a rocket (it isn’t), a rocket flight is only as dirty as a B777 flight, thousands of them happening everyday. Try this exercise. Measure how much carbon incurred by an activity that you absolutely love, such as playing video game, and see how much you could contribute by not doing it. A lot of activities is worth doing, even if there is inevitably carbon cost, even if you don’t think it’s worth it.
- mlindner 4y agoFuel is one of the cheapest portions of launching a rocket. There’s much bigger problems to solve on that front until they start launching commonly. Once they do then moving to sustainable methane won’t be an issue. Also what’s the alternative right now? Hydrogen made from the same methane by steam reformation? We don’t even have long range aircraft running on anything but jet fuel, which is more polluting than methane. Nothing about Starship is incompatible with carbon neutral fuels.
- cma 4y agoThey are supposed to be operating commercial passenger flights by 2028. There is no way it is carbon neutral in 5 years. They will have to be launching commonly long before they put hundreds of passengers on flights in 2028 (their timeline).
- ben_w 4y agoThe point of Starship is Mars; Mars cannot be done with Starship in the absence of a box that fits in its own cargo bay, and which takes in sunlight, CO2, and water, and outputs methane and oxygen. Fortunately some French scientists figured that out how to do that 126 years ago.
- cma 4y agoThey are spooling up commercial passenger rocket flights (for cross-continent travel) in 5 years and won't likely have renewable sources by then, they have already put in or filed to put it pipelines for petro industry gas sources in Texas.
- ben_w 4y ago"Spooling up"? It's currently an un-launched prototype that isn't yet human-rated let alone passenger rated. Why do you think they can move faster on that than on tech invented prior to the birth of the oldest currently living human?
- cma 4y agoThey gave the timeline for entering passenger service competing with long haul aviation back in 2018, sayijg within a decade. Years later they reconfirmed that timeline.
- ben_w 4y agoYou're willing to buy his estimate for a timeline about a thing you don't like (I've seen him talk, even he knows his timelines are optimistic, and he shows much the same optimism about FSD) while totally ignoring the thing invented before any living human was born and which is already deployed in various places? Why?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]