5 ms·

What a massive waste of the limited carbon budget we have remaining as a species. The techno-optimists who think this is bootstrapping more humanity-serving mi

What a massive waste of the limited carbon budget we have remaining as a species. The techno-optimists who think this is bootstrapping more humanity-serving missions (like a colony on Mars or the Moon) are lying to themselves. We are squeezing every last resource that makes Earth livable to enrich a few people short-term, but we will all suffer for this in the next few decades.

throwaway4220 3y ago
I share your sentiment but rocket launch is not that massive right now actually.
- gnulinux 3y ago
  Very poor point. The entire point of creating a company that wants to operate in this market is to invest in it, make it more efficient and "space tourism" more accessible. It costs a kidney (or a billionaire's savings) now but surely their business plan is for more people to buy their product.
  - throwaway4220 3y ago
    Fair. I guess my counterpoint would be it may enable off world manufacturing which may be a net benefit for the planet?
gnulinux 3y ago
It's devastating to see comments like this downvoted. Sure, maybe the tone could be improved, could be perhaps less arrogant or judgemental, or maybe whiny. I don't know what the downvoters thought. But I hope people realize how extremely precarious of a position we're in as species. To live sustainably on this planet we all must be asking these questions, whether space travel -- or, suborbital flight tourism -- is in the budget.
- tgv 3y ago
  > Sure, maybe the tone could be improved Sometimes, you just have to call out the obvious. But it's been upvoted again. It seems more people have a rather dim idea of this contribution to science and humanity.
- causi 3y ago
  The inspirational effect on people in general and particularly kids is not to be discounted. If you want the next generation of scientists, you have to give them something to dream about. These launches are more than worth it.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    I’d encourage the kids to aim higher than a tourist trip near space.
    - causi 3y ago
      I dunno about your career but "Suborbital spacecraft pilot" is a much cooler job title than my current one.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        Are we sure it’s a spacecraft?
        causi 3y ago
        It has a pressurized hull, a rocket engine, and cold gas maneuvering thrusters. Whether or not you consider an altitude of 85KM to be "space", the vehicle itself is a spacecraft.
kccqzy 3y ago
The techno-optimists will tell you large scale carbon capture is Just Around The Corner. And also socially acceptable large scale geoengineering.
powderpig 3y ago
When's a good time to stop technology advancement for those of us who are willing to pay for it? There will never be a right time.
- wunderland 3y ago
  The best time to stop that was probably last century. The second best time is today.
- mmustapic 3y ago
  This is useless technology that goes nowhere except this specific use case
radu_floricica 3y ago
sigh. Ok, let me explain why this attitude is not just stupid, but evil. It's stupid because it's simply text completion on a GPT-2 level. There's already an association between space travel and carbon, so you hear space travel and just go "yes, but global warming". No thought was put in either acquiring the association in the first place, nor in deciding if this is a good moment to use it. And definitely no fact checking. It's a mix of stupid and evil because this kind of text completion turns the public discourse in an echo chamber of unproductive repetitions, which creates the strangest of paradoxes - like the more climate concerned somebody is, the more likely they are to be against nuclear power. This never happened because anybody made the case for nuclear being bad for climate and people actually believing this claim. There was no case and no claim in the first place - just GPT-2 style reflexes and blind associations. Space tourism bad, bio-fuel good. And it's plain evil because it assumes that we should only dare to dream if we follow the current orthodoxy. It's not even something like "in order to dream we should make sure survival is ensured", because it was never about doing the math or actual tradeoffs. It's simply that some dreams are being painted as dirty and we shouldn't be allowed to have them, ever.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  > sigh. Ok, let me explain why this attitude is not just stupid, but evil. the words of a religious lunatic.
- mmustapic 3y ago
  GP is correct, there is no path from the current Virgin Galactic launches to something that is not a very expensive space ride for rich people. They can't launch satellites, they can't make it into orbit, nothing. Only the dream of seeing earth from an altitude of ~80km while expending a tremendous amount of energy. Also, your explanation of why GP attitude is evil is not clear at all. You can dream and still thing that this is stupid. In fact, the dream of a nice earth for all of us is a beautiful dream, much more than a 5 minute ride for a very few. And the inclusion of nuclear power when it was not mentioned in the original post is like a GPT hallucination.
  - rg111 3y ago
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Please tackle large carbon sources first. If small ones are still a problem then of course we should touch those as well. The Earth doesn’t care about effort or intent, only about net carbon. Touching small sources while large sources are still going is foolish, especially if it adds friction to tech development.
thereisnojesus 3y ago
[flagged]
poszlem 3y ago
I remember when I watched Interstellar for the first time, I thought, "No way people would be that dumb to brush off space exploration just because they're caught up with Earth stuff." But the more time goes by, the more I think the movie nailed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VKTLFlwr4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VKTLFlwr4Y
pavon 3y ago
While we don't have hard numbers, reasonable estimates of these suborbital launches by environmentalists like [1], put them at around 10 to 20 metric tons of CO2 per passenger per launch. The average driver in the US generates about 5 metric tons CO2 per year in tailgate emissions. Personally, I put far more value on giving people an unparalleled (and in some cases life changing) experience than a few years of commuting. [1] https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-carbon-footprint-of-space-tourism-5192322 https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-carbon-footprint-of-space...
- comice 3y ago
  > Personally, I put far more value on giving people an unparalleled (and in some cases life changing) experience than a few years of commuting. but they will be doing both those things. people who go to space don't stop driving cars when they get back.

throwaway4220 3y ago

I share your sentiment but rocket launch is not that massive right now actually.

gnulinux 3y ago
Very poor point. The entire point of creating a company that wants to operate in this market is to invest in it, make it more efficient and "space tourism" more accessible. It costs a kidney (or a billionaire's savings) now but surely their business plan is for more people to buy their product.
- throwaway4220 3y ago
  Fair. I guess my counterpoint would be it may enable off world manufacturing which may be a net benefit for the planet?

gnulinux 3y ago

It's devastating to see comments like this downvoted. Sure, maybe the tone could be improved, could be perhaps less arrogant or judgemental, or maybe whiny. I don't know what the downvoters thought. But I hope people realize how extremely precarious of a position we're in as species. To live sustainably on this planet we all must be asking these questions, whether space travel -- or, suborbital flight tourism -- is in the budget.

tgv 3y ago
> Sure, maybe the tone could be improved Sometimes, you just have to call out the obvious. But it's been upvoted again. It seems more people have a rather dim idea of this contribution to science and humanity.
causi 3y ago
The inspirational effect on people in general and particularly kids is not to be discounted. If you want the next generation of scientists, you have to give them something to dream about. These launches are more than worth it.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  I’d encourage the kids to aim higher than a tourist trip near space.
  - causi 3y ago
    I dunno about your career but "Suborbital spacecraft pilot" is a much cooler job title than my current one.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Are we sure it’s a spacecraft?
      - causi 3y ago
        It has a pressurized hull, a rocket engine, and cold gas maneuvering thrusters. Whether or not you consider an altitude of 85KM to be "space", the vehicle itself is a spacecraft.

kccqzy 3y ago

The techno-optimists will tell you large scale carbon capture is Just Around The Corner. And also socially acceptable large scale geoengineering.

powderpig 3y ago

When's a good time to stop technology advancement for those of us who are willing to pay for it? There will never be a right time.

wunderland 3y ago
The best time to stop that was probably last century. The second best time is today.
mmustapic 3y ago
This is useless technology that goes nowhere except this specific use case

radu_floricica 3y ago

sigh. Ok, let me explain why this attitude is not just stupid, but evil. It's stupid because it's simply text completion on a GPT-2 level. There's already an association between space travel and carbon, so you hear space travel and just go "yes, but global warming". No thought was put in either acquiring the association in the first place, nor in deciding if this is a good moment to use it. And definitely no fact checking. It's a mix of stupid and evil because this kind of text completion turns the public discourse in an echo chamber of unproductive repetitions, which creates the strangest of paradoxes - like the more climate concerned somebody is, the more likely they are to be against nuclear power. This never happened because anybody made the case for nuclear being bad for climate and people actually believing this claim. There was no case and no claim in the first place - just GPT-2 style reflexes and blind associations. Space tourism bad, bio-fuel good. And it's plain evil because it assumes that we should only dare to dream if we follow the current orthodoxy. It's not even something like "in order to dream we should make sure survival is ensured", because it was never about doing the math or actual tradeoffs. It's simply that some dreams are being painted as dirty and we shouldn't be allowed to have them, ever.

the_only_law 3y ago
> sigh. Ok, let me explain why this attitude is not just stupid, but evil. the words of a religious lunatic.
mmustapic 3y ago
GP is correct, there is no path from the current Virgin Galactic launches to something that is not a very expensive space ride for rich people. They can't launch satellites, they can't make it into orbit, nothing. Only the dream of seeing earth from an altitude of ~80km while expending a tremendous amount of energy. Also, your explanation of why GP attitude is evil is not clear at all. You can dream and still thing that this is stupid. In fact, the dream of a nice earth for all of us is a beautiful dream, much more than a 5 minute ride for a very few. And the inclusion of nuclear power when it was not mentioned in the original post is like a GPT hallucination.
- rg111 3y ago

pfannkuchen 3y ago

Please tackle large carbon sources first. If small ones are still a problem then of course we should touch those as well. The Earth doesn’t care about effort or intent, only about net carbon. Touching small sources while large sources are still going is foolish, especially if it adds friction to tech development.

thereisnojesus 3y ago

[flagged]

poszlem 3y ago

I remember when I watched Interstellar for the first time, I thought, "No way people would be that dumb to brush off space exploration just because they're caught up with Earth stuff." But the more time goes by, the more I think the movie nailed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VKTLFlwr4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VKTLFlwr4Y

pavon 3y ago

While we don't have hard numbers, reasonable estimates of these suborbital launches by environmentalists like [1], put them at around 10 to 20 metric tons of CO2 per passenger per launch. The average driver in the US generates about 5 metric tons CO2 per year in tailgate emissions. Personally, I put far more value on giving people an unparalleled (and in some cases life changing) experience than a few years of commuting. [1] https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-carbon-footprint-of-space-tourism-5192322 https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-carbon-footprint-of-space...

comice 3y ago
> Personally, I put far more value on giving people an unparalleled (and in some cases life changing) experience than a few years of commuting. but they will be doing both those things. people who go to space don't stop driving cars when they get back.