5 ms·
Improvements that make space flight more sustainable are welcome ... unless that means an order of magnitude more pollution in a less controllable form, like em
by paulryanrogers 2y ago
Improvements that make space flight more sustainable are welcome ... unless that means an order of magnitude more pollution in a less controllable form, like emissions. [Due to more frequent flights]
Daily trips to space likely also mean more debris in space and falling to earth.
I hope there is a balance that includes the lives of people near these sites and all of us sharing the same atmosphere.
- timeon 2y agoI hope this is not going to be used for 'Earth point A -> Earth point B' travel.
- modeless 2y agoSpaceX proposed it but I doubt there is any chance of this architecture ever achieving the airliner-level reliability needed for people to accept routine Earth-to-Earth passenger service. That's several levels beyond what you'd need to fly astronauts. Maybe a future architecture with more redundancy could get there someday.
- mr_toad 2y agoThey have a contact to investigate point to point delivery of cargo for the military.
- smoovb 2y agoProposed 7 years ago - go anywhere on earth in an hour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tf2KpCG2fM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tf2KpCG2fM
- zaroth 2y ago[flagged]
- Gazoche 2y agoPlease don't use ChatGPT as a primary source. There's no way to tell if it's making up those facts or not.
- nickpp 2y ago[flagged]
- simulosius 2y agoWhat kind of credible evidence can you bring that "main stream media" are making up facts?
- nickpp 2y agoI never said that, please reread my post.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago> Considering the safety and prosperity that can be brought online from 1,000 launches / 150,000 tons in orbit, that’s the deal of the century. Regardless of the (in)accuracy of ChatGPT, you're assuming a lot can be accomplished with those flights. I strongly suspect 600K cars getting people where they need to go has far more utility than 1K flights of anything into / out of NEO. > Debris is an absolutely non-issue. Astronomers probably don't want 1000x (or even 10x) as many satelites obstructing their view. > There is zero environmental downside, only Luddite foot stomping. Name calling isn't going to help your cause. And the luddites had a good point, they didn't mind innovation. They minded being cut out of the benefits of innovation without any say in the matter.
- squigz 2y ago[flagged]
- pfdietz 2y ago