3 ms·

So much cheaper and environmentally better to tax people for having 3 or more kids instead. Get the population down and we don't need to mine so much. Rockets p

by genwin 14y ago

So much cheaper and environmentally better to tax people for having 3 or more kids instead. Get the population down and we don't need to mine so much. Rockets pollute our atmosphere.

jlgreco 14y ago
This is an incredibly very simplistic view. Consider the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition P.S. It looks like a Falcon 9 uses about 25000 gallons of kerosene. Assume everyone drives Priuses and gets 50 mpg while driving a reasonable 18000 miles per year. A Falcon 9 launch burns less fuel than less than 100 people do in a year of just living their boring old lives. Rocket launch pollution is pissing in a metaphorical ocean. (And of course LOX/LH2 burns to produce water...)
- genwin 14y ago
  I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public in full for each 25000 gallons of kerosene burned in the atmosphere (perhaps times thousands of rockets), I'm fine with that. But that's unlikely to happen. It'll just become another public cost instead, to make rich people richer, so I'm against it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    That may be what you wish the world was like, but you must realise that expecting that to actually happen is absurdly unrealistic. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
    - genwin 14y ago
      I do realise that expecting the world to be improved for the general public is unrealistic, and the vast majority effectively don't support it. Should I just shut up then?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        It doesn't really matter what you do. If you are concerned about looking foolish, then probably yes. Otherwise, have at it.
  - wiredfool 14y ago
    25k Gallons of Kerosene is roughly half the fuel capacity of a 747. (48-65k gallons, depending on which 747). So, that's equivalent to one plane flight from the US to Europe/Asia.

by genwin 14y ago

So much cheaper and environmentally better to tax people for having 3 or more kids instead. Get the population down and we don't need to mine so much. Rockets pollute our atmosphere.

jlgreco 14y ago

This is an incredibly very simplistic view. Consider the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition P.S. It looks like a Falcon 9 uses about 25000 gallons of kerosene. Assume everyone drives Priuses and gets 50 mpg while driving a reasonable 18000 miles per year. A Falcon 9 launch burns less fuel than less than 100 people do in a year of just living their boring old lives. Rocket launch pollution is pissing in a metaphorical ocean. (And of course LOX/LH2 burns to produce water...)

genwin 14y ago
I'd say there should be no harm done to the environment that isn't a net benefit to the public to compensate. If private companies want to recompense the public in full for each 25000 gallons of kerosene burned in the atmosphere (perhaps times thousands of rockets), I'm fine with that. But that's unlikely to happen. It'll just become another public cost instead, to make rich people richer, so I'm against it.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  That may be what you wish the world was like, but you must realise that expecting that to actually happen is absurdly unrealistic. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
  - genwin 14y ago
    I do realise that expecting the world to be improved for the general public is unrealistic, and the vast majority effectively don't support it. Should I just shut up then?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It doesn't really matter what you do. If you are concerned about looking foolish, then probably yes. Otherwise, have at it.
- wiredfool 14y ago
  25k Gallons of Kerosene is roughly half the fuel capacity of a 747. (48-65k gallons, depending on which 747). So, that's equivalent to one plane flight from the US to Europe/Asia.