By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It really infuriates me that these billionaires have spent billions polluting our atmosphere on vanity projects. Their trips serve no scientific benefits. Can someone please make a case for them?
1
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 20:55 - Jul 20 with 1951 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 20:55 - Jul 20 by blueislander
It really infuriates me that these billionaires have spent billions polluting our atmosphere on vanity projects. Their trips serve no scientific benefits. Can someone please make a case for them?
err, they are at the forefront of leading the development of travel that means after totalling focking up this planet mankind can travel to another one and fock that up as well
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 20:55 - Jul 20 by blueislander
It really infuriates me that these billionaires have spent billions polluting our atmosphere on vanity projects. Their trips serve no scientific benefits. Can someone please make a case for them?
For Musk and, to some extent, Branson, their organisations have at least designed and brought into service semi-reuseable and (relatively) cost-effective satellite launch systems. Especially the former, with the Falcon 9, which is also capable of delivering astronauts to the ISS. Tho Virgin have also launched satellites from under the wing of a Boeing 747 and plan to use their White Knight 2 for heavier payloads.
Bezos' Blue Origin, not so much so, being a pure tourist jaunt, having no orbital capability.
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:00 - Jul 20 by Keno
err, they are at the forefront of leading the development of travel that means after totalling focking up this planet mankind can travel to another one and fock that up as well
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:00 - Jul 20 by Keno
err, they are at the forefront of leading the development of travel that means after totalling focking up this planet mankind can travel to another one and fock that up as well
I still think this idea of going to Mars is a bit of flummery which is unlikely to ever happen. After all, why send people there when perfectly good robots can be built who can do most of the work for much longer without any of the risk? We are not, in practical terms, going to be able to live there in the forseeable future. Terraforming is just a science-fiction pipe dream.
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:10 - Jul 20 by Guthrum
I still think this idea of going to Mars is a bit of flummery which is unlikely to ever happen. After all, why send people there when perfectly good robots can be built who can do most of the work for much longer without any of the risk? We are not, in practical terms, going to be able to live there in the forseeable future. Terraforming is just a science-fiction pipe dream.
Sorry mate, but I find it very difficult to justify spending money on space travel at the moment
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 22:16 - Jul 20 with 1835 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:30 - Jul 20 by blueislander
Sorry mate, but I find it very difficult to justify spending money on space travel at the moment
Wait until science catches up with my thinking, and realizes that there wasn't a hole in the Ozone layer until we kept pricking it with sharp, pointy space rockets.
1
It’s a massive pointless phallus…. on 23:01 - Jul 20 with 1802 views
…. Built so wealthy and disconnected individuals can marvel at the curvature of our beautiful planet… from a fossil fuel burning billion dollar white elephant dildo
Perhaps bezos could have spent the money to provide better working conditions and pay to the staff at his warehouses? Or to redress the societal damage of e commerce
Don’t get me started on Mars exploration - a complete folly
Science and investment needs to go into sustaining our wonderful eco system… which is under huge threat …. We can never leave it
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 20:55 - Jul 20 by blueislander
It really infuriates me that these billionaires have spent billions polluting our atmosphere on vanity projects. Their trips serve no scientific benefits. Can someone please make a case for them?
How about you make a case that they "serve no scientific benefits" given it's clearly a totally incorrect statement.
The pollution from a few rocket launches is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things, that's a red herring argument.
SB
[Post edited 20 Jul 2021 23:03]
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:05 - Jul 20 with 1784 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:10 - Jul 20 by Guthrum
I still think this idea of going to Mars is a bit of flummery which is unlikely to ever happen. After all, why send people there when perfectly good robots can be built who can do most of the work for much longer without any of the risk? We are not, in practical terms, going to be able to live there in the forseeable future. Terraforming is just a science-fiction pipe dream.
Mars is completely inhospitable / radiation, ballistic sand storms
The laws of physics mean we can never take anything of great bulk to it or back from it
Complete folly when species and habitat loss are spiralling out of control on our own planet
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:30 - Jul 20 by blueislander
Sorry mate, but I find it very difficult to justify spending money on space travel at the moment
It's their money though. They are actually saving money for governments - NASA can launch satellites, probes and rovers at a fraction of the cost if they use something like a SpaceX Falcon reusable rocket.
You're essentially saying that private individuals can't spend money on what they want and that governments should pay more for things they are doing anyway.
Given the relatively tiny amounts of money involved here, scientific endeavour is always worth the money.
SB
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:09 - Jul 20 with 1755 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:05 - Jul 20 by unstableblue
Mars is completely inhospitable / radiation, ballistic sand storms
The laws of physics mean we can never take anything of great bulk to it or back from it
Complete folly when species and habitat loss are spiralling out of control on our own planet
Your first point is partially correct. There are no "ballistic sandstorms" on Mars because the atmosphere isn't dense enough. That was artistic licence taken by the author in the Martian so that there could actually be a good story. A sandstorm on Mars wouldn't get near to blowing over a person.
Your second point is incorrect. The only issue is getting things from the surface of the Earth into orbit, getting from there to Mars takes very little fuel and no laws of physics prevent take large cargos. Everything will eventually be manufactured in orbit on on the moon and then transferred to Mars.
Now you are probably right it's folly to look to move to Mars but it's absolutely not folly to conduct research, initially through robots and perhaps through humans one day.
Exploring the cosmos doesn't mean we can't also look at saving habitats here - the two aren't mutually exclusive.
SB
[Post edited 20 Jul 2021 23:10]
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:49 - Jul 20 with 1699 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 21:03 - Jul 20 by Guthrum
For Musk and, to some extent, Branson, their organisations have at least designed and brought into service semi-reuseable and (relatively) cost-effective satellite launch systems. Especially the former, with the Falcon 9, which is also capable of delivering astronauts to the ISS. Tho Virgin have also launched satellites from under the wing of a Boeing 747 and plan to use their White Knight 2 for heavier payloads.
Bezos' Blue Origin, not so much so, being a pure tourist jaunt, having no orbital capability.
no orbital capability on New Shepard which is the name of this rocket, Blue Origin is the name of the company , but New Glenn, which is the next rocket they are currently designing but unlike SpaceX they dont do their design/testing out in public, will be orbital capable, will be bigger than any current operational rocket, note Starship is not currently operational, and will certainly compete against Starship for payload into LEO for ISS resupplys, and even the moon missions.
so dont discount what Bezos is doing now as a tourist jaunt at all, this is how you build rockets capable of taking people to get into orbit, goto the moon & beyond and return them safely to the Earth.
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:58 - Jul 20 with 1682 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:57 - Jul 20 by stonojnr
no orbital capability on New Shepard which is the name of this rocket, Blue Origin is the name of the company , but New Glenn, which is the next rocket they are currently designing but unlike SpaceX they dont do their design/testing out in public, will be orbital capable, will be bigger than any current operational rocket, note Starship is not currently operational, and will certainly compete against Starship for payload into LEO for ISS resupplys, and even the moon missions.
so dont discount what Bezos is doing now as a tourist jaunt at all, this is how you build rockets capable of taking people to get into orbit, goto the moon & beyond and return them safely to the Earth.
Both Nasa's SLS and Starship will be substantially larger than the New Glenn if all three rockets are completed as designed.
Can certainly see the New Glenn being used for orbital missions but not sure it's going to compete against Starship for lunar missions if both operate as designed - Starship carries substantially more payload and possibly a lot more astronauts.
It's interesting times though.
SB
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 00:11 - Jul 21 with 1671 views
300 tonnes of co2 in the upper atmosphere per launch I think ch4 said earlier, and he wants them to be regular tourist events going forward.
300 tonnes of CO2 from what though ? they must literally have just read that off some twitter moon landings are fake feed or something, as the BE-3 engine on New Shepard uses a liquid hydrogen & liquid oxygen fuel mix, it produces virtually no CO2 emissions at all, its basically the cleanest rocket fuel mix in terms of emissions.
heres Jeremy Clarkson explaining how such engines work
1
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 00:18 - Jul 21 with 1668 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 23:05 - Jul 20 by unstableblue
Mars is completely inhospitable / radiation, ballistic sand storms
The laws of physics mean we can never take anything of great bulk to it or back from it
Complete folly when species and habitat loss are spiralling out of control on our own planet
Stopping most habitat loss is easy.
Stop eating meat. Stop believing the meat industries mis-information garbage (the same tactics taken from the smoking, lead, oil and other polluting industries handbooks).
Not eating meat also has the added benefit of reducing climate changing gas emissions by about 15-20%.
Modern agrarian non meat production is efficient enough to easily feed everyone on the planet.
There is lots of money around, but much of it goes to subsidising the industries that are polluting the planet and causing human induced climate change, species and habitat loss.
Blame that on the lobbyists, their"sponsored" politicians and quisling scientists.
PS, I'm sure that the martian atmosphere is too weak for earth like storms to form (minus f1 dust devils max strength?). Also, space is a vacuum, "bulk" is almost meaningless. Mars is low gravity too.
PPS, Everthing that we learn from space exploration also has the advantage of going towards the knowledge of how to stop the the next city, or dino killer headed our way.
0
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 00:37 - Jul 21 with 1644 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 00:04 - Jul 21 by StokieBlue
Both Nasa's SLS and Starship will be substantially larger than the New Glenn if all three rockets are completed as designed.
Can certainly see the New Glenn being used for orbital missions but not sure it's going to compete against Starship for lunar missions if both operate as designed - Starship carries substantially more payload and possibly a lot more astronauts.
It's interesting times though.
SB
but neither are currently operational...yet, ok neither is New Glenn so its moot point :) but we dont know how far along their prototyping is because they dont let people see their stuff till its ready to successfully launch.
and its about understanding the scale of what they are doing New Shepard is quite small as rockets go really, its smaller than the Mercury rockets were in height terms,but their next step is scaling up to something thats close to Saturn V height, almost 5 times as big, thats huge.
thats not merely space tourists level anymore on a 10min joyride, thats a serious rocket with alot of capability, maybe not as much payload or people as Starship are aiming for,though both those aspects are unproven still.
but I can definitely see NASA, like it is now, using a mixture of private companies to do different things for it,New Glenn could slip into a Delta Heavy replacement role, simply because Starship ends up too big to do that kind of lift role, or become more of a cargoship or robotics lander,whilst Starship does the people stuff etc etc.
very interesting times indeed.
1
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 07:28 - Jul 21 with 1516 views
So This Jeff Bezos Rocket on 00:37 - Jul 21 by stonojnr
but neither are currently operational...yet, ok neither is New Glenn so its moot point :) but we dont know how far along their prototyping is because they dont let people see their stuff till its ready to successfully launch.
and its about understanding the scale of what they are doing New Shepard is quite small as rockets go really, its smaller than the Mercury rockets were in height terms,but their next step is scaling up to something thats close to Saturn V height, almost 5 times as big, thats huge.
thats not merely space tourists level anymore on a 10min joyride, thats a serious rocket with alot of capability, maybe not as much payload or people as Starship are aiming for,though both those aspects are unproven still.
but I can definitely see NASA, like it is now, using a mixture of private companies to do different things for it,New Glenn could slip into a Delta Heavy replacement role, simply because Starship ends up too big to do that kind of lift role, or become more of a cargoship or robotics lander,whilst Starship does the people stuff etc etc.
very interesting times indeed.
Totally agree on NASA. They should have cancelled the SLS years ago, it an antique compared to the stuff the private companies are using and thus a total waste of money that could be used for exploration and science.
I think the SLS lifespan will be pretty short lived with private companies taking over all launch responsibilities for a fraction of the price due to the reusability.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
