• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Doesn’t make the concept any less concaveman.

      Fuck Natural Gas, fuck Commercial Rocketry.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        YEA! Fuck science and NASA and all that other shit…yea man! Stick it to those damn labcoat wearing idiots!

        “Gets in diesel truck and rolls coal”

        /s

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Fuck off, thats the public and military sector, mate. The only thing they have to do with those space tourism asshats is they occasionally buy from them.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You do realize that the only reason we’re not having to rely on russia to get our astronauts onto the ISS is because of SpaceX right?

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Oh wow really sucking some big dick right there.

              Oh those massive corporations are SO altruistic, oml! They do so much fkr us and we would all be lost without them! /s

              • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’d love to see Musk ejected into the vacuum of space and abandoned by one of his own vehicles as much as the next guy, but you can’t deny the incredible effectiveness and just how incredible the advances in rocketry that SpaceX has pushed. SpaceX is writing a new chapter in space exploration as we speak, with the introduction of truly reusable rocketry

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Reusable rockets was cool and a good investiment. Starlink is OK, maybe could be cool with proper management. Fucking Fossil Rockets, tho?

                  Even if you separate the art from the artist’s manager its still getting pretty fucking wacky in the rocketry market.

              • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Dude, if you can’t get past your enormous fucking hate boner for Musk to think rationally, maybe just don’t say anything. You’re acting like a damn fool.

      • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        How dare capitalism… Innovate in space technology? You hate just because the people doing it are rich. That’s real silly.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The problem with fossil fuels is that they’re incredibly energy dense. Gasoline has about 12000 Wh/kg of energy density compared to about 250 Wh/kg for lithium ion.

            Space is hard, and the paradox of launching a rocket is that you need a lot of fuel to fuel an engine for long enough to escape the Earth’s atmosphere and achieve orbit. All of that fuel adds weight so you need more fuel to compensate for more weight, which adds more weight meaning more fuel. Burnable fuels have the advantage of depleting as you burn it, so as you get higher your rocket gets lighter and therefore requires less fuel to pilot.

            In case that’s not enough challenge, in the vacuum of space there’s no great way to propel a vehicle on electrical power alone. Wheels ain’t gonna work and neither will propellers, and while solar sails appear to work, they offer such incredibly low specific impulse (thrust basically) that realistically no manned mission that isn’t a generation ship can use solar sails

            So in short, space is going to require fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Hopefully we as a species can find the technology to make a fully reusable and renewable space program at some point, but until then we’ll have to burn chemicals get vehicles off of this planet.

            Additionally, right now, until another organization actually builds and launches reusable space vehicles (and can demonstrate the competence and safety record) SpaceX is the world leader in reusability. SpaceX is one of two members of the exclusive “has relaunched a space vehicle” club, shared only with NASA’s space shuttle program which ended over a decade ago

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Jfc this guy

              If they managed to shave enough costs for consumer space flights you would be celebrating as the entire world burned.

              I don’t give FUCK about natural gas energy density, we don’t need rockets that run on it.

              • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Bruh, global spaceflight contributes less than 0.01% of global CO2 emissions and enables climate resiliencey through weather and climate monitoring satellites, plus technological skunkworks (many of the challenges in the microclimate of a space station happen to be the exact same challenges of the macroclimate of the Earth, plus there’s a proven path of technology developed for space directly improving lives on the ground here on earth)

                If you can build an orbital launch vehicle that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels, please do! Seriously that is a greatly needed technology and you’ll have earned the wealth and fame that would bring you. But until then I’ll take the next best thing which is having a space program and compensating for it’s (absolutely tiny compared to basically all other industries) emissions in a larger global climate plan over not having a space industry

                • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Starlink doesn’t monitor the weather, in fact it could actively impede that soon given the amount of frequency noise they’re creating, and space tourism sure as fuck ain’t gonna be about the betterment of science.

                  The problem is that your entire argument stands on the leg of conflating that bizarre bullshit being developed with the rich and beneficial past history of NASA.

                  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Starlink doesn’t monitor the weather, in fact it could actively impede that soon given the amount of frequency noise they’re creating

                    Correct, and I wasn’t talking about Starlink, I was talking about the various GPS, climate and weather satellites spaceX has launched recently (and that’s just the missions I can remember off the top of my head), and their capabilities to continue launching satellites for any purpose at an incredibly cost effective and potentially less destructive manner than with single use rockets

                    Plus this isn’t just a matter of SpaceX good/bad. SpaceX proved 98 times this year alone that reusable rockets work, something that before them was theoretically possible but appeared to be too technically complex and too costly to be a worthwhile endeavor. Now other space agencies have a proven model to point to when choosing whether or not to invest in their own reusable rocket designs. The US Federal Government could even simply compel SpaceX to license it’s designs and software for reusable rockets if it felt so inclined

                    Oh and you’ve moved the goalposts in your Elon-hate because first you were complaining about rockets using fossil fuels instead of being electrically powered and now that I’ve pointed out how uninformed that is you’re complaining about Starlink, which is unrelated to the original point. Yes I agree, Elon is an ass to say the least, and Starlink poses a hell of a danger to the world’s ability to continue studying anything in the sky. But let’s be honest with ourselves about what we’re talking about and the facts of the technologies we’re discussing.

                    If your argument is simply that “the CO2 emissions from accessing orbit aren’t worth the global services that they enable” guess what that’s an opinion, which everyone is entitled to. But let’s form these opinions based on an accurate understanding of the industry you’re talking about