ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th February 2018, 07:50 AM   #41
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,940
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
the irony of burning the amount of fuel and polluting with rockets that his vehicles have saved.
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Negligible compared to what is burned in autos, fossil power plants, home heating, ships, even aircraft.
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
you may have missed the joke.
Oh, so that was that low-flying whooshing sound...

Originally Posted by Coveny View Post
SpaceX, plans to launch its Falcon 9 rockets every two to three weeks approximately 4,000 tonnes of carbon per year. Negligible isn't a word I would use.
I think itís a pretty good word. Thatís approximately .04% of global carbon output.

Now, I actually agree that we need to develop space elevators and mass drivers and whatnot to supplement rockets. I just donít see that SpaceX is delaying that. We wouldnít have these things sooner if SpaceX didnít exist; weíd just have more expensive rocket launches and a slower rate of space development.

We do need a sustained effort to push R&D of non-rocket access to space, but itís going to take a national effort; I canít see any commercial company spending all that money with relatively low chance of success, let alone profit, for a long time.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 09:15 AM   #42
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
I think itís a pretty good word. Thatís approximately .04% of global carbon output.
Hm? It's about 0.00001% of global output. 0.1 ppm. It's about 0.03% of what the US alone emits in a single day.

We're in agreement about the appropriateness of the term "negligible", though.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 09:49 AM   #43
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,086
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Charming. Useless bilge, and the end of the conversation.
Really? NASA being reduced to renting seats on a '60s Soyuz is progress to you?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 09:51 AM   #44
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,096
What's hilarious here is that it doesn't matter how "clean" a rocket motor is, some people are going to be pissed: Half of the farmers in the country blamed all the STS launches for the unusually heavy rains that prevented harvest or flooded fields during their use.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 09:57 AM   #45
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,476
My Grandad blamed any bad weather on Sputnik and Apollo. Apparently English summers were all sunny, balmy days before they went up.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 10:32 AM   #46
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,591
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Charming. Useless bilge, and the end of the conversation.
I think it's fair to say that "Bollocks ... you'd be laughed out of the kindergarten" was a notch less than polite too.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 10:38 AM   #47
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Plain fact. Global carbon emissions in 2017 were in the area of 37 billion metric tons.
I don't get MikeG's overreaction to your mostly correct post but one nitpick: 37 billion metric tons's of CO2, about 10 billion tons of carbon in that CO2 since CO2 is about 1/4 carbon by mass.

One random link from first page of google search.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 10:50 AM   #48
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,069
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
What's hilarious here is that it doesn't matter how "clean" a rocket motor is, some people are going to be pissed: Half of the farmers in the country blamed all the STS launches for the unusually heavy rains that prevented harvest or flooded fields during their use.
They tried to blame the Irish Potato Famine on telegraph wires.

There's just an unstoppable anti-technology bias in some people.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 11:13 AM   #49
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I don't get MikeG's overreaction to your mostly correct post but one nitpick: 37 billion metric tons's of CO2, about 10 billion tons of carbon in that CO2 since CO2 is about 1/4 carbon by mass.

One random link from first page of google search.
Good catch, I was assuming the "carbon" meant by the 4000 t figure was CO2.
At ~200 t of RP-1 per Falcon 9, it does work out as carbon: ~170 t of carbon, so 24 launches a year would be 4000 t of carbon, 15000 t of CO2.

That makes it 0.00004%, one part in 2.5 million of the whole. For the extra zeros, I'm guessing sts60 mixed up kg and metric tons.

Note also that my first post on the subject assumed Falcon Heavies were made of carbon dioxide and launched daily. "Negligible" was still an accurate way to describe it. Other good words are "insignificant", "unimportant", "inconsequential"...
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:04 PM   #50
RedPillNeo
Thinker
 
RedPillNeo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 222
Thumbs down

Lifting a Tesla car to orbit is an obvious waste of lift capacity. That's my problem with it.

What else could have been taken to orbit with that shot? Another module or a metric crapton of supplies for the ISS? The first module of a new space station? A communication, imaging, or experimental satellite?

Why a terrestrial car that cannot possibly be used in space?
__________________
Irreverence is my only sacred cow.
RedPillNeo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:12 PM   #51
Grashtel
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by RedPillNeo View Post
Lifting a Tesla car to orbit is an obvious waste of lift capacity. That's my problem with it.

What else could have been taken to orbit with that shot? Another module or a metric crapton of supplies for the ISS? The first module of a new space station? A communication, imaging, or experimental satellite?

Why a terrestrial car that cannot possibly be used in space?
Because its a test launch that was never intended to carry a real payload due to having too high a risk of failure so they instead sent something unimportant that wouldn't matter if it ended up spread across the Atlantic in teeny tiny pieces due to the rocket blowing up. The only way this differs from NASA's standard procedure for test launches is that they sent a car as the dummy payload rather than a block of concrete
Grashtel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:12 PM   #52
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,940
Originally Posted by RedPillNeo View Post
Lifting a Tesla car to orbit is an obvious waste of lift capacity. That's my problem with it.

What else could have been taken to orbit with that shot? Another module or a metric crapton of supplies for the ISS? The first module of a new space station? A communication, imaging, or experimental satellite?

Why a terrestrial car that cannot possibly be used in space?
Because ISS supplies, or any satellite costing significant money, wonít be risked on the first flight of such a rocket. But I donít know why they didnít invite CubeSat type at-risk payloads or, even if they did.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:13 PM   #53
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,940
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Good catch, I was assuming the "carbon" meant by the 4000 t figure was CO2.
At ~200 t of RP-1 per Falcon 9, it does work out as carbon: ~170 t of carbon, so 24 launches a year would be 4000 t of carbon, 15000 t of CO2.

That makes it 0.00004%, one part in 2.5 million of the whole. For the extra zeros, I'm guessing sts60 mixed up kg and metric tons.

Note also that my first post on the subject assumed Falcon Heavies were made of carbon dioxide and launched daily. "Negligible" was still an accurate way to describe it. Other good words are "insignificant", "unimportant", "inconsequential"...
I didnít mix it up. I just used some crappy wild-ass guesses for my numbers. Thanks for the catch.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:16 PM   #54
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by RedPillNeo View Post
Lifting a Tesla car to orbit is an obvious waste of lift capacity. That's my problem with it.

What else could have been taken to orbit with that shot? Another module or a metric crapton of supplies for the ISS? The first module of a new space station? A communication, imaging, or experimental satellite?
It was a test flight. It wasn't meant for delivering satellites or supplies or anything else crucial that would be at risk in a test flight.

Quote:
Why a terrestrial car that cannot possibly be used in space?
It's no more or less useful than the ballast that's otherwise used in rocket test flights.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 11th February 2018 at 12:18 PM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 12:54 PM   #55
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,487
Originally Posted by Grashtel View Post
Because its a test launch that was never intended to carry a real payload due to having too high a risk of failure so they instead sent something unimportant that wouldn't matter if it ended up spread across the Atlantic in teeny tiny pieces due to the rocket blowing up. The only way this differs from NASA's standard procedure for test launches is that they sent a car as the dummy payload rather than a block of concrete
Boeing convinced satellite companies to put real payloads on the first two launches of its Delta III rocket. Both failed. They had a dummy on the third and last attempt. That rocket was considered a low-risk derivative of the Delta II. It blew up anyhow.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 01:31 PM   #56
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
It's no more or less useful than the ballast that's otherwise used in rocket test flights.
I got to argue for it being much more useful. How many ISF threads devoted to blocks of concrete?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 02:04 PM   #57
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,591
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I got to argue for it being much more useful. How many ISF threads devoted to blocks of concrete?
A big concrete teapot (mentioned upthread) would have been perfect
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 03:31 PM   #58
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,636
The only thing better than a convertible sports car with an astronaut would have been a blue police box.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 03:59 PM   #59
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,476
A Sperm Whale and a bowl of Petunias.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 04:31 PM   #60
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,401
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
A Sperm Whale and a bowl of Petunias.
A whale of a petunia and a bowl of... nah.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 10:22 PM   #61
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't absurd. Is space flight low carbon? Is it looking like becoming low carbon? Is Musk trying to make it low carbon? Given that the answers are no, no, and "has an aspiration sometime in the future to maybe hopefully possibly make it a bit lower carbon", I'm perfectly content to criticise the environmental impact of the space industry.
Musk has spoken publicly about in future generating the CH4 fuel via atmospheric extraction. This would make BFR carbon neutral from a propellant PoV. In fact, probably slightly negative, since a fair chunk of the fuel is expended in orbit.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 11:39 PM   #62
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,940
[Nitpick]On the way to orbit.[/Nitpick]
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2018, 11:52 PM   #63
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
[Nitpick]On the way to orbit.[/Nitpick]
mmm... both. You're right on the Booster of course, but unless the SpaceShip is going to use a novel propulsion system, it's surely going to be doing TMI and TLI burns on orbit
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 08:01 PM   #64
Coveny
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Citation please.



In conjunction with the adverb compared I don't see a problem, unless maths aren't your strong suit or you have difficulty understanding simple English.
http://theconversation.com/falcon-he...l-impact-91423

It's not a math issue it's a environmental consciousness issue. Some people think climate change is negligible others don't. (I'm in the former camp) As far as simple English you might want to look up something the Nirvana fallacy and Relative Privation fallacy. They might help you with your simple English issues.
__________________
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWA...qbq14lsJZjr6GQ
Coveny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 08:06 PM   #65
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,086
Originally Posted by Coveny View Post
http://theconversation.com/falcon-he...l-impact-91423

It's not a math issue it's a environmental consciousness issue. Some people think climate change is negligible others don't. (I'm in the former camp) As far as simple English you might want to look up something the Nirvana fallacy and Relative Privation fallacy. They might help you with your simple English issues.
Ah, vegan propaganda. OK then.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2018, 08:07 PM   #66
Coveny
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 92
When you say "other carbon is worse" you are using the Relative Privation fallacy. It's like saying Hitler killed millions so it's negligible to kill someone in comparison. Can you show me any single device, piece of equipment, or location that accounts for a non-negligible part of the climate change problem? I assume you guys will only be happy with 15 or 20%, otherwise why bother right?

If not lets admit that it's created by a lot of things that combine into a big problem and stop acting like unless it "fixes" it in one swoop then it's not worth doing. It's a process not a magic wand.
__________________
ForDebating.com is now in beta.

We have 1v1 and 2v2 debates working and will have up to 16-man tourneys working soon.


Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWA...qbq14lsJZjr6GQ
Coveny is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:10 AM   #67
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,086
Originally Posted by Coveny View Post
When you say "other carbon is worse" you are using the Relative Privation fallacy. It's like saying Hitler killed millions so it's negligible to kill someone in comparison. Can you show me any single device, piece of equipment, or location that accounts for a non-negligible part of the climate change problem? I assume you guys will only be happy with 15 or 20%, otherwise why bother right?

If not lets admit that it's created by a lot of things that combine into a big problem and stop acting like unless it "fixes" it in one swoop then it's not worth doing. It's a process not a magic wand.
So wait. If Musk used dumb concrete ballast as is commonly used on test flights you would have no complaint, right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 02:36 AM   #68
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,816
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
FSecond, launch vehicles don't burn fossil fuels in enormous quantities. If SpaceX made the Falcon Heavy from pure carbon dioxide and launched one every day in 2017, it'd have been dwarfed 70000:1 by the carbon emissions from the rest of human activities. Musk's wildest Mars plans are less than a drop in the bucket of human carbon emissions.

I don't find this a convincing argument. Every single carbon emission event can be described like that.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 04:09 AM   #69
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,816
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
A Sperm Whale and a bowl of Petunias.
Not again.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 05:19 AM   #70
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,017
I think sending a Tesla up was cool.

I also think "something" or things more useful could have been sent instead.
I'm sure if they asked, there would have been many volunteers willing to risk "something" for the chance of getting it into space to do something useful.

I like efficiency, this does not seem efficient.

Probably the publicity> more investment> faster progress. will more than surpass any lost efficiency in one launch, in the long run, dunno.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 13th February 2018 at 05:28 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 05:44 AM   #71
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,017
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Every single carbon emission event can be described like that.
True. Every event is a drop in the already stressed bucket.

But how else can you do it, you have to decide if investing in space is worth the carbon it costs or not. We cannot really abandon space now, it's too late.
You have to consider how big a drop this is in comparison to all the other drops.
This drop is not directly related to the increasing human population and improving living standards and will probably not grow at close to the rate of drops that are, no matter how fast the number of launches increases. Spaceflight carbon might be totally swamped in the deluge.
It depends on the bigger picture.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 13th February 2018 at 05:51 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:04 AM   #72
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
We have bio-diesel. Is it possible to crack and refine that into kerosene?
Sure you can synthesize rocket fuel from the very air, it just ends up being hugely uneconomical.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:05 AM   #73
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I don't find this a convincing argument. Every single carbon emission event can be described like that.
We're not talking about single carbon emission events, we're talking about the entire space launch industry.

By your argument, we all should stop breathing, since we emit carbon dioxide with every breath. This is not the Relative Privation fallacy, because this is not a binary issue, all carbon sources are not equal. You simply can not decrease carbon emissions in any meaningful way by focusing on insignificant sources, no matter how hard you try. If there were a million launches a year and you banned spaceflight altogether, all you'd accomplish is eliminating our ability to monitor climate via satellites.

Climate and spaceflight are both matters of physics. Math is exactly what this issue is about, and the numbers are completely unambiguous in what they say.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:07 AM   #74
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
Obviously he should develop an electric rocket.
Well the only launch vehicle I remember being worked on that didn't use fossil fuels as Project Orion. And using nuclear bombs is likely a far far worse idea.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:12 AM   #75
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by RedPillNeo View Post
Lifting a Tesla car to orbit is an obvious waste of lift capacity. That's my problem with it.
What dummy payload would you suggest, cement blocks?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:14 AM   #76
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Because ISS supplies, or any satellite costing significant money, wonít be risked on the first flight of such a rocket. But I donít know why they didnít invite CubeSat type at-risk payloads or, even if they did.
What is that going to to by the asteroid belt? This was focused on putting a heavy load into high orbit not the best places for discount satellites.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:15 AM   #77
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,816
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
True. Every event is a drop in the already stressed bucket.

But how else can you do it, you have to decide if investing in space is worth the carbon it costs or not. We cannot really abandon space now, it's too late.
You have to consider how big a drop this is in comparison to all the other drops.
This drop is not directly related to the increasing human population and improving living standards and will probably not grow at close to the rate of drops that are, no matter how fast the number of launches increases. Spaceflight carbon might be totally swamped in the deluge.
It depends on the bigger picture.

I don't think it's about how big the drop is but what one achieves with the expenditure.

The 'it's a drop in the ocean' argument really doesn't stand up on its own, you can apply that to every single car or plane journey and every other carbon event.

The questions is "Is it worth it?"
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:17 AM   #78
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,816
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
We're not talking about single carbon emission events, we're talking about the entire space launch industry.

By your argument...


I'm going to stop you right there. What argument, exactly? I'm intrigued to discover what you actually think my argument was.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:18 AM   #79
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,219
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
I think sending a Tesla up was cool.

I also think "something" or things more useful could have been sent instead.
Could they? Given the odds they would end up as so much space junk getting something out of earth orbit and into nowhere terribly interesting is a reasonable trajectory. This seems a bit like the sunk cost fallacy, the lift engine is a sunk cost, with a high failure chance, how much would you spend on what you want to put as the dummy payload?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th February 2018, 06:27 AM   #80
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Lori Garver (former Nasa bod) says that both the USAF and Nasa were offered a free ride on FH. Both declined. It's almost as if space hardware is expensive and time consuming to build. Also I'm sure that spacecraft integration studies, load path studies, etc. take no more than a few minutes to complete. And keeping a team of scientists on staff for the several years the spacecraft is in space to monitor and attend to it is probably *very* cheap these days.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.

Last edited by Octavo; 13th February 2018 at 06:54 AM. Reason: Spelling, typos, misquote etc. It was a mess before.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.