Satellite images suggest test of Russian “super weapon” failed spectacularly
Satellite images suggest test of Russian “super weapon” failed spectacularly
All that's left of the Russian missile silo is a big hole in the ground.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Oh ok you just get to choose to ignore everything you don't like while discussing the validity of criticising industry practices.