Scientific progress justification

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm WHich uses energy, which ahas a corcob footprint.
So you are that supid, huh?

What's the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am
Lariliss wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:57 pm We are getting more and more exciting news on human achievements going to deep space exploration, challenging science missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury. They are looking into the future and getting more popularity and discussions.
Celebrating all the achievements of 2019 - 2021.

At the same time the climate change subject is an urgent one. It needs fast action on already happened disasters, proactive plans and deeds for the nearest future.
Being so keen to conquer other worlds, shouldn’t we think more about planet Earth?

There are lots of things to do here in key scientific/technological areas: sea bed exploration, efficient land reclaim and use, power sources development.

Intertwine of the Earth and space fields development is one of the key actions done. Space exploration is security from cosmos factors (solar activity, asteroid danger, debris impact).

Satellites surveillance for local ecosystems and data collection for scientific research and fast action, global awareness on local issues, data connection - the more the better - should be in focus to bring valuable results. The page on space exploration science in favor of the Earth tells the story.
There is no good reason to send people into space outside earth orbit.
Besides looking for water and food, keeping air, water, and the Universe clean/unpolluted, and protecting and taking care of each "other", then is there ANY good reason for just about everything else human beings do?

If yes, then what are those good reasons?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am I predict that in the next 400 years the human race shall not have achieved an independant self sustaining colony anywhere outside earth's orbit.
The elephant in the room, that NASA do not tend to mention is just how hostile it is in space. Beyond earth it is simply too cold. Nearer the sun it is too hot. Venus has a massively dense corosive atmosphere and surface temperatures could easily melt lead. Mercury is a wasteland with no atmosphere.
Mars in the only candidate, but the surface temperature in the middle of summer at the equator at noon only just manages to reach room temperature, for a short while. The trip there is always going to be a 2 year journey, since there is the little problem of the sun being in the way for most of the time. You would have to take EVERYTHING with you.
And, 400 years ago, prior to when this was being written, NO one would have predicted what human beings would be doing and where they would be traveling to and living.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am You only have to consider the technology to have something as simply as a toothbrush to know that a colony is never going to be self sufficient. And the energy required to get there is enourmous, costly more than anything you could earn by going there.
Consider this.
If there was a mountain of gold bars on the Moon, it would not be economically viable to collect them.
WHY do you consider money to be an issue with exploration and discovery?

You would not even be living where you are 'now' if human beings did not explore, and thus make discoveries, and they did this BEFORE money was even prdicted.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am Space is full of cosmic radiation.
And earth is not?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am It has not air, no pressure. it is empty, it is dark.
And, I do NOT think ANY one is talking about living in 'space', itself. Human beings just have to travel 'through space' to reach places where they want to explore, and make new discoveries. Just like human beings had to travel 'on water', where there is no land, nor fruit and vegetables, and where it relatively empty and can be very dark, to reach places where they wanted to explore and discover/make discoveries.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am By contrast humans have adapted to live in earth.
And how, exactly, were they able to 'adapt'?

By just staying in ONE place or by doing what is necessary to explore and make discoveries?

Human beings certainly did not learn to adapt to living in the cold and frozen environments of antartic and the artic by just staying in africa, for example.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am Earth has everything we need to live.
LOL OBVIOUSLY.

And, if 'you', a species, evolved on mars or jupiter, or on ANY other place in the Universe, then JUST AS OBVIOUSLY that place would have EVERY thing 'you' needed to live. This just goes without saying.

Some human beings REALLY are NOT YET FULLY AWARE that the ONLY reason they exist is because of the way the environment REALLY IS. Continually dreaming, or just wishing, things/the environment to be warmer or cooler or different is just absolutely a ILLOGICAL way to think, as it BECAUSE of the way things ACTUALLY ARE that 'you' came into existence and are evolving the way 'you' ARE.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am It recycles our very breath, our shit. Food just grows on trees, and walks about on the surface where is can be collected and cooked, with fire supplied by the rich oxygen atmosphere.
You are NOT REALLY only just realizing this, correct?

You have instinctively KNOWN this, since birth, right?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am Earth has a range of temperatures, where humans have managed to live and thrive.
LOL
LOL
LOL

"managed to live and thrive" LOL

'you', human beings ONLY came into existence, live, evolve, AND THRIVE, BECAUSE OF the ACTUAL range of temperatures of earth.

LOL 'you' do NOT "manage" to live with these temperatures, 'you' ONLY live BECAUSE of these ACTUAL temperatures. If the temperatures were DIFFERENT, then 'you' would have evolved DIFFERENTLY.

And, let us NOT FORGET that 'you', human beings, came into existence in one place on earth, where the temperature difference may have been, let us say, a difference of about 30 or 40 degrees, but because these ones "walked out of africa", as it said, 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, had adapted, very quickly and very easily, to live with temperature differences of over 100 degrees. So, 'you', human beings, are ABLE TO adapt, and exploring and making discoveries is a VERY NATURAL part of being a human being. Therefore, the evolving step is, literally, "walking/flying out of earth", while continually exploring, and making discoveries, in and about thee one and ONLY Universe in which they live, and FIND "themselves" IN.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am It has rich aquatic resources, most immediately fit for human exploitation and drinking water literally FALLS FROM THE SKY.
Again, this one here appears to think that it/we are LUCKY to be living here, on earth, without actually REALIZING that it/we ONLY EXIST, and came to exist, because of these "other" things.

This would be like a virus, which lives on and within animal bodies, thinking that the animal body has rich, aquatic or not, resources, "fit for exploitation", et cetera without ever realizing that it/they ONLY came into existence and EXIST ONLY because of the human body.

And then thinking that "exploiting" those resources, for their own benefit, would be a good thing, is about as ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, and RIDICULOUS a thought one could be.

If ANY species, virus, or human being, wants to continue living and surviving, then instead of "exploiting the resources", which keeps that species alive, for a short term gain, then they NEED to EXPLORE and MAKE DISCOVERIES. And, thee ONLY species that is Truly ABLE to do this is 'you', human beings. And, 'you' have the WHOLE Universe to EXPLORE, DISCOVER, and PLAY IN. Or, you could just stay in ONE place ONLY. But we all KNOW what happens when the resources are DEPLETED.

You can NOT stop human beings being born with 'wonder'. So, human beings will ALWAYS have the internal/instinctual drive to WANT TO keep exploring and discovering.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am There is no where known in the entire universe where any of this is available. And even if it were, it would take more than a life time to get there.
Thee Fact that there is NO where KNOWN, in the entire Universe, where there is ANY better place there would be to live than earth, SHOWS me, and is a VERY BIG LESSON, to me, to TAKE CARE of this One and ONLY REALLY 'home' we have and to STOP polluting it in ALL ways.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am We have one earth and we are not looking after it.
VERY, VERY True.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am We need to address that problem now.
Well this can be addressed NOW.

WHY are 'you' NOT looking after 'it'?

When you are Honest and OPEN about this Fact, and you REALLY Want to CHANGE, for the better, then, and ONLY THEN, the 'problem' will be addressed and things will, REALLY, CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. As I keep TELLING 'you', human beings.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Lariliss wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:12 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:52 am
Lariliss wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:57 pm We are getting more and more exciting news on human achievements going to deep space exploration, challenging science missions to the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury. They are looking into the future and getting more popularity and discussions.
Celebrating all the achievements of 2019 - 2021.

At the same time the climate change subject is an urgent one. It needs fast action on already happened disasters, proactive plans and deeds for the nearest future.
Being so keen to conquer other worlds, shouldn’t we think more about planet Earth?

There are lots of things to do here in key scientific/technological areas: sea bed exploration, efficient land reclaim and use, power sources development.

Intertwine of the Earth and space fields development is one of the key actions done. Space exploration is security from cosmos factors (solar activity, asteroid danger, debris impact).

Satellites surveillance for local ecosystems and data collection for scientific research and fast action, global awareness on local issues, data connection - the more the better - should be in focus to bring valuable results. The page on space exploration science in favor of the Earth tells the story.
There is no good reason to send people into space outside earth orbit.
I predict that in the next 400 years the human race shall not have achieved an independant self sustaining colony anywhere outside earth's orbit.
The elephant in the room, that NASA do not tend to mention is just how hostile it is in space. Beyond earth it is simply too cold. Nearer the sun it is too hot. Venus has a massively dense corosive atmosphere and surface temperatures could easily melt lead. Mercury is a wasteland with no atmosphere.
Mars in the only candidate, but the surface temperature in the middle of summer at the equator at noon only just manages to reach room temperature, for a short while. The trip there is always going to be a 2 year journey, since there is the little problem of the sun being in the way for most of the time. You would have to take EVERYTHING with you.
You only have to consider the technology to have something as simply as a toothbrush to know that a colony is never going to be self sufficient. And the energy required to get there is enourmous, costly more than anything you could earn by going there.
Consider this.
If there was a mountain of gold bars on the Moon, it would not be economically viable to collect them.

Space is full of cosmic radiation. It has not air, no pressure. it is empty, it is dark.
By contrast humans have adapted to live in earth. Earth has everything we need to live. It recycles our very breath, our shit. Food just grows on trees, and walks about on the surface where is can be collected and cooked, with fire supplied by the rich oxygen atmosphere.
Earth has a range of temperatures, where humans have managed to live and thrive. It has rich aquatic resources, most immediately fit for human exploitation and drinking water literally FALLS FROM THE SKY.

There is no where known in the entire universe where any of this is available. And even if it were, it would take more than a life time to get there.

We have one earth and we are not looking after it.
We need to address that problem now.
Exactly, we need to address and address again.
But NONE of you will ADMIT that you are not looking after it. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and EVIDENCED throughout this forum, and human behavior, in the days when this was written.
Lariliss wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:12 am Quoting William Shatner after his flight: there is light and life below and there is darkness and cold above.
Thank you.
So, what does this mean, EXACTLY?

And, only seeing light and life 'below' and/or only darkness and cold 'above', then one has a VERY NARROWED perspective of things.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:58 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:45 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:50 pm They have researched no new technology and rely on research done decades ago by NASA.

They conribute massively to global warming. They are a rich man's toy. Useless
Errr. What?

The Blue Origin rocket doesn't use carbon-based fuels. Its main emmissions are water vapour and a handful of byproducts none of which are carbon dioxide. In what way does it "contribute massively to global warming"?
You are shockingly naive. The carbon footprint is huge. Its not just a matter of fuel.
If you only want to look at and see things this way, then just about every thing you touch/buy "sculptor" leaves a carbon footprint.

Will you inform us of how you have changed your ways in which you are leaving less of a carbon footprint?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:58 pm

Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have reusable (self-landing!) primary thrusters! When the fuck did NASA do that?
Obviously you never heard of the Space Shuttle - which actually Did Something and Went Somehere.

Far more importantly. WHY would NASA even bother to do that? They weren't spending their own money - cost-optimisation gimmicks like self-landing rockets weren't important to them back then.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:44 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm WHich uses energy, which ahas a carbon footprint.
So you are that supid, huh?

What's the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
Nuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.

Decomissioning spend fuel cells have to be transported to safe facilities. All put carbon into the atmosphere.

In 2019 the standardised mix value was 72.5 kg CO2/tonne for concrete. For concrete + reinforcement the CO2 emissions are 80.2 kg CO2/tonne

You can add the thousands of other materials that BLue Origin is made of, plus all the assocaited industries of this wasteful persuit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:01 am Nuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.

Decomissioning spend fuel cells have to be transported to safe facilities. All put carbon into the atmosphere.

In 2019 the standardised mix value was 72.5 kg CO2/tonne for concrete. For concrete + reinforcement the CO2 emissions are 80.2 kg CO2/tonne

You can add the thousands of other materials that BLue Origin is made of, plus all the assocaited industries of this wasteful persuit.
Yes, moron. Every breath you exhale has a carbon footprint. Every time you fart you contribute to global warming.

What amounts to a "huge" carbon footprint in your braincell?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:03 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:36 pm How much carbon do you think it take to make hydrogen and oxygen?
Zero? You know - because they are different chemical elements.
FFS.
where the fuck do you think he got them?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:36 pm What envorinmental impact do you think is has to create the vessel?
Tell me. You know, right?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 9:36 pm A vessel I might add that cannot even go into orbit and is no better that a big firework costing billions spent by a tax avoiding, taxevading dickhead!
And?
And its a fucking waste of resources; a vanity project.
Are you also concerned about ALL of the other projects 'you' adult human beings do for 'vanity' purposes, including "yourself", "sculptor"? Or, do you just REALLY HATE this one because you see the doing this project as being a so-called "tax evading dickhead"? Or, is there some other reason?

By the way, what is it, exactly, do you not like about this one in question here, is it that they 'tax evade', supposedly, "a dickhead", or just because they have more money than you, and so may just be jealousy driving you here?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:03 pm And has a massive carbon footprint.
"massive" relative to what, EXACTLY?

To the coal fired power station creating the energy, which you use to power your lights and computer screen on which you write here, for example?

Or, maybe is it in the actual creation of these, supposedly, non carbon dioxide emitting fuel reusable rockets? if it is this one, then just imagine what the actual carbon footprint is involved in creating ALL of the mining machines around the world, which actually use carbon dioxide emitting fuels, just to obtain the carbon dioxide emitting coal, needed to power all of the carbon dioxide emitting coal fired power stations around the world. The carbon footprint in creating just a few non carbon dioxide fuel emitting reusable rockets would be MASSIVELY less I would imagine. But each to their own.

How many carbon footprint build carbon dioxide emitting trucks/machines, just to produce and obtain FURTHER carbon emitting coal, are there in the world compared to how carbon footprint non carbon dioxide emitting rockets in the world are there?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:08 pm
Lariliss wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 1:50 pm

What irony.
I'm definitley a Trekky more than a Jedi. I watched Star Trek from the original series to the present. Shatner has a place in my heart.
BUT.
Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Virgin space are nothing more than vanity projects. They offer nothing more that a carbon burning joy ride. They have researched no new technology and rely on research done decades ago by NASA.

They conribute massively to global warming. They are a rich man's toy. Useless
I had another thought while watching the flight.
Shatner is of age of space exploration. The 'Star Trek' started with the first space flights. It is science fiction and real good story of the genre has a god scientific background and goes beyond. And the flight with Blue origin was one of the cutting edge technology prove flights - the precise landing.
There is nothing new in Blue Origin. It uses ordinary Rolls Royce jet engines and the landing tech is copied from the VTOL tech of the Harrier jump jet invented in the UK in 1967.
The idea that you need to achieve vertical landing has more to do with Bezos emulating sci-fi Rocket ships. A redundant and useless tech. It takes so much fuel that his rocket was unable to achieve orbit. It would have been more efficient to add wings and fly back to base. There is a good reason why the Space Shuttle had large disposable boosters, and wings. Getting true orbit needs masses of fuel and returning to earth is better flying rather than having to take on double the fuel to land.

Sci-fi takes pollution in later, more young, stories.
Can I assume that you mean sci-fi only thinks about pollution after star trek? This is not correct. Sci fi is a huge genre.
Space exploration in the impact, it is not 100% clear 'who is the worst' - the averaged values reported. In any case all unnecessary emissions should be removed and reported one by one.
The point I was making about Blue Origin is that is achieves nothing, except a joy ride.
Helicopters and air planes that take passengers for joy flights achieve nothing, except a joy ride. The one you are disgruntled about here just goes higher or further. Do you moan and complain about helicopter or air plane joy rides as well?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:08 pm Common everyday rockets might use more harmful fuel but they do something useful such as putting satellites in orbit.
Have so-called "common everyday rockets" ALWAYS done so-called "something useful", such as putting satellites in orbit?

If no, then what were they actually doing?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:32 pm
Lariliss wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:15 pm

I think you might find this article interesting.
https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/ba ... -city-1880

The advent of Startrek is not directly connected to the emergence of Pollution in sci-fi. But there is a whole bunch of dytopian Sci-Fi out there which is far older than Gene Roddenbury.

You might start here.
https://www.vulture.com/article/best-dy ... books.html
Right, right!

Thanks a lot for the links.

I thought twice while posting, because at least about 10 stories of the list were in my head. This is my personal perception of those stories, which were written as dytopias and were visioned as far-far future.
But really, I've watched an interview with Isaac Asimov, read Ray Bradbury's ones recently and understood that many of the works are of the cosmos exploration age. And as you mention many are far older.
And now it is in our lives (even buying oxygen is often in my thoughts).

My speculative research was about reaching Mars, going out of the Earth for new lives, seeking answers in those masterpieces and men of great thought. I found an answer 'we will not'. At least till now it is at the same level.
I think that most Sci-fi writters understood fully the difficulties of space travel and for their futures to work had to invent things such as the warp drive, wormholes and hyperspace.
All travel that is 'new' or 'previously unexplored' the difficulties of are usually understood, fully would be contentious. But, just like 'space travel' all the other ones were dealt with and accomplished by inventing things as well.

Also, 'space travel' has ALREADY been accomplished, and just like other traveling methods that continually evolve so to will 'space travel' continually evolve, and get better and faster.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:32 pm None of these have basis in fact - yet. and maybe never will.
And, none of them are needed for 'space travel'.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:32 pm If you want a good cycle of stories in which colonisation occurs and accpets the difficulties of distance I'd recomment Allen Steele's "Coyote" series, which has much to recommened them.
Like what for example?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:03 pm FFS.
where the fuck do you think he got them?
You don't get hydrogen and oxygen from carbon. That's for sure...
Asnwer the question. How do you make oxygen and hydrogen?
Oxygen and hydrogen is, and was, already made before 'you', human beings, ever came along, was it not? Or, when you ask, "How do 'you' make oxygen and hydrogen" were you not meaning 'you', human beings, individually nor collectively?

Also, is oxygen made during photosynthesis by plants and many types of microbes?

And, is hydrogen made of a single proton and a single electron?

But if you did actually mean 'you', human beings, then how, exactly, do 'you' human beings make oxygen and hydrogen?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm

Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:03 pm And its a fucking waste of resources; a vanity project.
Sure. So were airplanes. Why did we even bother? We already had trans-atlantic ships that could carry far more passengers.
Airplanes are the greatest olluters on the planet. The BLue Origin Rocket ia about 1000 times worst.
Actually it is infitnely worse since it goes no where the "carbon miles" are infinite"
And where, exactly, do airplanes go?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 11:03 pm And has a massive carbon footprint.
You keep repeating this like a stuck record. Where's the evidence?
Its up your arse, why not take a look.
WHY do those 'you' who can NOT or do NOT provide the ACTUAL evidence/proof that, supposedly, backs up and supports their CLAIMS resort to saying things like above here?

WHY NOT just provide what is being asked for? After it is 'you' who is the ONE making the CLAIM.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm The computer you are typing on also has a carbon footprint. all tech does.
Is there really ANY thing, which is created by 'you', human beings, that does NOT have a 'carbon footprint'?

If yes, then what is it/are they?
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:58 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm Asnwer the question. How do you make oxygen and hydrogen?
There are dozens of methods. Which one would you like me to tell you about?

The one you learned in highschool was electrolysis. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
DUh. WHich uses energy, which ahas a corcob footprint.
Thank you for your exhaustive list. I was splitting water before you were born.
What were you doing this for?

And, what have you accomplished or achieved by doing this?

Also, were you releasing carbon into the atmosphere when you were doing this?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm Airplanes are the greatest polluters on the planet. The BLue Origin Rocket ia about 1000 times worst.
So airplanes aren't the greatest polluters on the planet? Make up your mind.

How did you get to infinity from a vehicle that doesn't even use carbon-based fuel?
WHY did you NOT answer these two CLARIFYING questions, posed to you?
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:43 pm The computer you are typing on also has a carbon footprint. all tech does.
Your ass has a carbon footprint too. Given that Blue Origin doesn't use carbon-based fuels, I am guessing your ass has a significantly larger carbon footprint than the rocket.
Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Scientific progress justification

Post by Age »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:01 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:44 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm WHich uses energy, which ahas a carbon footprint.
So you are that supid, huh?

What's the carbon footprint of nuclear energy?
Nuclear plants are made of thousands of tonnes of concrete, metals, plastics. Power workers all drive cars to get to work. Power cables that deliver electricity all have a carbon footprint.

Decomissioning spend fuel cells have to be transported to safe facilities. All put carbon into the atmosphere.

In 2019 the standardised mix value was 72.5 kg CO2/tonne for concrete. For concrete + reinforcement the CO2 emissions are 80.2 kg CO2/tonne

You can add the thousands of other materials that BLue Origin is made of, plus all the assocaited industries of this wasteful persuit.
If you are doing ANY thing other than breathing air, looking for and consuming food and water, and caring for and protecting one another, then they ALL could be classed as 'wasteful pursuits', correct?

If this is NOT correct, then inform us of what is ACTUALLY a NON 'wasteful pursuit', besides what I just wrote here.
Post Reply