Scientific progress justification

[Skepdick]

You are shockingly naive. The carbon footprint is huge. Its not just a matter of fuel.

Well what is it a matter of? The launch vehicle is reusable. The primary consumable is non-carbon based fuel.

And how "huge" is the carboon footprint? Say in relation to your household's carbon footprint.

Obviously you never heard of the Space Shuttle - which actually Did Something and Went Somehere.

Obviously you are clueless. The space shuttle was incapable of launching into space without being strapped to a huge, non-reusable, non-self-landing, super-expensive rocket.

Which is one of the many reasons the shuttle was retired. It was ridiculously expensive to operate.

One of the primary purposes of the Space Shuttle was launching cargo into orbit - hence its compartment.
SpaceX does this commercially now. You know - because the Shuttle is retired.

[Sculptor]

You are shockingly naive. The carbon footprint is huge. Its not just a matter of fuel.

Well what is it a matter of? The launch vehicle is reusable. The primary consumable is non-carbon based fuel.

And how "huge" is the carboon footprint? Say in relation to your household's carbon footprint.

Obviously you never heard of the Space Shuttle - which actually Did Something and Went Somehere.

Obviously you are clueless. The space shuttle was incapable of launching into space without being strapped to a huge, non-reusable, non-self-landing, super-expensive rocket.

Which is one of the many reasons the shuttle was retired. It was ridiculously expensive to operate.

One of the primary purposes of the Space Shuttle was launching cargo into orbit - hence its compartment.
SpaceX does this commercially now. You know - because the Shuttle is retired.

How much carbon do you think it takes to make hydrogen and oxygen?
What envorinmental impact do you think happens to create the vessel?
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!

[Skepdick]

How much carbon do you think it take to make hydrogen and oxygen?

Zero? You know - because they are different chemical elements.

What envorinmental impact do you think is has to create the vessel?

Tell me. You know, right?

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?

[Sculptor]

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?

What envorinmental impact do you think is has to create the vessel?

Tell me. You know, right?

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.
And has a massive carbon footprint.

[Lariliss]

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.
Quoting William Shatner after his flight: there is light and life below and there is darkness and cold above.
Thank you.

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.

Sci-fi takes pollution in later, more young, stories.
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.

[Sculptor]

Exactly, we need to address and address again.
Quoting William Shatner after his flight: there is light and life below and there is darkness and cold above.
Thank you.

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. Common everyday rockets might use more harmful fuel but they do something useful such as putting satellites in orbit.

[Lariliss]

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. Common everyday rockets might use more harmful fuel but they do something useful such as putting satellites in orbit.

I wouldn't argue the technology of the particular flight, my intent was the concept.
There is a lot of 'joy ride' and show up, I should agree here.

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.

Not in any case, that I meant thinking only about 'after star trek', as it really not correct at all. From my perception and amount of stories that I have read or watched, there is more about pollution in later stories, than first ones, which are about new worlds and horizons.

[Sculptor]

Not in any case, that I meant thinking only about 'after star trek', as it really not correct at all. From my perception and amount of stories that I have read or watched, there is more about pollution in later stories, than first ones, which are about new worlds and horizons.

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

[Lariliss]

Not in any case, that I meant thinking only about 'after star trek', as it really not correct at all. From my perception and amount of stories that I have read or watched, there is more about pollution in later stories, than first ones, which are about new worlds and horizons.

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.

[Sculptor]

Not in any case, that I meant thinking only about 'after star trek', as it really not correct at all. From my perception and amount of stories that I have read or watched, there is more about pollution in later stories, than first ones, which are about new worlds and horizons.

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.
None of these have basis in fact - yet. and maybe never will.
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.

[Skepdick]

FFS.
where the fuck do you think he got them?

You don't get hydrogen and oxygen from carbon. That's for sure...

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.

And has a massive carbon footprint.

You keep repeating this like a stuck record. Where's the evidence?

[Sculptor]

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?

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 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.
The computer you are typing on also has a carbon footprint. all tech does.

[Skepdick]

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.

Airplanes are the greatest olluters 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?

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]

For more understanding I may propose more reported links:
Seabed:
https://seabed2030.org/
https://www.oceandecade.org/actions/the ... 0-project/
https://www.hydro-international.com/con ... nal-sprint
https://iocm.noaa.gov/seabed-2030.html

For more understanding of what, EXACTLY?

Climate change:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... c884da7304
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa ... te-science
It is not 100% confirmed that only human impact is making it. The Earth itself has its thermal processes, the solar activity impact is drastic, the turbulence of the ocean and air is almost impossible to predict. There are numbers of past and extrapolations for future, which are based on a very complicated mathematical model.

The climate has been CHANGING, since it began. And, the climate will keep CHANGING, until its end. No matter if human beings exist or not during the climate's existence.

Local surveillance and action:
https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Pr ... monitoring

Plus the popular digest:
https://medium.com/@saveplanetearthoffi ... 7b69954e17

The point is that the technologies (AI, including ML, exploration models, scientific approaches, testing approaches) are shared within the scientific and technological society and used in a similar way in projects for space and the Earth for timely achievement of the set goals.

The point of what, EXACTLY?

The point is going deep to space and going deep to the ocean or to the Earth mantle is unbelievably hard, that what spurs our timely achievements.

Is this meant to logically follow?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY?

[Sculptor]

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.

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?

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.