1. Sabatier process powered by renewables is carbon neutral
2. Combustion outside of the atmosphere is carbon neutral to negative
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
2. Combustion outside of the atmosphere is carbon neutral to negative
Which won't be used on Earth. We'll be pulling natural gas out of the ground. It would actually be a good thing to collect all that gas for SpaceX's use because right now huge amounts of it are being flared out from the Bakken Formation. The flares show like a major metropolitan area from orbit. It just has to be transported to south Texas and/or Florida.
I was calculating exhaust from launches, not from the fleet going to Mars. The launch exhaust is absolutely going to get dumped into the atmosphere. Perhaps some of the departure exhaust will get dumped into it as well.
Well then, redirected methane would not be increasing emissions.Which won't be used on Earth. We'll be pulling natural gas out of the ground. It would actually be a good thing to collect all that gas for SpaceX's use because right now huge amounts of it are being flared out from the Bakken Formation. The flares show like a major metropolitan area from orbit. It just has to be transported to south Texas and/or Florida.
I was calculating exhaust from launches, not from the fleet going to Mars. The launch exhaust is absolutely going to get dumped into the atmosphere. Perhaps some of the departure exhaust will get dumped into it as well.
I was talking launches also, Starship is mostly extra-atmosphere. 65km + at separation, I think.
Purification, liquification, transport, whatever else. If it's all done with renewables, then great, only the cost of the renewables and their operation is involved. But I'm assuming that where there's natural gas available in abundance, it will be used as the energy source. It can be done with renewables, but it won't be.
Okay, let's completely take Starship out of the equation because I don't feel like arguing whether the exhaust returns to the atmosphere and what it might do when dumped into the uppermost layers. That cuts the numbers by a third. They're still big enough for people to question the balance of benefit vs harm.
The point here is that this would be a massive industrial undertaking, entirely for the benefit of an off-world colony. I'll be among those wondering why it should be tolerated. Just as we don't dig up archaeological sites with abandon because future technology will collect more information for less harm, so too can we wait to make humanity a multi-planetary society because technology will improve. Just send the robots to incrementally figure out how to get the whole thing going and prove out self-sufficiency. If the robots aren't yet good enough, then work on the robots. We have an entire planet that can tackle that problem, and it benefits us here on Earth as well.
I just don't want to see an Apollo outcome for Mars; lots of resources expended on a fundamentally unsustainable effort.
Basis for populating Mars with Humans is to protect our species in case Earth becomes un- inhabital for any reason. A second off planet population center could survive an Earth extinction event and provide the DNA to repopulate the planet if humans there are wiped out.
It also functions as a stepping stone to allow our species to venture out into the Galaxy and eventually other Solar systems.
It also functions as a stepping stone to allow our species to venture out into the Galaxy and eventually other Solar systems.
I am sure media will be very quick to point what a massive failure this was, that he only achieved 200 launches a year whereas his goal was 300. Fell far short of his goal. Laura Fraudaliny and Gordon the clown will be talking on CNBC about it in 2040. Meanwhile Boeing will given another $2B funding to complete their first orbital class rocket.
Of course it’s a totally different story when Blue falls short of their aspirational goals and folks here are quick to point out what a massive failure they are.
I think folks here are quick to point out, that Blue has no aspirations, no goals. Unless you think joy rides to Karman line was the goalOf course it’s a totally different story when Blue falls short of their aspirational goals and folks here are quick to point out what a massive failure they are.
Absolutely right!Of course it’s a totally different story when Blue falls short of their aspirational goals and folks here are quick to point out what a massive failure they are.
Because missing your hundred launch goal by 2%, yet still boosting more mass to space than the rest of the world combined, iterating the words most advanced production rocket engine to be simpler/more robust/more powerful, launch at a cadence competitive with all other nation-states, operating the worlds most powerful rocket by >2X twice within months while improving the design, iterating the launch pad to handle 16 million lbs of thrust, etc... is exactly the same as the company that struggled to deliver even 2 engines after years of delay, and has yet to do an orbit despite having design work started nearly 12 years ago...
Dead on identical... thanks for pointing out our hypocrisy.
No it's not, that's like saying exporting goods to China only benefits China, heck no, we wish we can export more goods to China since that benefits *us*.
Every dollar Elon and SpaceX spent to resupply and build the colony is going to Earth's economy, the Starship builders get their salary from SpaceX and spent it on Earth, the LNG drillers/synthetic LNG producers get their salary paid by SpaceX and also spent it on Earth, all the manufacturers of the goods sent to Mars get paid by SpaceX and also spent it on Earth, etc, that's basic economics.
Last edited:
I recently read A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? by Kelly and Zack Weinersmith. Actually, my wife and I listened to it while driving from Vancouver to Palm Springs.
I can highly recommend it. The authors take a skeptical look at the idea of colonizing space, whether that means the plans by Musk, Bezos, or other alternatives. Here is an interview with the authors. In the book they take a hard look, backed up by extensive research, at the issues of the fragility of terrestrial biology off Earth, the extraordinary harshness of the lunar and Martian surface environments, and how existing international law will impact space settlements, among other things. They write in a breezy, entertaining and genuinely hilarious style while mixing in plenty of hard science.
The authors are an interesting couple, quote:
I can highly recommend it. The authors take a skeptical look at the idea of colonizing space, whether that means the plans by Musk, Bezos, or other alternatives. Here is an interview with the authors. In the book they take a hard look, backed up by extensive research, at the issues of the fragility of terrestrial biology off Earth, the extraordinary harshness of the lunar and Martian surface environments, and how existing international law will impact space settlements, among other things. They write in a breezy, entertaining and genuinely hilarious style while mixing in plenty of hard science.
The authors are an interesting couple, quote:
I am not going to summarize the book here, or their conclusions, but I think anyone who has a genuine interest in the topic of space colonization will enjoy the book and learn a tremendous amount. I know I did.
Last edited:
It's a stupid book that got a lot of critics from the space settlement community:
Rebuttal from Robert Zubrin: Why We Should Settle Mars
Rebuttal from Peter Hague: Review of A City On Mars (Part I), Review of A City On Mars (Part II)
There has been a lot of anti-space settlement literature lately, it's a sign that degrowthers and human extinctionists want to stop us from expanding humanity to the stars, now that this has a real chance of succeeding thanks to Elon. All the more reason to settle Mars with all due haste, before they kill us all.
I see. Have you read the book?
The book does not take the position that humans should not attempt to colonize other celestial bodies or build habitats in space.
No, I've read enough reviews to know reading it would be a waste of my time. And as Peter Hague said, the title itself "Have We Really Thought This Through?" shows the author misunderstands how things get built and is patronizing.
"After a few years of researching space settlements, we began in secret to refer to ourselves as the “space bastards” because we found we were more pessimistic than almost everyone in the space-settlement field, and especially skeptical about the most grand plans of space geeks.": If this is not anti-space settlement, then TSLAQ is not anti-Tesla either, they're just "more pessimistic than almost every Tesla supporters and especially skeptical about the grand plans of Tesla".
Last edited:
The book is more than that one sentence. It is a nuanced, carefully reasoned, heavily researched, extensively referenced, and realistic analysis of the topic. I am a space settlement advocate and I learned a lot.
But you would have to read the book with an open mind to understand that.
Peter Hague already refuted a lot of their reasoning and "research", it's pretty clear to me the authors are biased and have an ulterior motive in writing this book. But feel free to let me know what exactly did you learn from the book that wasn't available elsewhere.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
You can potentially justify it because there is no known alternative to launch rockets. The question is, can enough other GHG emissions be reduced to allow budget for rocket launches. You might would need to reduce the rocket launch cadence to fit within GHG budgets. There is probably some level of GHG emissions that are manageable long term in a responsible economy. Being responsible is something most people don't want to do, but if we were to briefly assume that humanity could actually be responsible for a change, we would determine a safe GHG budget, eliminate GHG emissions where we can, like energy production, basic transport, etc, and then determine what GHG emitting activities are most desirable and fit that within the GHG budget. So, for example, lets keep eating meat, we still need concrete, maybe we still need gas for special cases, keep natural gas for cooking, now how much budget is left for launching rockets?
That's the rational response to damaging emissions - balance their cost against their benefit. But the perception of both benefit and cost vary wildly, so there's no practical way of balancing them out at the planetary level. Well, unless everyone agrees to turn over the task of balancing it all to an AI or some benevolent dictator.
Similar threads
