What's NASA Up To And Other Space Stuff

[Steely Glint]

their billion$

Numbers on a computer

[wiggin]

No, that is not the question I posed. I specifically said "pay to mitigate" and "needs regulation" and "smog check". The question was answered nicely in your first paragraph.

Okay, fair enough. So make them pay for the externality. All of us should pay for our externalities.

'Carbon footprint' is a bullshit term dreamed up by BP in the early aughts to shift the responsibility for combating climate change onto individuals rather than, for example, companies like BP. Thus, in the same way Branson's junket to the Karman line doesn't really add much in the grand scheme of things individual choices to forgo plastic straws or eat a different type of food make very little difference to the carbon going into the atmosphere in a society still largely run on fossil fuels. So the message seems to be that we should completely rearrange our lives and live frugally to postpone armageddon a few more years so that BP, the other big energy companies and, ultimately, their shareholders can continue making billions burning fossil fuels.

I never really understood this logic. Oil companies provide a good in high demand by people. The only way to change oil consumption of fossil fuels is going to be through 'completely rearranging our lives'. Whether it happens voluntarily on a individual basis (which, you are entirely correct, will not work) or whether it happens through a market mechanism like a carbon tax, or whether it happens through regulation like caps on allowable pollutants (and/or banning some pollutants) is a good discussion to be had about how it will work best. But all of our lives are going to get a lot more expensive and inconvenient, not just those of BP's shareholders or random billionaires. We've all been free-riding on this for far too long.

I fully recognize that my own paltry efforts are irrelevant without coordinated global action. I do what I do because I view it as an ethical duty arising from a commons we all share (the environment), and I think that other people of means (including most people living in the rich world) should feel compelled to do the same, even in the absence of coordinated efforts that will bear more fruit down the line.

[Steely Glint]

I never really understood this logic.

The fallacy is that the solution to climate change is for individuals, rich or poor, to do less stuff rather than for we, as a species, to change how we do stuff so it's less energy intensive.

The vast majority of your carbon footprint comes from stuff you have absolutely no control over. MIT did a study in the 2000s which showed that homeless person living in the US, sleeping rough and eating in soup kitchens still has a carbon footprint of 8.5 tons a year, over double the global average and well beyond sustainable. There is also the fact we all basically put our lives on hold throughout 2020 and we managed to get, what, all of 2 billion tons off the global emissions, from 36 down to 34?

So it's not just the fact that one person alone can't make a difference to the big picture, it's that one person acting alone can't even make that big a difference to their own picture.

[Steely Glint]

So, for example, like wig I try and get my energy from renewable sources (though it's not so much of a sacrifice because the two providers I've been with ended up being the cheapest also) so given this discussion, I got curious about how, given that the UK energy grid is still 45% fossil fuels, they guarantee that every electron that enters my home has 'come from' a renewable source. We just have the one national grid, after all.

Well, it turns out:

Bulb is the UK's biggest green energy supplier. We provide all our members with 100% renewable electricity. For every unit you use, we make sure a unit is produced and put on the grid by a renewable source including solar, wind and hydro. Plus, our gas is 100% carbon neutral. We offset the emissions from the gas we supply by supporting carbon reduction projects around the world. We’re also one of the biggest buyers of green gas for homes in the UK. So a chunk of our gas mix comes from renewable sources, too.

I actually probably just use exactly the same amount of fossil fuels as everyone else in the country for my power, and what I'm actually doing is, in some extremely round about way, paying for an equivalent amount renewable energy to be generated. Even though I do that anyway sort of, along with everyone else in the country, since renewable energy is subsidized by the government and also the non-100% renewable providers also buy some renewable energy. Also, they just straight up use gas, lol. But that's ok because it's "offset" by, presumably, planting some trees somewhere? Or supporting people planting trees?

Needless to say it's all just 'counts as' bullshit and other mental gymnastics: you cannot individualize solutions to collective problems. But they want you to think you can so that nothing ever really changes.

[ar81]

If you want to know about the combustion of Branson's vehicle, that uses HTPB and liquid nitrous oxide combustion...
http://mae-nas.eng.usu.edu/MAE_6530_...HTPBHybrid.pdf

The fallacy is that the solution to climate change is for individuals, rich or poor, to do less stuff rather than for we, as a species, to change how we do stuff so it's less energy intensive.

The vast majority of your carbon footprint comes from stuff you have absolutely no control over. MIT did a study in the 2000s which showed that homeless person living in the US, sleeping rough and eating in soup kitchens still has a carbon footprint of 8.5 tons a year, over double the global average and well beyond sustainable. There is also the fact we all basically put our lives on hold throughout 2020 and we managed to get, what, all of 2 billion tons off the global emissions, from 36 down to 34?

So it's not just the fact that one person alone can't make a difference to the big picture, it's that one person acting alone can't even make that big a difference to their own picture.

Climate has been changing since 4.5 billion years ago. So climate change cannot be stopped.

Want a solution to global warming? Plant more trees. They have to be big trees because small plants have an insignificant effect to bury carbon.
If that cannot be done, then melt Greenland ice. That will stop the warm waters coming from Caribbean and will freeze Europe, and as the ice era covers Europe, it will reflect energy back to space. USA will be roasted in the meantime, but that is the most viable option to stop global warming without trees. It may not be nice for USA and Europe, but it will be the best for humanity.

The problem of playing with carbon is that if enough CO2 is removed, it could make C3 and C4 photosynthesis impossible, and without that no animals, including us, will be able to survive.

[wiggin]

The fallacy is that the solution to climate change is for individuals, rich or poor, to do less stuff rather than for we, as a species, to change how we do stuff so it's less energy intensive.

The vast majority of your carbon footprint comes from stuff you have absolutely no control over. MIT did a study in the 2000s which showed that homeless person living in the US, sleeping rough and eating in soup kitchens still has a carbon footprint of 8.5 tons a year, over double the global average and well beyond sustainable. There is also the fact we all basically put our lives on hold throughout 2020 and we managed to get, what, all of 2 billion tons off the global emissions, from 36 down to 34?

So it's not just the fact that one person alone can't make a difference to the big picture, it's that one person acting alone can't even make that big a difference to their own picture.

Oh, I don't disagree that individual action can't possibly do the trick alone. But individual action does set norms. If my colleagues and neighbors and friends know that I purchase renewable electricity, and opted for a more fuel efficient car, and limit my consumption of meat, etc... then they'll at least consider it. And, more importantly, when the time comes that collective action does require us to all make similar compromises, it won't be a surprise. (This is why I stopped watching American football a number of years ago. I love the game, but I didn't see a way I could ethically continue to consume something that was taking young men and destroying their brains for my entertainment. I have no illusions that my miniscule action is going to affect the bottom line of the NFL or college football, or even that it will change broader sentiment. But my colleagues and friends know that I have done this, and they don't really disagree with my position - they're just not ready to make the same choice. It might change their personal 'Overton window', though, to realize that some people do make that choice. And when the time comes that American football finally has a reckoning with the issue, the changes that end up getting put into place might be more widely accepted.)

Now, I'd quibble a lot with the 'study' (if you can call an undergrad class project a study) because they're essentially assigning an individual's carbon footprint their per-capita proportion of the carbon footprint of public goods. So obviously there's nothing I can personally do (other than vote) to make sure that public infrastructure etc. is decarbonized - it's also misleading to assign that to an individual, because the infrastructure exists whether or not I do. But in terms of my marginal increase in carbon emissions, there's a decent amount I can do. I can't do much about e.g. transportation infrastructure in the US that brings me goods, but I can consume goods efficiently, limit my consumption to things I actually need (or at least get very high utility from), choose more environmentally friendly options when available, etc.

So, for example, like wig I try and get my energy from renewable sources (though it's not so much of a sacrifice because the two providers I've been with ended up being the cheapest also) so given this discussion, I got curious about how, given that the UK energy grid is still 45% fossil fuels, they guarantee that every electron that enters my home has 'come from' a renewable source. We just have the one national grid, after all.

Well, it turns out:
[...]
I actually probably just use exactly the same amount of fossil fuels as everyone else in the country for my power, and what I'm actually doing is, in some extremely round about way, paying for an equivalent amount renewable energy to be generated. Even though I do that anyway sort of, along with everyone else in the country, since renewable energy is subsidized by the government and also the non-100% renewable providers also buy some renewable energy. Also, they just straight up use gas, lol. But that's ok because it's "offset" by, presumably, planting some trees somewhere? Or supporting people planting trees?

Needless to say it's all just 'counts as' bullshit and other mental gymnastics: you cannot individualize solutions to collective problems. But they want you to think you can so that nothing ever really changes.

This all goes to wholesale power markets. When I contract for delivery of 100% renewables, obviously the specific electrons that are delivered to me could have come from anywhere. But my electricity provider is then required to purchase that much more renewables as part of their energy mix on the wholesale market. So, there's a minimum quantity of renewables they need to purchase as part of a residential deliveries (something like 25% now in my state), but then that number goes up if more people pay for higher proportions of renewables. If there's more demand on the wholesale market, there's price pressure, which drives up the incentives for energy producers to increase their mix of renewables. It's just a market signal, that's all. It costs me something like 20% more, but my electricity consumption is quite modest regardless.

(Also, I don't know about your mix, but almost all of our renewables mix is solar and wind, mostly offshore. Things like biomass are a very small proportion here; hydro is supposed to be imported from Canada but there have been NIMBY issues with the power lines.)

[Being]

Here, this will fix some of the problems we face on this dying planet...

But it only would have fed a billion people for one day, a drop in the bucket.


At least don't use my tax dollars next time asswipe.

[Being]

Does this guy take science fiction to be a viable path for humanity's continued existence?

“In order to preserve Earth, Blue Origin believes that humanity will need to expand, explore, find new energy and material resources, and move industries that stress Earth into space,” according to the company’s vision statement.

First, using hundreds year old tech to throw things into space is in no way advancing that vision.

Second, if you don't take care of this planet first, humanity will perish long before any significant breakthroughs in tech will truly begin

laying the groundwork for millions of people to permanently live and work in space.

It's all an advertisement. Space might be humanities future but these jokers are in no way helping to make that a reality.

If they wanted to help they would pay a fair share of taxes.


edit: forgot link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...YFe?li=BBnb7Kz

[wiggin]

Does this guy take science fiction to be a viable path for humanity's continued existence?



First, using hundreds year old tech to throw things into space is in no way advancing that vision.

Second, if you don't take care of this planet first, humanity will perish long before any significant breakthroughs in tech will truly begin

It's all an advertisement. Space might be humanities future but these jokers are in no way helping to make that a reality.

If they wanted to help they would pay a fair share of taxes.


edit: forgot link https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...YFe?li=BBnb7Kz

I'm broadly sympathetic to your argumentation, Being - for the vast majority of people living on the planet, no amount of space exploration is going to substantially change their lives (though potentially import of raw materials from e.g. asteroid mining could be valuable). But what, pray tell, is the 'hundreds year old' technology being used to put people and machines in space?

[Being]

... But what, pray tell, is the 'hundreds year old' technology being used to put people and machines in space?

Burning stuff to generate thrust.

[wiggin]

While technically primitive rockets have existed since the 13th century or so, it hasn't been a serious technology for more than a century. That's like saying genetic engineering is a technology that's thousands of years old. Technically true, yes, but...

Also, do you have a better way of getting into space?

[Being]

While technically primitive rockets have existed since the 13th century or so, it hasn't been a serious technology for more than a century. That's like saying genetic engineering is a technology that's thousands of years old. Technically true, yes, but...

True is true, yes?

Also, do you have a better way of getting into space?

I do not. But just like fossil fuels its use must be limited to absolute necessities while we develop better tech.

[Aimless]

Here, this will fix some of the problems we face on this dying planet...

But it only would have fed a billion people for one day, a drop in the bucket.


At least don't use my tax dollars next time asswipe.

ACAB — All Centibillionaires Are Buttheads

[Being]

If the choice is between Elon Musk doing the space stuff and buying himself a lot of yachts, this is definitely better,

Hmmm, what do you think? I mean buying yachts is not the only alternative.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...CIJ?li=BBnb7Kz

[EyeKhan]

Speaking of SpaceX, anyone catch the fully assembled Starship/Super Heavy booster prototype? It's very impressive -- almost twice the thrust of Saturn V and will be fully reusable. I think its a solid step toward enabling a real space industry.

https://www.space.com/elon-musk-thri...tallest-rocket

[Being]

Speaking of SpaceX, anyone catch the fully assembled Starship/Super Heavy booster prototype? It's very impressive -- almost twice the thrust of Saturn V and will be fully reusable. I think its a solid step toward enabling a real space industry.

https://www.space.com/elon-musk-thri...tallest-rocket

Second stages won't be reusable for the foreseeable future.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/26/2...-rocket-debris

[EyeKhan]

Second stages won't be reusable for the foreseeable future.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/26/2...-rocket-debris

That link is to the Falcon 9 - it's second stage will never be reusable. The next generation rocket I linked to is Starship, which is the second stage, and is designed to be fully reusable. Indeed they've already launched and landed a prototype. The booster is Super Heavy, also designed to be fully reusable. That hasn't launched yet, but SpaceX has lots of experience landing boosters, so I don't doubt they'll get there.

[Being]

Speed of the second stage is the problem. They need to carry enough fuel or refuel in flight to be able to slow it down so as not to burn up on reentry.

I don't think that will happen in our lifetime.

[EyeKhan]

Speed of the second stage is the problem. They need to carry enough fuel or refuel in flight to be able to slow it down so as not to burn up on reentry.

I don't think that will happen in our lifetime.

I'd bet my left nut it happens within 2 years.

[Being]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lsbi-bVfk0

Heat shields are what kept the shuttle from meeting expectations. I don't like nuts. I don't like wagering either. But lets discuss heat shields.

[EyeKhan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lsbi-bVfk0

Heat shields are what kept the shuttle from meeting expectations. I don't like nuts. I don't like wagering either. But lets discuss heat shields.

Thanks for the video, that was great. It looks like SpaceX has already improved on the shuttle heat shield strategy, and the Starship vehicle by itself is a better design from the heat shield point of view. I think the chief advantage SpaceX has is they innovate on the fly and very quickly. I seriously have no doubt they will achieve a fully reusable vehicle - it may look different and employ a different than current strategy, and the reuse may not be as rapid as they want, but they'll get there.

[Being]

It's obvious that guy is a fanboy but he did point out some potential flaws with this shield design, that didn't exist with the shuttle, that can only be flushed out with trial and error. Moving parts needing to be shielded looks to be pretty major. Also, he quickly glossed over the fact (in fact he kinda made it look like an advantage) that a flatter surface pushes the concussion point further from the surface than does a cylindrical shape (his presentation used a point versus concave disc not a cylinder).

All in all I came away with the conclusion that the heat shield will suffer the same fate as on the shuttle and cost and turn around time for reuse will be much more than anticipated. This is why I say more fuel or refuel in orbit before descent. Maybe they will come up with some sort of nuclear powered magnetic device that can use the Earth's magnetic field to slow the vehicle?

[Being]

Consider NASA and current U.S. space efforts to be Afghanistan in the story below. Privatizing national efforts might not work here any better than there...

Privatization of National Interests

P.S. I have worked with both the companies mentioned in this story and I can confirm their expertise and competence lies not in their ability to get things done but in their ability to generate costly change orders.

[GGT]

Spacex is celebrating launching civilians into space. I'm not convinced that these billionaires engaged in the "space race" are doing anything that will ultimately help humanity. Because they're using loopholes to avoid paying taxes that are needed right now, that could be used to build/rebuild infrastructure on Earth.

When I was younger and tax dollars were spent on NASA, we all benefited from their research. Microwave ovens, dehydrated foods (like Tang!), and many medical products were "discovered", along with computer advancements *including the internet*, and made available to the public.

What's going on now, other than a gross example of how the uber rich are showing off their wealth by blasting into space? It's not like they're using their wealth to pay workers a living wage. Or funding R & D into sustainable living on Earth. Or providing reliable weather data to everyone. Nah, the workers and consumers were "thanked" for making these billionaires obscene riches, so they could play a game in space.

I wish everyone would wake up, and see how they're being used.

[ar81]

Spacex is celebrating launching civilians into space. I'm not convinced that these billionaires engaged in the "space race" are doing anything that will ultimately help humanity. Because they're using loopholes to avoid paying taxes that are needed right now, that could be used to build/rebuild infrastructure on Earth.

When I was younger and tax dollars were spent on NASA, we all benefited from their research. Microwave ovens, dehydrated foods (like Tang!), and many medical products were "discovered", along with computer advancements *including the internet*, and made available to the public.

What's going on now, other than a gross example of how the uber rich are showing off their wealth by blasting into space? It's not like they're using their wealth to pay workers a living wage. Or funding R & D into sustainable living on Earth. Or providing reliable weather data to everyone. Nah, the workers and consumers were "thanked" for making these billionaires obscene riches, so they could play a game in space.

I wish everyone would wake up, and see how they're being used.

There are 2 possible customers for space programs:
* Government: Space missions will depend on politics and what makes them popular. Money is spent on making politics, not achieving things for the lowest cost.
* Private: It requires private customers. Most likely billionaires, just like in the early days of aviation. It is true that NASA helped to make it work, but also Internet started as government initiative and later companies were added to the game.

NASA has not done anything valuable after Apollo program to bring humans to space. ISS is just a government office in space and it is not even in a useful orbital plane where it could be used for planetary transfers (trips to other planets). Changing ISS orbital inclination would consume indecent amounts of fuel comparable to going to another distant planet. Space shuttle program destroyed 2 of 5 orbiters, a terrible safety record. And manufacturing centers of NASA were scattered all across the nation, raising the costs of each flight due to the need of transportation, let alone carbon footprint. The original idea of shuttle program had the orbiter on top. But it ended up having the shuttle in its side, a terrible design. This terrible design caused 2 orbiters to be lost.

Also, NASA is subject to media pressure. Challenger was launched due to media pressure. Headlines were about "lazy employees waiting until temperature goes up, taxpayer money paying them" instead of trying to find out why it was unsafe to launch during cold days. Illiterate journalism is a disgrace. Journalism is so illiterate that they call the Entry Interface (EI) as "reentry". Apollo capsules bounced against the atmosphere like a stone bouncing against water in a pond, and in the first entry it bounced and in the second it entered atmosphere to land on water. Space shuttle did not bounce. It used S maneuvers to dissipate energy. If journalism was not so illiterate, they would have contributed to astronaut safety. They would have found that ringed rockets showed combustion leaks in cold days. Launching Challenger was "death by bureaucracy" with govt employees trying to appease media.

Columbia disaster was another case of death by bureaucracy. A piece of foam hit the RCC (reinforced carbon-carbon) panels and made a hole of the size of a pizza where plasma entered and melted the aluminium internal frame. Plasma almost doubled the required melting point of aluminium. They thought that a piece of foam would be soft enough to cause no damage. There was no evidence that foam could create such a hole and destroy a shuttle. so bureaucrats guessed. They confused absence of evidence with evidence of absence. And they got the evidence when shuttle was destroyed. If they had taken safety seriously, they would have launched a rescue mission that would have made a great epic Hollywood movie. But no. This caused great unrest among astronauts as the unwritten pact of taking human safety serious was broken. It is a crisis that never made it to the public.

What was the contribution of private flights to safety? Billionaires are way less tolerant to unsafe flights. Elon musk may have sent a capsule to orbit, but it was government sponsored. The merit of Bezos is that his program was fully private and he crossed the Karman line, and Bezos certified the safety of his rocket by putting his life in the line of fire. Musk has not flown himself. Bezos fully funded his space program and certified safety with his own life. And this space program generated thousands of jobs. It is not just the jobs of those who make the rocket, but also secondary businesses like restaurants and stores and others that make money by selling stuff to employees.

So if you ask me, Elon Musk is the new Boeing, govt sponsored space company. And Bezos is the first real private space entrepreneur. Not having government funding means he must fund it using his own money. To me, Bezos has more merit than Musk in terms of safety. Musk never certified his own capsules. He cannot even make a safe autonomous car.

If they do not want to make life "sustainable" on Earth, they will have to learn. Living on Mars is like living on a polluted vacuum frozen radiation filled chemical plant. Space radiation and perchlorate dust could kill you. Living in Antarctica is like a summer day at the beach. Antarctica has water, oxygen, atmospheric pressure and it is a few hours away from civilization, and its lower temperature is way higher than the warmest tempetarure of Mars. Making life sustainable on Mars will require all the sustainable living habits that we do not have on Earth.

Capitalism distributes wealth via jobs. And private space creates jobs. Poor people are people with income below a threshold, so unemployed are basically poor. By creating jobs aerospace helps to fight poverty. The only thing you need is to make kids be educated in STEM so they can aspire to a STEM job. The "best use of taxes" would be using it to create jobs. Even if people criticize Bezos, he is creating jobs and taking profit comes from his own money. Instead, with SpaceX, profit comes from taxpayers.

[Flixy]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/space-...t-is-suspected

Risky space stuff.

[Being]

According to the boss, SpaceX must launch at least 26 successful payloads next year to break even.

rumors-of-possible-spacex-bankruptcy/ar-AARlKAP?li=BBnb7Kz

"We face a real risk of bankruptcy if next year we cannot achieve a Starship rate of at least one every two weeks," Musk wrote in the leaked email.

It's a cargo ship. Does the Earth have that much cargo to shuttle into orbit?

[ar81]

According to the boss, SpaceX must launch at least 26 successful payloads next year to break even.
It's a cargo ship. Does the Earth have that much cargo to shuttle into orbit?

R&D is expensive. Pushing the accelerator to speed up R&D is expensive. And Musk pushes a lot. He wants to go to Mars before dying. And he is somewhat old.

[EyeKhan]

According to the boss, SpaceX must launch at least 26 successful payloads next year to break even.

rumors-of-possible-spacex-bankruptcy/ar-AARlKAP?li=BBnb7Kz



It's a cargo ship. Does the Earth have that much cargo to shuttle into orbit?

If you read a little deeper into Musk's reasoning, its really about Starlink. The current gen1 starlink satellites do not have the capability to handle enough customers to generate the revenue SpaceX needs to keep rocket development going. Indeed, they are ramping up customer terminal production to a very high level, and the customers for those terminals are out there, but the orbital network cannot handle the demand. The gen2 satellites will be able to handle the demand, but they are too big/ not configured to be launched by Falcon 9 - they are designed to be lofted by Starship. The real problem Musk is addressing in his danger bankruptcy email was raptor engine production. They need a TON of raptor engines for even a few functioning starships, and apparently the production facility is having trouble ramping up. That pre-thanksgiving email was all about getting the employees fired up and afraid enough to work their assess off, even through the holiday, to get that production facility working right. It may also have been calculated to leak in order to put pressure on the Federal Government (FAA I believe) which still hasn't finished the environmental review, pre-requisite for approval of Starship orbital operations out of their Texas launch site.

[Steely Glint]

This youtube thumbnail had me a bit concerned, are we sure James Web is just a telescope?