So a rich uber billionaire decided to show of 3 days ago. "Look what I can do" is their mantra. 

I don't think anyone likes being poor or middle class and struggling. Been there done that. But these "Ford Vs Chevy" "NASCAR vs Indy" thrill junkies do not impress me. 

I love Tokyo Japan. I love Brisbane Australia, and YES, I fucking hated all the time it took to get there, but more than that the turbulence. To this day I have nightmares about turbulence. I could tolerate a trip to Tokyo if it only took 90 minutes.

And while I am glad my mail isn't delivered by horse and the Pony express, humans still had electric vehicle technology 100 years ago. 

What I have seen from Branson, and Musk and Bezos, isn't so much about advancing science, but advancing profits and consumption. 

It is most certainly appealing of the thought of getting a view of the earth from above. But right now, our species has far more important issues in climate change and pollution and poverty, than a bunch of uber billionaires who are showing off.

I enjoyed the Inspiration 4 mission. I find the idea that humanity may be starting to venture into space to be exciting.

Raised $200 million for St Judes hospital. I ain't gonna bitch.

I am curious to see what the goal will be if space travel can become more commonplace, though it may still take more time that I will be around.

(September 20, 2021 at 3:38 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I enjoyed the Inspiration 4 mission.  I find the idea that humanity may be starting to venture into space to be exciting.

I am not begrudging problem solving. What I am warning against is ego driven profit chasing. Rockets require fossil fuels to get into space. So if we replace every passenger jet, which also requires fossil fuels, with rockets, and takeoffs of rockets were as daily as our current takeoffs of passenger jets, at the same volume, would not help in solving climate change.

I don't see a 100% future where all burning of fossil fuels will cease. But we certainly can as a species reduce that burning to a manageable level. But right now, "space tourism" is not only impractical, it won't end our burning of fossil fuels. 

For right now as far as space exploration, that needs to be limited to science, not exploitation. 

In theory, I'd love to see the majority of humans being able to view the planet in orbit. I do think psychologically it could imprint the notion that our only home isn't to be fought over and one we all share. But the fact is, fossil fuels are killing our planet. And I don't think it is as simple as replacing passenger jets with rockets in the same numbers. 

Imagine space travel launching rockets at the same rate every day as passenger jets. It still requires burning fossil fuels in both cases. That solves nothing. 

I am for space exploration. But for now, I think humanity would be better served at limiting rockets to science, not pleasure.

(September 20, 2021 at 5:33 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 20, 2021 at 3:38 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I enjoyed the Inspiration 4 mission.  I find the idea that humanity may be starting to venture into space to be exciting.

I am not begrudging problem solving. What I am warning against is ego driven profit chasing. Rockets require fossil fuels to get into space. So if we replace every passenger jet, which also requires fossil fuels, with rockets, and takeoffs of rockets were as daily as our current takeoffs of passenger jets, at the same volume, would not help in solving climate change.

I don't see a 100% future where all burning of fossil fuels will cease. But we certainly can as a species reduce that burning to a manageable level. But right now, "space tourism" is not only impractical, it won't end our burning of fossil fuels. 

For right now as far as space exploration, that needs to be limited to science, not exploitation. 

In theory, I'd love to see the majority of humans being able to view the planet in orbit. I do think psychologically it could imprint the notion that our only home isn't to be fought over and one we all share. But the fact is, fossil fuels are killing our planet. And I don't think it is as simple as replacing passenger jets with rockets in the same numbers. 

Imagine space travel launching rockets at the same rate every day as passenger jets. It still requires burning fossil fuels in both cases. That solves nothing. 

I am for space exploration. But for now, I think humanity would be better served at limiting rockets to science, not pleasure.

Space rockets don’t use fossil fuels. They never have.

Boru

(September 20, 2021 at 3:42 pm)brewer Wrote: Raised $200 million for St Judes hospital. I ain't gonna bitch.

Yea, and they get a tax deduction for doing such, which means what they get back, the rest of tax payers have to compensate for.

Real charity is when you don't ask for anything back. 

I used to ask for slips when I gave to charities in the past for a reduction in my taxes so I would get more back. But I now realize that I was forcing others to compensate for what I got back. That is not charity.

Now when I donate money or goods, I don't ask for that tax slip. I simply drop it off and take the loss.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG for wanting to help others in need. But if you are going to do that, don't ask for a tax break. Just do it. 

If you ask for your government to cut you a break for doing so, what you are doing is forcing others to compensate for what you get back. That is not real charity, that is just PR.

(September 20, 2021 at 5:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 20, 2021 at 3:42 pm)brewer Wrote: Raised $200 million for St Judes hospital. I ain't gonna bitch.

Yea, and they get a tax deduction for doing such, which means what they get back, the rest of tax payers have to compensate for.

Real charity is when you don't ask for anything back. 

I used to ask for slips when I gave to charities in the past for a reduction in my taxes so I would get more back. But I now realize that I was forcing others to compensate for what I got back. That is not charity.

Now when I donate money or goods, I don't ask for that tax slip. I simply drop it off and take the loss.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG for wanting to help others in need. But if you are going to do that, don't ask for a tax break. Just do it. 

If you ask for your government to cut you a break for doing so, what you are doing is forcing others to compensate for what you get back. That is not real charity, that is just PR.

Simple math should tell you that people don’t give to charity just for the tax breaks.

Boru

(September 20, 2021 at 5:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 20, 2021 at 5:33 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I am not begrudging problem solving. What I am warning against is ego driven profit chasing. Rockets require fossil fuels to get into space. So if we replace every passenger jet, which also requires fossil fuels, with rockets, and takeoffs of rockets were as daily as our current takeoffs of passenger jets, at the same volume, would not help in solving climate change.

I don't see a 100% future where all burning of fossil fuels will cease. But we certainly can as a species reduce that burning to a manageable level. But right now, "space tourism" is not only impractical, it won't end our burning of fossil fuels. 

For right now as far as space exploration, that needs to be limited to science, not exploitation. 

In theory, I'd love to see the majority of humans being able to view the planet in orbit. I do think psychologically it could imprint the notion that our only home isn't to be fought over and one we all share. But the fact is, fossil fuels are killing our planet. And I don't think it is as simple as replacing passenger jets with rockets in the same numbers. 

Imagine space travel launching rockets at the same rate every day as passenger jets. It still requires burning fossil fuels in both cases. That solves nothing. 

I am for space exploration. But for now, I think humanity would be better served at limiting rockets to science, not pleasure.

Space rockets don’t use fossil fuels. They never have.

Boru

Anything that creates gasses and heat and is being burned contributes.

Put fire to gas, you are creating green house gasses. It isn't just about coal or petroleum. 

Rockets still create emissions.

(September 20, 2021 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 20, 2021 at 5:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Space rockets don’t use fossil fuels. They never have.

Boru

Anything that creates gasses and heat and is being burned contributes.

Put fire to gas, you are creating green house gasses. It isn't just about coal or petroleum. 

Rockets still create emissions.

1. Not true.

2. Not true

3. True but irrelevant. 

Boru