The discussion revolves around the motivations and implications of space exploration, particularly focusing on whether it serves as an ego trip for wealthy individuals or as a legitimate scientific investment. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including the financial contributions to science, the societal impacts of such expenditures, and the potential benefits of private space ventures.
Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the motivations behind space exploration and its scientific value. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing debate about the ethical implications and potential benefits of such endeavors.
Some arguments depend on subjective interpretations of value and impact, and there are unresolved questions regarding the true costs and benefits of space exploration projects. Participants also express differing opinions on the necessity of human involvement in space missions and the environmental implications of such activities.
As long as "puts out" includes all manufacturing, servicing and transport contributions. Choosing what and what not to include is advertisers' technique and not good Engineering.russ_watters said:It only cares how much carbon it puts out.
That could be a good idea; go for it. However, along the same lines as Health and Safety matters, environment should at least have a presence in any discussion involving large amounts of energy.russ_watters said:FYI, we'll probably split this talk of the carbon footprint of space travel to its own thread...
I agree, lifecycle emissions include manufacturing/servicing, but with a really, really big caveat: most of those indirect (not from the fuel) lifecycle emissions are pass-through from other sectors; energy and transportation. So if you fix those sectors, the indirect emissions go way, way down.sophiecentaur said:As long as "puts out" includes all manufacturing, servicing and transport contributions. Choosing what and what not to include is advertisers' technique and not good Engineering.
Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.russ_watters said:Cars are even unusual amongst vehicles in that they have a very low utilization rate, which makes the manufacturing emissions a larger fraction than other vehicle types.
Depends on whether you include the value of time.sophiecentaur said:Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.
I don't mean [emissions] cost per passenger or ton-mile (yes, cars are the worst at that too), I mean hours of use per year or lifetime. Truck, ships, planes, and yes trains all are operated much more than a car. Google tells me a truck gets 2-3x the distance lifespan of a car. So, for example if manufacturing emissions is 20% of a car's lifecycle emissions it might be 7% of a truck's. I'd have to do some research (a quick google doesn't find this info), but I suspect that the manufacturing emissions are only very significant for a car, and aren't for any other major form of transportation - including a hypothetical re-usable rocket.sophiecentaur said:Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.
I lived a long time in Brighton UK. So much quicker to go almost anywhere there by bus and parking charges and delays were heavy. Quite the opposite where we live now in Essex. One bus per hour to get into Brentwood. So, as usual, the actual figures and circumstances count.Frabjous said:Depends on whether you include the value of time.