calling it space is a bit rich then.

Also there's a * but no clarification footnote, so I'm eagerly waiting the 2077 Hexus comp now. It's as sure a prediction as all those dreamers who said England were “guaranteed” to beat Italy last night.

Space is a weird term for up there with all that debris flying about. Any more satellites going up there will require installation of traffic light systems before long. lol.

ik9000
calling it space is a bit rich then.

Also there's a * but no clarification footnote, so I'm eagerly waiting the 2077 Hexus comp now. It's as sure a prediction as all those dreamers who said England were “guaranteed” to beat Italy last night.

There's no hard line defining space, but the NASA definition does have good justification
https://youtu.be/0b1VgtyIQN0?t=652

TL;DW: Satellites can stay in orbit for a fair amount below 100 km, but not below 80 km. The definition of space is where orbital mechanics dominate keeping things in the sky (instead of aerodynamic lift), so this shows that the average atmosphere (it changes with the weather) runs out about 80 km up - internationally this was rounded to 100 km, but the americans rounded it to 50 mi (~500m off the calculated value)

Is it really space? Kinda a moot point. You get to go vertical in a rocket up to mach 3, float around for 5 minutes and then plunge back down. I think the feather thing is a seriously cool way of solving their design problems.

It's a shame it can't go higher and potentially be used for cargo. But for its intended use (giving rich people a thrill), it's an excellent proposition.

Also looks like an excellent platform for launching missiles for when Beardy goes full evil billionaire… or as a way of getting operation Yewtree to back off.

philehidiot
Is it really space? Kinda a moot point. You get to go vertical in a rocket up to mach 3, float around for 5 minutes and then plunge back down. I think the feather thing is a seriously cool way of solving their design problems.

It's a shame it can't go higher and potentially be used for cargo. But for its intended use (giving rich people a thrill), it's an excellent proposition.

Also looks like an excellent platform for launching missiles for when Beardy goes full evil billionaire… or as a way of getting operation Yewtree to back off.

Can i say that it's intended use is a poor proposition. Rich people flying to the inner edges of space for a quick (but expensive) “cheap” thrill, while polluting the atmosphere with more CO2 and other gases just for the 5 minutes of weightlessness. We should tax this on environmental grounds so much it either prevents it from being viable, or makes mega bucks for the state to redistribute into green energy schemes and the like. Wealth redistribution on a voluntary level. If you're that rich pay 10x more and do some good at the same time.

HEXUS
Whether 53.4 miles high is space or not is the subject of some debate.

I think internationally 100km is the point where space “starts”. Even at that altitude the earths atmosphere doesn't simply stop, heck even the international space station isn't technically outside of earths atmosphere, it's just in a thinner part of it.

ik9000
Can i say that it's intended use is a poor proposition. Rich people flying to the inner edges of space for a quick (but expensive) “cheap” thrill, while polluting the atmosphere with more CO2 and other gases just for the 5 minutes of weightlessness. We should tax this on environmental grounds so much it either prevents it from being viable, or makes mega bucks for the state to redistribute into green energy schemes and the like. Wealth redistribution on a voluntary level. If you're that rich pay 10x more and do some good at the same time.

The same argument goes for aircraft for holidays, driving except for work, for skydiving, for motorcycles, for shooting… where does it end when you go down that road? You can start on things like mobile phones being excessive and luxuries that hurt the environment. At the end of it, you're limiting the number of kids people can have by diktat and having everyone living in large blocks of flats. You might also look at the lifestyle of most people in western countries from the perspective of poor countries. They'd probably have something to say about a lot of the excessive luxuries we take for granted.

I can agree on taxing it significantly and I also agree that there's some pollution from it that's not necessary. But how many other things start out as toys for the rich and filter down to the masses? Well, cars for one. If you want people to develop such things, you can't tax it to hell and back from the start. Maybe when a few companies are doing it and competing on price, they can pay towards offsetting the environmental cost. Frankly though, there's lower hanging fruit than an occasional few minute rocket burn and the equivilant of a short haul 747 run.

I watched it live on YouTube along with the flight a few weeks before, it's an exceptional bit of engineering including the plane that carries it up to 45,000 feet, plus it looks awesome.

Looking forward to watching the Blue Origin launch too in a few weeks, but I won't comment on what that looks like though..

philehidiot
But for its intended use (giving rich people a thrill), it's an excellent proposition.

If Musk ever gets Starship doing long haul flights, then you could book a flight from say London to Tokyo via a hop outside the atmosphere. That could make these pure tourism jumps seem quite lame as well as pointless.

philehidiot
The same argument goes for aircraft for holidays, driving except for work, for skydiving, for motorcycles, for shooting… where does it end when you go down that road? You can start on things like mobile phones being excessive and luxuries that hurt the environment. At the end of it, you're limiting the number of kids people can have by diktat and having everyone living in large blocks of flats. You might also look at the lifestyle of most people in western countries from the perspective of poor countries. They'd probably have something to say about a lot of the excessive luxuries we take for granted.

I can agree on taxing it significantly and I also agree that there's some pollution from it that's not necessary. But how many other things start out as toys for the rich and filter down to the masses? Well, cars for one. If you want people to develop such things, you can't tax it to hell and back from the start. Maybe when a few companies are doing it and competing on price, they can pay towards offsetting the environmental cost. Frankly though, there's lower hanging fruit than an occasional few minute rocket burn and the equivilant of a short haul 747 run.

This is worse due to the altitudes involved. A-level chemistry had a module on greenhouse effect and ozone depletion (two separate things - both atmospheric) and the effect of releasing gases into the stratosphere and above is far worse than low level stuff at ground level and in the troposphere. Jumbo jets spewing CO2 at 30000 ft are worse than the same volume released at ground level. I can't remember all the equations now but these things go way higher than jumbos and 747s. a U2 was 70000ft - that's what 14/15 miles? These rockets are going right up to the mesosphere or whatever the outer bit is called. It's possible we were taught garbage, but I'd want convincing of it to write it off as such.

There is a big difference between owning a car to get around and even renting one to go on holiday vs a 5 minute weightlessness titillation.

DanceswithUnix
If Musk ever gets Starship doing long haul flights, then you could book a flight from say London to Tokyo via a hop outside the atmosphere. That could make these pure tourism jumps seem quite lame as well as pointless.

aha, at 30mph :DDDD

The ‘fix’ for global warming isn't restrictions via taxation but in technological development.

TeePee
The ‘fix’ for global warming isn't restrictions via taxation but in technological development.

quite. but until then tax these rich idiots properly to make up for the offshore funds they're not paying on please instead of letting them mess around in inner space and increasing pollution while they're at it.

ik9000
This is worse due to the altitudes involved. A-level chemistry had a module on greenhouse effect and ozone depletion (two separate things - both atmospheric) and the effect of releasing gases into the stratosphere and above is far worse than low level stuff at ground level and in the troposphere. Jumbo jets spewing CO2 at 30000 ft are worse than the same volume released at ground level. I can't remember all the equations now but these things go way higher than jumbos and 747s. a U2 was 70000ft - that's what 14/15 miles? These rockets are going right up to the mesosphere or whatever the outer bit is called. It's possible we were taught garbage, but I'd want convincing of it to write it off as such.

There is a big difference between owning a car to get around and even renting one to go on holiday vs a 5 minute weightlessness titillation.

CO2 isn't the main issue with Virgin Galactic. They use quite a dirty fuel which dumps large enough amount of oxides of nitrogen that I'm surprised it was allowed. I suspect that's something they may change if possible as it's not a good look. Or maybe Beardy is hoping his teeth will distract people.

But, unfortunately, if you decide there's a line where people can't pollute for recreation, you're on a slippery slope into tyranny. How much is too much? Who decides? What's worse is the people who do decide on such things are often owners of private jets and helicopters which robs them of all credibility. We see the boundaries between excessive and normal recreational pollution from a perspective of what is normal to us. Go back 60 years and ask people if it's necessary to jet off around the world on holiday. We see that as normal and the baseline, but if you took this argument back to a time where wealth and flight availablity was much lower, people would see those jetting off abroad in the exact same way as you're seeing Beardy. And if you questioned them getting into the family car to go to the beach for a couple of days, they'd say “well that's reasonable”. There's a big difference between going to Blackpool for the weekend and jetting off to other countries to get yer jollies in the sun.

Where do you stand on skydiving? Planes are used which pollute for a 5 minute gravity titillation. Or trackdays where vehicles can burn fuel in horrific ways for an hour or so of… some titillation. Where's the line and who draws it?

Is the science part of Beardy's space jobbie acceptable? Giving scientists cheaper access to zero-G for their experiements?

It's like motion in space, it's all relative to your point of observation. Where to draw a line is very subjective and will cause consternation.

What's worse is it's almost impossible to tell where people caring for the poor / environment begins and where resentment of the rich starts / ends. We see a lot of that corruption in this discussion as well.

ik9000
quite. but until then tax these rich idiots properly to make up for the offshore funds they're not paying on please instead of letting them mess around in inner space and increasing pollution while they're at it.

While changing taxation is a worthwhile goal, one of the Billionaires playing at Space is set to provide access to internet in remote areas across the world, potentially revolutionizing education in the third world, and bringing the benefits of higher technology and lower emissions to areas that really need it. Long term, that's more benefit than any environmentalist has ever achieved. He also does a thing with electric cars.

Meanwhile, the ‘environmentalists’ are the reason clean, renewable, nuclear power isn't the primary source of generation worldwide.

TeePee
Meanwhile, the ‘environmentalists’ are the reason clean, renewable, nuclear power isn't the primary source of generation worldwide.

Yes. Check Germany's electricity generation mix and the reasons for it!

TeePee
, one of the Billionaires playing at Space

Ars Technica had quite a good piece on that. Bezos is moving into a half a billion dollar super yacht while Musk has just moved into a $50k prefab to be near his rockets. It was basically saying it isn't surprising that Bezos isn't delivering rocket motors on time.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/jeff-bezos-says-its-totally-not-space-but-watch-virgin-galactic-fly-anyway/

Meanwhile, the ‘environmentalists’ are the reason clean, renewable, nuclear power isn't the primary source of generation worldwide.

To be fair, at this point solar power is just plain cheaper than nuclear as well as faster to roll out and less likely to get resistance from the locals when you try to build a power plant. I've always been pro nuclear, but the economics no longer add up and I think it can only be justified in terms of keeping a diversity of power sources.

DanceswithUnix
To be fair, at this point solar power is just plain cheaper than nuclear as well as faster to roll out and less likely to get resistance from the locals when you try to build a power plant. I've always been pro nuclear, but the economics no longer add up and I think it can only be justified in terms of keeping a diversity of power sources.

Is that including the cost of energy storage? Because without big banks of batteries, renewables aren't really a meaningful contribution to the power grid. That's something missed when looking at prices per kWhr in contracts for power plants.

Many providers claim to offer cheap green energy, but in practice they buy any energy going (including coal) - there are three providers who only buy green energy, and they also have a specific exemption from ofgen to allow them to charge more than the energy price cap (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56602674). EDF, using nuclear power, don't have this exemption

DanceswithUnix
To be fair, at this point solar power is just plain cheaper than nuclear as well as faster to roll out and less likely to get resistance from the locals when you try to build a power plant. I've always been pro nuclear, but the economics no longer add up and I think it can only be justified in terms of keeping a diversity of power sources.

Solar is way to dependent on the sun to be a primary source of power - winter/night/clouds all decimate power output, which being as we need a steady source of power makes it a non starter. Nuclear at least works whenever you want it too. In the uk wind is pretty good as it's pretty well always windy somewhere, but to do it efficiently you'd build on-shore and have wind turbines the size of the shard - nobody wants that. The only reason offshore took off despite not be massively efficient is it was a great way of giving ex north sea oil workers a job while appearing green so appealed politically. Tidal barrages are also super reliable way of generating power, but they might upset some fish so we can't have them.

Dribble
Solar is way to dependent on the sun to be a primary source of power - winter/night/clouds all decimate power output, which being as we need a steady source of power makes it a non starter. Nuclear at least works whenever you want it too. In the uk wind is pretty good as it's pretty well always windy somewhere, but to do it efficiently you'd build on-shore and have wind turbines the size of the shard - nobody wants that. The only reason offshore took off despite not be massively efficient is it was a great way of giving ex north sea oil workers a job while appearing green so appealed politically. Tidal barrages are also super reliable way of generating power, but they might upset some fish so we can't have them.

tidal doesn't “upset some fish” it can wreak havoc with the entire local ecosystem, so is far from ideal.

ik9000
tidal doesn't “upset some fish” it can wreak havoc with the entire local ecosystem, so is far from ideal.

And large solar arrays take up huge amounts of space, destroying plants and wildlife. Wind kills huge numbers of birds. Hydro floods huge areas and destroys down stream ecosystems. Nuclear creates radioactive waste. Gas pollutes. Big coal pollutes… and where does this madness get us?

Mental gymnastics which means we're burning wood pellets and calling it green and where our mix / supply is so terrible, we're using emergency oil generators lined up on airfields and paying industry to shut down.

The worst part is the thinking turns people anti-human as if we have no right to any concequences on other species or the ecosystem from our existance. Which is usually typed in a hateful, nihilistic diatribe on their smartphones full of rare metals and lithium batteries, transported around the world by oil.

Unless we wipe out humanity, there will be concequences. We have to pick our poison, quite literally. I vote nuclear and CCGT, supplemented with home solar where possible.

Radioactive waste is massively overstated. If your entire lifetime was powered by Nuclear energy, and no reprocessing were done, your waste would fit in a coke can, and could be safely buried next to you, six feet under. Add reprocessing (which is essential!) and the waste is fuel.

With proper investment to expand capacity, the cost of nuclear would plummet. We'd have excess energy to use for hydrogen production and carbon capture.

philehidiot
And large solar arrays take up huge amounts of space, destroying plants and wildlife. Wind kills huge numbers of birds. Hydro floods huge areas and destroys down stream ecosystems. Nuclear creates radioactive waste. Gas pollutes. Big coal pollutes… and where does this madness get us?

Mental gymnastics which means we're burning wood pellets and calling it green and where our mix / supply is so terrible, we're using emergency oil generators lined up on airfields and paying industry to shut down.

The worst part is the thinking turns people anti-human as if we have no right to any concequences on other species or the ecosystem from our existance. Which is usually typed in a hateful, nihilistic diatribe on their smartphones full of rare metals and lithium batteries, transported around the world by oil.

Unless we wipe out humanity, there will be concequences. We have to pick our poison, quite literally. I vote nuclear and CCGT, supplemented with home solar where possible.

A combo of nuclear and hydro (damns) is by far the best option we currently have at our disposal to provide the guaranteed baseline and controllable surge loadings. You could even then couple nuclear to seawater hydrogen and oxygen production for fuel cells and solid fuels to help promote cleaner transportation and hydrogen turbines for emergency spikes in energy demand where a rapid spin-up is required. It's not the most energy efficient, but it is clean, and emissions are the current battle we have to win. Using overproduction to manufacture clean fuels for batteries, cars, planes, and rocket assisted planes, is an ideal solution. It allows you to run plants at peak efficiency consistently without wasting surplus power.

It's far more madness to be peeing into the wind on dreams that don't yield enough energy consistently enough when a practical, low emissions alternative is right there and ready if we'd bothered to build the power stations soon enough.

TeePee
Radioactive waste is massively overstated. If your entire lifetime was powered by Nuclear energy, and no reprocessing were done, your waste would fit in a coke can, and could be safely buried next to you, six feet under. Add reprocessing (which is essential!) and the waste is fuel.

With proper investment to expand capacity, the cost of nuclear would plummet. We'd have excess energy to use for hydrogen production and carbon capture.

This is what I was taught at uni too.

Xlucine
Is that including the cost of energy storage?

When a nuclear plant costs £20B and takes a decade to build, having anything now seems a good idea.

philehidiot
… and where does this madness get us?

Bitcoin!


I'll get me coat…

DanceswithUnix
When a nuclear plant costs £20B and takes a decade to build, having anything now seems a good idea.



Bitcoin!


I'll get me coat…

It would be a valid argument had the engineering institutes not written to Blair in the late 90s / early noughties flagging the need to build nuclear now and fast. Politicians are a waste of space when it comes to long-term strategic matters.

ik9000
Politicians are a waste of space when it comes to long-term strategic matters.

100% - 20 year thinking doesn't get you elected does it. Virtually no one sees past the next year, let alone 10, 20 years. Its why I worry for the human race.

ik9000
It would be a valid argument had the engineering institutes not written to Blair in the late 90s / early noughties flagging the need to build nuclear now and fast. Politicians are a waste of space when it comes to long-term strategic matters.

Ah yes, but in the 90's we have cold fusion to look forward to ;) I have to wonder if the really hot fusion efforts underway right now will end up contributing the same amount of power :(

There were some pretty neat nuclear power designs out there. So we chose poor designs, and tied them up in circles until now they are basically obsolete. Nice going political dudes.

Cheap solar and wind power (which we have) stored in electric cars (on the increase) on a smart grid (almost inevitable at this point, but uncertain timeline) could well happen before we get new nuclear plants.

ik9000
It would be a valid argument had the engineering institutes not written to Blair in the late 90s / early noughties flagging the need to build nuclear now and fast. Politicians are a waste of space when it comes to long-term strategic matters.

Aye, here today and gone tomorrow governments just don't seem to care about what happens 10+ years down the line. This is why the health service is in such a mess, because it's politically ruinous to actually do anything more than poke at the problem and feed it more mulah.

The reason I suggest solar is it's doable by individuals on a local level. People can place panels on their own roofs (including businesses) and pay less for electricity into the bargain. With appropriate subsidies I think you'd get a fair amount of take up and that alone would make a dent in the demand issue with individuals absorbing some of the cost (and benefit).

Hydro is a decade or two long project just like nukes, because there's all the environmental considerations for building the dams and the people to get to move and rehome and arguments that go round in circles. At least with nukes we have existing sites we can expand or develop further without the NIMBY stuff (I used to live next to Ferrybridge power station and loved riding past that beast every day, give me a nuclear power station any day).

I would also hope these small scale, modular civilian reactors are going to be available soon with the ability to stick em underground and so no one can complain (“if I can't see it, it's not illegal!”). We'll just tell the locals we're burying a new water tank. A glowing one.


EDIT - where were we? Oh, yes…. Beardy. And his teeth.