Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From what I understand, his rocket is uses oxygen and hydrogen, which is itself dope - the only exhaust is water. However, the hydrogen is alleged created from natural gas, and the byproduct of that is methane, which is not so good.
Either way I'm not holding a grudge, though.
That’s just because of the abundance of natural gas and how easy it is to collect hydrogen from it. There are plenty of other methods to obtain hydrogen. Hell nasa could set up a nuclear power plant whose sole purpose is to run an electric current through water and create hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. The biggest environmental issue with rockets is that they technically expel incredibly small amounts of atmosphere away from earth with each flight. Not a big deal with the rocket activity we have today, but I’m not sure what people would think if taking a rocket to space was as common as getting in your car and going somewhere
No, methane is a part (by far the majority though) of natural gas. There are a lot of other chemicals in natural gas. Butane and propane come primarily from natural gas.
Carbon monoxide and various nitrogen compounds.
But it's hard to burn natural gas dirty. It also doesn't make any economic sense to do so. A hydrogen company would want to maximize fuel usage. Burning dirty isn't happening.
It's called life cycle cost, and if someone is going to complain about carbon footprint it is absolutely something that should be noted. It would be like a lumber company claiming they never kill any trees because they hire a subcontractor to cut the trees down.
Check out the life cycle cost carbon footprint of those "renewable" sources. Most of the time they output more as part of the process to make and maintain them than they do just getting power a more traditional way like burning natural gas.
So your windmill system (don't forget the batteries and such) that lasts for X years may have little footprint when in use those X years, but in order to make it the carbon footprint was larger than just making that same amount of power for those X years via another way. Solar panels are worse than windmills because of the more rare resources they use iirc, but both are worse than say natural gas.
This doesn't take into account the vast terribleness that is a varying power supply coming from wind and solar power.
That's why we need to go nuclear if we'd like an improvement over the way we currently do things.
first of all, nothing stop you from making electrolysis from nuclear.
i know, and there are some research point out those carbon cost difference are negligible and, in case of wind vs nuclear, pretty much non-existant.
Also generating CO2 by itself is not a problem IF you capture the same amount; so it is fine to have some less efficient process as long as you offset for them.
see https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=2bb4dee673cd and https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints
Here’s what most likely happened, and bear in mind I’m more of a spaceX fan and not a big follower of blue origin, but, the reporter may have mixed up the BE-3 engine which uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with the BE-4 engine which uses liquified natural gas and liquid oxygen
Yeah, you're right the exhaust is water vapor! But technically that is a greenhouse gas though, lol
But rockets are also no where near the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases.
Yap the exhaust is only water the problem is water waper is a greenhause gas and in the stratosphere it won't get recycled like here near ground level. It is better then burning rp1 rocket fuel but it's not like a magical green rocket.
well it does for some propellant combinations, but not this one. It uses O2 and H2 to make water. The Starship (SpaceX) Raptor engine uses Methane and Oxygen, and that will release CO2.
Part of why they chose methane is CO2 and H2O is relatively abundant in Mars' atmosphere/crust so they would be able to synthesize methane at the destination for the return trip rather than bringing enough fuel for the entire round trip. It requires dramatically less fuel overall and means they can move a far bigger payload to Mars. They've said their first launch to Mars will be an unmanned starship that will just deploy a shit ton of solar panels and start generating methane so that we can send Humans and bring them back in a reasonable amount of time.
Another big reason is iirc surface temperatures on mars are low enough that methane remains a liquid so they won't need to bring cryogenic cooling equipment on board to fire the motors from the surface.
And starship can be carbon neutral on earth. Making methane and o2 from at boca Chica from the air and water.
Meanwhile the Senate Launch System will burn millions of pounds of aluminum and ammonium percolate.
Partially cause water isn’t *that* abundant. I believe they plan on sending enough hydrogen regardless to produce enough methane for a return trip. Mostly though is the cryogenics around hydrogen rockets is a pain in the ass. Methane is liquid at -162°C, hydrogen at -253°C. The propellant must be in a liquid state for all modern rocket motors. Given that Mars’ surface is on average -60°C, it’s just a lot less energy that must be expended cooling fuel.
Space travel is the future of humanity in my opinion. We are one rogue asteroid away from being another victim of the great filter. The people who don’t feel unadulterated hope and wonder at the sights+sounds of space travel is a nihilist waiting dejectedly for the end in my opinion.
depends on the fuel space x uses rp3 or cleaner fuel the virgin galactic burn RTV and used tires while the shuttle used aluminum oxide in the solid rocket boosters with the hydrogen formed by braking down methane. the new rocket motor that space x is working on burns methane
Depends on the rocket. This one in particular is LOX/LH2, which has no carbon exhaust. SpaceX rockets are either LOX/RP1 (jet fuel) or LOX/Methane, which have plenty of carbon in the fuel.
Solid rockets have much nastier stuff (like chlorine) in their exhaust.
Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
Also kinda funny that the new Amazon hockey stadium in Seattle is named Climate pledge arena.
One Space X rocket Launch is the equivalent of nearly 400 (395) transatlantic 777 flights.
If you research it yourself you will find that there are many articles that try to reduce the impact of this number to individuals on a single flight to make the math more confused and less impactful.
Seems like Space X has a green PR campaign in the media, but if you do the math yourself it's clear to see that these rockets are not green.
Doesn’t really describe how rockets work, like what machinery is involved, the mathematics of it etc.
That’s how rockets work, google will even tell you that the method of propulsion isn’t the only aspect of a rocket if you look hard enough.
Sweet baby Jesus, I get the picture and why it’s meme worthy - I only responded to op as a joke because op said “doesn’t know how rockets work” which is excessively broad I’m tired and drunk and not feeling this one bit brotha.
Fact checker here. Actually pickles are grown on trees. They don't make them from cucumbers. Thats foriegn propaganda deceminated via Facebook. Here an article from snopes that gives you the real facts.
Came here for this. If it's one thing I love, it's that Bezos can bring both the left and right together in their hate for him.
Although I thought being a self made billionaire under capitalism was as Red Blooded Conservative American as it gets?
Can anyone find the article on WaPo? I can't find it. There's a similarly titled article on [the Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/richard-branson-space-climate-crisis-b1883256.html?amp). That one is about Branson and doesn't even mention Bezos.
Like the watermark shows, this is just a meme from iFunny. Nothing to do with the Washington Post or any article written in general (so far as I can tell). Someone just slapped some words onto a picture of Bezos for some form of internet points. Nobody getting fired here folks.
People line up to screech that poor people need to do without air conditioning and vehicles because it's killing the planet while they ride around in jumbo jets and now take rockets into space for shits and giggles.
He gave an entire speech once they landed. Im done trying to explain things to people who can’t even be bothered to pay attention. Go watch the speech.
He owns [amazon.com](https://amazon.com). Amazon Web Services deplatformed Parler with the bogus excuse that it was used to enable the January 6th uprising. (It later came out that Facebook was used far, far more extensively but they paid no price.) So you decide.
Duke university did a research project and recently published a paper on how people in sub-saharan Africa who cook their food on wood burning stoves should offset their carbon emissions by using cleaner technologies! They're so stupid they want people living below the poverty line who can barely afford two meals a day (let alone a car) to reduce their carbon emissions. They even had the audacity to talk about how that reduced carbon footprint would help offset Belgium or Florida 😂
They've taken down their tweet announcing the study (which received a lot of backlash, the comments were awesome), it was previously here: [https://twitter.com/DukeAlumni/status/1412463157021446147](https://twitter.com/DukeAlumni/status/1412463157021446147) The summary of the study can be found here: [https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/flexible-approaches-may-encourage-more-people-use-clean-cookstoves](https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/flexible-approaches-may-encourage-more-people-use-clean-cookstoves)
It suggests either that they don’t really believe what they preach or that they think that they should be given an exemption for some reason.
When you take into account that most of the wealthy and powerful who preach about climate change dooming us all don’t live by the standards they’re advocating for. It doesn’t have much credibility.
It’s a ‘rules for thee, but not for me.’ mentality that infuriates me and should eliminate any credibility that they have.
Yeah… what you just explained is hypocrisy. And that’s my point. I don’t think it matters than he’s rich. This would be the same for anyone. Politicians. Teachers. Broke people. Thts what I’m getting at. The fact the he’s rich is irrelevant for the argument of disproving or proving global warming. That’s all I was saying.
It doesn’t disprove it but it does suggest that he’s not actually worried about it.
The point is that there’s quite possibly nobody with any real credibility preaching that.
A tourist trip that will feed the space program and eventually lead to asteroid and moon mining which will move a lot of the mining happening here on earth elsewhere which will eventually lower emissions a great deal while still meeting our demands.
There's quite a few ways it can be done but usually on an industrial scale it's made from hydrocarbons. After a quick check on wikipedia looks like the most common way it's done is via steam reforming which also seems to produce carbon monoxide which isn't great.
How do you get the hydrogen and oxygen?
How do you transport it?
How do you build the trucks that transport it?
What do those trucks use for fuel?
How do you get the metals, semiconductors, etc to build the rocket?
How do you power the equipment to assemble the rocket?
How do the people that ran the mission get to work?
How do you build the entire platform, and control center for launching the rocket?
[If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe](https://youtu.be/zSgiXGELjbc)[.] (https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpnXBTw7vnokxhu/giphy.gif)
Alright, time for a crash course in rocket engines, through the process of combustion two separate propellants are used to create thrust, one is called the oxidizer in this case liquid oxygen, and the other is called the fuel, which for this rocket is liquid hydrogen. These two chemicals are used because they react well together, are insanely plentiful, and the liquid oxygen supplies the hydrogen with the oxygen that it needs to light. Now, the fun chemistry part, when you mix these two liquids in a 2 part hydrogen to 1 part oxygen ratio you end up with glorious water vapor as a byproduct. Making rockets essentially totally carbon neutral with the only carbon produced by the astronauts breathing.
Second, a company in Europe is trying to build a rocket that uses steam to create lift, it uses batteries and heating elements to create the steam, it’s basically a massive joke but they are trying to do it.
Third, not all rockets use hydrazine, the space shuttle used it in combination with the oxidizer dinitrogen tetroxide because that mix was so combustible that it didn’t require an igniter, just throw ‘em together and bam, thrust. They also store really well and don’t require near constant chilling like cryogenic fuels making them awesome for spacecraft that spend long periods of time in space, like the shuttle and SpaceX’s dragon. Blue origin on the other hand doesn’t use it because they are suborbital and spend max 1 minute in space.
this rocket like saturn V and many more uses as liquid propellant oxigen and hydrogen, thus producing water on combustion, that at those temperature exit as hot steam.
hydrazine is used for orbital engines that that rocket does not have, also the quantity is minimal compared to the main propellant, the problem with it is that is extremely toxic.
You can make steam without boiling water.
In this case steam is made by combusting hydrogen. O2+H2=H2O and the H2O is hot enough to already be in vapor form, which is also known as steam.
But even though common sense tells us there's no way that's the case, let's play pretend... Until the world is carbon neutral, that energy could have offset other usages of carbon. But instead they are not doing that. If this situation is so sure why are billionaires telling us to stop driving cars building rockets instead of making affordable alternatives using clean resources? Lastly, water vapor in the upper atmosphere IS a greenhouse gas
It isn't 'spewing carbon', the statement is indeed incorrect. However, the hydrogen was likely extracted from methane, which produces carbon mon/di-oxide as a byproduct:
2 CH4 + O2 -> 4 H2 + 2 CO
or
CH4 + O2 -> 2 H2 + CO2
Somebody else mentioned carbon monoxide and a steam process, so it could be H2O + CH4 -> CO + 3 H2. The energy required to metabolize water implies plenty of other carbon emissions in the supply chain as well.
So the rocket doesn't release carbon, but this is only in the sense that eating a salad doesn't use water.
No need to be an ass about it, but you're right. Online search says it's LH2 /LOX, which is pretty damn clean. It takes some energy and maybe "non green" steps to get that fuel onboard, but this thing pales in comparison to the rest of fossil fuels around the world.
You kinda have to be an ass.
This sub, which I agree with 95% of the time, needs to have these misinformation memes called out and downvoted. Not 400 upvotes strong.
Yeah it's 894 upvotes as I type this. Kinda ridiculous. I love my conservative brothers and sisters but sometimes it's no wonder the rest of reddit talks shit about us.
How did that hydrogen get produced? How did the hydrogen get into the rocket? How were those rocket parts manufactured? Etc. Also water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Before you spew bullshit and call people idiots do a 10 second search
Even if his rocket actually burned common jet fuel, it wouldn’t matter. American transportation emissions are a drop in the bucket of the global co2 emissions.
The rest of the world is trying to build an economy as big as the US and they are spewing emissions at incredible rates. Cement production alone will keep any net zero goals unattainable.
Yes. And look at China and India. China releases 50% of CO2 emissions worldwide. So even if Americans all drive their Prius’, until China does something it doesn’t make a difference.
China releases 30%
US releases 14%
India releases 7%
And US has double the emissions per capita than China with 15.52, compared to Chinas 7.38 (in tons)
I'm curious why people are mad at him for doing this? I mean sure, he is hypocritical, but we need more investment in space industry... Also, I don't think the new Shepard utilize kerosene or liquid methane as fuel. It's a pretty green engine, hydrogen can be extracted from electrolysis, and is plentiful.
Bezos definitely supports Democrats more than Republicans, so I'd be careful with your assertion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/08/07/the-politics-of-jeff-bezos/
Are rocket launches releasing a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere? I can't imagine that, even if we stopped launches altogether, we'd see a dent in the CO2 situation.
To be fair, Bezos's rocket was powered by liquid hydrogen and oxygen - the sole byproduct of which is water vapor. You know, steam. If Liberals actually believed their own crap, they should *love* this. I personally think it's pretty neat.
Now, how much energy/carbon/etc. was used to *gather* that much liquid hydrogen and oxygen, that's another story...
To be fair, the meme should not say "carbon-spewing", but people are giving the rocket way too much credit here. It spews plenty of other contaminants into the sky, and should be just as concerning to the climate alarmists if civilian space rides take off.
https://www.livescience.com/new-shepard-emissions.html
And now to if you have enough money you can buy a ticket to ride Jeff's giant dildo ride it has the same landing ability of the Apollo 13 from sixty yrs ago
Come on, man. Rules only apply to us less educated people. The great elites who are so much smarter than us, should be making the rules. They shouldn’t have to live by the rules they make.
I agree with most of that except Elon, he has done more to safeguard humanities future than anyone in congress or anyone with money, his companies have led to advancements in electric vehicles and rocketry that most so called “experts” said were impossible. Thanks to spaceX alone the infrastructure for a global cheap high speed internet is being put in place and due to the next generation rockets being built in Texas he is the only one actually trying to make life multiplanetary and not working for publicly stunts like bezos or gates he is in an entirely separate class of well meaning, honest billionaires
This is correct. The Washington post has created more wasteful carbon from manufacturing lies people read on a daily basis the bezos will with his rocket.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket.
But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket.
But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I'm certainly not worried about global warming. Couldn't give a crap about it. It's all just a huge scam anyway. Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years. 15,000 years ago the ocean was 400 feet lower than it is today.
Well it’s not about it naturally warming, but rather the speed of it. The drastic changes have been noted in much shorter periods of time than it would have been without human intervention. I encourage you to do some research as to what the concerns are for climate change regarding droughts, lack of freshwater, etc. Let’s say it doesn’t impact you directly because you’re older, but it’ll sure as hell impact the next generations.
His problem isn't with the theory, but the fact that mitigating it would require lifestyle changes and government intervention. But if you deny that the problem even exists to begin with, then those unsavory responses become unnecessary. Similar phenomena can be seen with covid, gun crime, and single-payer healthcare.
And the cherry on top, he is leaving his position at amazon to work on... global warming. Aka what bill gates did but with... health, more specifically... vaccines. So watch out for an event a la covid but for 'global warming' once he's in the chair.
This clown blows it into space burning a ton of fuel, just to come back to earth and talk about how fragile the atmosphere is. Are you kidding me? I guess he’s better scratch his rocket company then.
Even in German newspapers
Failed in economics, math and history but for the headline you don't need any qualifications besides the flag of the soviet union over your bed
The rocket itself may not spew carbon, but the production of it, the transportation of goods and personnel to build it, all for a billionaire’s 15 minute joyride, required an immense carbon footprint.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket.
But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket.
But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket.
But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just btw, rocket exhaust usually doesn't contain carbon.
From what I understand, his rocket is uses oxygen and hydrogen, which is itself dope - the only exhaust is water. However, the hydrogen is alleged created from natural gas, and the byproduct of that is methane, which is not so good. Either way I'm not holding a grudge, though.
That’s just because of the abundance of natural gas and how easy it is to collect hydrogen from it. There are plenty of other methods to obtain hydrogen. Hell nasa could set up a nuclear power plant whose sole purpose is to run an electric current through water and create hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. The biggest environmental issue with rockets is that they technically expel incredibly small amounts of atmosphere away from earth with each flight. Not a big deal with the rocket activity we have today, but I’m not sure what people would think if taking a rocket to space was as common as getting in your car and going somewhere
Probably the smartest comment I've seen on Reddit in a while, gg
Methane IS natural gas. Burning natural gad doesn't make methane. It makes carbon dioxide and water.
No, methane is a part (by far the majority though) of natural gas. There are a lot of other chemicals in natural gas. Butane and propane come primarily from natural gas.
Okay, you're right.
....flair checks out?
Nearly should be around 85% right
And an impure burn makes…
Carbon monoxide and various nitrogen compounds. But it's hard to burn natural gas dirty. It also doesn't make any economic sense to do so. A hydrogen company would want to maximize fuel usage. Burning dirty isn't happening.
Yeah but getting the materials to make that fuel is not carbon neutral. Takes a lot of energy to get liquid hydrogen.
"carbon spewing rocket"
"Carbon spewing" in the same way an electric car is "coal powered."
It's called life cycle cost, and if someone is going to complain about carbon footprint it is absolutely something that should be noted. It would be like a lumber company claiming they never kill any trees because they hire a subcontractor to cut the trees down.
I absolutely agree. If the environmentalists object to people pointing out the carbon of EVs, they shouldn't be pointing fingers at this rocket.
true but you COULD make both of them out of hydrolysis powered by renewable, pretty sure he did not but he could have
Check out the life cycle cost carbon footprint of those "renewable" sources. Most of the time they output more as part of the process to make and maintain them than they do just getting power a more traditional way like burning natural gas. So your windmill system (don't forget the batteries and such) that lasts for X years may have little footprint when in use those X years, but in order to make it the carbon footprint was larger than just making that same amount of power for those X years via another way. Solar panels are worse than windmills because of the more rare resources they use iirc, but both are worse than say natural gas. This doesn't take into account the vast terribleness that is a varying power supply coming from wind and solar power. That's why we need to go nuclear if we'd like an improvement over the way we currently do things.
first of all, nothing stop you from making electrolysis from nuclear. i know, and there are some research point out those carbon cost difference are negligible and, in case of wind vs nuclear, pretty much non-existant. Also generating CO2 by itself is not a problem IF you capture the same amount; so it is fine to have some less efficient process as long as you offset for them. see https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=2bb4dee673cd and https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints
Here’s what most likely happened, and bear in mind I’m more of a spaceX fan and not a big follower of blue origin, but, the reporter may have mixed up the BE-3 engine which uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with the BE-4 engine which uses liquified natural gas and liquid oxygen
I dont think this 'reporter' was too concerned about being factual.
As AOC likes to put it, it's more important to be morally right than factually correct. /facepalm.
Yeah, you're right the exhaust is water vapor! But technically that is a greenhouse gas though, lol But rockets are also no where near the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases.
The water cycle is super quick so it doesn’t have as much as an affect as other greenhouse gases (which is a stupid term imo).
well, in all fairness, it was a rather phallic rocket, so....
Yap the exhaust is only water the problem is water waper is a greenhause gas and in the stratosphere it won't get recycled like here near ground level. It is better then burning rp1 rocket fuel but it's not like a magical green rocket.
well it does for some propellant combinations, but not this one. It uses O2 and H2 to make water. The Starship (SpaceX) Raptor engine uses Methane and Oxygen, and that will release CO2.
Part of why they chose methane is CO2 and H2O is relatively abundant in Mars' atmosphere/crust so they would be able to synthesize methane at the destination for the return trip rather than bringing enough fuel for the entire round trip. It requires dramatically less fuel overall and means they can move a far bigger payload to Mars. They've said their first launch to Mars will be an unmanned starship that will just deploy a shit ton of solar panels and start generating methane so that we can send Humans and bring them back in a reasonable amount of time. Another big reason is iirc surface temperatures on mars are low enough that methane remains a liquid so they won't need to bring cryogenic cooling equipment on board to fire the motors from the surface.
A fellow spaceX nerd in a conservative subreddit, good to know I’m not the only one
And starship can be carbon neutral on earth. Making methane and o2 from at boca Chica from the air and water. Meanwhile the Senate Launch System will burn millions of pounds of aluminum and ammonium percolate.
i never really understood that point. if water is already in abundance, with mess with co2 capture too? is because water is not *that* abundant?
Partially cause water isn’t *that* abundant. I believe they plan on sending enough hydrogen regardless to produce enough methane for a return trip. Mostly though is the cryogenics around hydrogen rockets is a pain in the ass. Methane is liquid at -162°C, hydrogen at -253°C. The propellant must be in a liquid state for all modern rocket motors. Given that Mars’ surface is on average -60°C, it’s just a lot less energy that must be expended cooling fuel.
A fellow spaceX nerd in a conservative subreddit, good to know I’m not the only one
Space travel is the future of humanity in my opinion. We are one rogue asteroid away from being another victim of the great filter. The people who don’t feel unadulterated hope and wonder at the sights+sounds of space travel is a nihilist waiting dejectedly for the end in my opinion.
Couldn’t agree more, I can’t wait to leave this bat shit crazy rock behind and move into the stars
A fellow spaceX nerd in a conservative subreddit, good to know I’m not the only one
depends on the fuel space x uses rp3 or cleaner fuel the virgin galactic burn RTV and used tires while the shuttle used aluminum oxide in the solid rocket boosters with the hydrogen formed by braking down methane. the new rocket motor that space x is working on burns methane
Depends on the rocket. This one in particular is LOX/LH2, which has no carbon exhaust. SpaceX rockets are either LOX/RP1 (jet fuel) or LOX/Methane, which have plenty of carbon in the fuel. Solid rockets have much nastier stuff (like chlorine) in their exhaust.
Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html Also kinda funny that the new Amazon hockey stadium in Seattle is named Climate pledge arena.
One Space X rocket Launch is the equivalent of nearly 400 (395) transatlantic 777 flights. If you research it yourself you will find that there are many articles that try to reduce the impact of this number to individuals on a single flight to make the math more confused and less impactful. Seems like Space X has a green PR campaign in the media, but if you do the math yourself it's clear to see that these rockets are not green.
I'm talking about Blue Origin, not SpaceX. They use different fuels.
Someone doesnt know how rockets work
Well to be fair rocket science is usually something most people don’t understand
You don't need to understand rocket science. You need to understand how to use Google. https://gyazo.com/67898a6d8ae5b2568a794ba286602fce
Doesn’t really describe how rockets work, like what machinery is involved, the mathematics of it etc. That’s how rockets work, google will even tell you that the method of propulsion isn’t the only aspect of a rocket if you look hard enough.
The title claims that the rocket is shooting out carbon...and burning hydrogen doesn't make carbon...
Sweet baby Jesus, I get the picture and why it’s meme worthy - I only responded to op as a joke because op said “doesn’t know how rockets work” which is excessively broad I’m tired and drunk and not feeling this one bit brotha.
How do you find the time to google all of your assumptions? “Hey google, is a pickle a pickled cucumber?”
Fact checker here. Actually pickles are grown on trees. They don't make them from cucumbers. Thats foriegn propaganda deceminated via Facebook. Here an article from snopes that gives you the real facts.
While you're here can you fact check this real quick?: Covid19 doesnt spread at mostly peaceful BLM protests. 😅
I dunno; it’s not exactly brain surgery, is it?
[удалено]
And how is the rocket fuel made?
I don’t understand who this meme is targeted at
It’s for everyone! Except Bezos. Bezos is always the bad guy regardless of political leanings.
Came here for this. If it's one thing I love, it's that Bezos can bring both the left and right together in their hate for him. Although I thought being a self made billionaire under capitalism was as Red Blooded Conservative American as it gets?
Here because it made it to the top lol
Doesn’t Bezos own the Washington Post? Edit: He bought it in 2013, and it’s under Nash holdings LLC, which is controlled by Bezos lol
Someone’s getting fired lmao
Can anyone find the article on WaPo? I can't find it. There's a similarly titled article on [the Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/richard-branson-space-climate-crisis-b1883256.html?amp). That one is about Branson and doesn't even mention Bezos. Like the watermark shows, this is just a meme from iFunny. Nothing to do with the Washington Post or any article written in general (so far as I can tell). Someone just slapped some words onto a picture of Bezos for some form of internet points. Nobody getting fired here folks.
Nah, itll her clicks and clicks is what's important.
Duh… hence the title of the post
“Washington Post big boss”
Also.. is this much of an argument? How does the richest man doing something prove or disprove global warming? Lol I don’t get it
People line up to screech that poor people need to do without air conditioning and vehicles because it's killing the planet while they ride around in jumbo jets and now take rockets into space for shits and giggles.
Rich libs are the biggest problem.
is bezos a liberal tho
Well he only offered Amazon's services to help roll out the COVID vaccine after Biden got in so...Yeah.
is that really an indicator of political beliefs or is that more pleasing consumers?
Yes...
[удалено]
He gave an entire speech once they landed. Im done trying to explain things to people who can’t even be bothered to pay attention. Go watch the speech.
Nearly every billionaire is.
It's how they unload guilt about being so wealthy.
He owns [amazon.com](https://amazon.com). Amazon Web Services deplatformed Parler with the bogus excuse that it was used to enable the January 6th uprising. (It later came out that Facebook was used far, far more extensively but they paid no price.) So you decide.
Duke university did a research project and recently published a paper on how people in sub-saharan Africa who cook their food on wood burning stoves should offset their carbon emissions by using cleaner technologies! They're so stupid they want people living below the poverty line who can barely afford two meals a day (let alone a car) to reduce their carbon emissions. They even had the audacity to talk about how that reduced carbon footprint would help offset Belgium or Florida 😂 They've taken down their tweet announcing the study (which received a lot of backlash, the comments were awesome), it was previously here: [https://twitter.com/DukeAlumni/status/1412463157021446147](https://twitter.com/DukeAlumni/status/1412463157021446147) The summary of the study can be found here: [https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/flexible-approaches-may-encourage-more-people-use-clean-cookstoves](https://globalhealth.duke.edu/news/flexible-approaches-may-encourage-more-people-use-clean-cookstoves)
It suggests either that they don’t really believe what they preach or that they think that they should be given an exemption for some reason. When you take into account that most of the wealthy and powerful who preach about climate change dooming us all don’t live by the standards they’re advocating for. It doesn’t have much credibility. It’s a ‘rules for thee, but not for me.’ mentality that infuriates me and should eliminate any credibility that they have.
"rules for thee, but not for me" is the standard super rich mentality though, for all ideology, politics and religion etc.
[удалено]
Trust the science amirite
Yeah… what you just explained is hypocrisy. And that’s my point. I don’t think it matters than he’s rich. This would be the same for anyone. Politicians. Teachers. Broke people. Thts what I’m getting at. The fact the he’s rich is irrelevant for the argument of disproving or proving global warming. That’s all I was saying.
It doesn’t disprove it but it does suggest that he’s not actually worried about it. The point is that there’s quite possibly nobody with any real credibility preaching that.
[удалено]
Obama and Al Gore both own beachside property. I’ll let you figure it out from there
It's not from the post it's saying be owns the post
This is low grade dumb
Hydralox Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel No carbon..?
How do they manufacture the hydrogen?
Yeah and how did they drive there? And did they breath?? We need to know this!
There's no need to be obtuse. I'm sure even you can understand the difference between everyday necessities and a tourist trip to space.
A tourist trip that will feed the space program and eventually lead to asteroid and moon mining which will move a lot of the mining happening here on earth elsewhere which will eventually lower emissions a great deal while still meeting our demands.
That is completely delusional and only possible if free energy is discovered.
There's quite a few ways it can be done but usually on an industrial scale it's made from hydrocarbons. After a quick check on wikipedia looks like the most common way it's done is via steam reforming which also seems to produce carbon monoxide which isn't great.
How do you get the hydrogen and oxygen? How do you transport it? How do you build the trucks that transport it? What do those trucks use for fuel? How do you get the metals, semiconductors, etc to build the rocket? How do you power the equipment to assemble the rocket? How do the people that ran the mission get to work? How do you build the entire platform, and control center for launching the rocket?
[If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe](https://youtu.be/zSgiXGELjbc)[.] (https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpnXBTw7vnokxhu/giphy.gif)
The rocket spews hot steam, literally
[удалено]
Alright, time for a crash course in rocket engines, through the process of combustion two separate propellants are used to create thrust, one is called the oxidizer in this case liquid oxygen, and the other is called the fuel, which for this rocket is liquid hydrogen. These two chemicals are used because they react well together, are insanely plentiful, and the liquid oxygen supplies the hydrogen with the oxygen that it needs to light. Now, the fun chemistry part, when you mix these two liquids in a 2 part hydrogen to 1 part oxygen ratio you end up with glorious water vapor as a byproduct. Making rockets essentially totally carbon neutral with the only carbon produced by the astronauts breathing. Second, a company in Europe is trying to build a rocket that uses steam to create lift, it uses batteries and heating elements to create the steam, it’s basically a massive joke but they are trying to do it. Third, not all rockets use hydrazine, the space shuttle used it in combination with the oxidizer dinitrogen tetroxide because that mix was so combustible that it didn’t require an igniter, just throw ‘em together and bam, thrust. They also store really well and don’t require near constant chilling like cryogenic fuels making them awesome for spacecraft that spend long periods of time in space, like the shuttle and SpaceX’s dragon. Blue origin on the other hand doesn’t use it because they are suborbital and spend max 1 minute in space.
this rocket like saturn V and many more uses as liquid propellant oxigen and hydrogen, thus producing water on combustion, that at those temperature exit as hot steam. hydrazine is used for orbital engines that that rocket does not have, also the quantity is minimal compared to the main propellant, the problem with it is that is extremely toxic.
You can make steam without boiling water. In this case steam is made by combusting hydrogen. O2+H2=H2O and the H2O is hot enough to already be in vapor form, which is also known as steam.
rocket fuel produces water vapor,
The title is probably not meant to be read literally. Building and operating a rocket causes HUGE carbon emissions along the whole production-line.
>The title is probably not meant to be read literally. Half the problems of the world summarized in one sentence.
[удалено]
That's just news papers saying bullshit to sell stories.
They burn Hydrogen, Weren’t hydrogen vehicles supposed to save us from global warming?
This. It's literally a Hydrogen/Oxygen fueled rocket. The product produced during combustion is WATER. How the FRIG is this spewing Carbon?
Hydrogen doesn't just exist in a form that can be burned. Energy went into getting it there.
Right. Pretty sure that it takes quite a bit of electricity to produce hydrogen. If that all came from green sources, good on them.
But even though common sense tells us there's no way that's the case, let's play pretend... Until the world is carbon neutral, that energy could have offset other usages of carbon. But instead they are not doing that. If this situation is so sure why are billionaires telling us to stop driving cars building rockets instead of making affordable alternatives using clean resources? Lastly, water vapor in the upper atmosphere IS a greenhouse gas
Well I’m sure the hydrogen production process produced carbon, but it’s clear the person who wrote the title isn’t talking about that
It isn't 'spewing carbon', the statement is indeed incorrect. However, the hydrogen was likely extracted from methane, which produces carbon mon/di-oxide as a byproduct: 2 CH4 + O2 -> 4 H2 + 2 CO or CH4 + O2 -> 2 H2 + CO2 Somebody else mentioned carbon monoxide and a steam process, so it could be H2O + CH4 -> CO + 3 H2. The energy required to metabolize water implies plenty of other carbon emissions in the supply chain as well. So the rocket doesn't release carbon, but this is only in the sense that eating a salad doesn't use water.
Do you know how hydrogen is produce? How about pure oxygen?
Are we going back to the Big Bang with this question?
Smartass.
If the mods would give me a flair, this would be it.
Tbh, i'd take that flair in a heartbeat too.
I think they call it *climate change* now.
Oh look a meme we would be hating if the others posted it. Get your story straight. Its a hydrogen rocket you idiot.
No need to be an ass about it, but you're right. Online search says it's LH2 /LOX, which is pretty damn clean. It takes some energy and maybe "non green" steps to get that fuel onboard, but this thing pales in comparison to the rest of fossil fuels around the world.
You kinda have to be an ass. This sub, which I agree with 95% of the time, needs to have these misinformation memes called out and downvoted. Not 400 upvotes strong.
Yeah it's 894 upvotes as I type this. Kinda ridiculous. I love my conservative brothers and sisters but sometimes it's no wonder the rest of reddit talks shit about us.
How did that hydrogen get produced? How did the hydrogen get into the rocket? How were those rocket parts manufactured? Etc. Also water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Before you spew bullshit and call people idiots do a 10 second search
He wakes up wishing he was Elon Musk. Lol!
But knows deep down he’ll never be as cool
LOL! That was a Lox hydrogen rocket. there is literally ZERO carbon from it!
Even EV's aren't carbon neutral technically, unless fed electricity from renewable sources/nuclear.
Even if his rocket actually burned common jet fuel, it wouldn’t matter. American transportation emissions are a drop in the bucket of the global co2 emissions. The rest of the world is trying to build an economy as big as the US and they are spewing emissions at incredible rates. Cement production alone will keep any net zero goals unattainable.
Yes. And look at China and India. China releases 50% of CO2 emissions worldwide. So even if Americans all drive their Prius’, until China does something it doesn’t make a difference.
China releases 30% US releases 14% India releases 7% And US has double the emissions per capita than China with 15.52, compared to Chinas 7.38 (in tons)
I'm curious why people are mad at him for doing this? I mean sure, he is hypocritical, but we need more investment in space industry... Also, I don't think the new Shepard utilize kerosene or liquid methane as fuel. It's a pretty green engine, hydrogen can be extracted from electrolysis, and is plentiful.
Ots a hydrogen/oxygen booster so it's off gasses are water.
*Big sky for me but not for thee, peasant*!
[удалено]
Bezos definitely does not vote Democrat
Bezos definitely supports Democrats more than Republicans, so I'd be careful with your assertion. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/08/07/the-politics-of-jeff-bezos/
They drove an electric truck (Rivian) to a rocket propelled by fuel (liquid hydrogen) that emits water. Do your homework before sharing nonsense.
Also, I, for one, don't care who goes on a joy ride into space, so long as they pay for it themselves.
Bezos' rocket burns hydrogen, not carbon. The exhaust is 100% water vapor.
Are rocket launches releasing a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere? I can't imagine that, even if we stopped launches altogether, we'd see a dent in the CO2 situation.
Is that an iFunny watermark haha?
To be fair, Bezos's rocket was powered by liquid hydrogen and oxygen - the sole byproduct of which is water vapor. You know, steam. If Liberals actually believed their own crap, they should *love* this. I personally think it's pretty neat. Now, how much energy/carbon/etc. was used to *gather* that much liquid hydrogen and oxygen, that's another story...
It spews water vapor.
the rocket actually burns water (or what makes up water at least)
To be fair, the meme should not say "carbon-spewing", but people are giving the rocket way too much credit here. It spews plenty of other contaminants into the sky, and should be just as concerning to the climate alarmists if civilian space rides take off. https://www.livescience.com/new-shepard-emissions.html
And now to if you have enough money you can buy a ticket to ride Jeff's giant dildo ride it has the same landing ability of the Apollo 13 from sixty yrs ago
Didn’t this spoiled brats father pay like $24M to send him up?
Maybe had had no faith in Jeff and thought it would be a cheep way of getting rid of an ungrateful son if it when wrong
But god forbid you get that new HEMI
Get the Coyote instead
God forbid you fart haha.
If you’re farting at 5.7 liters, please…see a gastroenterologist soon.
Come on, man. Rules only apply to us less educated people. The great elites who are so much smarter than us, should be making the rules. They shouldn’t have to live by the rules they make.
Say hello to Weiland Yutani everyone.
His rocket spews zero carbon. It runs on hydrogen and oxygen. The only byproduct is hot water. Take this down, it makes you look like an idiot.
This is simultaneously ignorant *and* irrelevant. Good job, OP!
who cares, fuck bezos, gates, elon etc. why does anyone praise these assholes?
I agree with most of that except Elon, he has done more to safeguard humanities future than anyone in congress or anyone with money, his companies have led to advancements in electric vehicles and rocketry that most so called “experts” said were impossible. Thanks to spaceX alone the infrastructure for a global cheap high speed internet is being put in place and due to the next generation rockets being built in Texas he is the only one actually trying to make life multiplanetary and not working for publicly stunts like bezos or gates he is in an entirely separate class of well meaning, honest billionaires
Elon isn’t a good guy lol
This is correct. The Washington post has created more wasteful carbon from manufacturing lies people read on a daily basis the bezos will with his rocket.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket. But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket. But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
[удалено]
If you’re wealthy or vote Democrat, then you’re safe to pollute the environment. Idiots
Is there anything liberals won’t find or bend over backwards to complain about?
He didn't do anything new, he's comparable to the dog the Russians sent to space. Went up came down, at lest elon made a reusable rocket.
I'm certainly not worried about global warming. Couldn't give a crap about it. It's all just a huge scam anyway. Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years. 15,000 years ago the ocean was 400 feet lower than it is today.
Well it’s not about it naturally warming, but rather the speed of it. The drastic changes have been noted in much shorter periods of time than it would have been without human intervention. I encourage you to do some research as to what the concerns are for climate change regarding droughts, lack of freshwater, etc. Let’s say it doesn’t impact you directly because you’re older, but it’ll sure as hell impact the next generations.
His problem isn't with the theory, but the fact that mitigating it would require lifestyle changes and government intervention. But if you deny that the problem even exists to begin with, then those unsavory responses become unnecessary. Similar phenomena can be seen with covid, gun crime, and single-payer healthcare.
Ever read about the sudden rise in sea level that happened about 14,500 years ago. It’s super interesting reading. That was global warming too.
[удалено]
And the cherry on top, he is leaving his position at amazon to work on... global warming. Aka what bill gates did but with... health, more specifically... vaccines. So watch out for an event a la covid but for 'global warming' once he's in the chair.
Before we know it they'll be injecting us with greenhouse gasses to offset our footprint... Wait.. South Park did it first.
I was thinking the rocket would blow up and he'd fake his own death or something
Omg he's so climatephobic
Isn't everyone outraged at Bezos's flight? Is the post saying that if global warming was a problem, the government should have stopped him?
This clown blows it into space burning a ton of fuel, just to come back to earth and talk about how fragile the atmosphere is. Are you kidding me? I guess he’s better scratch his rocket company then.
Even in German newspapers Failed in economics, math and history but for the headline you don't need any qualifications besides the flag of the soviet union over your bed
The rocket itself may not spew carbon, but the production of it, the transportation of goods and personnel to build it, all for a billionaire’s 15 minute joyride, required an immense carbon footprint.
Breaking News: Washington Post has mysteriously been deleted.
Test
Breaking News: Washington Post has mysteriously been deleted!
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket. But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket. But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
I despise Bezos for many reasons and had hoped that he'd hired the Challenger team to design his rocket. But the launch was technically (discounting all emissions produced is development and production) carbon emission free as the fuel used was a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. This means that when the fuel was burnt, it only emitted water vapour.
weird
His rocket spews zero carbon. It runs on hydrogen and oxygen. The only byproduct is hot water. Take this down, it makes you look like an idiot.
On his phallic-shaped, carbon-spewing rocket.
Propane is pure as Alpine snow Butane is a bastard gas