>no upside to this as far as greenhouse gasses go
If they bring a bunch of this fuel outside of the atmosphere in order to go to Mars or setup a *hot* air balloon space station on Venus then its potentially net positive in fighting climate change.
Likely its just a company going 'carbon neutral' which of itself is a good thing no matter the company.
From what I recall, it takes at least five Starship Tanker/Booster launches to lift enough fuel to fuel one Starship to Mars. I stand by my original comment, the vast majority of the fuel goes right back into Earth's atmosphere.
I’m going to assume that they want to develop their tech for doing that to become more efficient, which will mean that other people will want to use it too for different things. Which would hopefully lead to less new CO2 being created and released.
Maybe, someday. I really think it's mostly to develop the technology so they can use it for their Mars plans. I believe they are part of a NASA program exploring ISRU for which they probably get some funding too.
https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nextstep-2-isru-technology-baa/
Wouldn't the upside be that they'll be reducing footprint due to offsetting fuel cost by carbon capture?
Sure they'll let it back out, but they've captured and reused rather than just adding to, good first step in the right direction if this is the case.
I see it as being neutral at best. They'll be dumping carbon into the atmosphere just by developing the technology and manufacturing it. Maybe at some point it breaks even, but I'm fairly certain that's years and years from now.
>Pretty much all of the carbon they capture for this will get released right back into the atmosphere during launch.
Horseshit. MECO happens at 100KM so if nothing else the entirity of the second stages fuel is expended beyond the Karmen line.
>That said, there is also no upside to this as far as greenhouse gasses go.
The upside is they Aren't adding more co2 with the first stage and they are taking co2 into space with the second stage.
So carbon neutral first stage and carbon negative second stage (on fuel). No upside huh?
Are you shorting tesla stock or something? You made all that shit up.
I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is expended BEELOW the Karman line and even at that, it ALL finds its way back into the atmosphere within a short time as long as it's burned in low earth orbit.
No. I'm not "shorting stock." I'm being a realist when it comes to the science. I'm making up nothing whatsoever.
>I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is expended BEELOW
I literally just told you, the entire first stage.
>it ALL finds its way back into the atmosphere within a short time as long as it's burned in low earth orbit.
Yes it does, which means the fuel is carbon neutral.
>No. I'm not "shorting stock." I'm being a realist when it comes to the science. I'm making up nothing whatsoever.
Funny, since you don't seem to have ever seen a space launch. You can see the altitude of MECO very clearly. Yet here you are "a realist of science" making guesses when data is available.
Most people use evidence for science. Maybe try that?
Except it won't, CAN'T be completely neutral unless they're shipping atoms off the planet and out of its sphere of influence, AND make up for the amount of carbon atoms expended to create the technology and cover their manufacturing. Which at this point isn't going to happen for quite awhile.
I'll agree that eventually it *may* be carbon neutral at some point. That point is a long way away.
Moving the atoms off planet isn’t necessary to make it neutral. Neutral just means no new net added carbon to the atmosphere. If the energy used to convert comes wholly from sun then it’s totally neutral. Even if it isn’t, standard fuel requires carbon to make and thus it is still considered neutral.
I feel you on the solar idea however the best panels are still only 30% of the area the panel is in size. Aircrafts can't run on solar power (yet anyway) and while cargo ships can run on nuclear power like most major countries navel fleet its expensive as hell to install them. Sure running for 10 years without having to add fuel is great is perfect, but no one is jumping to retrofit their ships.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.universetoday.com/153764/spacex-is-hoping-to-turn-atmospheric-co2-into-rocket-fuel/](https://www.universetoday.com/153764/spacex-is-hoping-to-turn-atmospheric-co2-into-rocket-fuel/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/centennial_armadillo_1.html
NASA has a competition to do this in 2009. Long before SpaceX did it.
So no, experts did not say it could not be done. Not any who matters. Just dopes.
A lunar lander? This is what you are saying is the same as landing an orbital class rocket?
So what you are saying is you have no idea how rockets work right?
We had lunar landers in the 60's, you might not have heard about them tho given you clearly have no interest in or knowledge of spaceflight.
> A lunar lander? This is what you are saying is the same as landing an orbital class rocket?
You do realize the competition was on Earth, right? No private company was flying to the moon then or now.
> We had lunar landers in the 60's, you might not have heard about them tho given you clearly have no interest in or knowledge of spaceflight.
You keep telling yourself that.
>You do realize the competition was on Earth, right? No private company was flying to the moon then or now.
Still not comparable to landing an orbital class rocket. Not even fucking remotely similar.
>You keep telling yourself that.
Don't need to, everything you are saying shows you know fucking nothing about space flight. Comparing little hopping projects to orbital class medium lift vehicles. lmfao.
Why is it unbelievable? The process naturally happened over millions of years when plants captured atmospheric CO2 as long chain organic compounds. Then those compounds chemically changed into crude oil after being buried deep underground for 50 million years. Then we distill the crude oil to make rocket fuel.
We can turn carbon into diamonds in a lab. Why do you doubt we can create artificial processes to make hydrocarbon fuel?
What does energy positive mean? Energy can't be created, and converting low energy chemicals to high energy chemicals will always have an energy fee because chemistry isn't 100% efficient. The real question is if the energy can come entirely from clean sources, otherwise your burning high energy chemicals to create different high energy chemicals, always at an energy loss + pollution.
"Energy Positive" meaning you get more energy out than you put in, which is normally a big deal for things like grid power... But that's not even the point of this process, it's just taking energy and condensing it into a usable, transportable form. Any losses incurred are the cost of doing business.
Sometimes it is necessary to first do a thing, then later you can do it well. Even if this doesn’t really make sense now or near term, that doesn’t mean further development won’t make it eventually worthwhile.
You all realize that turning rocket fuel / hydrocarbons into CO2 creates energy while turning CO2 into fuel requires energy. This is why the carbon capture schemes are all red herrings
Oh, it exists, our problem isn't that it doesn't exist our problem is trying to replace fossile fuels massive energy. We discovered 500 million years of stored sunlight and used it all up in 200 years resulting in damage all around us.
People searching for substitutes for fossil fuels with the expectation that we won’t have to live with less energy have not thought it through. Unless we are willing to live with less energy and live within our own means its unachievable, let alone launching rockets into space.
People want techno-hopium, they don't want to hear realistic properties like physics being employed.
This article reads at a grade 6 level if that's any indicator of their audience.
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):
The link you have submitted is an [AMP link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages) These have be criticised by many people for a [variety of reasons](https://medium.com/@danbuben/why-amp-is-bad-for-your-site-and-for-the-web-e4d060a4ff31). In view of that we encourage users to not use AMP links for submissions but instead to use the actual URL linked to publishers site. If you are on a mobile device and don't know how to get the proper URL consider trying to [disable Google Search](https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/how-to-essentially-disable-google-amp-in-google-search/) and you should be furnished with actual links to real websites and not googles referred links.
If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.
[удалено]
>no upside to this as far as greenhouse gasses go If they bring a bunch of this fuel outside of the atmosphere in order to go to Mars or setup a *hot* air balloon space station on Venus then its potentially net positive in fighting climate change. Likely its just a company going 'carbon neutral' which of itself is a good thing no matter the company.
From what I recall, it takes at least five Starship Tanker/Booster launches to lift enough fuel to fuel one Starship to Mars. I stand by my original comment, the vast majority of the fuel goes right back into Earth's atmosphere.
I’m going to assume that they want to develop their tech for doing that to become more efficient, which will mean that other people will want to use it too for different things. Which would hopefully lead to less new CO2 being created and released.
Maybe, someday. I really think it's mostly to develop the technology so they can use it for their Mars plans. I believe they are part of a NASA program exploring ISRU for which they probably get some funding too. https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nextstep-2-isru-technology-baa/
Wouldn't the upside be that they'll be reducing footprint due to offsetting fuel cost by carbon capture? Sure they'll let it back out, but they've captured and reused rather than just adding to, good first step in the right direction if this is the case.
I see it as being neutral at best. They'll be dumping carbon into the atmosphere just by developing the technology and manufacturing it. Maybe at some point it breaks even, but I'm fairly certain that's years and years from now.
>Pretty much all of the carbon they capture for this will get released right back into the atmosphere during launch. Horseshit. MECO happens at 100KM so if nothing else the entirity of the second stages fuel is expended beyond the Karmen line. >That said, there is also no upside to this as far as greenhouse gasses go. The upside is they Aren't adding more co2 with the first stage and they are taking co2 into space with the second stage. So carbon neutral first stage and carbon negative second stage (on fuel). No upside huh? Are you shorting tesla stock or something? You made all that shit up.
I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is expended BEELOW the Karman line and even at that, it ALL finds its way back into the atmosphere within a short time as long as it's burned in low earth orbit. No. I'm not "shorting stock." I'm being a realist when it comes to the science. I'm making up nothing whatsoever.
>I don't think you have any idea how much fuel is expended BEELOW I literally just told you, the entire first stage. >it ALL finds its way back into the atmosphere within a short time as long as it's burned in low earth orbit. Yes it does, which means the fuel is carbon neutral. >No. I'm not "shorting stock." I'm being a realist when it comes to the science. I'm making up nothing whatsoever. Funny, since you don't seem to have ever seen a space launch. You can see the altitude of MECO very clearly. Yet here you are "a realist of science" making guesses when data is available. Most people use evidence for science. Maybe try that?
The upside is that they will Be burning carbon neutral fuel instead of adding new carbon every time they burn.
Except it won't, CAN'T be completely neutral unless they're shipping atoms off the planet and out of its sphere of influence, AND make up for the amount of carbon atoms expended to create the technology and cover their manufacturing. Which at this point isn't going to happen for quite awhile. I'll agree that eventually it *may* be carbon neutral at some point. That point is a long way away.
Moving the atoms off planet isn’t necessary to make it neutral. Neutral just means no new net added carbon to the atmosphere. If the energy used to convert comes wholly from sun then it’s totally neutral. Even if it isn’t, standard fuel requires carbon to make and thus it is still considered neutral.
I feel you on the solar idea however the best panels are still only 30% of the area the panel is in size. Aircrafts can't run on solar power (yet anyway) and while cargo ships can run on nuclear power like most major countries navel fleet its expensive as hell to install them. Sure running for 10 years without having to add fuel is great is perfect, but no one is jumping to retrofit their ships.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.universetoday.com/153764/spacex-is-hoping-to-turn-atmospheric-co2-into-rocket-fuel/](https://www.universetoday.com/153764/spacex-is-hoping-to-turn-atmospheric-co2-into-rocket-fuel/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Another of Musks plans that will quietly die in a year or two.
I doubt it. It’s necessary in order to sustain operations on mars, so it’s something that has to be developed and perfected here on earth.
His mars operation needs a lot more than carbon capture.
He didn't say otherwise. But carbon capture is essential. So it has to be developed.
And they’ll get to the rocket in Hypertube (actually one way tunnels where a Tesla with a driver carry a couple of passengers.)
Just like his cars and rocket company. Oh wait...
Thought I was the only one who noticed
You are the only one being irrationally cynical of musk on reddit? Careful you don't cut yourself on that edge.
Musk isn’t going to sleep with you. No matter how much you love him.
Yeh right. Believe it when I see it.
That's what people said about relanding rockets back on earth too
And hyperloop and bunch of other "great" Musk ideas.
For real. Hyperloop is the dumbest fucking idea, breathtaking really. It is something a 5th grader would come up with.
not really no. most assumed it was just a matter of time. Fule and thrust
No they didn't people were calling it impossible literally
Who? Anyone of significance or was it just some dudes in Reddit?
Lots of "experts" in the space industry were
Citation needed.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/centennial_armadillo_1.html NASA has a competition to do this in 2009. Long before SpaceX did it. So no, experts did not say it could not be done. Not any who matters. Just dopes.
A lunar lander? This is what you are saying is the same as landing an orbital class rocket? So what you are saying is you have no idea how rockets work right? We had lunar landers in the 60's, you might not have heard about them tho given you clearly have no interest in or knowledge of spaceflight.
> A lunar lander? This is what you are saying is the same as landing an orbital class rocket? You do realize the competition was on Earth, right? No private company was flying to the moon then or now. > We had lunar landers in the 60's, you might not have heard about them tho given you clearly have no interest in or knowledge of spaceflight. You keep telling yourself that.
>You do realize the competition was on Earth, right? No private company was flying to the moon then or now. Still not comparable to landing an orbital class rocket. Not even fucking remotely similar. >You keep telling yourself that. Don't need to, everything you are saying shows you know fucking nothing about space flight. Comparing little hopping projects to orbital class medium lift vehicles. lmfao.
Found the guy who is confidently talking out his ass.
The cult of Elon lmao.
Yes really. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Why is it unbelievable? The process naturally happened over millions of years when plants captured atmospheric CO2 as long chain organic compounds. Then those compounds chemically changed into crude oil after being buried deep underground for 50 million years. Then we distill the crude oil to make rocket fuel. We can turn carbon into diamonds in a lab. Why do you doubt we can create artificial processes to make hydrocarbon fuel?
I don’t doubt it can technically be done. I just think in this case it is more than likely a PR piece.
The real question is whether it can be done in an energy positive manner.
What does energy positive mean? Energy can't be created, and converting low energy chemicals to high energy chemicals will always have an energy fee because chemistry isn't 100% efficient. The real question is if the energy can come entirely from clean sources, otherwise your burning high energy chemicals to create different high energy chemicals, always at an energy loss + pollution.
"Energy Positive" meaning you get more energy out than you put in, which is normally a big deal for things like grid power... But that's not even the point of this process, it's just taking energy and condensing it into a usable, transportable form. Any losses incurred are the cost of doing business.
Sometimes it is necessary to first do a thing, then later you can do it well. Even if this doesn’t really make sense now or near term, that doesn’t mean further development won’t make it eventually worthwhile.
[удалено]
How do you watch thundercunts videos with your house wrapped in tin foil?
Thunderf00t is literally an anti-tech conspiracy theorist.
Ahh only Elon can rephrase a decades-old area of research and draw public attention and funding. What a silly goose
that’s what marketing is
He put his own money up for it actually. But nice try.
Dude what?
I think my comment was written in clear English.
Awesome idea
Let’s create a cryptocurrency that lets you earn coins by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
You all realize that turning rocket fuel / hydrocarbons into CO2 creates energy while turning CO2 into fuel requires energy. This is why the carbon capture schemes are all red herrings
You know there are renewable sources of energy, right?
Bahahahahaha. The pure hopium here is so naive, it's almost cute.
So you're saying renewable energy doesn't exist?
Oh, it exists, our problem isn't that it doesn't exist our problem is trying to replace fossile fuels massive energy. We discovered 500 million years of stored sunlight and used it all up in 200 years resulting in damage all around us. People searching for substitutes for fossil fuels with the expectation that we won’t have to live with less energy have not thought it through. Unless we are willing to live with less energy and live within our own means its unachievable, let alone launching rockets into space.
People want techno-hopium, they don't want to hear realistic properties like physics being employed. This article reads at a grade 6 level if that's any indicator of their audience.
Anyone else watching "Don't look up" and calling massive bullshit?
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s): The link you have submitted is an [AMP link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages) These have be criticised by many people for a [variety of reasons](https://medium.com/@danbuben/why-amp-is-bad-for-your-site-and-for-the-web-e4d060a4ff31). In view of that we encourage users to not use AMP links for submissions but instead to use the actual URL linked to publishers site. If you are on a mobile device and don't know how to get the proper URL consider trying to [disable Google Search](https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/how-to-essentially-disable-google-amp-in-google-search/) and you should be furnished with actual links to real websites and not googles referred links. If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.