Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 593  
Prev  |  Next
Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 01:17pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Trusting your numbers.... each car is 4 tones/yr and a launch is 400 tones. A launch would seem to be equivalent to 100 cars/yr vs 87 million. What is the additional multiplier?


Sorry, that is actually 400 metric tons of kerosene based on the link below, not actual CO2. I was using two different calculators when doing the total math and typed the wrong thing.

"Upon reaching orbit, the world’s heaviest operational rocket will have burned about 400 metric tons of kerosene and emitted more carbon dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries. That kind of shock to the atmosphere is stoking concerns about the effect that launching into orbit has on Earth, and it’s about to get worse."

Can we get to space without damaging the Earth through huge carbon emissions?

Of course this also does not take into account the CO2 emitted to slow the rocket as it lands back on earth.



I repeat from below.

And the comparative economics (financial and CO2 emissions) should start from extraction of raw materials, building the rocket, fuel etc. into scrapping between a single-use and multiple-use rockets.

The comparison should also be made between rocket and another rocket, not rocket with oranges or apples.[emoticon]


And I repeat from above, if things are as bad as they say environmentally, then should we really be blasting off rockets that put out more CO2 in a few minutes than the average car would in over two centuries just for profit? My point was never to compare the two, it was to ask if we should be doing it in the first place since many BEV fans are saying that the environment is so bad already. It must not be that bad of shape if you don't mind rockets being blasted into the air just for monetary gain. Now they are taling about doing 1,000 launches a year.

I guess if some other company emits CO2 for profit then they are evil, but if Elon does it then he is a god. huh....[emoticon]


And you seriously want us to subscribe to your myopia and false analogy?

SpaceX is meant to replace singlee-use expensive and more environmental harmful rockets and there is no alternative not to be doing it for the purpose of research and launching communication (and for the US, spy) satellites.

* This post was edited 06/01/20 01:53pm by Yosemite Sam1 *

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 01:42pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Trusting your numbers.... each car is 4 tones/yr and a launch is 400 tones. A launch would seem to be equivalent to 100 cars/yr vs 87 million. What is the additional multiplier?


Sorry, that is actually 400 metric tons of kerosene based on the link below, not actual CO2. I was using two different calculators when doing the total math and typed the wrong thing.

"Upon reaching orbit, the world’s heaviest operational rocket will have burned about 400 metric tons of kerosene and emitted more carbon dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries. That kind of shock to the atmosphere is stoking concerns about the effect that launching into orbit has on Earth, and it’s about to get worse."

Can we get to space without damaging the Earth through huge carbon emissions?

Of course this also does not take into account the CO2 emitted to slow the rocket as it lands back on earth.



I repeat from below.

And the comparative economics (financial and CO2 emissions) should start from extraction of raw materials, building the rocket, fuel etc. into scrapping between a single-use and multiple-use rockets.

The comparison should also be made between rocket and another rocket, not rocket with oranges or apples.[emoticon]


And I repeat from above, if things are as bad as they say environmentally, then should we really be blasting off rockets that put out more CO2 in a few minutes than the average car would in over two centuries just for profit? My point was never to compare the two, it was to ask if we should be doing it in the first place since many BEV fans are saying that the environment is so bad already. It must not be that bad of shape if you don't mind rockets being blasted into the air just for monetary gain. Now they are taling about doing 1,000 launches a year.

I guess if some other company emits CO2 for profit then they are evil, but if Elon does it then he is a god. huh....[emoticon]


And you seriously want us to subscribe to your myopia and false analogy?

SpaceX is meant to replace sing-use expensive and more environmental harmful rockets and there is no alternative not to be doing it for the purpose of research and launching communication (and for the US, spy) satellites.


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.

* This post was edited 06/01/20 01:50pm by ShinerBock *

Grit dog

Black Diamond, WA

Senior Member

Joined: 05/06/2013

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 01:55pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Have you 3 really been arguing for 570...sorry, 571 pages??


"Yes Sir, Oct 10 1888, Those poor school children froze to death in their tracks. They did not even find them until Spring. Especially hard hit were the ones who had to trek uphill to school both ways, with no shoes." -Bert A.

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 02:28pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.


Sorry, I'm not playing with your mix salad of conflated issues and false analogy -- unless you can show me a flying car going into outer space to launch research and satellites.

I don't even know the hypocritical environmentalists you are talking about on whether they are complicit by not protesting Elon's SpaceX.

But you can come back when we have spaceship EV cars and then I promise I'll engage with you --like 100 years from now, ok?[emoticon]

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 02:35pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.


Sorry, I'm not playing with your mix salad of conflated issues and false analogy -- unless you can show me a flying car going into outer space to launch research and satellites.

I don't even know the hypocritical environmentalists you are talking about on whether they are complicit by not protesting Elon's SpaceX.

But you can come back when we have spaceship EV cars and then I promise I'll engage with you --like 100 years from now, ok?[emoticon]


Well, then don't say what I am saying is false if you do not have the data to back it up..... mkay.

time2roll

Southern California

Senior Member

Joined: 03/21/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 06/01/20 02:35pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Hell, I'm just wondering where the Semi is?
Need to check in more often. Has been delayed for CyberTruck.

Not at all surprising right? How is Nikola One coming along?

I am not sure which will be first to market...
Nikola expects to sell and deliver 12,000 class-8 trucks by 2024

* This post was edited 06/01/20 03:48pm by time2roll *


2001 F150 SuperCrew
2006 Keystone Springdale 249FWBHLS
675w Solar pictures back up

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 02:44pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.


Sorry, I'm not playing with your mix salad of conflated issues and false analogy -- unless you can show me a flying car going into outer space to launch research and satellites.

I don't even know the hypocritical environmentalists you are talking about on whether they are complicit by not protesting Elon's SpaceX.

But you can come back when we have spaceship EV cars and then I promise I'll engage with you --like 100 years from now, ok?[emoticon]


Well, then don't say what I am saying is false if you do not have the data to back it up..... mkay.


Please look up what "false analogy" means.

Reisender

NA

Senior Member

Joined: 12/09/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 02:48pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Trusting your numbers.... each car is 4 tones/yr and a launch is 400 tones. A launch would seem to be equivalent to 100 cars/yr vs 87 million. What is the additional multiplier?


Sorry, that is actually 400 metric tons of kerosene based on the link below, not actual CO2. I was using two different calculators when doing the total math and typed the wrong thing.

"Upon reaching orbit, the world’s heaviest operational rocket will have burned about 400 metric tons of kerosene and emitted more carbon dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries. That kind of shock to the atmosphere is stoking concerns about the effect that launching into orbit has on Earth, and it’s about to get worse."

Can we get to space without damaging the Earth through huge carbon emissions?

Of course this also does not take into account the CO2 emitted to slow the rocket as it lands back on earth.



I repeat from below.

And the comparative economics (financial and CO2 emissions) should start from extraction of raw materials, building the rocket, fuel etc. into scrapping between a single-use and multiple-use rockets.

The comparison should also be made between rocket and another rocket, not rocket with oranges or apples.[emoticon]


And I repeat from above, if things are as bad as they say environmentally, then should we really be blasting off rockets that put out more CO2 in a few minutes than the average car would in over two centuries just for profit? My point was never to compare the two, it was to ask if we should be doing it in the first place since many BEV fans are saying that the environment is so bad already. It must not be that bad of shape if you don't mind rockets being blasted into the air just for monetary gain. Now they are taling about doing 1,000 launches a year.

I guess if some other company emits CO2 for profit then they are evil, but if Elon does it then he is a god. huh....[emoticon]


And you seriously want us to subscribe to your myopia and false analogy?

SpaceX is meant to replace sing-use expensive and more environmental harmful rockets and there is no alternative not to be doing it for the purpose of research and launching communication (and for the US, spy) satellites.


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.


I don’t follow this much but does NASA even do rockets anymore? I thought it was all contracted out to Space X and Boeing. I actually don’t know.

ShinerBock

SATX

Senior Member

Joined: 02/22/2015

View Profile



Posted: 06/01/20 02:57pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:


How is what I am is false? How is it more harmful? Give me some numbers? Waat is the footprint of the NASA rockets the whole way through versus the SpaceX? When doing you calculations, don't be surprised to see that they reason why they reuse those types pf rockets is for cost reasons(which SpaceX even states on their website), not to be environmentally friendly.

Read SpaceX's mission statement. They are doing it partly to take regular people like you and I into space. Who is currently doing that right to compare their emissions to? No one. So why is there a need to do it and why was there a need to blast a rocket into the air just to launch a car into space?

FYI, NASA does recover and refurbish their rockets for reuse...... LINK, but it costs a lot to do it. It appears Elon like profitability over the environment.

And just to be clear, I don't care if Elon or some other company wants to blast rockets into the air. All I want is for Elon and his fan base to stop being hypocrites and saying ICE drivers are ruining the environment when Elon is blasting way more pollution into the air then a million ICE drivers all for personal pleasure and profit.

What I am trying to say is, if things are as bad as the alarmist are trying to make them out to be, then you would think they would be against anything that added any unneeded carbon into the air especially something that adds millions of tons of it. There is no need to do what Elon is trying to do right now if things were that bad and even NASA has significantly reduced the amount of flights over the past decade to reduce their impact while Elon is adding more.


Sorry, I'm not playing with your mix salad of conflated issues and false analogy -- unless you can show me a flying car going into outer space to launch research and satellites.

I don't even know the hypocritical environmentalists you are talking about on whether they are complicit by not protesting Elon's SpaceX.

But you can come back when we have spaceship EV cars and then I promise I'll engage with you --like 100 years from now, ok?[emoticon]


Well, then don't say what I am saying is false if you do not have the data to back it up..... mkay.


Please look up what "false analogy" means.


Don't need to. I already know what it means. And as I stated, my premise was not to compare the two and since you keep saying what I am saying(even though I am not comparing them) is a false analogy based on their total footprint, then give me the numbers. What is the total carbon footprint of NASA's rockets versus SpaceX's rockets. If you are able to say that what I am saying is a false analogy, then you should already have these numbers readily available.

Yosemite Sam1

Under the pines.

Senior Member

Joined: 03/28/2018

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 06/01/20 02:59pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Reisender wrote:



I don’t follow this much but does NASA even do rockets anymore? I thought it was all contracted out to Space X and Boeing. I actually don’t know.


And NASA is contracting this to SpaceX because it's a lot cheaper.

I don't know if Elon is already making profit -- but it will be incidental if he is, meaning, NASA wants it cheap and don't care if Elon is making profit.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Page  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 593  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Tow Vehicles

 > Tesla Semi truck unveil & test ride set for Oct 26th !
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Tow Vehicles


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.