I see "Richard Branson completed a daring, barnstorming flight to edge of space Sunday, rocketing through the atmosphere in the spaceplane he’d been yearning to ride for nearly 20 years." That's the Washington Post dribbling enthusiasm like a sci-fi fanboy.
I have no idea what "edge of space" means, but I suspect it should be "the edge of space," and it's sloppy editing.
Anyway, WaPo is normally concerned about global warming and I don't know why the "daring barnstorming" of a billionaire gets a pass. How many home-to-work commutes in an SUV would it take to emit the carbon released in this old man's pleasure trip?
It's a long article, and it includes references to Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post:
By moving up his flight, [Branson] was able to beat Bezos to space by nine days.... Branson has repeatedly denied that he was in a race with Bezos and said in the interview that it was just “an incredible, wonderful coincidence that we’re going up in the same month.” But when asked about a rivalry with Bezos on CNBC, he couldn’t help himself, saying “Jeff who?”
Oh, isn't that darling?
There's nothing about the carbon footprint of this joyride. I wanted to read the comments over there to see if there's any discussion of climate change. But: "Comments are not available on this story."
Looking around at other news sites, I see this from E&E news:
The emissions from a minutes-long Virgin Galactic spaceflight have been compared to a plane ride halfway around the world. While it would take thousands of launches for the emerging industry to have a significant climate impact, some detractors say they are worried about what might happen if space tourism truly takes off.
Blue Origin envisions a "future where millions of people are living and working in space," and Virgin Galactic wants to "open space for everyone." Critics are concerned the U.S. government is doing too little to regulate the environmental impact of commercial space travel.
And they have questioned the climate commitments of Bezos, Branson and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. All three men have raised concern about global warming. And all three have taken steps to accelerate the commercial space industry....
If Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic begin regular spaceflights later this year and in 2022 as expected, the number of space travelers soon could outnumber the roughly 550 trained astronauts who've broken the Kármán line separating Earth's atmosphere from the cosmos.
These pointless pleasure trips for the rich should have been banned long ago. I take it the "Kármán line" is what they mean by the babyish term "the edge of space."
Supporters of the nascent sector say its contribution to climate change will be minimal, in the planetary scale of things. "I know why we focus on these things, because they are exemplary in some sense. And it isn't to say that what they do shouldn't be judged," said Gavin Schmidt, NASA's top climate adviser. "But in terms of the bigger picture, they're not a very big part of the big picture," he said of the growing ranks of wealthy space explorers....
This is how rich people with grossly huge carbon footprints always try to avoid responsibility! It's really all the millions and billions of little people with their tiny, tiptoe-y carbon footprints that really add up. Restrict them, but leave us rich people alone. There are so few of us that nothing we do — insanely extravagant though it may be — amounts to anything worth fussing over.
Schmidt emphasized that he was speaking to E&E News in his personal capacity. That's not to say space tourism is an environmentally friendly endeavor. Branson has estimated that a minutes-long suborbital flight on Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo has a similar carbon footprint as a commercial jet flying between London and Singapore. But international flights of that sort generally carry hundreds of passengers at a time to a fixed destination.
SpaceShipTwo's emissions are for a minutes-long roller coaster ride above the Kármán line and back. Researchers have found rocket emissions also can damage the ozone layer, which protects people and wildlife from dangerous levels of ultraviolet radiation. The full extent of the potential environmental harm, however, is an open question....
"Are there equity issues in all of this? Of course there are," said Schmidt, the NASA climate adviser. But he added, "That's a legislative or administrative thing [to resolve]."
Is there any politician making an issue out of banning (or at least restricting) space tourism?
Posts
12 comments:
exhelodrvr says: "To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, I will take climate change, etc. seriously when the "elite" on the left take it seriously."
Louis writes:
"This is one of those issues that I'm torn about. I'm a big fan of space travel and space exploration, but this hits me as just another toy for rich people. At least Space X is working on space travel that will, hopefully, benefit mankind. They are using their rockets to ferry astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station and their Starlink satellites will bring the internet to people who can't access the internet through big city utility services. Granted, NASA launches telcom satellites that bring millions HBO and network TV, but that still benefits millions of people.
"Perhaps, there needs to be a trade off of some kind. If a certain percentage of your space business doesn't benefit the public use of space, then you have to pay a fee that will be used for that.
"The future of mankind is in space. Access to space should require some financial support of that goal."
George Spencer writes:
"Elon Musk says his 100-passenger Starship rocket can make the NYC-Shanghai run in 39 minutes, down from 15 hours by mere, old-fashioned 'air.' News reports say if his ticket price can be held to the $2,500 range (i.e. competitive with current business class), long-haul air travel will wither. After all, who would go by stagecoach from NYC-to-SF when a train gets you there in 3-4 days?"
I say:
I'm more sympathetic to functional travel — where people get somewhere they'd go one way or another. But I'm still asking what is the carbon footprint? I suspect this method is something more sophisticated than the SST, which only went faster by burning much more fuel.
Michelle writes:
"As for Richard Branson's "carbon footprint," why should we care? No one cares about the "carbon footprints" of the other people on the (sorta) spaceflight. Are you jonesing to hear about the "carbon footprint" of Dave Mackay, Michael Masucci, Sirisha Bandla, Colin Bennett, or Beth Moses? Of course not, because you likely read their names for the first time this morning, and in the same place I did. Their "carbon footprint" is identical to Branson's. Do they matter less because they have some sort of scientific purpose? I'm not sure that's true even of this small crew; Bandla is Virgin's "vice president of government affairs." Um, can't she do that from the ground? Or is it just the Boss who gets slammed here?"
I say:
I care about the carbon footprint of all of them. Branson is especially irksome because of the praise slathered on him.
Back to Michelle:
"Re: the " "Kármán line," That's what one of the lines delineating what's "space" and what isn't is called. I can't see what's "babyish" about "edge of space"; there is obviously no hard barrier. Some use 50 miles; some use 62+ miles. We aren't all goo-goo-ga-ga about it."
I say:
The term "edge of space" is babyish. But for that matter "big bang" is babyish. There are a lot of adult-boy terms in science.
Back to Michelle:
"I am, for what it's worth, in favor of applying "carbon footprint" rules across the board if at all; there's no excuse for private jets, say, if commercial air travel will get you there in roughly the same time. But what Branson and Bezos and Musk are doing is of a different order. If you want them to stop all space exploration, b/c ooh, the "carbon footprint" is too large, say so. But don't forbid them from riding their own craft."
I say:
I don't consider this space tourism up-and-down joyriding to be the exploration of space. The Washington Post — even as it praised Branson — called it "barnstorming." That means showing off for the crowd.
John writes:
"The Virgin Galactic "spacecraft" is like a passenger carrying X-15. The air force and NASA pilots were flying over 50 miles up 60 years ago (Neil Armstrong was an X-15 pilot.) Branson isn't doing anything new.
"Newsreel from 1962: https://youtu.be/5J9MbzGKdos
"If anyone "explored" space it was the test pilots of the X-15 and the Mercury program (and their Russian counterparts). Space hasn't changed since then.
"Space isn't a destination. It's something to cross to get somewhere. Flying very high to go nowhere is pointless. Originally the air force wanted a bigger rocket plane to go to a space station, but when that didn't happen they eventually cancelled the X-15. It had nowhere to go.
"Space tourism is a way to flaunt money and status. Mountain climbing is hard but can be done on a low budget. Space tourism is a purely elite activity and doesn't prove anything except the size of the tourist's bank account. Why is this newsworthy? It was done 60 years ago."
Me:
Exactly. Thanks.
LA_Bob writes:
"Regarding George Spencer's comment (and your response) about Elon Musk's 39-minute NYC-to-Shanghai suborbital adventure:
"The piece I cite was written almost four years ago and figures about 600 passengers. Maybe Mr Spencer has a more up-to-date source, but at least the article puts numbers to the carbon footprint question.
"The executive summary is that an individual flight would be more carbon-friendly than a 747, but an increase in demand for such travel would swamp the carbon savings.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/07/musks-suborbital-flights-likely-lower-carbon-not-actually-cheap-pleasant/
"As an added bonus, you have to consider the likelihood of greater air sickness as you pass from massive acceleration to semi-weightlessness to massive deceleration. Be a shame if a passenger didn't get the barf bag out in time."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/spacex-elon-musk-mars-moon-falcon/541566/
portly pirate writes:
"If it's a race to be first, both Branson and Bezos lost out to game developer Richard Garriott, who went up in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott
"I've played Garriott's MMORPG Ultima Online for years, on and off."
Lloyd writes:
"It almost goes without saying that "climate change initiatives" are marbled with hypocrisy: a maximum of virtue-signalling, a minimum of solving real problems. The biggest real problem, in the case of climate, is that we would benefit from adding more storm-proofing to our infrastructure and homes, regardless of whether there is a warming trend. Progressives would rather screw around with our energy supplies. Because of the mentions of Elon Musk, I looked up "Environmental Impact Electric Cars." As long as a lot of electricity comes from fossil fuels, as in the U.S., electric cars are not an improvement when it comes to emissions.
""If the source of energy to power these cars doesn’t come from solar panels, wind turbines or even nuclear or hydroelectric, their CO2 emissions will be much higher. For instance, if the electricity used to charge cars comes from the burning of fossil fuels, it doesn’t matter if the EC are not polluting while being driven, as this pollution was already released in some distant power plant."
"The manufacture of batteries is even worse news. Article here. https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/
"On the other hand, progressives are generally very serious about getting to space. They see this as a way of leaving crummy old human nature behind, trying something new and better, and possibly meeting superior species somewhere. Without their hopefulness about all this, they would be even gloomier and more destructive than they are."
Brian writes:
""Supporters of the nascent sector say its contribution to climate change will be minimal, in the planetary scale of things."
"This is EXACTLY WHY i don't recycle, and just throw everything into a ditch; and well as drive a muscle car with a HUGE engine.
Sure, technically; i'm polluting.... But; MYcontribution is minimal, in the planetary scale of things.
"I suppose, that we should treat pollution like going to National Parks, right?
"There should be a selection process...
"... and it should be based on intelligence (and political correctness?)"
Melany writes:
"As a side note, what if our carbon footprint is meaningless? Or worse yet, doesn’t exist?
"So far, no one has shown how much carbon, if any, is really a danger to society while the headlong drive to divest the world of affordable energy dooms much of it to poverty. It’s hard to take it seriously. "
R.T. O'Dactyl writes:
"I don't think anyone needs to worry about the carbon footprint of the rocketeers.
"While Branson's little rocket may have a relatively unfavorable carbon footprint per number of passengers, it has flown only a few times and will never be more than a vanity program for him and the ultra-rich. I doubt that it will fly more than a hundred times, ever. Literally millions of other carbon users in this planet will exceed Virgin Galactic's output without the news media viewing them with alarm -- Branson's carbon footprint is microscopic in comparison.
"It's a mistake to tie Bezos and Musk to the carbon footprint issue. Bezos' rocket, the New Shepard, has no carbon footprint. The rocket's fuel is liquid hydrogen, the oxidizer is liquid oxygen. No carbon!
"Musk's rockets, the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Starship/Superheavy, are powered by methane and liquid oxygen. Methane (CH4) does contain carbon ... and right now SpaceX uses commercial sources for the fuel. It's what domestic users call "natural gas." But Musk's goal is to synthesize methane from water and atmospheric carbon dioxide -- on Earth and on Mars -- using electricity. Producing methane will remove carbon from the atmosphere; at worst that Musk's rockets eventually will just put it back, with no net gain. (SpaceX will be forced to do this on Mars to refuel, since there is no other local source of methane.) So the SpaceX rockets will be "carbon neutral," too."
Zev writes:
"So long as Branson does not bother me about my carbon footprint, I won’t bother him about his. Live and let live."
I would rephrase that to show why I'm bothering with this post:
So long as The Washington Post does not bother me about my carbon footprint, I won’t bother it about its articles about its covering of celebrities without questioning their carbon footprint. Live and let live.
Post a Comment