[palata]

> Rockets are one of the things where we simply have to use fossil fuels, and its a drop in the bucket.

Well it's more than you may think (don't take only the fuel for the flight, but consider the whole construction of the thing).

But more importantly, they are making space a business. The first plane was a drop in a bucket, but it enabled modern aviation. If SpaceX hits their target of 10M per flight... rich people will go have lunch in space.

> The resulting services and sats actually help in any reasonable climate change strategy.

What? I very strongly disagree. But I won't elaborate more than you did.

[panick21_]

> Well it's more than you may think

Currently, no its not.

> don't take only the fuel for the flight, but consider the whole construction of the thing

Making them reusable is a huge gain in efficiency.

> What? I very strongly disagree. But I won't elaborate more than you did.

Earth observation sat measure climate change. We measure the atmosphere with sats. We conduct planetary science. Sat imagery is vital when looking at ecosystems like the Amazon. Space based monitoring is valuable for all kinds of application and can increase efficiency of farming, mining, infrastructure and so on. Weather satellites are vital in many way, including preventing harm people. GPS is a vital technology for so many industries. Space based communication brings modernity to many people who don't live close to major infrastructure.

You simply can't separate modern humanity from space.

Granted space isn't anywhere close to the most important, but it does play an important role. Generally energy production, heating, transport and steel/cement are the real issues. And where the overwhelming focus should be.

> If SpaceX hits their target of 10M per flight... rich people will go have lunch in space.

Just like with aviation we need to consider what regulation we want to apply to these things. I am not against regulating these things.

Your attitude of nobody is allowed to show any pride in anything related to fossil fuels and its general bad and shouldn't be done is simply no way to go forward.

[palata]

> Your attitude of nobody is allowed to show any pride in anything related to fossil fuels and its general bad and shouldn't be done is simply no way to go forward.

Not saying it should not be done at all. Reusable rockets would be nice, if they were used like the non reusable ones (i.e. rarely). But that's not how technology works: if the technology becomes cheaper, we don't use the same amount for cheaper; we use more.

Can you seriously look at SpaceX and think that they just want to send a few rockets per year, for a fraction of the cost?

> Just like with aviation we need to consider what regulation we want to apply to these things.

That's the thing: if you regulate the rockets market such that it does not start polluting orders of magnitudes more, then it is not a viable market.

> Earth observation sat measure climate change. [...] GPS is a vital technology for so many industries.

We did not need SpaceX for that. Compared to Starlink, Copernicus and all the GNSS satellites (GPS, Galileo, Glonass, ...) just don't count. GPS is something like 30 satellites. Starlink wants to send tens of thousands.

[panick21_]

I think that globally communication sats, GPS, planetary sience planetary imaging and so on are well worth the fossil fuel we spend to launch them. I want more rockets to launch because I think these things are good. This is really the disagreement here. Don't think its worth arguing about more.

[martin8412]

No, Starlink is simply not needed. Push ISPs to deploy fiber everywhere. It's already reality for 90% of Europe.

[panick21_]

They are gone set up fiber connection into every ship and airplane? Into ever remote corner of the world? To every mining site? Along every farmers field? Is your proposal to connect Ukrainian tanks with fiber connections as well?

And what if a government doesn't make the necessary investment into fiber? You can stand around here saying what everybody should do all you want, but governments don't just magically do it because you want them to. Those people are just fucked and its their problem?

There are also advantage to using lasers as internet backbone.

In summation, if it wasn't need and it was so easy, why to millions of people want it?

[palata]

> fiber connection into every ship and airplane?

Sure, life without TikTok in every ship and airplane is terrible. /s

> To every mining site? Along every farmers field?

Yeah, to me the biggest problem is really not having fiber while I'm visiting the Titanic. I hope Starlink is working on that. /s

> governments don't just magically do it because you want them to. Those people are just fucked and its their problem?

Is that a new kind of US interventionism? "We believe those people deserve to pay a subscription to our national high-speed satellite ISP. We do it to save them." The world loves US interventionism. /s

> There are also advantage to using lasers as internet backbone.

And disadvantages.

[hayd]

It's also worth noting that SpaceX's Starship uses (will use) methane, not a fossil fuel.

(Rockets are tiny fraction of fossil fuel usage, <1% of aviation industry.)

[panick21_]

Methane is a fossil fuel. Its purified natural gas.