There are times you wonder why you bother.............

[martin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400353.stm 

[Stuart]

its supposed to be nearly carbon neutral, with the intention of becoming carbon zero.

he is rich, owns a island, and now is getting a spacecraft fleet...defiantly a bond villain. 

[dhaslam]

It is carbon zero on the way back. Not so good on the way up.   However apart from bringing up silly passengers  such a machine would presumably be capable of carrying low orbit satellites.   Communication by low orbit satellites is  supposed to be capable of  replacing all of the cables  micro wave transmitters presently in use.    Better communication links is a way of  reducing unnecessary travel.     

[AdeV]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "you wonder why you bother....".

Bother with what?

I can only presume that the tone of your comment is aimed at the fact that a) only "rich" people can afford to fly into space on this thing, that b) it will use lots of hydrocarbon fuel (presumably, I've not checked what sort of fuel it uses, I'm guessing it's not H2) i.e. CO2 emissions.

However, it's worth having a quick look back at history:

Commerical air travel: Initially the sole preserve of the very rich, gradually became more & more affordable.
Cars: Initially only the very rich could afford them. Gradually came to be more & more affordable.
Trains: Early passenger trains were for, you guessed it, the very rich; only later did the masses get a look in.

I've no idea what the price of horses was from the 1600s to the 1800s, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had to be quite rich before you could own one.

SO: If, as seems likely, Branson's venture follows true to form, in 50 years time, space travel will be within the reach of the "common man". In fact, in line with the pace of life these days, it'll probably be a lot less than 50 years. Like 15, maybe.

You probably think that's a bad thing (CO2 emissions & all that jazz); but look at it this way: The best, nay ONLY, way to improve this planet's environment is to get rid of a bunch of humans. About 4 billion, at the moment, although that number rises daily. Short of killing them, the only way to get rid is emigration. To another planet. And that involves space travel.

So, what might currently look like a billionaire's plaything aimed at entertaining a few millionaire "hooray-henrys" at the "cost" of vast CO2 emissions, might just be the only thing we can do to save the planet.


Still wondering why you bother?

[martin]

Very much so...............

[rhys]

Lets    another planet.

[AdeV]

Lets    another planet.

We haven't even come the tiniest bit close to breaking this one yet. In fact, the planet is much more likely to kill us than we are it.

Of course, if you start with a barren planet, say Mars, then surely it's basically impossible to wreck?

[Rupert]

When is Branson leaving then?

[martin]

"We haven't even come the tiniest bit close to breaking this one yet".............. erm, pause for "Mc Enroe moment"............ I'm sorry, I'm just not going to rise to it, I've not heard such a patently stupid statement in years............

[AdeV]

"We haven't even come the tiniest bit close to breaking this one yet".............. erm, pause for "Mc Enroe moment"............ I'm sorry, I'm just not going to rise to it, I've not heard such a patently stupid statement in years............

Unfortunately, you're only hearing what you want to hear. Although if I'm honest, that's an affliction that all of us have. The planet is just fine. It's what's on the planet that may, or may not, be in danger. i.e. life.

Is the climate warming? Probably. Is it cooling? Probably. Is it changing? Definitely. Is it static? Never. Does that make me a denialist? Only in an alarmist's eyes, I think.

IMHO the Earth is much better off warm than cold. Cold = ice age = mass extinctions. An ice age would certainly kill off civilisation as we know it. No internet, no Navitron, no Guardian for George Monbiot. Wheras the warming leads to none of this. Hmm, maybe Monbiot was a bad example.




BTW, and I'd appreciate an honest answer here, in your efforts to "save the planet" (in whatever form that takes, be it less energy usage, promoting renewables, etc.; what exactly are you trying to save? e.g. Plant life? Animals? Humans? All life in all its forms pretty much exactly as it is now? I'm curious because, whilst I'm mitigating some of my impact on the energy supply, I can't honestly say I'm doing it for anything in particular... except maybe to improve my chances of having electricity in the event that civilisation (or, more prosaically, the National Grid) falls over...

[Hugo]

Are you trying to save anything Martin, I missed the bit where you said you were.

[Rupert]

I suppose if he had invented something that meant 6+ billion could live in harmony with the planet and the rest of it's occupants then i would be over the moon , but he hasnt infact the complete opposite, and i would rather trust Nasa or the Russian equivelent to bodely take me where no man has been before.

[Outtasight]

I'm all for it... Not least because I've got over 120,000 Virgin Air Miles... and yes he does accept them for the space flights 

And before you go getting all steamed up, I earned most of the miles from buying solar kit on my Virgin AMEX card rather than flying.

On the down side, I do go home to Japan every other year 

There's probably a good argument for continued development of sub-orbital flight as a low carbon alternative to long haul jets (to Japan for instance) as most of the fuel burnt by planes these days is still used to overcome air drag.  If you burn the fuel needed to get 62 miles up, you not only can easily make mach 9 or 10 but there's no drag so once  accelerated to that speed you can cruise around the globe until it's time for re-entry and then you're just gliding back to ground.  The tricky part has always been getting to sub-orbital height and back without burning up 

The Shuttle used to launch from a modified 747 during its test flights (ok the rockets didn't work and they were just testing the unpowered landings).

The interesting thing is that it's only £130k...  If I won a below average lottery jackpot, I'd sure jump at the chance of being in the "62 mile high club".  Err... that could be taken the wrong way, but you know what I meant 

[martin]

For "adev" - you asked for an honest answer - here is one...........

- you've put a hopelessly naive and incredibly inaccurate spin on things - you should know that ice ages are survivable by at least sufficient people that mankind wouldn't die out, whereas "catastrophic global warming" as is very reasonably predicted if the average temperature of the earth goes up by around 6 degrees during the next 90 years may well not be survivable by mankind, and most animal and plant life - it's not about "it'll get hotter", it's about complete climate chaos, and likely the destruction of the atmosphere.
 I doubt we'll blow the earth up (we came pretty close in the 60's), but will probably render it completely uninhabitable - so no, we've not blown it up, but as regards our and the other species we share it with, we've done pretty well in poisoning the whole thing!
Why do I bother? - because I've been greatly fortunate to have seen a wonderful world, and experienced the miracles of nature, which I would like to do my bit to preserve as much as possible so that others that come after us may enjoy the same delights - and am quietly amazed that people find the empty promises of a consumer society to be more important than the legacy we leave behind - if it means I never fly again or have to grow my own food, go without the internet or a car or our electricity is permanently cut off,  it's all a tiny price to pay...........
Of course the world will change, that's the way of things, but at the moment mankind's stupidity threatens to end it all, on no better an altar than that of greed and stupidity -
not for me............ mock all you like - Satchmo summed it up rather beautifully!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Jo29zxDaQ4&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/8Jo29zxDaQ4&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1&amp;</a>

[Outtasight]

...and am quietly amazed that people find the empty promises of a consumer society to be more important than...

Dude, you're patently not "quietly amazed"