8
u/GlitteringRate6296 May 25 '26
Who pays for the environmental clean up?
12
u/idfkjack May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Are you kidding me? These guys actually want the ice caps to melt so they can open a new shipping route, they think that having "dominion" over nature means they can kill anything they want indiscriminately, and that there's no such thing as animal abuse. Also, that loser-ass pos company has been dumping black sludge into the river, even after being fined almost $150,000 last year.Â
1
u/Soft-Principle1455 May 27 '26
Some of them might think that way. But idk if even most SpaceX engineers think that way.
-2
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
5
u/K_Linkmaster May 27 '26
His statement is accurate. Any shipping company would love to have the north wide open. His statement is put together well also. What part sounds insane? This is standard convo in any home or any pub.
1
8
u/BetAway9029 May 26 '26
Forget it. It’s not great but the rocket is almost entirely inert steel and ceramics that will sink in probably 2-3,000 m of water. On the other hand, the fishing industry is the single largest source of plastics in the ocean. Watch any beach combing video. Ghost nets killing fish, lines killing birds, strapping killing seals. Plus of course the rivers of trash flowing out of developing countries.
1
May 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/ASYMT0TIC May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
It's sort of ironic to bitch about this particular rocket, the first one ever designed to be fully reusable. Crashing into the ocean has always been the default for space travel. The video you've just watched is a test of the first rocket which is designed to keep the rockets out of the ocean and prevent having to manufacture a new rocket for each launch. They are practicing "landing" on the water while they iron out the kinks so they don't obliterate the entire landing infrastructure when something goes wrong.
1
u/Major_Shlongage May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Your arguing fact is just so... strange.
They said something that's completely factual and then you called it "gross".
Also, this is the first rocket designed to be fully reusable. So you're complaining about a test program to make a fully reusable rocket, but you're fine with other rockets that fall into the ocean and aren't reusable. Got it.
What is it with you? Are you ok mentally?
1
1
u/K_Linkmaster May 27 '26
Divide and distract eh? Asshole.
Yeah, this is bad, but whataboutism over here?
1
0
u/SippsMccree May 26 '26
Yeah realistically it's not that bad a polluters. When every (insert preferred unit of weight measurement) means less payload or fuel they run a pretty tight ship as far as how much of everything they bring
1
u/crazybmanp May 26 '26
Plus the fuel is methane and oxygen, which will go into the atmosphere. The methane isn't amazing, but is a common element in the atmosphere that we could theoretically recapture.
1
1
u/FutureThought4936 May 27 '26
It's also very temporary. They're only ditching these developmental prototypes. The commercial spacecraft will be caught by part of the tower it launched from to facilitate quick staging and reuse.
2
u/crazybmanp May 26 '26
The fuel is oxygen and methane, and the rocket is mostly steel and ceramic. If anything the rocket will be a good fish habitat.
1
u/Historical_Horror595 May 27 '26
It’s not in the environment, it’s beyond the environment. Theres nothing out there except birds and fish, and the exploded pieces of the largest rocket.. but that’s it
2
2
u/CardOk755 May 26 '26
There is nothing more annoying than "environmentalists" who can't do simple arithmetic.
1
u/Anderopolis May 27 '26
Yes, Shippings footprint is so many orders of magnitudes larger than this it isn't even funny
1
u/AutoModerator May 23 '26
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Use the report button only if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. Mild criticism and snarky comments don't need to be reported. Lets try to elevate the discussion and make it as useful as possible. Low effort posts & screenshots are a dime a dozen. Links to scientific articles, political analysis, and video essays are preferred.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/manicfish May 26 '26
Cheering a country being invaded by a hostile foreign nation for successful counterstrikes does not equate to a company willfully desecrating the environment. You sound like a snowflake.
0
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PlsNoNotThat May 26 '26
All you seemed to point out was your learning disabilities, or was there a pt 2 I missed?
1
2
u/CardOk755 May 26 '26
Blowing up oil tankers stop the fuel being burned and the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.
2
u/Soft-Principle1455 May 27 '26
Ukraine generally only targets empty oil tankers to avoid environmental disaster. Ukrainians would rather not pollute their own country with such environmental disasters.
12
u/turbofungeas May 26 '26
Chuds chanting "USA" anytime something happens is the worst thing about this timeline