Jump to content

Elon Musk's Spaceship Prototype Just BLEW UP - The Entire MSM Keeps Going On About How "IT WAS STILL A GREAT SUCCESS !!!"


Recommended Posts


I see a pretty interesting opinion here. That with the arrival of Neurolink we will get exploding heads and technocracy)
Perhaps this opinion is more correct than mine, I will not argue. But I rather see the prospect of the development of the space sphere in the coming decades. You talk about the Neurolink as if it would be available.
Most people cannot afford Tesla. Hey Tesla, even the iPhones cannot afford. And you are talking about the massive use of high-tech chips.

In large areas, even the Internet is not normal yet.


I think now it is still very far from even that possibility.
But the commercialization of space on a more global scale and the development of the space market - that's what awaits us.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is a certain vibe to this guy which I have seen before. He appeals to quite a lot of individuals who are easily manipulated and not particularly good at seeing through falsehood. He is appealing

His woman makes mind polluting garbage music, he makes atmosphere polluting rockets and satellites whilst claiming to helping the planet by making expensive electrical cars which need lithium batterie

I LOVE how when Elon Musk's prototypes EXPLODE, they are "STILL A GREAT SUCCESS!"  😆😆😆 If NASA had done this 20 years ago, the headline would have been "NASA Rocket In Unfortunate Landing Failure

Posted Images

if creating CO2 through burning of fossil fuels is such a problem then why do the woke corporations keep firing rockets into space that guzzle enourmous amounts of fossil fuels and jetison tons of space rubbish into orbit

 

On top of that they are talking about running space tourism trips for the super rich. So you will no longer be able to fly on holiday because of 'global warming' but the super rich will be able to blast off into space

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TommyJ said:


I see a pretty interesting opinion here. That with the arrival of Neurolink we will get exploding heads and technocracy)
Perhaps this opinion is more correct than mine, I will not argue. But I rather see the prospect of the development of the space sphere in the coming decades. You talk about the Neurolink as if it would be available.
Most people cannot afford Tesla. Hey Tesla, even the iPhones cannot afford. And you are talking about the massive use of high-tech chips.

In large areas, even the Internet is not normal yet.


I think now it is still very far from even that possibility.
But the commercialization of space on a more global scale and the development of the space market - that's what awaits us.

 

Yes brain chips are not possible right now. I've even read science articles the other year where they say it isn't even possible due to the brain being biological and not compatible with tech chips. I hope it stays that way!

 

What do you think a "space market" would entail/be like? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

if creating CO2 through burning of fossil fuels is such a problem then why do the woke corporations keep firing rockets into space that guzzle enourmous amounts of fossil fuels and jetison tons of space rubbish into orbit

 

On top of that they are talking about running space tourism trips for the super rich. So you will no longer be able to fly on holiday because of 'global warming' but the super rich will be able to blast off into space

 

Indeed! Makes no sense that does it? Do the super rich have a plan to relocate into space? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, itsnotallrightjack said:

Indeed! Makes no sense that does it? Do the super rich have a plan to relocate into space? 

 

have you noticed how many children of the elite have died in recent years? i've often wondered if they are actually just being sent off planet or something

 

certainly they are talking about a colony on the moon and the chinese have been up there recently

NASA Scientists Say We Could Colonise The Moon by 2022... For Just $10 Billion

22 MARCH 2016

A lot of focus over the past 12 months has been on NASA's journey to Mars. But a group of space experts, including leading NASA scientists, has now produced a special journal edition that details how we could establish a human colony on the Moon in the next seven years - all for US$10 billion.

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Macnamara said:

if creating CO2 through burning of fossil fuels is such a problem then why do the woke corporations keep firing rockets into space that guzzle enourmous amounts of fossil fuels and jetison tons of space rubbish into orbit

 

On top of that they are talking about running space tourism trips for the super rich. So you will no longer be able to fly on holiday because of 'global warming' but the super rich will be able to blast off into space

The new SpaceX Raptor engines burn Methane.

Other than stuff intended to stay in orbit SpaceX stuff comes back for reuse or burns up on reentry.

Space tourism for the rich began in 2001, Musks plan is very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

first requirement for 'space touring' : you must be mad or get paid enough to step into a rocket... the rich would pay anything to get the craziest seaside house ever, but not for risking their life just for a ride on a flying nuke... and I don't think the mankind will last long enough to ever 'tour' in space (where there's absolutely nothing to see)...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Icke-Kia said:

The new SpaceX Raptor engines burn Methane.

Other than stuff intended to stay in orbit SpaceX stuff comes back for reuse or burns up on reentry.

Space tourism for the rich began in 2001, Musks plan is very different.

 

His rockets burned kerosene before though and there were no complaints. Also no complaints about space tourism...and you do know that he is firing up satellites to create a 5G cloud of microwaves in earth that will have untold health impacts

Environmental impact

So what could possibly be wrong with this groundbreaking test flight? While visually appealing, cheaper and a major technological advancement, what about the environmental impact? The rocket is reusable, which means cutting down the resources required for the metal body of the rocket. However, the mass of most rockets are more than 95% fuel. Building bigger rockets with bigger payloads means more fuel is used for each launch. The current fuel for Falcon Heavy is RP-1 (a refined kerosene) and liquid oxygen, which creates a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.

The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content. This amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-the-spacex-falcon-heavy-launch/

 

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

have you noticed how many children of the elite have died in recent years? i've often wondered if they are actually just being sent off planet or something

 

certainly they are talking about a colony on the moon and the chinese have been up there recently

NASA Scientists Say We Could Colonise The Moon by 2022... For Just $10 Billion

22 MARCH 2016

A lot of focus over the past 12 months has been on NASA's journey to Mars. But a group of space experts, including leading NASA scientists, has now produced a special journal edition that details how we could establish a human colony on the Moon in the next seven years - all for US$10 billion.

https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion

 

 

No, I haven't noticed elite's children dying. What ages? Whose exactly?

 

As for colonising the Moon. A pipe dream. They haven't got 10 billion to spare for that. This pandemic is costing a lot of money. A lot of contradictions going on here. We are being told Brexit is gonna "ruin" youngsters' lives and leave us in a huge depression; same due to covid, but they are going to spend billions on silly space programmes, tons of wind farms and electric vehicles.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Macnamara said:

if creating CO2 through burning of fossil fuels is such a problem then why do the woke corporations keep firing rockets into space that guzzle enourmous amounts of fossil fuels and jetison tons of space rubbish into orbit

 

On top of that they are talking about running space tourism trips for the super rich. So you will no longer be able to fly on holiday because of 'global warming' but the super rich will be able to blast off into space

 


Right now, rockets are generating less than 1 percent of the emissions from the aviation industry. And even despite this, new manufacturers are trying to do at least something to reduce the impact on nature. Unlike aircraft manufacturers.
For example, there is a British project that has already successfully tested a 3D printed rocket engine powered by recycled plastic. Not that it directly affects, but shows development in the right direction, as for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TommyJ said:

Right now, rockets are generating less than 1 percent of the emissions from the aviation industry. And even despite this, new manufacturers are trying to do at least something to reduce the impact on nature. Unlike aircraft manufacturers.
For example, there is a British project that has already successfully tested a 3D printed rocket engine powered by recycled plastic. Not that it directly affects, but shows development in the right direction, as for me.

 

do you know how many satellites they are planning to send up there? TENS OF THOUSANDS

 

Why are the woke brigade not complaining about the environmental impact of that?

 

Also how can any one justify space tourism when we are being constantly told that CO2 is a problem?

 

Re the foot print of the aviation industry, the container ships burn more oil but the wokesters don't criticise that because their corporate-socialist paymasters who are behind globalism don't want to encourage local self-sufficiency

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, itsnotallrightjack said:

No, I haven't noticed elite's children dying. What ages? Whose exactly?

 

it feels a little in bad taste because it might not be anything...it might just be a coincidence that so many of the elites children have died in recent years but i can't help thinking of that movie where the world floods and the rich buy their way onto arks that have been built in preparation.

 

The death of any children is a tragedy and i wouldn't wish it on anyone but here are some that have been in the headlines:

Ben Goldsmith's teenage daughter dies in quad bike accident on family farm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/09/ben-goldsmiths-teenage-daughter-dies-quad-bike-accident-family/

Anders Holch Povlsen: Funeral of billionaire's three children killed in Sri Lanka

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/anders-holch-povlsen-funeral-billionaires-14996991

'Rest In Peace Maeve and Gideon': RFK Jr. pays tribute to his niece and her eight-year-old son who went missing while kayaking in Chesapeake Bay - as search 'turns from rescue to recovery'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8185293/Mother-son-seen-drifting-Chesapeake-Bay-kayak.html

SPY CHIEF'S AGONY

MI6 boss’ son, 22, killed in car crash in Scotland as police probe ‘unexplained’ death

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8768230/mi6-boss-son-killed-car-crash-scotland-unexplained/

Billionaire tycoon Ronald Burkle's producer son, 27, is found dead in his Beverly Hills home just days after celebrating Christmas with his family

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7860297/Billionaire-tycoon-Ronald-Burkles-producer-son-27-dead-Beverly-Hills.html

 

 

 

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I persist in thinking that the untold effect of mass rocket launching is less due to chemical pollution than to physical breaking and 'brewing' of the stratosphere, a layer of the atmosphere usually free of turbulence, the result being this ozone layer hole that STILL doesn't heal contrarily to what's claimed a bit everywhere…

 

https://youtu.be/ZHDforBy-BU

 

 

The ozone layer hole along with ozone depletion were made into 'conspiracy theories' but it's not the first occurrence of reality being hidden that convenient way, it might even be the very definition of a 'conspiracy theory'…

 

On the 'optimistic' side I also persist in thinking that one of the reasons if not the main one for the global shutdown of commercial air traffic is the gravity of that hidden reality explaining the blatant climatic chaos of these last times, and that if the insane American 'space program' is carried on despite the risk for Earth's atmosphere it's for a highly 'crucial' military space control concern… 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

His rockets burned kerosene before though and there were no complaints. Also no complaints about space tourism...and you do know that he is firing up satellites to create a 5G cloud of microwaves in earth that will have untold health impacts

Environmental impact

So what could possibly be wrong with this groundbreaking test flight? While visually appealing, cheaper and a major technological advancement, what about the environmental impact? The rocket is reusable, which means cutting down the resources required for the metal body of the rocket. However, the mass of most rockets are more than 95% fuel. Building bigger rockets with bigger payloads means more fuel is used for each launch. The current fuel for Falcon Heavy is RP-1 (a refined kerosene) and liquid oxygen, which creates a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.

The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content. This amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-the-spacex-falcon-heavy-launch/

 

Starship will replace both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. 

The Falcon Heavy has flown 3 times and may never fly again.

A Falcon 9 launch puts around the same carbon into the atmosphere as a long haul flight.

Starship will challenge the aviation industry with Earth to Earth flights in unbelievable times, for around $2000 a seat https://youtu.be/zqE-ultsWt0

In total, nearly 12,000 Starlink satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000. Starship will deploy 400 per launch.

Elon Musk's goal for SpaceX is to develop a carbon neutral rocket to reduce emissions...

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/elon-musks-goal-for-spacex

Edited by Icke-Kia
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

do you know how many satellites they are planning to send up there? TENS OF THOUSANDS

 

Why are the woke brigade not complaining about the environmental impact of that?

 

Also how can any one justify space tourism when we are being constantly told that CO2 is a problem?

 

Re the foot print of the aviation industry, the container ships burn more oil but the wokesters don't criticise that because their corporate-socialist paymasters who are behind globalism don't want to encourage local self-sufficiency

 


Mmm ... If you think globally, then I saw studies with something like this: a person produces the same amount of CO2 when he goes to work and on foot, as if he was driving a car. And in some cases even more. It's about indirect emissions. The more you walk, the more you eat. Eat more - buy more. To buy something in the store, you have to bring it there. Goods are usually brought in by completely non-environmentally friendly trucks. Etc.

 

 

It's just that humanity is still on the path of search.
Regarding the trail of space companies, many new types of companies are minimizing it by printing parts or entire rockets on 3D printers. Fueled with fuel like the Ecosene, which has 45% less emissions. Yes, it's still not zero.
But this is much better than trying with electric motors. They are charged with conventional thermal energy. 

That is, coal. 

 

All the actions of the company discussed here have nothing to do with reducing the carbon footprint.
You just need to look not only at them. And support those who are moving in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TommyJ said:

Regarding the trail of space companies, many new types of companies are minimizing it by printing parts or entire rockets on 3D printers.

 

3D printers are TOXIC to humans as they emit tiny plastic particles that can cause lung damage — with children under nine most at risk, experts warn 

  • 3D printers work by depositing material layer-by-layer to build a complete object
  • They are increasingly been used in settings like homes, schools and libraries
  • Experts from the US found that the machines release tiny particles into the air
  • If inhaled, these are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and harm human cells 

By Ian Randall For Mailonline

Published: 18:30, 15 December 2020 | Updated: 18:30, 15 December 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9056201/Health-3D-printers-TOXIC-humans-emit-tiny-plastic-particles-cause-lung-damage.html

16 hours ago, TommyJ said:

You just need to look not only at them. And support those who are moving in the right direction.

 

But why aren't you questioning what they are building the rockets for? They are sending up satellites to turn the planet into a giant technocratic gulag

 

We have the technological capability to do many things but that doesn't mean that we should do them. If innovation isn't hand in hand with ethics then we are all in for a terrible time

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alchemists hid their technological innovations in coded language. Have a look at googles thirst for information and the demands for open source which seeks to ban intellectual property at its most extreme. People want the best of both worlds. The free flow of information and the prevention of that information being used in a bad way. The era of propaganda and censorship is upon us, the only way to protect ourselves from being censored from each other in solemn communication is to censor the existence of communication from the censors and ensuring recipients are immune from propaganda. Outside of that, the only other option is no one but google and pals engage in technological innovation. Choose a poison. Restrictions on free speech in a propaganda regime require all corporations, political or otherwise to operate closed communication systems which vet out those sucking up the propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2020 at 3:27 AM, Macnamara said:

 

3D printers are TOXIC to humans as they emit tiny plastic particles that can cause lung damage — with children under nine most at risk, experts warn 

  • 3D printers work by depositing material layer-by-layer to build a complete object
  • They are increasingly been used in settings like homes, schools and libraries
  • Experts from the US found that the machines release tiny particles into the air
  • If inhaled, these are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and harm human cells 

By Ian Randall For Mailonline

Published: 18:30, 15 December 2020 | Updated: 18:30, 15 December 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9056201/Health-3D-printers-TOXIC-humans-emit-tiny-plastic-particles-cause-lung-damage.html

 

But why aren't you questioning what they are building the rockets for? They are sending up satellites to turn the planet into a giant technocratic gulag

 

We have the technological capability to do many things but that doesn't mean that we should do them. If innovation isn't hand in hand with ethics then we are all in for a terrible time

 

Why don't we all ask how to do things more friendly to our planet?

Are you drinking water only from porcelain cups?

Most of the items we use were made from toxic materials or non-ethical. The laptops we write with are assembled from plastic by Chinese workers for a small salary. Phones, TVs, etc. Even the production of concrete for houses is completely not environmentally friendly (at the factory, workers smell acetone for 12 hours a day).

Yes, not all progress will benefit humanity. But the fact that our orbit in any case will be completely filled with satellites for various purposes and batteries for collecting solar energy, etc. has long been predicted and described. We are getting closer and closer to the Dyson sphere. Though not during our lifetime. But over time, people will develop new thinking. Which will allow you to really develop in both directions. And in technological and environmental.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TommyJ said:

Why don't we all ask how to do things more friendly to our planet?

 

that is exactly what i am doing here

 

Quote

Are you drinking water only from porcelain cups?

 

glass cups and mugs yes

 

I lead a very low impact life. I'm not the problem here

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TheAwakened said:

Research Flat Earth and have an open mind. 

 

 

I saw flat Earthers 'researching' flat Earth and their experiments disproved their own beliefs so they just ignored the results. If that's not the finest example of closed minds I dont know what is.

I dont want to derail the thread so I'll say no more on the subject here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 2:36 AM, oz93666 said:

And now a rocket blows up ! ... That will set them back another few years ... 

 

 Wow those years just fly by, Im watching SN9 rolling out to the launch pad and I could swear it's only been 12 days since the RUD of SN8, must be the Mandela effect 🤣

Not forgetting SN10-17 have been seen in various states of assembly and SH1 is comming along nicely. 

Edited by Icke-Kia
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Icke-Kia said:

 

 Wow those years just fly by, Im watching SN9 rolling out to the launch pad and I could swear it's only been 12 days since the RUD of SN8, must be the Mandela effect 🤣

Not forgetting SN10-17 have been seen in various states of assembly and SH1 is comming along nicely. 

 

They plow ahead , but not many public will get aboard when rockets blow up! ... And Musk is justified delaying putting passengers up there because of the risk ...

 

I see you are a fan of Musk ... Things are not what they seem , read my first post on page1

 

The cabal do not want the public flying around in space because they already have bases on the moon and elsewhere There are around a million humans off world , vast fleets of advanced anti gravity craft 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...