• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        132 days ago

        Reaching escape velocity is expensive. We can be more efficient and still achieve the same result using a minuscule fraction of the propellant and none of the rocket framing.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 days ago

          I mean we’re already sending rockets up there. I’m sure we can afford to dump him out on the way.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                42 days ago

                Just hogtie him and leave him on the lauch pad. We get rid of a problem, and the problem is turned into mostly it’s component atoms. Give giving the circle of life a little help!

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Trebuchet? Cheap? ✅. Easily assembled and transported? ✅. Low tech not needed any rare earth materials? ✅. Sufficient to launch him at least 150 m? ✅. Low survivability rate for potential additional yeeting? ✅.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  32 days ago

                  Hmm, I think we shouldn’t rule out other simple machines with wooden frames and French names just yet.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                22 days ago

                To be clear, I am not advocating for shooting Musk. I am saying we can ignite a fraction of the rocket fuel without any of the containment vessels or expensive infrastructure. While there will be no liftoff, it would certainly be uplifting.