• @[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.