• MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • moody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

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

          • Sturgist@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day 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!

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day 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? ✅.

            • superkret@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

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

          • MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day 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.