>can you explain me how spacex/tesla are carbone neutral?

This is dishonest goalpost shifting. The original post by avian was engaging in forward looking discussion about future plans (which is necessary in any discussion about Starship since it isn't actually even in full operation yet, and even once it is there will be a host of Mars-related further systems to develop over the rest of the 2020s at least). The post said:

>avian: However Starship runs on methane and that should in theory be easy to produce from atmospheric CO2 and electricity from renewable sources.

You then responded with a nonsensical post on thermodynamics (and also incidentally were completely wrong about the rocket engine bit, the FFSC Raptor engines Starship uses have much better ISP then Merlin, but that isn't relevant either) which can only be read to imply that because of thermodynamic losses making methane somehow can't be green? But thermodynamics have absolutely nothing to do with it. We have non-greenhouse energy sources with highly positive power factors, and indeed there isn't any thermodynamic difference in harvesting incoming solar gain to useful ends before converting it back into heat vs... just letting it all become heat. In either case the net energy is the same and what determines the balance on Earth is how much is trapped vs how much is radiated.

>i agree they had plans to develop solar panels, but AFAIK, the company just collapsed and musk is being presently trialed for bailing out solarcity in an illegal way.

????? Are you somehow implying that it's impossible for SpaceX to just, you know, buy solar panels from one of the bajillion providers on the market? WTF does SolarCity/Tesla Energy have to do with any of this? They're entirely separate companies. And the trial is essentially a nothingburger at this point anyway. The absolute worst case for Tesla (not SpaceX) would be having to pay the couple of billion back in damages which with their stock and now income would be annoying but also trivial. But I doubt they get remotely 100% because it's very hard to argue a negative in shareholder suits. The civil court system in America operates primarily on the concept of damages, that you can be shown to have lost something. But Tesla stock is at an all time high, none of them can directly show any harm. Instead they have to argue that the lack of information was material (~85% of shareholders voted for it IIRC) and that if not for the purchase of SolarCity Tesla would be higher. But the defense will argue that Tesla Energy was indeed an important purchase strategically and for various reasons of direct value, some of which are definitely true (even diverting its workforce to work on Model 3, held up as an example of it not being worth as much, absolutely offered value to Tesla in the form of, well, faster Model 3 production). Courts don't generally like to get into positing alternate universes and operational details. The stuff that wasn't disclosed does seem potentially impactful enough that Elon/Tesla may face at least some damages, but I don't think it'd be the full purchase price.

None of which, again, has anything whatsoever to do with SpaceX.

>can you further explain the morality of sending rich tourists in orbit when people are dying now out of climate change?

LOL. Why the fuck are you here then posting on Hacker News? Why aren't you spending these precious minutes out saving the world? Working even a little bit more to earn a few extra dollars which could help starving families in Africa adapt to climate change or whatever? Have any hobbies? Ever buy any food beyond the most basic gruel necessary for continued bodily function? Etc etc.

That is all literally the 100% exact same thing: discussion about how to use one's luxury energy/mass budget. A core part of our entire effort as humans and human civilization has been to increase that, to get beyond the level of absolute subsistence and then be able to spend some of that on activities to our own goals for the future. If those activities don't cause harm to other people then it is absolutely bullshit moralizing to put your own subjective luxury goals above anyone else's. Morality should be about both making sure all costs are internalized and large scale actions to direct effort towards lifting up people, safety nets, protecting individual and group rights, dealing with extreme inequality, etc etc, just in general aiming to help every human maintain a reasonable level of life and have the opportunity to achieve some portion of their potential. And do it in a systemic fashion beyond individual choices.

Frankly you're a huge hypocrite to even bring it up, which is how these things typically go. You claimed in a previous post to have a PhD, which represents an enormous expenditure of resources that could have gone towards mitigating AGW or feeding the starving or whatever instead. You are a highly privileged person. And that's fine. You've no doubt worked very very hard even beyond your luck. But it should mean you think twice before turning right around and judging others. By world standards you are a rich person. Have you ever gone on a single vacation in your life? Why do you think the label "rich tourist" doesn't apply to you too?