I won't watch Gravity, because it is 'hard'. I will continue to demand flying saucer space craft, or at least saucer-shuttle craft, and warp-drive starships. Going 'hard' means going 'rocket' - which means: mass-pollution, and going nowhere.
I'm ok with cutting NASA, as long as NASA favors rockets and spaceplanes over flying saucers - for human spaceflight. I want a new national space agency, that does not have 'aeronautics' in it's name.
Well, rockets are what we have, and they work. I don't buy anti-gravity at all.
Do you buy gravity? Note... that Earths gravity is not produced by air pressure, or rocket thrust. Overcoming gravity attraction should be as logical as overcoming magnetic attraction - by use of the opposing polarity (Dark Energy?).
Your linked article states:
"First of all, getting into space doesn’t require emitting any
carbon in principle. Rocket engines are only carbon emitters if they’re burning hydrocarbons; some engines that powered the US Space Shuttles and Saturn rockets burned hydrogen, not carbon."
The writer glosses over their required burning of kerosene in Saturn Vs' 1st stage, and aluminum in the Shuttles' SRB rockets. Try breathing those exhaust fumes!
"Well, rockets are what we have..."
A 19th century automobile: