This sums up the pointless public space race
Discussion
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
For those that want it. Are you trying to deny first hand experience to those who want that?
well I think Douglas Adams had it right: Colonising A New Planet - The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy - BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcQ7Z4bh5wI would not want to deny the Hairdressers, telephone Sanitizers etc their "right" to experiance it
Hence people will be able to get away from miserable buggers like you.
Talksteer said:
The whole point about living in space is that it is an opportunity to increase the available space per person massively hence we won't have to fight over finite land and space.
Hence people will be able to get away from miserable buggers like you.
Off you go then, and remember to take the hairdressers and phone sanitizers with you Hence people will be able to get away from miserable buggers like you.
Toasters initial premise was space has changed from scientists and explorers to rich people doing it instead, based on
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
I think that is true. It follows what has happened with a more down to earth, but still an adventure, and that is climbing Mt Everest.
Back in the 1920's, up to a half century later, expeditions to Everest were paid for by wealthy people who put their surrogates hopefully on top of the world in their place. Nowadays those wealthy people want to go up Everest themselves due to modern technology and are paying to be almost carried to the top. And falling over dead in the process.Is it not the same with space now? Of course space has compressed the time for the spenders to get into space themselves, but it is the same thing.
Not sure why Toaster got toasted on a simple fact.... fat cats paying to be put into space is a fine diversion compared to real science such as Hayabusa 2 and current sun probes.
I think the problem here is that people got bristled up with Toasters viewpoint because at first reading it sounded anti science when actually it was very much pro science and less Hollywood.
And on that bombshell..................
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
I think that is true. It follows what has happened with a more down to earth, but still an adventure, and that is climbing Mt Everest.
Back in the 1920's, up to a half century later, expeditions to Everest were paid for by wealthy people who put their surrogates hopefully on top of the world in their place. Nowadays those wealthy people want to go up Everest themselves due to modern technology and are paying to be almost carried to the top. And falling over dead in the process.Is it not the same with space now? Of course space has compressed the time for the spenders to get into space themselves, but it is the same thing.
Not sure why Toaster got toasted on a simple fact.... fat cats paying to be put into space is a fine diversion compared to real science such as Hayabusa 2 and current sun probes.
I think the problem here is that people got bristled up with Toasters viewpoint because at first reading it sounded anti science when actually it was very much pro science and less Hollywood.
And on that bombshell..................
Eric Mc said:
The problem with Toaster's post is Toaster himself. He's unremittingly negative about everything.
https://youtu.be/LRq_SAuQDec?t=22Are you saying he always thinks the toast will be always be butter side down?
You know the humans into space race is on the back foot when the latest Hollywood film covers when I was 1 year old. Just not sexy at all for the vox pop.
The major space feat of the last years has been the USA colonisation of Mars by robotic wheels. That's one small roll for a rover, a gigantic twitter feed of plucky endeavour; watched by young astronomers who's imagination has been captured. Like a big book of the stars in my day
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 4th November 17:02
Gandahar said:
Talking of which I just read Toasters Mars thread and it is utter drivel
I agree with his point in this thread but I get the feeling he has hit the bulls eye by accident whilst throwing darts with his eyes closed and using his webbed toes.
I think his point is super weak, space exploration was and to a degree still is effectively a spin off from military requirements. The golden age Apollo programme was effectively showing off and had no long term integration into a vision to do something societally useful.I agree with his point in this thread but I get the feeling he has hit the bulls eye by accident whilst throwing darts with his eyes closed and using his webbed toes.
The ultimate goal of the new space race is to getting millions of people into space and to get ourselves a substantial distance down this pathway within a human lifespan. I wouldn't bother to go to Mars but that is beside the point.
I would argue that this a laudable goal.
I would also argue that the new space movement is making the cost of launch for governmental payloads substantially cheaper thus allowing NASA and ESA to do more with less.
Ultimately the application of space flight to mass travel and living in space requires much cheaper launch and manufacturing. This requires increased volumes of spaceflight, which at each stage unlocks a new application which then increases the volume and unlocks another application.
Tourism is a good first step because it has a high degree for price elasticity. As the price comes down, more people will want to go into space than the % price reduction hence the total value of the market will go up as prices fall.
At a certain point tourism wil unlock space mining, once we have in situ utilisation of spaces resources the average wealth of humanity goes up by orders of magnitude.
If you don't like the new space movement I'd ask two questions:
1: Are you opposed in general to space travel being a widespread phenomenon?
2: If not, then what is your road map to making it happen?
Talksteer said:
I think his point is super weak, space exploration was and to a degree still is effectively a spin off from military requirements. The golden age Apollo programme was effectively showing off and had no long term integration into a vision to do something societally useful.
The ultimate goal of the new space race is to getting millions of people into space and to get ourselves a substantial distance down this pathway within a human lifespan. I wouldn't bother to go to Mars but that is beside the point.
I would argue that this a laudable goal.
I would also argue that the new space movement is making the cost of launch for governmental payloads substantially cheaper thus allowing NASA and ESA to do more with less.
Ultimately the application of space flight to mass travel and living in space requires much cheaper launch and manufacturing. This requires increased volumes of spaceflight, which at each stage unlocks a new application which then increases the volume and unlocks another application.
Tourism is a good first step because it has a high degree for price elasticity. As the price comes down, more people will want to go into space than the % price reduction hence the total value of the market will go up as prices fall.
At a certain point tourism wil unlock space mining, once we have in situ utilisation of spaces resources the average wealth of humanity goes up by orders of magnitude.
If you don't like the new space movement I'd ask two questions:
1: Are you opposed in general to space travel being a widespread phenomenon?
2: If not, then what is your road map to making it happen?
Space tourism is literally a road to nowhere and serves no purpose. You may as well go and lock yourself into a dark room and play video's for 6 months with your mates. Ecologically you are burning up earths resources for nowt but a cheap Saturday night thrill. There are 7.5 Billion Humans on the planet all wanting a smart phone, a Bling ICE or electric car and people think we should invest in space tourism sigh....... If it really happens the human race is truly fThe ultimate goal of the new space race is to getting millions of people into space and to get ourselves a substantial distance down this pathway within a human lifespan. I wouldn't bother to go to Mars but that is beside the point.
I would argue that this a laudable goal.
I would also argue that the new space movement is making the cost of launch for governmental payloads substantially cheaper thus allowing NASA and ESA to do more with less.
Ultimately the application of space flight to mass travel and living in space requires much cheaper launch and manufacturing. This requires increased volumes of spaceflight, which at each stage unlocks a new application which then increases the volume and unlocks another application.
Tourism is a good first step because it has a high degree for price elasticity. As the price comes down, more people will want to go into space than the % price reduction hence the total value of the market will go up as prices fall.
At a certain point tourism wil unlock space mining, once we have in situ utilisation of spaces resources the average wealth of humanity goes up by orders of magnitude.
If you don't like the new space movement I'd ask two questions:
1: Are you opposed in general to space travel being a widespread phenomenon?
2: If not, then what is your road map to making it happen?
ked.Toaster said:
Talksteer said:
I think his point is super weak, space exploration was and to a degree still is effectively a spin off from military requirements. The golden age Apollo programme was effectively showing off and had no long term integration into a vision to do something societally useful.
The ultimate goal of the new space race is to getting millions of people into space and to get ourselves a substantial distance down this pathway within a human lifespan. I wouldn't bother to go to Mars but that is beside the point.
I would argue that this a laudable goal.
I would also argue that the new space movement is making the cost of launch for governmental payloads substantially cheaper thus allowing NASA and ESA to do more with less.
Ultimately the application of space flight to mass travel and living in space requires much cheaper launch and manufacturing. This requires increased volumes of spaceflight, which at each stage unlocks a new application which then increases the volume and unlocks another application.
Tourism is a good first step because it has a high degree for price elasticity. As the price comes down, more people will want to go into space than the % price reduction hence the total value of the market will go up as prices fall.
At a certain point tourism wil unlock space mining, once we have in situ utilisation of spaces resources the average wealth of humanity goes up by orders of magnitude.
If you don't like the new space movement I'd ask two questions:
1: Are you opposed in general to space travel being a widespread phenomenon?
2: If not, then what is your road map to making it happen?
Space tourism is literally a road to nowhere and serves no purpose. You may as well go and lock yourself into a dark room and play video's for 6 months with your mates. Ecologically you are burning up earths resources for nowt but a cheap Saturday night thrill. There are 7.5 Billion Humans on the planet all wanting a smart phone, a Bling ICE or electric car and people think we should invest in space tourism sigh....... If it really happens the human race is truly fThe ultimate goal of the new space race is to getting millions of people into space and to get ourselves a substantial distance down this pathway within a human lifespan. I wouldn't bother to go to Mars but that is beside the point.
I would argue that this a laudable goal.
I would also argue that the new space movement is making the cost of launch for governmental payloads substantially cheaper thus allowing NASA and ESA to do more with less.
Ultimately the application of space flight to mass travel and living in space requires much cheaper launch and manufacturing. This requires increased volumes of spaceflight, which at each stage unlocks a new application which then increases the volume and unlocks another application.
Tourism is a good first step because it has a high degree for price elasticity. As the price comes down, more people will want to go into space than the % price reduction hence the total value of the market will go up as prices fall.
At a certain point tourism wil unlock space mining, once we have in situ utilisation of spaces resources the average wealth of humanity goes up by orders of magnitude.
If you don't like the new space movement I'd ask two questions:
1: Are you opposed in general to space travel being a widespread phenomenon?
2: If not, then what is your road map to making it happen?
ked.Why are you singling out space tourism? Do you think it uses less of the planets resources than Earth based tourism and the millions of flights a year? You fool.
p1stonhead said:
All tourism is pointless in terms of Earths resources.
Why are you singling out space tourism? Do you think it uses less of the planets resources than Earth based tourism and the millions of flights a year? You fool.
You pose a different question, the core of this is about Space tourism not terrestrial tourism. I agree with your point about that all tourism is pointless in terms of the Earths resources. Space tourism takes the waste to another dimension.Why are you singling out space tourism? Do you think it uses less of the planets resources than Earth based tourism and the millions of flights a year? You fool.
Toaster said:
You pose a different question, the core of this is about Space tourism not terrestrial tourism. I agree with your point about that all tourism is pointless in terms of the Earths resources. Space tourism takes the waste to another dimension.
What happened to doing something fun because it's fun?Ian974 said:
Toaster said:
You pose a different question, the core of this is about Space tourism not terrestrial tourism. I agree with your point about that all tourism is pointless in terms of the Earths resources. Space tourism takes the waste to another dimension.
What happened to doing something fun because it's fun?
Atomic12C said:
Your response to being a troll is to call others a troll.... haha... I will happily troll your threads if that's what you wish.
First fall how can I be a troll when I started the thread! the second part is that whilst 98% of posters do not agree with both the stand point of the publisher and one I agree with does not make me a troll, the posters here only make up a tiny portion of views held to in the real world. If you going to contribute, contribute to the topic, you can agree, disagree or add another few point. But attacking the person for having a strong view against the public space tourism debacle when you consider there are far more things to spend money on. The UN has warned that there is only 12 years max to mitigate the effects of Climate change before we are all f
ked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupPa9RjNOg So with that in mind do you spend the billions on Space tourism or Science and strategies to save the climate, and ultimately us and our families, I do hope I am not in the tiny majority that would prioritise that against space tourism. Toaster said:
Atomic12C said:
Your response to being a troll is to call others a troll.... haha... I will happily troll your threads if that's what you wish.
First fall how can I be a troll when I started the thread! the second part is that whilst 98% of posters do not agree with both the stand point of the publisher and one I agree with does not make me a troll, the posters here only make up a tiny portion of views held to in the real world. If you going to contribute, contribute to the topic, you can agree, disagree or add another few point. But attacking the person for having a strong view against the public space tourism debacle when you consider there are far more things to spend money on. The UN has warned that there is only 12 years max to mitigate the effects of Climate change before we are all f
ked. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupPa9RjNOg So with that in mind do you spend the billions on Space tourism or Science and strategies to save the climate, and ultimately us and our families, I do hope I am not in the tiny majority that would prioritise that against space tourism. p1stonhead said:
Selling your sports car then?
Now your assuming I only have the one sports car, selling them doesn't solve the issue they exists as do the other vehicles I have so what to do? Crush them? that would be a gross waste, maybe consume them and repair them to they become truly unusable. if we all did this the car dealers would go out of business, most will anyway with EV's and with EV's and AI maybe we wont all own a vehicle (or many) just click an app and a shared mode of eco transport arrives. Just don't kick off space tourism, space tourism isn't being demanded by the masses, its a SiFi ideology being pushed Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff