This sums up the pointless public space race
Discussion
It's surely got be a dangerous path that leads to having sanctioned restrictions on what a private individual can spend their own money on?
Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Cold said:
It's surely got be a dangerous path that leads to having sanctioned restrictions on what a private individual can spend their own money on?
Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Apparently Toaster wants to be the deciding overlord. Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
Toaster said:
What I and many people agree with is that Virgin Galactic Joy rides, Uber rich moon flyby or blue origin joy rides are a pointless vacuous waste end of
These people are simply early adopters. It is their initial cash injection that will hopefully help drive the technology forward and the price down.The same happened with cars, TVs, smart phones etc.
Toaster said:
No the concept of landing rockets has been done in r&d projects and competitions what has been done is make a commercially viable product Musk did not invent vertical landing rockets
Perhaps not - but his company have advanced the technology to make it a lot more reliable and reusable, which will in turn help drive the cost down.We have had vertically landing rockets for decades (the moon lander is one such example) - but these were hugely expensive and wasteful.
Only 0.2% (by weight) of the Saturn 5 made it back to earth intact. 0% of it was reusable.
p1stonhead said:
Apparently Toaster wants to be the deciding overlord.
Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
Erm you guys are missing the point go and read the OP I said that my perspective agreed with the waste of Joy rides. I’m sure you have the selfish gene that is prevelant amounts humans that says we can do what ever we wish if we have enough money. Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
Toaster said:
p1stonhead said:
Apparently Toaster wants to be the deciding overlord.
Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
Erm you guys are missing the point go and read the OP I said that my perspective agreed with the waste of Joy rides. I’m sure you have the selfish gene that is prevelant amounts humans that says we can do what ever we wish if we have enough money. Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
Your blind spot is the size of the moon you don’t want people flying to.
Literally no one is missing your point. Everyone thinks your point is hypocritical bulls
t because it is. Toaster said:
good point but the technological advances have been made because of other technological advances. The flight computers etc that where In the Saturn V where huge today your probably wearing the same thing on your wrist. Manufacturing techniques have become more advances due to the tools being used. Even the DC-X9 would look old world as it used the technology available in the 90’s
The Guardian article has a view point It just happens I agree with it as do many others it doesn’t make that view wrong or others more right.
I am not against space flight or R&D or scientific discovery but Jeez the cartwheels being done by some as a celebration of a fair ground ride for the rich and prolong up three ego’s doesn’t sit well.
The Guardian article has a view point It just happens I agree with it as do many others it doesn’t make that view wrong or others more right.
I am not against space flight or R&D or scientific discovery but Jeez the cartwheels being done by some as a celebration of a fair ground ride for the rich and prolong up three ego’s doesn’t sit well.
avinalarf said:
I am in awe of those that have the brain power and ability to move the evolution of mankind onto the next step.
As for Musk and those like him, credit to them for having great vision and the ability to fund the research required for such ventures.
The great voyages of discovery 500 years ago were funded by Royalty and wealthy benefactors albeit not for altruistic reasons.
Erm be prepared to be disappointed and this is nothing like the the voyages of 500 years ago. If you look at history you will find travel and trade with distant countries going back much further in time. As for Musk and those like him, credit to them for having great vision and the ability to fund the research required for such ventures.
The great voyages of discovery 500 years ago were funded by Royalty and wealthy benefactors albeit not for altruistic reasons.
Currently the Saturn V is the most powerful rocket man has built and it went to the moon.
The “Vison” is about wealth, the ultimate goal is to mine for minerals on other planets. Which we will have to do once we have trashed our own planets. Oh and of course the odd Astronut who is wealthy enough to pay for a Joy ride.
p1stonhead said:
Cold said:
It's surely got be a dangerous path that leads to having sanctioned restrictions on what a private individual can spend their own money on?
Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Apparently Toaster wants to be the deciding overlord. Will there be a list of approved purchases? Who compiles this list? Will they use an approved form of recording it? Is this the start of everyone having to wear the same style of grey coloured clothes?
Everyone gets a white fiesta.
He gets an Evora though.
toaster said:
the concept of landing rockets has been done in r&d projects and competitions what has been done is make a commercially viable product Musk did not invent vertical landing rockets
Once the first car was patented anything else must have just been a vanity project......Toaster said:
p1stonhead said:
You said what they are doing is 'pitiful'
Are you suggesting spending the hundreds of millions they have already invested has not discovered anything new? How about landing vertical rockets? But a mere idea/theory until recently.
No the concept of landing rockets has been done in r&d projects and competitions what has been done is make a commercially viable product Musk did not invent vertical landing rockets Are you suggesting spending the hundreds of millions they have already invested has not discovered anything new? How about landing vertical rockets? But a mere idea/theory until recently.
The key players in the SpaceX story are:
NASA in the mid 2000's, the commercial crew programme was the stimulus which allowed SpaceX to actually build the first Falcon 9's.
The commercial crew programme was notable because it forced bidding at a fixed price and gave stage payments based on progress as the companies delivered their vehicles.
It also did not have hard programme deadlines which will tend to drive suppliers to proven (expensive) solutions.
The actual operating method of SpaceX are also amazingly important and much of the credit for that has to go to Elon Musk's philosophies of engineering and business.
They are simply more effective at engineering than the incumbents (or for that matter most aerospace companies), they haven't brought the overhead of processes, complicated business structures or lack of vision.
The philosophy of build and test at a very rapid rate is also key. It's worth comparing them to one of their earlier competitors Kistler Aerospace. Kistlers K1 was meant to be fully reusable on both stages, these stages were to be recovered by parachute.
Many of the original Kistler team were NASA/Apollo veterans and they went straight in with the final complex solution and they outsourced the design and production of the craft. They never flew a vehicle the money ran out when the early Iridium satellite constellations failed commercially and they failed to get enough funding to continue with the commercial crew programme (distilled much more complex story).
SpaceX on the other hand first flew a very simple rocket to gain knowledge and confidence. Then when they embarked on Falcon 9 they designed a simple rocket and ruthlessly removed cost and increased performance.
They used flights which had already been bought and paid for to test landing incrementally, expending the booster each time but designing and developing booster vertical landing at a fraction of the cost of designing and testing a reusable booster by designing it in one go, building an expensive test article and then flying a test programme.
When BFR and New Glenn are flying regularly and fully reusably. The price of space flight will get down to the £10,000s range. It will be possible for normally wealthy people to contemplate a holiday in LEO.
Beyond that the wealth of materials in the near earth range add up to £billions per person. Eventually we won't even need to use a rocket to get into space (see orbital ring not space elevator) and billions of humans can live in space where they can build whatever environment/living space they want and live with/near to whoever they want. It is effectively freedom from geography, it is a worthwhile goal.
Very few people have the ability to mentally plot a route between billionaires and millionaires joyriding and this is where articles like this one come from.
Talksteer said:
Nobody "invents" anything, virtually all pieces of science & technology have been demonstrated in some way or another before somebody makes practical use of it/proves it. However it is right that we credit the person who actually uses the technology or proves/popularises the science because they are also normally the one who has done the heaviest lifting.
The key players in the SpaceX story are:
NASA in the mid 2000's, the commercial crew programme was the stimulus which allowed SpaceX to actually build the first Falcon 9's.
The commercial crew programme was notable because it forced bidding at a fixed price and gave stage payments based on progress as the companies delivered their vehicles.
It also did not have hard programme deadlines which will tend to drive suppliers to proven (expensive) solutions.
The actual operating method of SpaceX are also amazingly important and much of the credit for that has to go to Elon Musk's philosophies of engineering and business.
They are simply more effective at engineering than the incumbents (or for that matter most aerospace companies), they haven't brought the overhead of processes, complicated business structures or lack of vision.
The philosophy of build and test at a very rapid rate is also key. It's worth comparing them to one of their earlier competitors Kistler Aerospace. Kistlers K1 was meant to be fully reusable on both stages, these stages were to be recovered by parachute.
Many of the original Kistler team were NASA/Apollo veterans and they went straight in with the final complex solution and they outsourced the design and production of the craft. They never flew a vehicle the money ran out when the early Iridium satellite constellations failed commercially and they failed to get enough funding to continue with the commercial crew programme (distilled much more complex story).
SpaceX on the other hand first flew a very simple rocket to gain knowledge and confidence. Then when they embarked on Falcon 9 they designed a simple rocket and ruthlessly removed cost and increased performance.
They used flights which had already been bought and paid for to test landing incrementally, expending the booster each time but designing and developing booster vertical landing at a fraction of the cost of designing and testing a reusable booster by designing it in one go, building an expensive test article and then flying a test programme.
When BFR and New Glenn are flying regularly and fully reusably. The price of space flight will get down to the £10,000s range. It will be possible for normally wealthy people to contemplate a holiday in LEO.
Beyond that the wealth of materials in the near earth range add up to £billions per person. Eventually we won't even need to use a rocket to get into space (see orbital ring not space elevator) and billions of humans can live in space where they can build whatever environment/living space they want and live with/near to whoever they want. It is effectively freedom from geography, it is a worthwhile goal.
Very few people have the ability to mentally plot a route between billionaires and millionaires joyriding and this is where articles like this one come from.
Nice reply, although its still a pointless Joyride, and I don't think Journalists such as the one who wrote the article is as dumb or stupid as some responses have made out. There are always two or more views to be had, Musk well lets see how well he actually does in the future and if he actually achieves Mars colonisation, personally I feel a lot of what he pushes out is done for marketing purposes. The key players in the SpaceX story are:
NASA in the mid 2000's, the commercial crew programme was the stimulus which allowed SpaceX to actually build the first Falcon 9's.
The commercial crew programme was notable because it forced bidding at a fixed price and gave stage payments based on progress as the companies delivered their vehicles.
It also did not have hard programme deadlines which will tend to drive suppliers to proven (expensive) solutions.
The actual operating method of SpaceX are also amazingly important and much of the credit for that has to go to Elon Musk's philosophies of engineering and business.
They are simply more effective at engineering than the incumbents (or for that matter most aerospace companies), they haven't brought the overhead of processes, complicated business structures or lack of vision.
The philosophy of build and test at a very rapid rate is also key. It's worth comparing them to one of their earlier competitors Kistler Aerospace. Kistlers K1 was meant to be fully reusable on both stages, these stages were to be recovered by parachute.
Many of the original Kistler team were NASA/Apollo veterans and they went straight in with the final complex solution and they outsourced the design and production of the craft. They never flew a vehicle the money ran out when the early Iridium satellite constellations failed commercially and they failed to get enough funding to continue with the commercial crew programme (distilled much more complex story).
SpaceX on the other hand first flew a very simple rocket to gain knowledge and confidence. Then when they embarked on Falcon 9 they designed a simple rocket and ruthlessly removed cost and increased performance.
They used flights which had already been bought and paid for to test landing incrementally, expending the booster each time but designing and developing booster vertical landing at a fraction of the cost of designing and testing a reusable booster by designing it in one go, building an expensive test article and then flying a test programme.
When BFR and New Glenn are flying regularly and fully reusably. The price of space flight will get down to the £10,000s range. It will be possible for normally wealthy people to contemplate a holiday in LEO.
Beyond that the wealth of materials in the near earth range add up to £billions per person. Eventually we won't even need to use a rocket to get into space (see orbital ring not space elevator) and billions of humans can live in space where they can build whatever environment/living space they want and live with/near to whoever they want. It is effectively freedom from geography, it is a worthwhile goal.
Very few people have the ability to mentally plot a route between billionaires and millionaires joyriding and this is where articles like this one come from.
Toaster said:
We once marvelled at Neil Armstrong. Now space is a playground for the rich
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
Typical miserablist moaning from a paper for whom nothing good ever happens.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
The Guardian, and much of its readership, will hate anything done by someone wealthy. They hate it, and them, independently of what it is that they are doing.
Musk appears to have reduced the cost of a heavy lift by a factor of ten. Why not applaud that rather than whine about his choice of test payload?
Toaster said:
Capilisem is struggling mainly for the few who are getting richer to squander their rescource on a vacuous joy ride many so bored and unhappy with their own lives seek another pay and go thrill at what expense eh ?
Your English is as poor as your argument.To repeat what others have said, you are a hypocrite who has blown enough on a toy to feed tens of starving families yet who whines about others doing the same.
Can you not see the hypocrisy?
Toaster said:
Nice reply, although its still a pointless Joyride....
It's a joyride - but not pointless. The point is to continue providing funding so that the advancements in technology can continue and the cost can be driven down.You do this by offering something that only rich people can afford initially - then piggy back further development off the back of this 'early adopter' investment.
It's been demonstrated time and time again from cars to CDs, mobile phones, flat screen TVs, 3d printers etc etc.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 19th October 23:22
James_B said:
You think a depreciating asset is a prudent investment?
That’s moronic.
no not when you consider many owners loose K’s every year on other brands and some who have brought the lotus will find its hundreds or may be the odd K I now The last one I had put up for sale it went for what I had paid which is not unusual, so whose the moron now. That’s moronic.
Just stick to commenting on the OP
Edited by Toaster on Saturday 20th October 07:15
Edited by Toaster on Saturday 20th October 07:17
At the start of World War One the British Army Generals dismissed aircraft as useless novelties that just upset the horses. Look how that turned out!
A lot of early pilots were Gentlemen Adventurers with lots of cash who did it because they enjoyed the adventure & pioneering spirit of flying, much like the these "joyride flights". Space X et al are advancing the progress of space travel. Anyone with any knowledge of the early history of flight can see the parallels.
The problems they are encountering getting this to work will benefit other areas. They will use their tech for later projects. Their will staff move around the space industry in other jobs later, taking their knowledge with them.
Most governments are too hamstrung by competing budget requirements to progress space at the rate private ventures do.........or the Chinese do.
So, no it's NOT pointless.
I'm going to stop there. Nurse says it's not good for me.
A lot of early pilots were Gentlemen Adventurers with lots of cash who did it because they enjoyed the adventure & pioneering spirit of flying, much like the these "joyride flights". Space X et al are advancing the progress of space travel. Anyone with any knowledge of the early history of flight can see the parallels.
The problems they are encountering getting this to work will benefit other areas. They will use their tech for later projects. Their will staff move around the space industry in other jobs later, taking their knowledge with them.
Most governments are too hamstrung by competing budget requirements to progress space at the rate private ventures do.........or the Chinese do.
So, no it's NOT pointless.
I'm going to stop there. Nurse says it's not good for me.
Tempest_5 said:
At the start of World War One the British Army Generals dismissed aircraft as useless novelties that just upset the horses. Look how that turned out!
A lot of early pilots were Gentlemen Adventurers with lots of cash who did it because they enjoyed the adventure & pioneering spirit of flying, much like the these "joyride flights". Space X et al are advancing the progress of space travel. Anyone with any knowledge of the early history of flight can see the parallels.
The problems they are encountering getting this to work will benefit other areas. They will use their tech for later projects. Their will staff move around the space industry in other jobs later, taking their knowledge with them.
Most governments are too hamstrung by competing budget requirements to progress space at the rate private ventures do.........or the Chinese do.
So, no it's NOT pointless.
I'm going to stop there. Nurse says it's not good for me.
it’s a view however space flight has been accomplished these new versions are not much of an advancement sure they are cheaper but “Advancement” probably not. A lot of early pilots were Gentlemen Adventurers with lots of cash who did it because they enjoyed the adventure & pioneering spirit of flying, much like the these "joyride flights". Space X et al are advancing the progress of space travel. Anyone with any knowledge of the early history of flight can see the parallels.
The problems they are encountering getting this to work will benefit other areas. They will use their tech for later projects. Their will staff move around the space industry in other jobs later, taking their knowledge with them.
Most governments are too hamstrung by competing budget requirements to progress space at the rate private ventures do.........or the Chinese do.
So, no it's NOT pointless.
I'm going to stop there. Nurse says it's not good for me.
These companies ultimate goal is mining....the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Space tourisem is just a waste of rescource.
Toaster said:
it’s a view however space flight has been accomplished these new versions are not much of an advancement sure they are cheaper but “Advancement” probably not.
These companies ultimate goal is mining....the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Space tourisem is just a waste of rescource.
You seem to agree that Space Exploration is a 'good thing' - the mining of other Celestial bodies and the like as the ultimate goal. These companies ultimate goal is mining....the Moon or other celestial bodies.
Space tourisem is just a waste of rescource.
Who pays for the 'getting there' and setting up the infrastructure to do all this? You via your tax to your Government? ISS, NASA etc are funded by tax dollars, no? The UK pays for a Space Program - you pay for a Space Program.
We all know that NASA etc have cut back on their Space Exploration spending so is it not welcome that a private enterprise that is capable of taking up some of the 'slack' can do so?
The money from the wealthy who pay for the first Space Tourist flights help to fund and provide experience and tech for the greater goals - Missions to Mars etc. Sooner them pay than you and I, right? I mean, if they are volunteering!
Think on this too: would it not be amazing to jump into a craft from a local Space Port capable of Space flight and travel to Australia in an hour or two as opposed to what it takes currently? Do you really not see how Space tourism is the pre-cursor to that?
Imagine a craft that could one day take off from a smaller, less intrusive, more cost-effective Space Port than is currently required - one that could be appended to an existing airport perhaps - and allow passengers to do long haul very quickly. Or to travel to other Planets to work and live there. Do you not see that all that begins with the tiny first step of Space tourism?
What appears to be a 'waste of resources' to you and those who think like you is but the first step in a long road to far greater ambitions for many others who want to see Humankind realise the speed Space flight brings to destinations around our own World (at first) and then for the exploration and Colonisation of other Worlds (extreme long term).
Use you imagination - be like Musk et al - think of the bigger picture and possibilities that would ultimately be to the benefit of most rather than just the present few!
Edited by Coolbanana on Sunday 21st October 08:57
Coolbanana said:
You seem to agree that Space Exploration is a 'good thing' - the mining of other Celestial bodies and the like as the ultimate goal.
Who pays for the 'getting there' and setting up the infrastructure to do all this? You via your tax to your Government? ISS, NASA etc are funded by tax dollars, no? The UK pays for a Space Program - you pay for a Space Program.
We all know that NASA etc have cut back on their Space Exploration spending so is it not welcome that a private enterprise that is capable of taking up some of the 'slack' can do so?
The money from the wealthy who pay for the first Space Tourist flights help to fund and provide experience and tech for the greater goals - Missions to Mars etc. Sooner them pay than you and I, right? I mean, if they are volunteering!
Think on this too: would it not be amazing to jump into a craft from a local Space Port capable of Space flight and travel to Australia in an hour or two as opposed to what it takes currently? Do you really not see how Space tourism is the pre-cursor to that?
Imagine a craft that could one day take off from a smaller, less intrusive, more cost-effective Space Port than is currently required - one that could be appended to an existing airport perhaps - and allow passengers to do long haul very quickly. Or to travel to other Planets to work and live there. Do you not see that all that begins with the tiny first step of Space tourism?
What appears to be a 'waste of resources' to you and those who think like you is but the first step in a long road to far greater ambitions for many others who want to see Humankind realise the speed Space flight brings to destinations around our own World (at first) and then for the exploration and Colonisation of other Worlds (extreme long term).
Use you imagination - be like Musk et al - think of the bigger picture and possibilities that would ultimately be to the benefit of most rather than just the present few!
I actually agree with you here, corporate and personal narrow mindedness has stifled space exploration for decades since the Apollo triumphs. Who pays for the 'getting there' and setting up the infrastructure to do all this? You via your tax to your Government? ISS, NASA etc are funded by tax dollars, no? The UK pays for a Space Program - you pay for a Space Program.
We all know that NASA etc have cut back on their Space Exploration spending so is it not welcome that a private enterprise that is capable of taking up some of the 'slack' can do so?
The money from the wealthy who pay for the first Space Tourist flights help to fund and provide experience and tech for the greater goals - Missions to Mars etc. Sooner them pay than you and I, right? I mean, if they are volunteering!
Think on this too: would it not be amazing to jump into a craft from a local Space Port capable of Space flight and travel to Australia in an hour or two as opposed to what it takes currently? Do you really not see how Space tourism is the pre-cursor to that?
Imagine a craft that could one day take off from a smaller, less intrusive, more cost-effective Space Port than is currently required - one that could be appended to an existing airport perhaps - and allow passengers to do long haul very quickly. Or to travel to other Planets to work and live there. Do you not see that all that begins with the tiny first step of Space tourism?
What appears to be a 'waste of resources' to you and those who think like you is but the first step in a long road to far greater ambitions for many others who want to see Humankind realise the speed Space flight brings to destinations around our own World (at first) and then for the exploration and Colonisation of other Worlds (extreme long term).
Use you imagination - be like Musk et al - think of the bigger picture and possibilities that would ultimately be to the benefit of most rather than just the present few!
Edited by Coolbanana on Sunday 21st October 08:57
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff