This sums up the pointless public space race
Discussion
Lets look at the argument that space tourism is doing nothing new and is therefore a waste of time/effort/money.
"We have been to space before, higher than the current space tourist companies are offering".
True, but the differences are significant & include the fact that the space tourist vehicles will be re-useable, have a relatively rapid turn around and be accessible to the public. Not to mention some have been experimenting with more environmentally friendly fuels. They will generate jobs in the local community around the various spaceports and with it, hopefully money. As space travel becomes more accessible & accepted then investors will see it as less high risk and be more willing to invest and so forth.
I'm not sure about the accusation that companies have been unwilling to invest in space travel. As Henry Ford said "Ford doesn't exist to make cars, it exists to make money". If there isn't a business case or a wealthy visionary to stump up the cold hard cash it ain't going to happen.
I've worked on bids for projects that we have all been enthusiastic about but they have fallen through when the potential customer can't get the money together.
"We have been to space before, higher than the current space tourist companies are offering".
True, but the differences are significant & include the fact that the space tourist vehicles will be re-useable, have a relatively rapid turn around and be accessible to the public. Not to mention some have been experimenting with more environmentally friendly fuels. They will generate jobs in the local community around the various spaceports and with it, hopefully money. As space travel becomes more accessible & accepted then investors will see it as less high risk and be more willing to invest and so forth.
I'm not sure about the accusation that companies have been unwilling to invest in space travel. As Henry Ford said "Ford doesn't exist to make cars, it exists to make money". If there isn't a business case or a wealthy visionary to stump up the cold hard cash it ain't going to happen.
I've worked on bids for projects that we have all been enthusiastic about but they have fallen through when the potential customer can't get the money together.
Toaster said:
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.
Just stick to commenting on the OP
It’s lose, not loose.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
Anyway, I’m not sure why you do not get this. Your (totally justifiable) toy was bought at the expense of giving the money to the needy, you cannot do that then expect to be taken seriously when you complain about others wasting money.
James_B said:
It’s lose, not loose.
Anyway, I’m not sure why you do not get this. Your (totally justifiable) toy was bought at the expense of giving the money to the needy, you cannot do that then expect to be taken seriously when you complain about others wasting money.
I can and do suggest that vast wealth comes with huge responsibility. When you consider distribution of wealth and it’s inequalities. A car is a car it’s just transport. It’s also what you do in life your contribution to your community in both financial and social terms. The irrelevance of a space hop and the cost associated with it is just irrelivant and wasteful it does nothing for space exploration it’s a vanity project. Anyway, I’m not sure why you do not get this. Your (totally justifiable) toy was bought at the expense of giving the money to the needy, you cannot do that then expect to be taken seriously when you complain about others wasting money.
I've worked as an Engineer for 28 years, 8 in operations & 20 in manufacturing. I have seen projects come & go, some good, some practical, some outlandish and some totally impractical with no appreciable benefit. I have seen other parts of my industry go off at a bit of a tangent. We sit back & look at them and mutter "interesting". However, sometimes when faced with new objectives this vast field of experience gives us insight into what may or may not work or be economical. As I said people move around & take their knowledge with them even if the parent company is a bit tight lipped. The knowledge base benefits from the diversity, even if it shows how not to do something.
If the space tourism companies were just building another expendable firework with a life support tin can on the top it could be claimed they were just doing what had been done, but they are not.
If people want to go off on a vanity project why not get them to help pay for increasing humanity's knowledge whilst doing it?
If the space tourism companies were just building another expendable firework with a life support tin can on the top it could be claimed they were just doing what had been done, but they are not.
If people want to go off on a vanity project why not get them to help pay for increasing humanity's knowledge whilst doing it?
Einion Yrth said:
Listen, and understand. That toaster is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are bored to death.
AmenThe word "pointless" in the thread can be applied to most of the OP's threads.
Einion Yrth said:
Listen, and understand. That toaster is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are bored to death.
lol well I guess that’s why my user name, but you know it’s interesting when you see these threads the same six people uncritically agreeing with each other. Eric Mc said:
Amen
The word "pointless" in the thread can be applied to most of the OP's threads.
Bloody hell Eric my friend you said you were not going to post maybe you do not know your own mind The word "pointless" in the thread can be applied to most of the OP's threads.
It is not pointless to post but clearly you cannot stand an opposing view. Space tourisem is pointless we do not have a proper space program yet we will be giving joyrides to the Uber rich it really is “A Road to Nowhere” aka Talking heads I wish you would stop calling me "my friend". I'm not and don't particularly want to be.
I find you the most relentlessly negative person I've come across on PH and you are, as far as I am concerned, not worth engaging with.
All, I can see you do is ruining what otherwise might be interesting and informative discussion.
I'll say no more and let you wallow in your downbeat views.
I find you the most relentlessly negative person I've come across on PH and you are, as far as I am concerned, not worth engaging with.
All, I can see you do is ruining what otherwise might be interesting and informative discussion.
I'll say no more and let you wallow in your downbeat views.
Eric Mc said:
I wish you would stop calling me "my friend". I'm not and don't particularly want to be.
I find you the most relentlessly negative person I've come across on PH and you are, as far as I am concerned, not worth engaging with.
All, I can see you do is ruining what otherwise might be interesting and informative discussion.
I'll say no more and let you wallow in your downbeat views.
Eric I do believe we could be mates but take the dislike of an opposing on line posted opinion too far. So in the absence of a beer did you actually read the article ? It is quite interesting and does challenge the belief that all is good. Can you honestly say Virgin galactic benefits mankind? It’s a privateers toy it has no real purpose and contaminates the upper atmospher. Not much research has been done in that area but there is concern that rocket immisions and burn ups on re - entry are not doing the upper atmosphere any favours. I find you the most relentlessly negative person I've come across on PH and you are, as far as I am concerned, not worth engaging with.
All, I can see you do is ruining what otherwise might be interesting and informative discussion.
I'll say no more and let you wallow in your downbeat views.
Toaster said:
Eric I do believe we could be mates but take the dislike of an opposing on line posted opinion too far. So in the absence of a beer did you actually read the article ? It is quite interesting and does challenge the belief that all is good. Can you honestly say Virgin galactic benefits mankind? It’s a privateers toy it has no real purpose and contaminates the upper atmospher. Not much research has been done in that area but there is concern that rocket immisions and burn ups on re - entry are not doing the upper atmosphere any favours.
Virgin Galactic is perfectly fine by me. They aren't spending my money and I won't be buying a ticket to ride on it. It has no direct impact on me whatsoever except from being something of interest from an engineering and spaceflight point of view.And what is your view on the plans for the Virgin Orbital programme for launching from Cornwall? Does this meet your criteria for "useful" or is it also "pointless".
If it is not "pointless", can you not acknowledge that there would never have been a Virgin Orbital without the work that has gone into Virgin Galactic?
Discussing with you is pretty pointless because you have a very fixed view on such matters - and you emerge every couple of months to remind everybody what those views are. Since they are the same as they were six months or a year ago - why bother?
Eric Mc said:
Virgin Galactic is perfectly fine by me. They aren't spending my money and I won't be buying a ticket to ride on it. It has no direct impact on me whatsoever except from being something of interest from an engineering and spaceflight point of view.
And what is your view on the plans for the Virgin Orbital programme for launching from Cornwall? Does this meet your criteria for "useful" or is it also "pointless".
If it is not "pointless", can you not acknowledge that there would never have been a Virgin Orbital without the work that has gone into Virgin Galactic?
Discussing with you is pretty pointless because you have a very fixed view on such matters - and you emerge every couple of months to remind everybody what those views are. Since they are the same as they were six months or a year ago - why bother?
Eric you cannot say that Virgin Obital wouldn't have come about they are two totally different projects and not reliant on one another even the launch aircraft is different along with the commercial objectives and typical of Virgin it is a separate company it doesn't even have the same branding. so is Orbital a development of Galactic it doesn't appear so. One company is launching human Astronut's for a joy ride and the other a commercially operated organisation for launching small satellites And what is your view on the plans for the Virgin Orbital programme for launching from Cornwall? Does this meet your criteria for "useful" or is it also "pointless".
If it is not "pointless", can you not acknowledge that there would never have been a Virgin Orbital without the work that has gone into Virgin Galactic?
Discussing with you is pretty pointless because you have a very fixed view on such matters - and you emerge every couple of months to remind everybody what those views are. Since they are the same as they were six months or a year ago - why bother?
Eric Mc said:
Since they are the same as they were six months or a year ago - why bother?
I should ask the same question Eric your view appears to be whatever the case throwing people up for a joy ride is totally acceptable, I bet you go on one of those big Cruise ships to Venice etc and be damed with the consequences. (but I could be wrong I hope I am) Oddly in view of the OP's choice of car, I had an almost identical argument recently with someone who'd seen a Lamborghini parked in town - their view being how dare they spend their money on an expensive car when there are homeless people etc. in the world.
The points that a) it was their money to spend as they wish, and b) preventing people from buying expensive cars would put a lot of people out of work, made no difference to them - nor did the fact that they themselves spent considerable sums on non-essential purchases. They just kept falling back on repeating the mantra that it was a waste of money and resources to make luxury cars and it 'shouldn't be allowed' - rather like Toaster keeps repeating crap about wasting space by sending tourists to the Moon
The points that a) it was their money to spend as they wish, and b) preventing people from buying expensive cars would put a lot of people out of work, made no difference to them - nor did the fact that they themselves spent considerable sums on non-essential purchases. They just kept falling back on repeating the mantra that it was a waste of money and resources to make luxury cars and it 'shouldn't be allowed' - rather like Toaster keeps repeating crap about wasting space by sending tourists to the Moon
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
Since they are the same as they were six months or a year ago - why bother?
I should ask the same question Eric your view appears to be whatever the case throwing people up for a joy ride is totally acceptable, I bet you go on one of those big Cruise ships to Venice etc and be damed with the consequences. (but I could be wrong I hope I am) MartG said:
Oddly in view of the OP's choice of car, I had an almost identical argument recently with someone who'd seen a Lamborghini parked in town - their view being how dare they spend their money on an expensive car when there are homeless people etc. in the world.
The points that a) it was their money to spend as they wish, and b) preventing people from buying expensive cars would put a lot of people out of work, made no difference to them - nor did the fact that they themselves spent considerable sums on non-essential purchases. They just kept falling back on repeating the mantra that it was a waste of money and resources to make luxury cars and it 'shouldn't be allowed' - rather like Toaster keeps repeating crap about wasting space by sending tourists to the Moon
read the article and you will see it’s much more than just helping the poor or homeless which in itself is a worthy cause. The Lotus is just transport it could be a Ford a bmw or a Van it really doesn’t matter. The empty futile quest of a Joy ride to near space is not enhancing mankind earth has finite rescource and to waste it I such a way is shameful. The points that a) it was their money to spend as they wish, and b) preventing people from buying expensive cars would put a lot of people out of work, made no difference to them - nor did the fact that they themselves spent considerable sums on non-essential purchases. They just kept falling back on repeating the mantra that it was a waste of money and resources to make luxury cars and it 'shouldn't be allowed' - rather like Toaster keeps repeating crap about wasting space by sending tourists to the Moon
Toaster said:
read the article and you will see it’s much more than just helping the poor or homeless which in itself is a worthy cause. The Lotus is just transport it could be a Ford a bmw or a Van it really doesn’t matter. The empty futile quest of a Joy ride to near space is not enhancing mankind earth has finite rescource and to waste it I such a way is shameful.
The same argument applies to building a car like the Evora, it consumes more resources and effort than a simpler, less powerful, more utlitarian design. If you ignore that cycling would be the most efficient mode of personal transport then by your ideals there should be only a single design of personal car being manufactured at any time.Keep banging the rocks together guys.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff