This sums up the pointless public space race
Discussion
We once marvelled at Neil Armstrong. Now space is a playground for the rich
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct...
p1stonhead said:
So are lotuses then. Or literally anything that isn’t an absolute basic human need.
Got a TV? Got a smartphone?
did I say we should have nothing other than what we need to cover basic needs. 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. Oh and the lotus the fuels used on one of those joy moon flybys would probably power it for a thousand years. Is the lotus a unessacery east of Money and rescource quite probably along with the rest of my fleet. Got a TV? Got a smartphone?
p1stonhead said:
So is a Lotus. End of. So is doing anything above basic needs. Its all materialistic nonsence at the end of the day. But we live in a capitalist world where people can choose what they want to do with their money.
Your argument is f
king idiotic.
No idea what an 'unessacery waste of Money and rescource' is though
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 argument is f
king idiotic.No idea what an 'unessacery waste of Money and rescource' is though
Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 18th October 12:19
Eric Mc said:
This poster has aired this view numerous times. Initially I did engage but soon discovered that it was a pointless exercise.I even raised some of the points you have as a response, mistakenly assuming that the poster was interested in a genuine discussion. I was wrong. It's all getting a bit circular and tedious.
There are far more inspiring and educational threads in the science forum that are much more pleasurable.
Blimey Eric my friend have you read the article it does support my view which as view does not make it right or wrong but the point is to debate around it would show intellect. After all it is a science forum unless your and others stance is just a positivist one. There are far more inspiring and educational threads in the science forum that are much more pleasurable.
Nanook said:
Are you interested in debating it though?
It seems like you're more interested in telling us that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
not really the replies are quite adamant the article was wrong. I just happen to agree with what the journalist wrote and I will not be the only one. It seems like you're more interested in telling us that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Eric Mc said:
I'm wondering if the OP has a mental health problem. His spelling and punctuation is all over the shop and I don't remember it being so bad in the past.
He also seemingly wilfuly misunderstood comments I made in the "First Man" thread.
I genuinely think he might need help.
Because of that, I'm not going to engage in a debate with him for the reasons mentioned above.
He raised a pretty similar topic a while ago in respect of Virgin Galactic. He's obviously broadened his attack now to include every wealthy entrepreneur who fancies putting their own money into spaceflight technology.
I won't be saying anything else on this specific thread.
Ah Eric, you didn’t need to say anything but felt compelled to take the piss. If you had bothered to read digest and comment on the article your comment may have some validity. He also seemingly wilfuly misunderstood comments I made in the "First Man" thread.
I genuinely think he might need help.
Because of that, I'm not going to engage in a debate with him for the reasons mentioned above.
He raised a pretty similar topic a while ago in respect of Virgin Galactic. He's obviously broadened his attack now to include every wealthy entrepreneur who fancies putting their own money into spaceflight technology.
I won't be saying anything else on this specific thread.
Atomic12C said:
Blimey Toaster, you sound like a raging intolerant lefty marxist social justice warrior.
Would it make you feel better if there was always a free seat on these rockets for a disabled transgender religious person who identifies as a traffic cone on Wednesdays?
Would it make you feel better if there was always a free seat on these rockets for a disabled transgender religious person who identifies as a traffic cone on Wednesdays?
maybe I am and no it wouldn’t make me feel better lol p1stonhead said:
Toaster said:
p1stonhead said:
But the article was a load of moaning drivel?
we know you already passed that opinion and who am I to argue that it does have a truth to it. RizzoTheRat said:
Yet you don't think investment is space technology is prudent?
These rich passengers paying megabucks for a joyride aren't burning their money, it's being spent by Space-X/Virgin/Blue Origin etc on developing technology and paying the salaries of those who are doing it. There's a massive amount of technology pullthrough from space programmes. Ok these companies weren't the ones who developed CAT and MRI scanners, freeze dried foods, water purification systems, CO2 scrubbers, and all the thousands of other things developed for space programmes that have gone on to be used in other areas, but they are massively reducing the cost of launching stuff in to orbit.
An Ariane V costs something like $10k/kg to LEO, Falcon 9 Heavy manages around $1700/kg, and joyriders are helping pay for that development.
Ok space exploration is good and does help bring forth innovation, I did not say that it didn’t what I am against is Joy rides and your last point is that joy riders are helping to pay for development. Erm no they are not it’s the contract money from NASA and speculative money Friday m investment companies hoping that mining other planets will pay dividends in the future. These rich passengers paying megabucks for a joyride aren't burning their money, it's being spent by Space-X/Virgin/Blue Origin etc on developing technology and paying the salaries of those who are doing it. There's a massive amount of technology pullthrough from space programmes. Ok these companies weren't the ones who developed CAT and MRI scanners, freeze dried foods, water purification systems, CO2 scrubbers, and all the thousands of other things developed for space programmes that have gone on to be used in other areas, but they are massively reducing the cost of launching stuff in to orbit.
An Ariane V costs something like $10k/kg to LEO, Falcon 9 Heavy manages around $1700/kg, and joyriders are helping pay for that development.
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.
Simpo Two said:
It's no different from a trackday experience for Hamilton wannabees, only bigger. What if you'd been a massive fan of spaceflight since you were boy, and had been fortunate in business to the point you could be an astronaut for a day?
And unlike Govt-sponsored space programmes it's not costing the taxpayer.
Live and let live I say.
And let's not forget that Guardian journos are miserable bds living in their own bubble of self-assumed elitism.
It may not be costing the taxpayer but it is costing the consumer, where did Musk and Bezos get their money from? The Money tree maybe ? (More like consumers profit can be viewed as just another tax )And unlike Govt-sponsored space programmes it's not costing the taxpayer.
Live and let live I say.
And let's not forget that Guardian journos are miserable b
ds living in their own bubble of self-assumed elitism.The Guardian has a perspective as does that right wing fabrication called the daily mail.
A bit of wiki for you that includes the DC-X9
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL
Edited by Toaster on Thursday 18th October 16:05
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:
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff