In other words, please be true
February 27, 2017 1:54 PM Subscribe
SpaceX have announced the first space tourism mission to the Moon, launching next year. The two private citizens will be flying in the new Dragon 2 spacecraft and launched by the Falcon Heavy, which will undergo testing this summer. With the launch of a Falcon Heavy priced at $90 million, the mission as a whole will likely cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Space X is progressing through Kerbal Space Program career mode.
Although the schedule here is really ambitious, they haven't even launched a Falcon Heavy yet, right? Wikipedia suggests that the manned launch will be the third launch of a heavy rocket? I mean, I'm excited and want to see it, and there's probably a good argument that NASA launches took way too long, but I'm also glad it's not me going up on the third launch.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:09 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
Although the schedule here is really ambitious, they haven't even launched a Falcon Heavy yet, right? Wikipedia suggests that the manned launch will be the third launch of a heavy rocket? I mean, I'm excited and want to see it, and there's probably a good argument that NASA launches took way too long, but I'm also glad it's not me going up on the third launch.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:09 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
That's funny. I also intend to send two paying customers to the Moon. Anybody else?
posted by My Dad at 2:11 PM on February 27, 2017 [10 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 2:11 PM on February 27, 2017 [10 favorites]
Wikipedia suggests that the manned launch will be the third launch of a heavy rocket?
Granted, the Falcon Heavy is literally just three Falcon 9s bolted together with a new interstage. Still, yes, you would expect at least a year or two of tests before somebody is allowed to sign on the dotted line.
posted by fifthrider at 2:13 PM on February 27, 2017
Granted, the Falcon Heavy is literally just three Falcon 9s bolted together with a new interstage. Still, yes, you would expect at least a year or two of tests before somebody is allowed to sign on the dotted line.
posted by fifthrider at 2:13 PM on February 27, 2017
I have long sworn up and down that the minute the cost of going to space drops below my life savings, I'm blowing it all and heading up. If we (arbitrarily) apply Moore's law to the price of going to the moon, then in about 10-12 years I should be able to sell the house I might own by then and get going.
Ten years, people. We sorta-kinda-almost live in the future.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 2:17 PM on February 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
Ten years, people. We sorta-kinda-almost live in the future.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 2:17 PM on February 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
i wonder which two silicon valley idiots with too much money are going up?
popcorn futures are soaring! buy! BUY!
posted by entropicamericana at 2:18 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
popcorn futures are soaring! buy! BUY!
posted by entropicamericana at 2:18 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
One of these days, Alice...
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 2:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
At 20 million per seat on a Dragon 2, it would only cost us a few billion to send the global oligarchy to a Lagrange point. I think Musk is on to something.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 2:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
My money's on Larry Ellison and ... somebody who can stand to be in a space capsule with Larry Ellison for days at a time.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:21 PM on February 27, 2017 [27 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 2:21 PM on February 27, 2017 [27 favorites]
If Space X needs an average shmoe to make America care more about their moon trip than just sending up a couple of billionaires, I promise not to open any potato chips on the trip.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:22 PM on February 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:22 PM on February 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
Ok, so why is a new rocket needed?
Why not use the old reliable Space Shuttle model that NASA used for decades? I'm not suggesting using 40 year old parts, but the design seemed to work. What's the reasoning behind needing to use a new rocket system with all the costs, testing, and risk associated with something new?
If the only goal is to start fleecing people of money on private tours of space, the Shuttle model could that rather reliably it would seem.
posted by dios at 2:24 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
Why not use the old reliable Space Shuttle model that NASA used for decades? I'm not suggesting using 40 year old parts, but the design seemed to work. What's the reasoning behind needing to use a new rocket system with all the costs, testing, and risk associated with something new?
If the only goal is to start fleecing people of money on private tours of space, the Shuttle model could that rather reliably it would seem.
posted by dios at 2:24 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
James Cameron has a few dollars and made a very big deal about going deeper into the ocean than anyone had before. He also likes space.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 2:25 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 2:25 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
If the only goal is to start fleecing people of money on private tours of space
How are they being fleeced if they're actually taken on a private tour of space?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:26 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
How are they being fleeced if they're actually taken on a private tour of space?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:26 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
Sort of cool, I guess. And there's nothing wrong with private citizens spending their own money for a thrill. Nonetheless, I have to ask: Why? We've been to Luna. Not just Lunar orbit, but the Lunar surface. And there just isn't anything there. It makes Antarctica look like paradise. There are loads of fascinating things to explore in our solar system, with the (MST3K voice) help of our robot friends; what's the point of sending canned apes on a 1960s-nostalgia jaunt?
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:27 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:27 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Why not use the old reliable Space Shuttle model that NASA used for decades?
Maybe fourteen dead astronauts have something to do with it.
posted by ddbeck at 2:28 PM on February 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
Maybe fourteen dead astronauts have something to do with it.
posted by ddbeck at 2:28 PM on February 27, 2017 [19 favorites]
Ok, so why is a new rocket needed?
I believe the point is that the cost per ton of payload for the SpaceX systems is much lower than for the shuttle. SpaceX is using a different take on reusability that scales better to interplanetary exploration. That's the claim, anyway.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I believe the point is that the cost per ton of payload for the SpaceX systems is much lower than for the shuttle. SpaceX is using a different take on reusability that scales better to interplanetary exploration. That's the claim, anyway.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
How are they being fleeced if they're actually taken on a private tour of space?
posted by Sangermaine at 4:26 PM on February 27
Well, I don't know what they are charging so I guess it would be hard to discuss whether they will be overcharging--I just assume it will be extremely expensive. Of course, that wasn't really the question I was asking.
posted by dios at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017
posted by Sangermaine at 4:26 PM on February 27
Well, I don't know what they are charging so I guess it would be hard to discuss whether they will be overcharging--I just assume it will be extremely expensive. Of course, that wasn't really the question I was asking.
posted by dios at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017
Sort of cool, I guess. And there's nothing wrong with private citizens spending their own money for a thrill. Nonetheless, I have to ask: Why? We've been to Luna. Not just Lunar orbit, but the Lunar surface. And there just isn't anything there. It makes Antarctica look like paradise. There are loads of fascinating things to explore in our solar system, with the (MST3K voice) help of our robot friends; what's the point of sending canned apes on a 1960s-nostalgia jaunt?
I feel like there's just some fundamental divide among people where if you have to ask this question you'll never understand the answer.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [53 favorites]
I feel like there's just some fundamental divide among people where if you have to ask this question you'll never understand the answer.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [53 favorites]
Why not use the old reliable Space Shuttle model that NASA used for decades?
Because the Space Shuttle is and was well-known to be an absolute death trap, as the result of numerous compromises in its design made for its planned use to literally steal Soviet spy satellites. Also, it was ridiculously heavy and expensive for the payloads it launched.
posted by fifthrider at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
Because the Space Shuttle is and was well-known to be an absolute death trap, as the result of numerous compromises in its design made for its planned use to literally steal Soviet spy satellites. Also, it was ridiculously heavy and expensive for the payloads it launched.
posted by fifthrider at 2:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
Well, I don't know what they are charging so I guess it would be hard to discuss whether they will be overcharging--I just assume it will be extremely expensive.
This is a situation where you can't really "fleece" someone unless you're committing fraud by not actually intending to take them to space as promised. The venture is going to be enormously expensive and enormously risky. "Overcharging" doesn't really factor into it if you're willing and able to even consider doing it.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
This is a situation where you can't really "fleece" someone unless you're committing fraud by not actually intending to take them to space as promised. The venture is going to be enormously expensive and enormously risky. "Overcharging" doesn't really factor into it if you're willing and able to even consider doing it.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
The shuttle was horribly expensive to launch. It was a compromise of design that left no one truly happy and never reached a launch frequency to drop costs. And it never would.
SLS suffers from the same issue, with single launch per year it will cost upwards of $1 Billion per launch.
SpaceX has done great things, but Musk is usually a bit optimistic on schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets pushed back to 2019 or even 2020. But it I'm guessing it will happen.
posted by beowulf573 at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
SLS suffers from the same issue, with single launch per year it will cost upwards of $1 Billion per launch.
SpaceX has done great things, but Musk is usually a bit optimistic on schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets pushed back to 2019 or even 2020. But it I'm guessing it will happen.
posted by beowulf573 at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
You're welcome, dios. But I'm inside, not to the right. :-)
posted by mondo dentro at 2:33 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 2:33 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Sangermaine - and that "fundamental divide" answer is fair enough, so long as we agree that this SpaceX project is more akin to sport or art than serious policy. It's fine to say "if you don't get hockey, you never will" - but once we get into the nuts and bolts of public-private partnerships and deep-space research policy, we actually need articulable arguments in support of manned spaceflight.
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:34 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:34 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
SpaceX has done great things, but Musk is usually a bit optimistic on schedule.
As much as I think it's the ultimate Tom Sawyer move to get rich people to pay tens of millions of dollars to be test pilots, I do shudder to think what might happen if they're killed. No one can accuse Musk of playing it safe, that's for sure.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:37 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
As much as I think it's the ultimate Tom Sawyer move to get rich people to pay tens of millions of dollars to be test pilots, I do shudder to think what might happen if they're killed. No one can accuse Musk of playing it safe, that's for sure.
posted by mondo dentro at 2:37 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
Governments also fund sport and art - not as much as space research, I'll grant - but then again, most space research money isn't about ferrying astronauts around the Moon.
posted by adrianhon at 2:37 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by adrianhon at 2:37 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
And there's nothing wrong with private citizens spending their own money for a thrill.
I think sometimes there is.
posted by layceepee at 2:38 PM on February 27, 2017 [12 favorites]
I think sometimes there is.
posted by layceepee at 2:38 PM on February 27, 2017 [12 favorites]
but once we get into the nuts and bolts of public-private partnerships and deep-space research policy, we actually need articulable arguments in support of manned spaceflight.
The arguments are already there on both sides and have been rehashed to death, which is what I mean by there being a fundamental divide. There's no objectively right answer because it comes down to what you consider valuable.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:42 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
The arguments are already there on both sides and have been rehashed to death, which is what I mean by there being a fundamental divide. There's no objectively right answer because it comes down to what you consider valuable.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:42 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
adrianhon - You're absolutely right. And especially with the current administration doing its level best to gut such funding, it's important to remember that funding for the arts *is* a legitimate governmental endeavor.
That being said, I still think it's important to keep an eye on the fact that manned spaceflight *does* remain more akin to sport or art than actual science. And if we're going to treat manned spaceflight as an arts program, then it still makes sense to ask, "Well, what other arts programs could we fund with this massive budget? Could we, perhaps, give a platform to artists who don't already have billions of dollars?"
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:43 PM on February 27, 2017 [7 favorites]
That being said, I still think it's important to keep an eye on the fact that manned spaceflight *does* remain more akin to sport or art than actual science. And if we're going to treat manned spaceflight as an arts program, then it still makes sense to ask, "Well, what other arts programs could we fund with this massive budget? Could we, perhaps, give a platform to artists who don't already have billions of dollars?"
posted by Mr. Excellent at 2:43 PM on February 27, 2017 [7 favorites]
We've been to Luna. Not just Lunar orbit, but the Lunar surface. And there just isn't anything there.
The Moon is there.
posted by bondcliff at 2:44 PM on February 27, 2017 [29 favorites]
The Moon is there.
posted by bondcliff at 2:44 PM on February 27, 2017 [29 favorites]
no you're right, it's fine that the rich are getting tax cuts even though they can already afford to fly around the moon while there are people starving and sleeping on the streets in our country, that sounds perfectly reasonable
posted by entropicamericana at 2:46 PM on February 27, 2017 [23 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:46 PM on February 27, 2017 [23 favorites]
Bill Gates said last week we should "tax robots" to compensate for job losses from automation. This "moon shot" is a good reason for taxing billionaires, instead. Seriously, why just burn a fucking pile of cash?
posted by My Dad at 2:47 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 2:47 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
(As always over the past few months, the refrain from "The Space Program" by A Tribe Called Quest remains relevant).
posted by My Dad at 2:50 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 2:50 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Seriously, why just burn a fucking pile of cash?
This reminds me very much of the recent article about Fling and its founder, who wasted a ton of money partying in Ibiza while the company burned. When rich people spend millions if not billions of dollars on shit like this, they aren't burning the money. They're spending it -- it ends up going to engineers and programmers and administrative assistants.
Which is a trickle-down economics argument, I realize. And just taxing the billionaires and redistributing that money via social programs would be more efficient. But they aren't *burning* it. They're redistributing it to people who need it more than they do. Just not the people who need it most.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:52 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
This reminds me very much of the recent article about Fling and its founder, who wasted a ton of money partying in Ibiza while the company burned. When rich people spend millions if not billions of dollars on shit like this, they aren't burning the money. They're spending it -- it ends up going to engineers and programmers and administrative assistants.
Which is a trickle-down economics argument, I realize. And just taxing the billionaires and redistributing that money via social programs would be more efficient. But they aren't *burning* it. They're redistributing it to people who need it more than they do. Just not the people who need it most.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:52 PM on February 27, 2017 [13 favorites]
no you're right, it's fine that the rich are getting tax cuts even though they can already afford to fly around the moon while there are people starving and sleeping on the streets in our country, that sounds perfectly reasonable
Space shuttle blowing off in my face
But we got something here called the human race
I swear it's like every socially aware band that I found a little too strident and earnest in the 90s turned out to be completely fucking right about everything
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Space shuttle blowing off in my face
But we got something here called the human race
I swear it's like every socially aware band that I found a little too strident and earnest in the 90s turned out to be completely fucking right about everything
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I had a longer comment, but jacquilynne said it better. Would it be preferable that capital sits in a network of offshore accounts somewhere rather than directly employing hundreds of people?
posted by figurant at 2:56 PM on February 27, 2017
posted by figurant at 2:56 PM on February 27, 2017
It's not like the space program is the thing holding back social progress and justice for the poor.
The way people talk about spending on space you'd think 95% of the US government's budget is spent on NASA and other space programs, and if only we'd free up something we could work on other problems. There are about a zillion other, more important, far FAR more costly policies and decisions to look at before you get to whatever few drops in the bucket the space program represents in the budget. Not to mention the outright racist policies and programs, and programs explicitly designed to make and keep people poor, that have nothing to do whatsoever with what NASA does.
Like, if Trump shut NASA down tomorrow he'd still be President and all the problems of race and poverty would still be there.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:56 PM on February 27, 2017 [17 favorites]
The way people talk about spending on space you'd think 95% of the US government's budget is spent on NASA and other space programs, and if only we'd free up something we could work on other problems. There are about a zillion other, more important, far FAR more costly policies and decisions to look at before you get to whatever few drops in the bucket the space program represents in the budget. Not to mention the outright racist policies and programs, and programs explicitly designed to make and keep people poor, that have nothing to do whatsoever with what NASA does.
Like, if Trump shut NASA down tomorrow he'd still be President and all the problems of race and poverty would still be there.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:56 PM on February 27, 2017 [17 favorites]
If you think manned spaceflight is a reasonable goal, then this is a great way to fund it. Its similar to what Musk is doing with Tesla --- start with the roadster (which was super expensive and impractical), use that $$ to fund a slightly more reasonable but still very expensive car, and so on.
Now, I'm not convinced of the premise (that we should be doing manned spaceflight), but if you take that as a starting point I think this is a good idea.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:57 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Now, I'm not convinced of the premise (that we should be doing manned spaceflight), but if you take that as a starting point I think this is a good idea.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:57 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
But they aren't *burning* it. They're redistributing it to people who need it more than they do. Just not the people who need it most.
Fair enough, that's a good point. I think the problem I have with this approach is that it's very inefficient, and how the money gets spent depends on the whims of a narrow stratum of people. It's the problem I have in general with the whole "tech entrepreneur" culture.
People like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and other "disruptors" are such smarty pants, they know how to best spend money. And these are individuals who wield as much influence and power as nation states, with none of the checks and balances.
There is no commitment to participating in a shared polity with common goals. The goal is to get rich. And that's it.
If the technocrats are such geniuses, why are there still homeless people in Palo Alto and so on?
posted by My Dad at 3:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Fair enough, that's a good point. I think the problem I have with this approach is that it's very inefficient, and how the money gets spent depends on the whims of a narrow stratum of people. It's the problem I have in general with the whole "tech entrepreneur" culture.
People like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and other "disruptors" are such smarty pants, they know how to best spend money. And these are individuals who wield as much influence and power as nation states, with none of the checks and balances.
There is no commitment to participating in a shared polity with common goals. The goal is to get rich. And that's it.
If the technocrats are such geniuses, why are there still homeless people in Palo Alto and so on?
posted by My Dad at 3:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
we actually need articulable arguments in support of manned spaceflight.
There's not actually a government spending crisis. There's a political crisis about spending government money. We could easily institute any number of social programs domestically, and also fund basic and even manned space flight research. It's just not the case that the space program, especially when partially privatized, is taking away money that would otherwise be spent feeding the poor or whatever. If we didn't spend it on space, we wouldn't turn around and build a bunch of public housing with it, we just wouldn't have a space program either.
And unless we're going to start spending it on massive production of atmospheric carbon scrubbers, finding a way for the human race to live on after the Earth incinerates in the next 20-100 years is as good a use as any.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
There's not actually a government spending crisis. There's a political crisis about spending government money. We could easily institute any number of social programs domestically, and also fund basic and even manned space flight research. It's just not the case that the space program, especially when partially privatized, is taking away money that would otherwise be spent feeding the poor or whatever. If we didn't spend it on space, we wouldn't turn around and build a bunch of public housing with it, we just wouldn't have a space program either.
And unless we're going to start spending it on massive production of atmospheric carbon scrubbers, finding a way for the human race to live on after the Earth incinerates in the next 20-100 years is as good a use as any.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Somehow we've circled back to Medici-style patronage of big projects for humanity. At this point we're only going to completely eradicate polio, get to Mars, and build a space elevator if some very rich people pay for it to happen. Governments are no longer interested.
posted by xyzzy at 3:01 PM on February 27, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by xyzzy at 3:01 PM on February 27, 2017 [12 favorites]
But they aren't *burning* it. They're redistributing it to people who need it more than they do.
I mean, the fuel bill for rocket launch isn't exactly peanuts. A lot of it is being burned...
posted by Dysk at 3:02 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
I mean, the fuel bill for rocket launch isn't exactly peanuts. A lot of it is being burned...
posted by Dysk at 3:02 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Somehow we've circled back to Medici-style patronage of big projects for humanity.
The US government isn't going to pay for them. This is the only reasonable alternative.
I mean --- I totally agree that government should be the one doing this kind of thing, for the reasons My Dad mentions (commitment to the shared good, etc). But the US has been moving away from that kind of vision for a long time, and under Trump we're accelerating away at high speed.
Expecting government to take care of obvious problems, fund art, fund science, etc is relatively hopeless at this point. Maybe we can swing it back around someday, but its going to take a long time. In the meantime, I'd much rather our billionaires be funding medical research (Gates), space exploration (Musk), etc than doing what the Kochs do (funding the destruction of the environment, etc).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
The US government isn't going to pay for them. This is the only reasonable alternative.
I mean --- I totally agree that government should be the one doing this kind of thing, for the reasons My Dad mentions (commitment to the shared good, etc). But the US has been moving away from that kind of vision for a long time, and under Trump we're accelerating away at high speed.
Expecting government to take care of obvious problems, fund art, fund science, etc is relatively hopeless at this point. Maybe we can swing it back around someday, but its going to take a long time. In the meantime, I'd much rather our billionaires be funding medical research (Gates), space exploration (Musk), etc than doing what the Kochs do (funding the destruction of the environment, etc).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Somehow we've circled back to Medici-style patronage of big projects for humanity. At this point we're only going to completely eradicate polio, get to Mars, and build a space elevator if some very rich people pay for it to happen. Governments are no longer interested.
But they actully are. As the announcement notes:
posted by Sangermaine at 3:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
But they actully are. As the announcement notes:
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which provided most of the funding for Dragon 2 development, is a key enabler for this missionIt doesn't seem to get as much press, but Space-X is very much a government-private venture.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
I'd much rather our billionaires be funding... space exploration (Musk), etc than doing what the Kochs do (funding the destruction of the environment, etc).
so space-x is carbon neutral now?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
so space-x is carbon neutral now?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:07 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
so space-x is carbon neutral now?
There's no way to have carbon neutral space exploration. If you think space exploration is a good idea, you're going to have to accept some carbon output and mitigate it in other ways (like, say, building solar factories and electric cars).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on February 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
There's no way to have carbon neutral space exploration. If you think space exploration is a good idea, you're going to have to accept some carbon output and mitigate it in other ways (like, say, building solar factories and electric cars).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on February 27, 2017 [8 favorites]
i wonder which two silicon valley idiots with too much money are going up?
popcorn futures are soaring! buy! BUY!
Count down
Get ready for the blast off!
And don't forget the hype!
We're going into space.
Distinguished scientists
A pesky senator
And monkey turds leaking from the lab
All brought to us play-by-play by Howard Cosell
You're going where no man has gone before
Don't ask us where that is - we have no idea
You're chosen for this great mission
Because we owe you some favors
And besides you're bright
A little too bright
Step one:
Senator, you vomit,
It's time to analyze it
For the folks back home
Open the hatch, launch the war satellite
That the commies aren't supposed to know about
Our real challenge is to keep it a secret
From the press back home
You're going where no man has gone before
Don't ask us where that is - we have no idea
You're chosen for this great mission
Because you're hearty and strong
And make a lot of fuss
Especially around us
We like you better when you're far away
Have you noticed?
You're going the wrong direction
We have, but that's your problem
We planned it that way
We had to dispose of all of you so
We could spoil the final frontier
How dare you question our Star Wars plans
For the farce that they are?
You're going where no man has gone before
For rocking the boat
In our temple of doom
You're on a one-way ticket to Pluto
We wash our hands
Of you and your lost ark
So don't forget to write
posted by indubitable at 3:16 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
popcorn futures are soaring! buy! BUY!
Count down
Get ready for the blast off!
And don't forget the hype!
We're going into space.
Distinguished scientists
A pesky senator
And monkey turds leaking from the lab
All brought to us play-by-play by Howard Cosell
You're going where no man has gone before
Don't ask us where that is - we have no idea
You're chosen for this great mission
Because we owe you some favors
And besides you're bright
A little too bright
Step one:
Senator, you vomit,
It's time to analyze it
For the folks back home
Open the hatch, launch the war satellite
That the commies aren't supposed to know about
Our real challenge is to keep it a secret
From the press back home
You're going where no man has gone before
Don't ask us where that is - we have no idea
You're chosen for this great mission
Because you're hearty and strong
And make a lot of fuss
Especially around us
We like you better when you're far away
Have you noticed?
You're going the wrong direction
We have, but that's your problem
We planned it that way
We had to dispose of all of you so
We could spoil the final frontier
How dare you question our Star Wars plans
For the farce that they are?
You're going where no man has gone before
For rocking the boat
In our temple of doom
You're on a one-way ticket to Pluto
We wash our hands
Of you and your lost ark
So don't forget to write
posted by indubitable at 3:16 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
It doesn't seem to get as much press, but Space-X is very much a government-private venture.
Look, I like Musk. He's a throw-back rich inventor genius who is actually doing something of societal value with his money. He's actually making stuff, not just apps to generate clicks. He's not just scheming on how to use his money to cement his power and collect untaxable rents. So good on him.
That said, in the world today, "government-private venture" means that we socialize the risk and privatize the profits. The entire heroic story of Libertarian Capitalism is a sham. I don't mind Musk so much, because he's risking a lot of his own for worthwhile things. But really this sort of shit is rampant and almost never discussed. The so-called tech industry is exhibit A. Computer technology, both on the hardware and software sides, is based on billions of public investment. Somehow people think that Gates and Jobs (and Musk and Theil) just came along and "created" out of thin air. It's a crock.
posted by mondo dentro at 3:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
Look, I like Musk. He's a throw-back rich inventor genius who is actually doing something of societal value with his money. He's actually making stuff, not just apps to generate clicks. He's not just scheming on how to use his money to cement his power and collect untaxable rents. So good on him.
That said, in the world today, "government-private venture" means that we socialize the risk and privatize the profits. The entire heroic story of Libertarian Capitalism is a sham. I don't mind Musk so much, because he's risking a lot of his own for worthwhile things. But really this sort of shit is rampant and almost never discussed. The so-called tech industry is exhibit A. Computer technology, both on the hardware and software sides, is based on billions of public investment. Somehow people think that Gates and Jobs (and Musk and Theil) just came along and "created" out of thin air. It's a crock.
posted by mondo dentro at 3:20 PM on February 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
When rich people spend millions if not billions of dollars on shit like this, they aren't burning the money. They're spending it -- it ends up going to engineers and programmers and administrative assistants.
So why not just give them the money instead of making them sell their labor in pursuit of a brief thrill for two people?
Oh right, the same reason some asshole would light a cigar with a Benjamin right in front of you. Only multiplied by ~1,000,000x.
posted by indubitable at 3:39 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
So why not just give them the money instead of making them sell their labor in pursuit of a brief thrill for two people?
Oh right, the same reason some asshole would light a cigar with a Benjamin right in front of you. Only multiplied by ~1,000,000x.
posted by indubitable at 3:39 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I mean, the fuel bill for rocket launch isn't exactly peanuts. A lot of it is being burned...
Paying for rocket fuel still means giving money to other companies who use it to pay their employees and buy equipment from other companies who use that money to pay their employees and buy equipment...
posted by jacquilynne at 3:55 PM on February 27, 2017
Dysk: I mean, the fuel bill for rocket launch isn't exactly peanuts. A lot of it is being burned...Actually, it is! According to Musk, anyway, fuel is only about 0.3% of a rocket's cost:
Musk reiterated the origin of the SpaceX production model, saying fuel is only 0.3 percent of the total cost of a rocket, with construction materials accounting for no more than 2 percent of the total cost, which for the Falcon 9 is about $60 million.Most of the cost of launching a rocket is labor.
posted by ragtag at 3:58 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Making and transporting rocket fuel isn't any less laborious than the rest of the jobs involved in making a rocket. There's no particular reason to exempt the labor involved in servicing the machine that mined the bauxite that went into making the aluminum, either. $60 million is $60 million, if you're measuring things in money you've just got to accept that the dollar cost represents the value of all resources used.
posted by sfenders at 4:10 PM on February 27, 2017
posted by sfenders at 4:10 PM on February 27, 2017
Why not use the old reliable Space Shuttle model that NASA used for decades?
Reasons.
posted by sfenders at 4:11 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Reasons.
posted by sfenders at 4:11 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I mean, the fuel bill for rocket launch isn't exactly peanuts.A few minutes of Google and Wikipedia tells me that the Falcon Heavy launches with about 1330 tons of fuel and oxygen, each of which costs around 30 cents per pound. That puts the total fuel cost for the launch at around a quarter of a million dollars.
Not exactly 'peanuts' to you or I, but a tiny fraction of the $90 million sticker price for a Falcon Heavy launch.
Of that 1.33 kt, about 266t is fuel and the rest is oxygen. This is almost exactly equal to an A380 jumbo jet's fuel capacity of about 260 tons.
posted by Hatashran at 4:14 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
He's a throw-back rich inventor genius
I think it's important to be clear on the fact that Musk hasn't really invented doodly. He's a very successful investor in tech companies (skillfully chosen to feed off government subsidiaries), though one with more of an actual science background than most. He's not the one designing the Model X or the rocket ships. He's the dude writing the checks.
Nothing wrong with being the guy writing the checks, of course, and picking good recipients for those checks is itself a highly valuable skill, but when people suggest he's "a real life Tony Stark" or whatever I get that much closer to my eventual fatal aneurysm. You can't even call him a visionary futurist when he's literally just recycling ideas out of SF.
I have no problem with entirely private money funding this kind of trip, but not if it's half-supported by NASA (too late to stop that now, I guess). If these tourists get in trouble, not a single thin dime of public money should go towards rescue or (far more likely) recovery.
And, yes, it makes me sick that capitalism has developed in such a way that a kid like me who grew up reading the same SF can't enjoy unalloyed glee at the idea of such a trip being possible because I know too much about the crony capitalism underpinning it. (That Musk has turned out to be a Trump collaborator shouldn't surprise anyone.) It breaks my heart, really.
posted by praemunire at 4:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [16 favorites]
I think it's important to be clear on the fact that Musk hasn't really invented doodly. He's a very successful investor in tech companies (skillfully chosen to feed off government subsidiaries), though one with more of an actual science background than most. He's not the one designing the Model X or the rocket ships. He's the dude writing the checks.
Nothing wrong with being the guy writing the checks, of course, and picking good recipients for those checks is itself a highly valuable skill, but when people suggest he's "a real life Tony Stark" or whatever I get that much closer to my eventual fatal aneurysm. You can't even call him a visionary futurist when he's literally just recycling ideas out of SF.
I have no problem with entirely private money funding this kind of trip, but not if it's half-supported by NASA (too late to stop that now, I guess). If these tourists get in trouble, not a single thin dime of public money should go towards rescue or (far more likely) recovery.
And, yes, it makes me sick that capitalism has developed in such a way that a kid like me who grew up reading the same SF can't enjoy unalloyed glee at the idea of such a trip being possible because I know too much about the crony capitalism underpinning it. (That Musk has turned out to be a Trump collaborator shouldn't surprise anyone.) It breaks my heart, really.
posted by praemunire at 4:30 PM on February 27, 2017 [16 favorites]
I can't wait to be launched by an [ARTIST'S IMPRESSION] and orbit around the moon in an [UNDERGOING TESTING].
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:40 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:40 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
I can't wait to be launched by an [ARTIST'S IMPRESSION] and orbit around the moon in an [UNDERGOING TESTING].
Well those could pass as Culture ship names...
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:43 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
Well those could pass as Culture ship names...
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:43 PM on February 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think this is cool. Yes, rich people get to be early adopters of technology when those products/services are still rare and difficult to scale. That genuinely sucks and it isn't really fair. But with any luck, this mission will be successful, and space travel will eventually become scalable and more democratic in price.
In other words, I'm grudgingly okay with the fact that it's starting out this way, as long as it's a stepping stone toward better and more accessible experiences.
posted by delight at 4:47 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
In other words, I'm grudgingly okay with the fact that it's starting out this way, as long as it's a stepping stone toward better and more accessible experiences.
posted by delight at 4:47 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Well those could pass as Culture ship names...
Stop that. For me, the grief is still too near.
Why the moon? Because it's a stepping stone to greater things, that's why.
posted by Ber at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Stop that. For me, the grief is still too near.
Why the moon? Because it's a stepping stone to greater things, that's why.
posted by Ber at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
So why not just give them the money instead of making them sell their labor in pursuit of a brief thrill for two people?
You're going to have to ask rich people that, I'm afraid. There's really only two generally successful ways to get rich people to part with large chunks of their money - voluntarily by producing something ridiculously overpriced that only they can afford, or with a gun. We tried taxes for a while and it worked well, until the rich realized they could pay a lot less to a handful of tax accountants and politicians to reduce their taxes to nothing.
So unless you're planning on separating money from American billionaires with a guillotine, expensive moonshots is the alternative that remains.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
You're going to have to ask rich people that, I'm afraid. There's really only two generally successful ways to get rich people to part with large chunks of their money - voluntarily by producing something ridiculously overpriced that only they can afford, or with a gun. We tried taxes for a while and it worked well, until the rich realized they could pay a lot less to a handful of tax accountants and politicians to reduce their taxes to nothing.
So unless you're planning on separating money from American billionaires with a guillotine, expensive moonshots is the alternative that remains.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
we actually need articulable arguments in support of manned spaceflight.
Seriously, why just burn a fucking pile of cash?
Why? We've been to Luna.
Mods or OP, could you add a tag to space flight threads: "WackoLudite".
What IS the matter? Social problems are political/cultural/economic, reducing science will not solve the problems of poor people. Climate change is a big problem, now what will happen to poor people if we eliminated all hydrocarbon production today? The biggest genocide evah is what, the poor would have neither the training or the land to grow food. The worlds infrastructure is complex and built up from physical realities.
The entire space program costs less than a big boat (certainly after an aircraft carrier is loaded up with jets). And what do we get? Science. Knowledge about the environment that would be impossible otherwise, knowledge that improves lives.
This private mission is not disclosed but it's unlikely to be a full on joyride. And in any case, let's get the wealthy excited and interested in space. Instead of tearing apart this planet for scarce resources, let's mine some rocks out there. Not a short term project but move all industry and pollution off the planet.
I know the argument that with the small budgets more pure science could be done in space with unmanned satellites, but that is assuming small short term budgets. Put full research departments in orbit and see the leap in science and technology. Mine asteroids, build in space with materials already in space.
Or just wait for an event, like the dino's. Then perhaps in a few millennium an evolved roach society will have a better attitude about science.
The only way is up and out. literally. Issues? No kidding, a few.But so far resolvable and there is no down side to more knowledge.
posted by sammyo at 5:15 PM on February 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
Seriously, why just burn a fucking pile of cash?
Why? We've been to Luna.
Mods or OP, could you add a tag to space flight threads: "WackoLudite".
What IS the matter? Social problems are political/cultural/economic, reducing science will not solve the problems of poor people. Climate change is a big problem, now what will happen to poor people if we eliminated all hydrocarbon production today? The biggest genocide evah is what, the poor would have neither the training or the land to grow food. The worlds infrastructure is complex and built up from physical realities.
The entire space program costs less than a big boat (certainly after an aircraft carrier is loaded up with jets). And what do we get? Science. Knowledge about the environment that would be impossible otherwise, knowledge that improves lives.
This private mission is not disclosed but it's unlikely to be a full on joyride. And in any case, let's get the wealthy excited and interested in space. Instead of tearing apart this planet for scarce resources, let's mine some rocks out there. Not a short term project but move all industry and pollution off the planet.
I know the argument that with the small budgets more pure science could be done in space with unmanned satellites, but that is assuming small short term budgets. Put full research departments in orbit and see the leap in science and technology. Mine asteroids, build in space with materials already in space.
Or just wait for an event, like the dino's. Then perhaps in a few millennium an evolved roach society will have a better attitude about science.
The only way is up and out. literally. Issues? No kidding, a few.But so far resolvable and there is no down side to more knowledge.
posted by sammyo at 5:15 PM on February 27, 2017 [9 favorites]
Nobody should go to Disneyland. Other people have gone and we've got lots of pictures.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:31 PM on February 27, 2017 [18 favorites]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:31 PM on February 27, 2017 [18 favorites]
I hope to god they live and the science continues.
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
No one's yet mentioned that NASA has planned the same taxpayer-funded (not to say that SpaceX doesn't enjoy some gov't support) space tourism mission to the moon with the SLS. The White House allegedly asked them to put live astronauts on the inaugural flight. This wouldn't happen earlier than 2019, so Musk is probably looking to beat them there (he's offered to give NASA "priority" if they want to dump the SLS/Orion and do the mission with them).
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Assuming they are able to get a couple Falcon Heavy launches and a manned orbital flight with Dragon 2 under their belt, I'd think they'd have a reasonable chance of doing a lunar flyby and return.
My issue with the proposed change to make the first SLS flight manned is 1. It's the first flight for SLS 2. The heat-shield is new and untested 3. the life-support system hasn't been developed yet. You *might* be able to get these done with a significant infusion of cash, but it would be risky and I don't see any money coming to anyone but Defense anytime soon.
Both the Saturn V and Shuttle exhibited significant issues on their first flight that weren't discovered until actual hardware flew. We're got lucky with STS-1, in retrospect it should have never been a manned flight.
posted by beowulf573 at 6:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
My issue with the proposed change to make the first SLS flight manned is 1. It's the first flight for SLS 2. The heat-shield is new and untested 3. the life-support system hasn't been developed yet. You *might* be able to get these done with a significant infusion of cash, but it would be risky and I don't see any money coming to anyone but Defense anytime soon.
Both the Saturn V and Shuttle exhibited significant issues on their first flight that weren't discovered until actual hardware flew. We're got lucky with STS-1, in retrospect it should have never been a manned flight.
posted by beowulf573 at 6:00 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
This thread is a great example of how facts don't actually matter to the left either. How this story makes you feel is so much more important than the actual impact the events reported have on the world.
Who wants to hear about the political realities of sourcing private funding for the activities that have the potential to better all of humanity. A couple of rich people get to go to space and you don't. Burn it all down.
posted by danny the boy at 7:12 PM on February 27, 2017 [16 favorites]
Who wants to hear about the political realities of sourcing private funding for the activities that have the potential to better all of humanity. A couple of rich people get to go to space and you don't. Burn it all down.
posted by danny the boy at 7:12 PM on February 27, 2017 [16 favorites]
oh lord where would we be without the bounty the manned space program has given us? (hugs his icbms, tang, and velcro tightly)
posted by entropicamericana at 7:31 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:31 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Well ICBMs gave us the manned space program. Since then I suppose you could say the two programs fed off each other but the earliest astronauts and cosmonauts literally strapped themselves on top of an ICBM in place of the warhead and pointed it a little more up than over. We didn't get the idea to bomb each other with rockets after we sent people to space.
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 7:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Clinging to the Wreckage at 7:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
Tang and Velcro weren't invented for the space program either.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 8:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 8:04 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Who wants to hear about the political realities of sourcing private funding for the activities that have the potential to better all of humanity.
I thought the vibe was more, "didn't the government used to do cool things once?" But sure. Your thing could work too.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:06 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I thought the vibe was more, "didn't the government used to do cool things once?" But sure. Your thing could work too.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:06 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
Paying for rocket fuel still means giving money to other companies who use it to pay their employees and buy equipment from other companies who use that money to pay their employees and buy equipment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:45 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:45 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
Holy shit the governments built rockets to maim kill and destroy by delivering chemical and nuclear explosives and they built computers to calculate artillery trajectories and nuclear weapon designs.
Elon Musk is gonna sell some people an expensive vacation.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Elon Musk is gonna sell some people an expensive vacation.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:49 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
This is almost exactly equal to an A380 jumbo jet's fuel capacity of about 260 tons.
and this gets to what I what argue on an anti-luxury line.
We've got one manufactured good that gives 2 people a one-time ride, vs. another manufactured good that can fly ~800 people where they want to go.
One of these directions is more wealth-accreting than the other.
Same argument applies wrt hand-built artisinal Ferraris vs. $20,000 econoboxes
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:53 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
and this gets to what I what argue on an anti-luxury line.
We've got one manufactured good that gives 2 people a one-time ride, vs. another manufactured good that can fly ~800 people where they want to go.
One of these directions is more wealth-accreting than the other.
Same argument applies wrt hand-built artisinal Ferraris vs. $20,000 econoboxes
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:53 PM on February 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
a) An agreement to pay a lot of money to go into space is not in any way comparable to breaking a window. This is basically two rich guys agreeing to buy a lot of bread from the baker. Really fancy, special bread. They aren't creating a harm to Space X in order to get Space X to pay for rockets, nor is Space X creating harm to them to get them to pay for space flight.
b) I specifically acknowledged earlier in the conversation that this is not the most effective method of distributing cash, but was responding to the idea that this was money that was somehow simply going to disappear because it was spent on space tourism instead of something else.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:56 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
a) An agreement to pay a lot of money to go into space is not in any way comparable to breaking a window. This is basically two rich guys agreeing to buy a lot of bread from the baker. Really fancy, special bread. They aren't creating a harm to Space X in order to get Space X to pay for rockets, nor is Space X creating harm to them to get them to pay for space flight.
b) I specifically acknowledged earlier in the conversation that this is not the most effective method of distributing cash, but was responding to the idea that this was money that was somehow simply going to disappear because it was spent on space tourism instead of something else.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:56 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
And unless we're going to start spending it on massive production of atmospheric carbon scrubbers, finding a way for the human race to live on after the Earth incinerates in the next 20-100 years is as good a use as any.
I vote for the massive atmospheric carbon scrubbers, personally. And even that has the potential for pretty ugly side-effects if we don't handle them verrrrrrrry carefully. Look, the human organism evolved in a constant environment of a certain level of gravity, a certain level of atmospheric pressure, a certain level of radiation, and specific oxygen and water needs. Space is really not hospitable for us. Mars is not hospitable for us. It's possible for a small number of humans to survive in such harsh environments for extended periods (like, perhaps a few years, given the amount of time one human has spent in space continuously), but an off-world colony is extraordinarily unlikely. We need to protect what we have here, dammit.
A space program is great and important, but the future of the human race is on Earth, for good or for ill. And rocketing Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison around the moon is essentially an expensive safari, unless they're bringing a shitload of scientific instrumentation with them.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:06 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
I vote for the massive atmospheric carbon scrubbers, personally. And even that has the potential for pretty ugly side-effects if we don't handle them verrrrrrrry carefully. Look, the human organism evolved in a constant environment of a certain level of gravity, a certain level of atmospheric pressure, a certain level of radiation, and specific oxygen and water needs. Space is really not hospitable for us. Mars is not hospitable for us. It's possible for a small number of humans to survive in such harsh environments for extended periods (like, perhaps a few years, given the amount of time one human has spent in space continuously), but an off-world colony is extraordinarily unlikely. We need to protect what we have here, dammit.
A space program is great and important, but the future of the human race is on Earth, for good or for ill. And rocketing Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison around the moon is essentially an expensive safari, unless they're bringing a shitload of scientific instrumentation with them.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:06 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
An agreement to pay a lot of money to go into space is not in any way comparable to breaking a window.
yes it is, the parable of the broken window is getting people to analyze actual wealth creation and not just economic activity.
"Wealth" here being the satisfaction of our wants and needs, and the goods that provide the services that give us this utility/wealth.
There's precious little wealth creation involved in a rocket shot around the moon, other than for the two yahoos that are paying to go.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:13 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
yes it is, the parable of the broken window is getting people to analyze actual wealth creation and not just economic activity.
"Wealth" here being the satisfaction of our wants and needs, and the goods that provide the services that give us this utility/wealth.
There's precious little wealth creation involved in a rocket shot around the moon, other than for the two yahoos that are paying to go.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:13 PM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Only on metafilter could the building of literal rocket ships that go to the moon be characterized as some kind of fraudulent economic activity.
There are people here who would be shocked and disgusted to discover that early commercial plane flights cost a small fortune and were only available to the very wealthy.
posted by danny the boy at 10:19 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
There are people here who would be shocked and disgusted to discover that early commercial plane flights cost a small fortune and were only available to the very wealthy.
posted by danny the boy at 10:19 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
If you haven't already seen it, watch the first landing of the Falcon 9.
I don't how anyone can watch this and not feel inspired. The cheers of the crowd are overwhelming at the other-worldly sight of a colossal cylinder floating down backward and upright, something literally no one had ever seen before. It's mind-boggling. They've done it seven more times since then and it's still crazy to think about.
Yes, private citizens spending their own money for a thrill should not be without limitations, nor should the rich get tax cuts even though they can already afford to fly around the moon while there are people starving and sleeping on the streets. It's unfortunate the Elon Musk is a crony capitalist Trump collaborator who exploits the socialized risk privatized reward model while environmental catastrophes continue unabated for the billions of non-billionaires who can't go cavorting on the scenic Moon tour.
But still. I believe that space-exploration is unequivocally a good thing for humanity, despite the near certainty of Elysiums or gilded lunar casinos. While having the rich fund private missions is not ideal, it seems like the complaints here are a microcosm of all litanies against capitalism, ever, as applied to the details of space travel. Which, I mean, yeah, sure. But why not do the usual railing against the ~600+ billion military budget versus NASA's comparatively puny ~$18 billion, especially when Trump wants to increase the military's by 10% at the expense of everything else.
Elon and his team of engineers want to take humanity into space, and I think that's cool. Millions of people think that's cool (not to mention the immeasurable value of potential knowledge from exploration). It's a reminder of what incredible feats we can accomplish as a species, to be proud of even if we had nothing to do with the actual work. That's important. Because we sure as shit need something to be proud of these days.
So, I'm excited. A moon flyby coming up, neat. I can't wait to see what they do next.
posted by Bodechack at 10:46 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
I don't how anyone can watch this and not feel inspired. The cheers of the crowd are overwhelming at the other-worldly sight of a colossal cylinder floating down backward and upright, something literally no one had ever seen before. It's mind-boggling. They've done it seven more times since then and it's still crazy to think about.
Yes, private citizens spending their own money for a thrill should not be without limitations, nor should the rich get tax cuts even though they can already afford to fly around the moon while there are people starving and sleeping on the streets. It's unfortunate the Elon Musk is a crony capitalist Trump collaborator who exploits the socialized risk privatized reward model while environmental catastrophes continue unabated for the billions of non-billionaires who can't go cavorting on the scenic Moon tour.
But still. I believe that space-exploration is unequivocally a good thing for humanity, despite the near certainty of Elysiums or gilded lunar casinos. While having the rich fund private missions is not ideal, it seems like the complaints here are a microcosm of all litanies against capitalism, ever, as applied to the details of space travel. Which, I mean, yeah, sure. But why not do the usual railing against the ~600+ billion military budget versus NASA's comparatively puny ~$18 billion, especially when Trump wants to increase the military's by 10% at the expense of everything else.
Elon and his team of engineers want to take humanity into space, and I think that's cool. Millions of people think that's cool (not to mention the immeasurable value of potential knowledge from exploration). It's a reminder of what incredible feats we can accomplish as a species, to be proud of even if we had nothing to do with the actual work. That's important. Because we sure as shit need something to be proud of these days.
So, I'm excited. A moon flyby coming up, neat. I can't wait to see what they do next.
posted by Bodechack at 10:46 PM on February 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A couple deleted. Cut it out with the "kill the rich" stuff and thorough derailing of the post.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:07 AM on February 28, 2017
posted by taz (staff) at 12:07 AM on February 28, 2017
The cheers of the crowd are overwhelming at the other-worldly sight of a colossal cylinder floating down backward and upright, something literally no one had ever seen before.
Well, ahem. :-)
To get back on topic, there's an ongoing assumption in this thread that billionaires' spending of money is zero-sum and that the money for a Moon shot would have gone to charitable causes if a ride to space were not available. That looks great on paper, but it isn't how humans work. Would you eat more broccoli if donuts were banned? Nah. You'd grab a croissant.
I'm very interested in seeing how this turns out. As with all SpaceX announcements involving dates this one is to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still very interesting because it demonstrates a commitment to human flight in the near-term. Certifying a rocket for human spaceflight is difficult and time-consuming, especially when those humans are NASA astronauts. The processes are rigorous and well-defined, and astronauts are usually not allowed until the system has been well-proven. I wonder if SpaceX could have turned to space tourism because there is less of a regulatory burden. Tourist flights are effectively deregulated under the US Space Act, meaning it is up to SpaceX to self-impose safety standards for their Moon shot. The passengers will fly at their own risk. This is the same law that enables other space tourism companies, such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, to operate. After SpaceX's 2015 and 2016 launch failures (CRS-7, AMOS-6), there has been a lot of governmental brouhaha about their reliability, so I wonder if they're exploring tourism as an alternate path forward if NASA astronaut contracts prove hard to get. Given Mars Colonial Transporter, they're probably interested in placing humans in space ASAP in order to gain experience. I'm a little surprised they would go for Moon before LEO, but maybe there are some more test flights that they're not telling us about yet :-)
I'm hoping that NASA does not follow in their footsteps by putting astronauts on the 1st SLS flight. There's value in having both a "fast path" and a "safe path" to space. The fast path will get you there at 10% of the cost with 90% of the reliability, but it's always good having a fallback just in case something does go wrong. NASA is a lot better at being safe than fast, so I'm surprised how they are positioning themselves.
posted by edlinfan at 1:03 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, ahem. :-)
To get back on topic, there's an ongoing assumption in this thread that billionaires' spending of money is zero-sum and that the money for a Moon shot would have gone to charitable causes if a ride to space were not available. That looks great on paper, but it isn't how humans work. Would you eat more broccoli if donuts were banned? Nah. You'd grab a croissant.
I'm very interested in seeing how this turns out. As with all SpaceX announcements involving dates this one is to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's still very interesting because it demonstrates a commitment to human flight in the near-term. Certifying a rocket for human spaceflight is difficult and time-consuming, especially when those humans are NASA astronauts. The processes are rigorous and well-defined, and astronauts are usually not allowed until the system has been well-proven. I wonder if SpaceX could have turned to space tourism because there is less of a regulatory burden. Tourist flights are effectively deregulated under the US Space Act, meaning it is up to SpaceX to self-impose safety standards for their Moon shot. The passengers will fly at their own risk. This is the same law that enables other space tourism companies, such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, to operate. After SpaceX's 2015 and 2016 launch failures (CRS-7, AMOS-6), there has been a lot of governmental brouhaha about their reliability, so I wonder if they're exploring tourism as an alternate path forward if NASA astronaut contracts prove hard to get. Given Mars Colonial Transporter, they're probably interested in placing humans in space ASAP in order to gain experience. I'm a little surprised they would go for Moon before LEO, but maybe there are some more test flights that they're not telling us about yet :-)
I'm hoping that NASA does not follow in their footsteps by putting astronauts on the 1st SLS flight. There's value in having both a "fast path" and a "safe path" to space. The fast path will get you there at 10% of the cost with 90% of the reliability, but it's always good having a fallback just in case something does go wrong. NASA is a lot better at being safe than fast, so I'm surprised how they are positioning themselves.
posted by edlinfan at 1:03 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
I love the livestreams of their launches/landings. Being able to call my kid over and say "hey, want to watch live video of a rocket launching into space, and then landing again?" (from a camera *strapped to the rocket*) is awesome (of course my kid has grown up with this and doesn't find it as amazing as I do). And the first few times they successfully landed the booster, the ecstatic crowd was awesome.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 1:47 AM on February 28, 2017
posted by EndsOfInvention at 1:47 AM on February 28, 2017
I think this is, in itself, completely hopeless and pointless, but then I believe the very first PCs were essentially useless: if enthusiasts hadn't bought them and created a market, well, I wouldn't be typing this here. So maybe this is another bit of irrational enthusiasm that nevertheless enables something big.
posted by Segundus at 2:04 AM on February 28, 2017
posted by Segundus at 2:04 AM on February 28, 2017
I think it's important to be clear on the fact that Musk hasn't really invented doodly. He's a very successful investor in tech companies (skillfully chosen to feed off government subsidiaries), though one with more of an actual science background than most. He's not the one designing the Model X or the rocket ships. He's the dude writing the checks.
It's more accurate to say that he's a successful investor and a brilliant leader and manager of engineering companies. Obviously he's not the one doing the actual designing, and when he was (at the company that was later merged into PayPal he wrote brilliant but idiosyncratic and unmaintainable code), but engineering at this scale is very much a team sport.
After all, despite the name of his car company, he's said that Edison and not Tesla is a bigger inspiration to him.
posted by atrazine at 2:21 AM on February 28, 2017
It's more accurate to say that he's a successful investor and a brilliant leader and manager of engineering companies. Obviously he's not the one doing the actual designing, and when he was (at the company that was later merged into PayPal he wrote brilliant but idiosyncratic and unmaintainable code), but engineering at this scale is very much a team sport.
After all, despite the name of his car company, he's said that Edison and not Tesla is a bigger inspiration to him.
posted by atrazine at 2:21 AM on February 28, 2017
Musk hasn't really invented doodly.
Elon Musk is a complicated man, but I think it is unfair to him to brush him off as just a sack of money. He really does seem to take a much more day to day development role in his companies than other tech CEOs.
Also, though it might just be to blunt the reputation cost, he says that his association with Trump is to be a voice of reason on things like climate change. God knows that the Trump cabal can need that, though I am not sure it will work.
posted by Spiegel at 3:02 AM on February 28, 2017
Elon Musk is a complicated man, but I think it is unfair to him to brush him off as just a sack of money. He really does seem to take a much more day to day development role in his companies than other tech CEOs.
Also, though it might just be to blunt the reputation cost, he says that his association with Trump is to be a voice of reason on things like climate change. God knows that the Trump cabal can need that, though I am not sure it will work.
posted by Spiegel at 3:02 AM on February 28, 2017
a) does space-x need an FAA airworthiness certificate to board commercial passengers?
b) pre-emptive ..
posted by j_curiouser at 3:16 AM on February 28, 2017
b) pre-emptive ..
posted by j_curiouser at 3:16 AM on February 28, 2017
also...they better have some badass lady-coders in the mix.
posted by j_curiouser at 3:39 AM on February 28, 2017
posted by j_curiouser at 3:39 AM on February 28, 2017
While government contracts most certainly saved SpaceX from impending bankruptcy, it ain't like Musk has gotten rich off the back of that particular venture (yet). Even then, Boeing got 3 times the money on its Commercial Crew contract as SpaceX did, despite not really having any more to do. Orbital-ATK also got more funding. Same for the CRS development and flights.
Say what you will, but he is literally making NASA's budget go further. JWST will be done sooner. Other NASA projects will actually happen. Because of CRS and Commercial Crew. I'd say bringing the cost of operating the ISS down by billions of dollars is in itself a worthwhile activity.
If some rich fucks want to plop themselves on a rocket to go around the moon, better the money go to SpaceX who is actually making good use of it in terms of increasing access to space than Roscosmos or Boeing or whoever, who are both perfectly content to keep space as expensive as possible.
Even discounting the idea of going to space oneself, making it less expensive to put satellites in orbit is to everyone's benefit. Who knows what things might turn out to be viable at $5000/lb and below that are decidedly not at $10-12k?
posted by wierdo at 5:01 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
Say what you will, but he is literally making NASA's budget go further. JWST will be done sooner. Other NASA projects will actually happen. Because of CRS and Commercial Crew. I'd say bringing the cost of operating the ISS down by billions of dollars is in itself a worthwhile activity.
If some rich fucks want to plop themselves on a rocket to go around the moon, better the money go to SpaceX who is actually making good use of it in terms of increasing access to space than Roscosmos or Boeing or whoever, who are both perfectly content to keep space as expensive as possible.
Even discounting the idea of going to space oneself, making it less expensive to put satellites in orbit is to everyone's benefit. Who knows what things might turn out to be viable at $5000/lb and below that are decidedly not at $10-12k?
posted by wierdo at 5:01 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
To get back on topic, there's an ongoing assumption in this thread that billionaires' spending of money is zero-sum and that the money for a Moon shot would have gone to charitable causes if a ride to space were not available.
I think the idea is more a la "if people have enough spare change lying around to toss this much at a joyride, we need to be doing a better job of separating them from their money through taxation." You can then spend some of it on a public space program, sure. But nobody is proposing bannimg donuts and hoping more vegetables get eaten, we're talking about removing the plate with the donut and replacing it with a page of greens after the tortured metaphor has already sat down to dinner.
posted by Dysk at 5:08 AM on February 28, 2017 [6 favorites]
I think the idea is more a la "if people have enough spare change lying around to toss this much at a joyride, we need to be doing a better job of separating them from their money through taxation." You can then spend some of it on a public space program, sure. But nobody is proposing bannimg donuts and hoping more vegetables get eaten, we're talking about removing the plate with the donut and replacing it with a page of greens after the tortured metaphor has already sat down to dinner.
posted by Dysk at 5:08 AM on February 28, 2017 [6 favorites]
but when people suggest he's "a real life Tony Stark" or whatever I get that much closer to my eventual fatal aneurysm
Yup, for that "tech inventor/hero" guy, IMO the closer option is Dean Kamen.
posted by jkaczor at 6:22 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yup, for that "tech inventor/hero" guy, IMO the closer option is Dean Kamen.
posted by jkaczor at 6:22 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Folks, can I just suggest that if your only interest in this thread is capitalism sucks, rich people suck, tax laws should be changed, etc., well we truly have multiple threads to talk about that pretty much non-stop 24/7/365, but not so many threads about space flight, which some people might be interested in discussing. The expense and funding is part of the story, fine, but maybe keep it within the framework of the topic.
posted by taz (staff) at 7:01 AM on February 28, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 7:01 AM on February 28, 2017 [5 favorites]
I would buy into a lottery that gave the winner a seat on this rocket. Shoot, I may start actually playing Powerball when the lump sum payout is above the asking price for a ticket.
posted by jermsplan at 7:44 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by jermsplan at 7:44 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
ArsTechnica: Musk's dangerous game: Testing the patience of NASA with his lunar ambitions
Stealing NASA's thunder while causing NASA to question their skills isn't wise. Not when launches and missions don't always go as planned. And not when NASA's basic needs (transporting astronauts) aren't focused on.
NYTimes: SpaceX Plans to Send 2 Tourists Around Moon in 2018
Stealing NASA's thunder while causing NASA to question their skills isn't wise. Not when launches and missions don't always go as planned. And not when NASA's basic needs (transporting astronauts) aren't focused on.
NYTimes: SpaceX Plans to Send 2 Tourists Around Moon in 2018
While the trip appears to be within the technical capabilities of SpaceX, industry experts wondered whether the company could pull it off as quickly as Mr. Musk indicated. “Dates are not SpaceX’s strong suit,” said Mary Lynne Dittmar, executive director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, a space advocacy group consisting of aerospace companies. The Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy are years behind schedule and have yet to fly.posted by ZeusHumms at 9:24 AM on February 28, 2017 [3 favorites]
“It strikes me as risky,” Dr. Dittmar said, adding that autonomous systems are not infallible. “I find it extraordinary that these sorts of announcements are being made when SpaceX has yet to get crew from the ground to low-Earth orbit.”
SpaceX has much longer trips currently on their drawing board (Mars), so a funded trip to exercise the next gen space suits already in development along with other tech probably fit well into their actual schedule.
Hey just be sure to add extra duck tape, just in case.
posted by sammyo at 10:42 AM on February 28, 2017
Hey just be sure to add extra duck tape, just in case.
posted by sammyo at 10:42 AM on February 28, 2017
Reminder that in addition to the garden-variety evil that comes with being a billionaire, Elon Musk abused his ex-wife and abuses his employees, and there's a new sexual harassment lawsuit that's just been filed against Tesla. I have dreams of spaceflight too, and i completely fucking hate that fucking Elon Musk is behind this because he is a garbage human being who shouldn't be allowed to do anything. How much human misery are you willing to trade for your moonshot?
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:55 PM on February 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:55 PM on February 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
The issue for me in sending really, really rich people into space is that all we have at the moment stopping them ruining our planet entirely is that they have to live in it. Once the feckers think they can escape that's that gone.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:58 PM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 6:58 PM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
How much human misery are you willing to trade for your moonshot?
See Operation Paperclip
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:20 AM on March 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
See Operation Paperclip
posted by ZeusHumms at 11:20 AM on March 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older “The 'Great Deceiver' has returned to Middle-earth... | The Cloud is Listening (And Permeable) Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by adrianhon at 1:57 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]