Richard Branson ready for today's 'extraordinary' space flight | Hacker News Reader

Richard Branson ready for today's 'extraordinary' space flight

bbc.co.uk

66 pointsbencollier49104 comments

Is there any interest in such kind of "flight" except from some kind of fun/tourism for rich people? Will it provide something in the future, like a first step to something or is it just that? It seems to me that this kind of activity has no scientific interest and no next step. Am I missing something?

Very little. SpaceShipOne/SpaceShipTwo/WhiteKnight* are interesting craft. Real commercial usage of a hybrid rocket engine is new. And 'LauncherOne' is slowly proving itself capable of orbital launch of small sats from a carrier aircraft, like Orbital did with Pegasus.

Not really, Musk has won - this is just a second place dick swinging contest with Bezos.

Blue Origin is part of the NASA Artemis program that has the primary goal of returning humans to the moon.

1. Blue Origin's bid (and Dynetics') lost out to SpaceX. They have sued and a decision is expected by 4th August but they are not a part of the Artemis program as we speak.

2. Even if their bid had been successful, the Artemis program has nothing to do with the New Shepard project.

> but they are not a part of the Artemis program as we speak.

They are almost certain to be one of the winning bidders on NextSTEP-2 Appendix N BAA [0], which is part of the Artemis Program. However, Appendix N is just providing $15 million each of funding to Blue Origin and Dynetics to keep their bids alive for the next phase of the HLS competition. NASA really wants a second HLS provider and they are going to send BO and Dynetics just enough of a trickle of funding to stop them from walking away, until such time as Congress gives NASA enough money to actually pay for one.

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander3

There is some limited scientific applications that are currently flown on sounding rockets which could be repurposed to these vehicles. But no, this is mostly about tourism and the Bezos vs. Branson dick measuring contest.

It's probably a technology dead-end of sorts: it is unlikely to scale, either in the sense of becoming a common mode of transport, or in becoming a more fully-fledged spacecraft. Personally I think it's a beautiful system and an engineering marvel in its own right, but like a lot of super-specialised machines it's hard to say whether they affect humanity's knowledge in a wider way. It's a tourism experience, see the earth from space and try weightlessness around the quarter-million dollar mark.

You could do whatever science a few minutes of weightlessness provides; astronaut training too

It is worth noting that Virgin also operate a separate commercial smallsat launcher company, Virgin Orbital, which uses air-launched rockets, so maybe Virgin Galactic experience helped with that.

My mind boggles when I think about this question. Here's a list of tech that we got either directly or indirectly from space related R&D:

Cell phone cameras, the computer program that allowed the development of a bunch of consumer electronics like the dustbuster, memory foam, ear thermometers, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) (used in baby formula), roadway safety grooves, polycrystalline alumina (used in invisible braces, among other things), scratch-resistant lenses, the vertical "winglets" at the end of aircraft wings, cardiac pumps, portable computers, blow rubber molding (eg. from Nike Air sneakers), freeze dried fruit, foil blankets, crystal silicon solar power cells, electrolytic silver iodizers (for water purification), thermoelectric plane wing de-icing, gps without cell signal, aluminized polyester insulation, cochlear implants is in an honorable mention that someone from NASA invented after learning the principles from his time work on space shuttle electronics, wireless headphones, packaged food safety protocols, CAT scans, uv-blocking sunglasses, ski boots, better rubber tires.

Doing what these companies are doing requires all kinds of novel engineering, it would be bizarre that all of it only applies exactly to space tourism and nothing else.

I really don't understand all the cynicism around a private space race considering all the potential good it could do.

The cynicism stems from the fact that it’s billionaires in the driver seat of this space race. It feels more like a pissing contest, than something driven by scientific curiosity.

The same can be said for getting a man on the moon. But I think that it’s not USA vs USSR but Branson vs Musk vs Bezos that fuels the negativity.

But your points are valid! There are good things coming out of these R&D spenditures.

Getting to the moon does seem to provide some interesting stuff for some future and science: being able to regularly set foot on another planet (which was already achieved a bit but has way to go, like the current/new launcher reusability vs Apollo), set a base on another planet, somehow live on another planet, ... at least there is a clear next-step with Mars after that and for science to understand how humans would live in other environments, how to provide or produce stuff there, ...

Hey, when billionaires spend money it's wealth distribution too. There are people paying their bills on the back of this.

we could also have gotten who knows what tech by investing in health equipment or longevity, there's nothing unique about space tech research (except from being a priority for defense)

If I understand correctly, the GP asked specifically about this type, not space flight in general. And I think it’s a reasonable question: what will this edge-of-space-flight lead to? Is this an opportunity to reduce costs of getting to space even more? Will it be faster and/or safer?

For instance, SpaceX and the likes already go to space (proper), and the benefits are more obvious.

The thing is, you answered someone asking if Virgin Galactic was a pointless toy for rich people with whether or not NASA was a waste of time. By the implicit metric you’ve set, Virgin Galactic is a colossal failure.

> I really don't understand all the cynicism around a private space race considering all the potential good it could do.

Just factor in the tax evasion of those flying into space, and the fact that both society and infrastructure is crumbling left and right, then you might get there as well.

Leaving the orbit as a collective effort of humanity to show such a thing is possible is something entirely different to tax evaders doing it for their private pleasure with money they owe to society.

> I really don't understand all the cynicism around a private space race considering all the potential good it could do.

That line of reasoning is deeply flawed, because we would have got this kind of things in a much cheaper way without doing all the senseless space race (especially the one driven by governments) for absolutely no proper reason or vision. At least now with SpaceX there are tons of actual space-related applications, but NASA had none.

Winged TSTO used to be seen as the most viable path to reusability before Musk started casually toying with VTVL.

Suborbital flight could be used for intercontinental travel. But it would probably take something on the scale of Starship, not a teeny little rocket plane.

> Will it provide something in the future

The premise is inspiration, I think:

> I want people to be able to look back at our beautiful Earth and come home and work very hard to try to do magic to it to look after it.

Perhaps similar to how space-x inspires many of us here. The big difference being Virgin's actual _goal_ is inspiration... which does feel a little artificial I admit.

Its a vomit comet on steroids.

Nasa Vomit Comet:

- 25 seconds 0-G at a time, dont know the number or repeats

- $5K per person or $160K for the whole plane

https://www.gozerog.com:

- 15x ~30 seconds

- ~$7K per person

Bezos flight:

- four minutes in zero gravity

- $28 million per person?

Branson:

- no idea, probably even shorter

- $250K?

0G flights also exist in Europe: https://www.airzerog.com/ about 6k€ per person and it has a huge space available inside to float around and do stuff, it's an A310!

> Sir Richard says he has spoken to Jeff Bezos on the phone and they have wished each other well in their space endeavours. But there is no doubting there is some edge in the relationship.

Other would say that there is a billionaire space dick contest going on between Branson, Bezos and Musk...

Yet another would say: they are still people and as long as their dick contest contributes to human knowledge and technology, let them have it. Most other dick contests on the planet are far less meaningful.

I for one will reach for my organic, non-Amazon-supplied popcorn and watch the entertainment. Hopefully no one dies, but given that their own skins are at stake, the flights should be safer than whatever the governments in the 1950s and 1960s did with their pool of obedient and expendable military men.

Kind of agree with the first half of your comment, but I think the second half seriously sells both the efforts to make things safe and the character of the first astronauts short. People didn't become test pilots through obedience, and I don't think they were particularly treated as expandable either.

These are now distant times for us. Back then, the overall tolerance for loss of life among pilots was much higher. Not least because there were either active conflicts going on (Vietnam) or very fresh memories of other conflicts with large death toll (WWII, Korea).

I don't think that the first astronauts were as expendable as paper tissues, no, but their level of expendability almost certainly exceeded the norm of 2021. We are being much more careful now.

Even civil aviation was much less safe than today and the expectations of deaths around anything that flew were simply higher.

As far as obedience goes, I can believe that test pilots are on average less obedient than an average member of the military. They might be better motivated/manipulated through feelings of national pride etc., though.

Sure, but there is a big difference between "obedient and expendable" and highly trained to do risky things that might well kill you (and would certainly kill anyone not as highly trained).

From a cynical resource investment perspective this is true, too: Infantry that you spend a week training, put in the cheapest boots possible and send to front to soak up bullets is expendable. Test pilots that are among the most highly trained pilots in your military and have decades of experience are not.

I just don't think the picture where engineers build death traps and the generals order obedient pilots to fly them really applies to the type of experimental flight programs that eventually turned pilots into astronauts, where engineers and pilots would have worked closely with each other.

Yeah, I might have used too harsh words. I am not a native speaker and I am not always certain about emotional value of particular expressions.

Experimental pilots of that age had a significant mortality, though. A realistic commander would have to take that into account.

The space race of the 50s and 60s was an international dick contest, too. We got a lot of useful inventions out of it.

Did Bezos step down as CEO in case anything goes wrong and the subsequent share price impact?

> as long as their dick contest contributes to human knowledge and technology, let them have it

Both New Shepard and SpaceShipTwo are basically dead-ends on the technology tree. In themselves, they don't really get us anywhere useful. The best that can be said is that New Shepard may have given Blue Origin's engineers some experience which may have helped them towards developing New Glenn. On the other hand, maybe New Shepard has been a distraction which has held back progress on New Glenn.

What SpaceX is doing is completely different. Starship is giving us a whole new level of capability in terms of going to space compared to what we've had before. No other vendor is anywhere near as close to achieving the same capability level. New Glenn comes the closest, but the capabilities it offers are less and we don't really know how close Blue Origin are to delivering, their development process is much more opaque than SpaceX's.

"The best that can be said is that New Shepard may have given Blue Origin's engineers some experience which may have helped them towards developing New Glenn. On the other hand, maybe New Shepard has been a distraction which has held back progress on New Glenn."

This best is actually pretty good. We need several competing space corporations and learning by doing is what young space engineers need.

Plus, a lot of the technology developed for NS and SST is likely to be reused in other applications.

"What SpaceX is doing is completely different. Starship is giving us a whole new level of capability in terms of going to space compared to what we've had before."

SpaceX absolutely has better results. Which actually is a great comeback to the "money buys everything" trope that circulates on HN or reddit so much. Compared to Bezos, Musk was a wannabe also-millionaire back in 2002.

TBH I don't really understand why Blue Origin is so slow. Too much micromanagement? Bezos is famous for being an obnoxious micromanager, but maybe that works in retail and does not work in research.

> TBH I don't really understand why Blue Origin is so slow. Too much micromanagement? Bezos is famous for being an obnoxious micromanager, but maybe that works in retail and does not work in research.

One theory is that it is less micromanagement than bad strategy. SpaceX bootstrapped themselves using an incremental approach. BO tried to copy that by going from New Shepard to New Glenn, but a crewed suborbital vehicle was a poor stepping stone. Being crewed, it has to work near perfectly before it can be used in revenue operation. A cargo vehicle can be used when less perfected, since you can risk loss of cargo. But there isn’t much market for suborbital cargo. Also suborbital isn’t that great as a stepping stone to orbital, you can only learn so much. They would have done much better starting with expendable orbital cargo, just like SpaceX did, and then push for reusability and crew later.

Another theory is that Bezos’ choice of CEO, Bob Smith, brought a lot of slow OldSpace culture into BO. Bezos tried to poach Gwynne Shotwell from SpaceX but she refused. (It isn’t that anyone who comes from OldSpace has that culture - Shotwell started out in OldSpace too; I think the argument more is some OldSpace people say “this slowness sucks” and others are fine with it, and maybe Shotwell was the former but Smith is the later.)

Nothing wrong with that. It's how we got good at building skyscrapers too.

How is it a contest? How can they even be compared? The first two have vanity projects that dream of one day sending payload to orbit. The third have a successful space company that have sent over a hundred rockets, including some with astronauts on board, to orbit

History often goes in the direction rich guys' dicks are pointing, regrettably.

For all that people are having a go at Branson and Bezos's dick-measuring contest, let's not forget that the original "space race" was to a large extent a dick-measuring contest between the USA and USSR. Yeah, there's been quite a bit of interesting science that came out of it, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it was all, or even primarily, about lofty scientific goals.

It wasn't. The main purpose of the original space race was to develop capabilities to put satellites in orbit and to be able to deliver nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles, which both countries considered (rightly or wrongly) to be existential necessities.

Being a logical course of action and being a dick measuring contest aren't mutually exclusive. There was certainly lots of national pride and patriotism involved, in addition to it being a tactical necessity.

> Being a logical course of action and being a dick measuring contest aren't mutually exclusive.

They are by definition.

It was as much about science as Napoleon's invasion of Egypt was. Sure, plenty of very important science happened. But that is not why Napoleon did it. The legacy of that invasion however is remembered in the West pretty much only for the breakthroughs in our understanding of history that followed it.

The live stream starts in 4 hours time at http://www.virgingalactic.com/

I've heard a number of media call this step towards space tourism something along the lines of "a historical milestone in the democratization of space travel", and I think my, my.. OTOH democracy is also increasingly for the few, not the many.

Computers were for the new, now they are for the many.

That's the way some things start.

Well, maybe I should be more optimistic and someday businessmen will zip to their destinations on tickets of a couple thousand dollar, or in their own private spaceliners. But a real democratization? Okay, I'll leave that open as remote possibility :)

I suppose your view would be that air travel or vehicle ownership haven’t been “democratized” yet then?

Not the person you're replying to, but - I mean, I can (and did) buy a car for $30. No, we're not missing a zero there.

That's what democratization means - it doesn't mean driving down the costs to some fictitious level of 'technically I could meet the loan payments'. Democratization means I can fish one out of the trash, and have it so reliably built in absolute terms that it still works pretty well.

Real democratization happens when something is in "beg borrow and steal" territory. And I mean that in a profound way informed by the literal meaning of that term - the ability to break the rules, fudge the requirements, break the law, and just generally cheat your way into being able to do something you don't have the money to.

If you're trying to fly cross country, you really just have the option of paying an air fare. That's it - either you have the cash, or you simply can't fly. But if I need gas money for a cross-country trip; I can steal gas; I can borrow some from a friend, I can mooch, etc, I can beg strangers at a gas station for a little bit - somehow I can weasel my way into having something which I can't officially afford.

It's parasitic, but it relies on a host so ample, so resource rich, that "rats" can make a living there. That's real democratization - when the truly poor can get in on something because there are ways to make it happen that don't have an implacable, mandatory requirement of money.

The word doesn’t exactly have a proper definition, but I think your views here would probably be at an extreme end of how you could interpret it. Car ownership and air travel (COVID aside) are generally quite widely accessible. The $30 threshold is probably below where most people put it for this criteria.

What we need it the technology. Once we have it, if there's interest and demand the price will eventually go down and it'll be available for the masses.

I used to be so enthusiastic about space. I really hate the privatization of space. It makes me sick. Maybe they can just take their billions and do this shit and we can ignore them doing it or something? How am I supposed to get excited about anything related to space when private dickwheels have turned it into a fun ass roller coaster instead of exploration of what it means to exist?

You don't think these "private dickwheels" are interested in space exploration?

I think the US should subsidize NASA instead of Musk and Bezos. I think the privatization of space and the fanfare related to it is a huge problem. I don't even know what to say about Branson other than I just wish he'd chill out and go kite boarding with young models strapped to his back or whatever.

Dude the article is about Virgin Galactic, not Musk/Bezos. There are no subsidies involved.

Btw do you think the US should pay $400 million/launch for Crew Dragon or $1.5 billion/launch for the Space Shuttle? I know which one I'd pay :)

How about SLS's $2 billion/launch + fixed costs vs Starship?

We fund Vigrin as well. I just dislike Musk and Bezos more. In general I think private space exploration is dangerous and stupid.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/5/21248289/virgin-galactic-q...

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/12/01/nasa-taps-virgin-g...

Hasn't the US been subsidizing NASA and at this point hasn't it become clear that the Musk route is delivering a lot more?

NASA is pretty hamstrung in favor of subsidizing private space exploration built off of NASA and others research and continuing to develop through in large part US government contracts. Musk is a huckster. His engineers have done a great job figuring out reverse rocketry and a bunch of other stuff. He launched "his" (stolen) car into space to punk someone.

Sure. Seeing those rockets land is amazing. I don't think we need to follow the bro smoking blunts on Joe Rogan into our future. I think he's a dangerous person and it shouldn't be left up to him how we move into space flight. Also he shouldn't be able to own the IP. Starlink is a short sighted endeavor that is going to really fuck up a lot of stuff.

Musk is the worst offender really. His blatant lies about what the Starship can do and what he can accomplish are constant. You only need to look at what his hustle was with the solar roofs and solar city to see what his values are.

Common Sense Skeptic on Youtube has done a pretty good job cataloging the problems with what Musk is trying to do. I guess I'd recommend that if you are interested.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog/vid...

I disagree. I think we should fund private industry and increase the current expenditures by 10x.

I love Bezos and Musk. They’re visionaries and have changed the world. Anti-billionairism is rage induced by excessive consumption of social media.

Space has never been a "exploration of what it means to exist" for me. It's always been about cool tech that I look forward to using. I thought this was a forum for engineers, not envious spiritualists.

All these billionares are funding companies that build spacecraft while we sit on our asses debugging memory leaks. I fully intend to ride an orbital vehicle (not the one in the article) in a couple of decades when the prices have gone down to a couple of million dollars rather than the $50mm NASA charges today

They get a lot of public funds to do this shit. There are plenty of reasons to be critical of them. Maybe a bit of bureaucracy could be useful. I'm just sick of the worship of these guys like they built the damn things with their own hands or even out of their own pocket books. It's a playground and anything they do achieve is now their IP even though they've leveraged the resources of the greater population to pull it off for just some whacky stunts.

Space tourism is ridiculous.

I saw your edit. It's ok. Just so you know, you'll never get to space.

Public funds? Citation needed. Are we even talking about the same company?

With a quick google:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/12/01/nasa-taps-virgin-g...

https://spacenews.com/virgin-galactic-signs-contract-for-sub...

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/5/21248289/virgin-galactic-q...

https://investors.virgingalactic.com/news/news-details/2021/...

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-contract-for-...

https://newrepublic.com/article/160500/elon-musks-big-govern....

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-ve...

Those are contacts. NASA is buying a service (hauling some tech to space and testing it) because it would be more expensive for NASA to do this by itself. Even if NASA had more funding, paying a company that can carry out the task more efficiently would still be the right thing to do

I'll go ahead and leave this thread. You're being extremely disingenuous with your evidence and just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something will stick

I don't know how you think that contracts from public funds aren't public funding but I'll agree to also leave this conversation and I appreciate you having it with me. I'm not being sarcastic either. I think it's important to talk about this stuff and I respect your perspective.

Right, NASA is spending public funds to buy services from these companies, they are not exploring space out of their own petty cash

Wrong. NASA uses hundreds of suppliers. It’s not like NASA gets a budget and can just work alone to make things happen. Everything that government does has a whole supply chain behind it.

Sorry what an I wrong about again? NASA is funded by taxpayers, and SpaceX, Virgin, and blue origin are funded (in part) by NASA. Maybe my grammar was sloppy, I mean to say Bezos, Branson, and Musk are not the ones writing (all) the checks.

So space exploration should go back to its roots and what it's really about? The military conflict between two superpowers? A race to beat each other to the moon for propaganda purposes. Nice.

It's all fun and games until Musk locks us in with tons of Starlink debris. I think public funded organizations (which these private orgs operate with a lot of public funds) are more incentivized to not launch their car (stolen from their ousted business partner) into space.

There needs to be regulation for sure, but that means holding everyone accountable, private space companies and governments. US, Russian and Chinese government programs have already created more debris than private companies could afford even if they tried. The 2007 Chinese anti-missile test alone left a debris field with over 35000 pieces larger than 1 cm, hundreds of them of really significant size. This was intentional! Private companies on the other hand will do everything to avoid collisions and further debris, it goes against their financial interest and only hinders their own operations.

I am unsure of your reasoning that private companies have any incentive not to absolutely destroy the thing they are exploiting. It's exceedingly rare for any quarterly growth based company to not do whatever to maximize profit in 3 months. Good examples might be the ocean being on fire recently, leaded gas, the tobacco industry, the sugar or corn industry, oil and gas (obviously), facebook, cable news, the panama/paradise papers, or Ticketmaster.

To take your obvious oil and gas example, it would be like them setting their own wells on fire. Oil companies are very keen on avoiding this, the same way a space company would try to avoid trashing earth orbit because that would destroy their business.

I don't care if it's nasa or musk branded debris locking us in. Having Musk's name on it doesn't make it any deadlier

If we’re going with maximum cynicism: how are nationalist bureaucrats and bloodthirsty generals any better?

Maybe what was wasn't good enough and this new thing is still also not good enough. It's a big question, probably one of the biggest.

I feel exactly the opposite way. The space used to be an area where only the governments, the most tyrannical, beurocratic and evil entities on the planet, prevailed; now it's increasingly free and open to private enterprise. I just can't fathom how one could sympathize with NASA that's kept afloat with taxes, and not with people who fund it out of their own pocket and thrive for it to become profitable.

Its not really out of their own pocket, they're kept afloat by taxes just the same as nasa.

I can sympathize far more with the tax money going towards public property, rather than to rich people so that they can monopolize space tech

I fully support launching billionaires in to space.

I'm surprised Virgin Galactic hasn't pursued the high speed VIP transport market. Point to point travel at extreme speeds, without sonic booms or significant aerodynamic drag, seems like a better use of this suborbital technology.

Probably because their ship hasn't got the legs to do it. Even Starship needs a detachable first stage booster.

I could be wrong, but I thought Starship's booster is reserved only for orbital flights.

When they did the animation of intercontinental flight, they used it.

There isn't that much difference between getting to orbit, and getting almost to orbit but falling back out and landing in Tokyo.

This is very exciting; maybe the first realistic way that we could visit places off earth? I think that Bezos’s approach looks more environmentally friendly (I’ve not looked into it in too much detail, so feel free to correct me). I do think that we should celebrate this whilst also being aware that it isn’t perfect. We should encourage improvements where there can be (e.g. environmentally friendliness)

The world lost an inspiring billionaire... for a minute.

CTRL + F

dick

15 matches

He's not really going to space though is he?

Nope. Both Richard and Jeff are playing with suborbital flights.

Not really accurate. Most people consider space to be above the Karman line, which both flights will indeed surpass. Virgin Galactic by NASA's definition (50mi+), Blue Origin by FAI definition (100km+).

Yes, neither are orbital flights, but achieving orbit is not so much about distance from earth as it is about your tangential velocity.

Said another way: both flights will be entering the same "-sphere" as the ISS, the thermosphere. This is above the other spheres you typically hear about, like the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere.

they are both going to space. but not in orbit.

Yes, one is only going 80km up, for all intents and purposes, that's space

Am I in space on my couch right now? Like on a super-low geostationary orbit?

One of the most decadent human endavours. As if there were no real problems to fight on this planet. Ironically, the burning of fossile fuels causes one of the biggest...

Everyday Astronaut did an hour long video on "How Much Do Rockets Pollute? Are They Bad For Our Air?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4

I highly recommend to everyone who is concerned about this. The knee-jerk reaction needs to be toned down a little bit, we need to look at the data first.

I can guarantee Branson's carbon footprint is going to be several orders of magnitude larger than yours or mine.

You might argue it is insignificant on the world stage but these things are symbolic. It's going to be hard trying to convince people to lower their footprint when they see the rich and famous behaving as if there isn't problem.

Or we could not try the impossible task of convincing people to lower their carbon footprint and instead invest in sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineering to eliminate the climate change problem.

Austerity will not get us out of this hole.

Pour qué no los dos?

I mostly agree in the long term, but in some ways analogously to the pandemic strategy of short term mitigation whilst long term solutions are put in place, I see few downsides to trying to stem the flow now by altering behaviour, in order to give us more time to fix the issue properly.

There's also a sliding scale - not all things people can do to reduce their footprint are really "austerity" but rather alternatives with a different set of tradeoffs. A sideways move that requires a culture shift.

I don't mean this to come across as an attack - I don't know your motivations and I'm guilty of this personally - but IMO most people I talk to who argue your position tend to be doing it as much as a rationalisation of their own behaviour than as a position they've come to from first principles.

On the moral side, because austerity cuts standard of living worldwide and will drive billions back into poverty traps.

On the practical side, because austerity cuts economic growth, and growth is necessary in order to have both the industrial capacity and discretionary funds necessary to take on and complete such a massive project.

And I’m sorry, but it did come off as an attack. Let’s leave the ad hominems out of it and engage in good faith discussion.

>sequestration, sun shields, and geo engineering

All things we have never done at scale. Techno-optimism will not get us out of this hole.

Which is why we need a lot of resources to perfect and scale. Which right now means increasing average carbon footprint due to our mix of energy sources and industrial technology.

This is the equivalent of “you need to spend money to make money.”

I just mentioned the pollution aspect because of the irony. The real problem in my opinion is how this new space race and the new focus on manned space missions and space colonization distracts the public and some very bright people from acknowledging and working on solving the real global problems that humanity is facing due to our unsustainable lifestyles.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com