Hacker News Reader

Comment by comeonseriously | Hacker News Reader

> The promise of suborbital tourism is that it could expand space access to many, many more people.

Sure. I mean the 0.0001%ers. Yay for them. So while they're slapping each others' backs, there are people who are just trying to do their best to feed their family. These "accomplishments" mean nothing to them.

And this billionaire worshiping really needs to just end. It's so pathetic.

View on HN

People have been protesting space launches since the Apollo programs. It really adds nothing to the discussion to say “but other people have x problems.” We know. If it was necessary for 100% of humanity to be on equal footing in order for technology to progress we’d still be living in the stone age.

I. Don’t. Care.

Space is cool.

> I. Don’t. Care.

Noted.

I think you missed the point of that commenter's rant, understandably though.

A majority of people (these days) see the benefit for a wide spectrum of folks this modern space race is producing. What no one gives a shit about is the ego driven, "I was first" billionaire crap that the media is focused on. It's like people who post, "first" on youtube videos. Sure, helps the video's algorithm stance a bit, but a useless attempt to feel important over something silly is annoying as hell.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have any space programs, but given the urgency of climate change who in their right mind thinks space tourism for the masses is a good idea?

At these prices, it really doesn't make much of a difference.

They same could be said about almost any new technology. Telephones were at one point only available to the ultra wealthy.

The comparison is very apt. Everyone will have their private pocket rocket in a few decades.

You are being a bit myopic :)

There are many ways seemingly unrelated technologies can enable new developments. For example, without orbital rockets, smartphone navigation wouldn’t exist, as we wouldn’t have GPS.

There will be spaceline companies transporting people by rocket. See Starship E2E

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/dsppi6/a_ques...

Billionaire worship is indeed pathetic but these nuckleheads literally drive down costs so the rest of us knuckleheads can do a miserable family subby during the long summer years when Earth is scorching hot - literally on fire - due to climate change.

Yeah, further we should've stopped making planes or smartphones early on, too since only the rich could afford them.

I think you are missing an important distinction here: when the first planes got commercialised, even the first passenger flights weren't just amusement rides. They were expensive, sure, but they served a legit purpose.

The same is true to an even greater degree for mobile phones.

Joy rides to the edge of space however are neither new (Dennis Tito went all the way to the ISS back in 2001 and jet planes to the upper stratosphere could be booked for decades as well) nor in any way pushing progress.

Nonsense like this doesn't have to be stopped - everyone's free to spend their money however they wish - it's the glorification of the ultra-rich and their playthings (especially in the face of pending global ecological and social collapse) that's is being criticized.

Brandson’s flights, once available to the public, will cost ~$200k, not $20m like flights to the ISS have costed in the past. A 100x decrease in cost is a pretty meaningful change.

What is your basis for claiming that these developments will have no useful secondary or tertiary spillover effects for society? Many space developments have created new technologies that are useful back on the surface.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com