Hacker News Reader

Comment by KozmoNau7 | Hacker News Reader

He's really trying hard to cast billionaire space hops as something with the same scientific and societal impact as the space race.

But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years.

There's no innovation or societal benefit to their private joyrides.

View on HN

We haven't even entered the real "Space Age." Commoditization of space flight is an important step. Call it whatever you want, it might be frivolous for Bezos and Branson to be the ones going into space, but who cares? It's such a small aspect of what's going on behind the scenes, where we have several private companies pouring billions into research of space flight.

> But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people.

Except that these companies absolutely are doing R&D. We don't know what sort of "real world applications" might come from it in the future. We do know that right now, it's extremely expensive and difficult to go into space for anyone. Hopefully in the future going into space will become more than an expensive hobby for billionaires, but you can't get there without investment into space exploration.

> All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years.

Yet we still haven't returned to the moon and haven't gone to Mars, or to an asteroid, or to really anything else in that time. Being able to do it and it become a thing that we do are two different things entirely. We can't rely solely on NASA for innovations in space flight, especially when its funding can be stripped and killed off on the whim of a President, like Obama's disastrously bad space policy did during his presidency.

All smartphone companies did was the same thing anyone could do in 1970 with a truck sized computer and radio tower.

Doing the same thing but 10x cheaper is progress, also makes the thing that's 10x too expensive that's never been done before possible.

Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit are making air launches easy, but they're not the first.

Pegasus first flew in 1990, released at 12km, can launch 443 kg into orbit for $56 million.

Virgin's LauncherOne, releases at 10.7km, can carry 500kg into orbit for $12 million

The entire reason NASA was down-prioritized and had finding stripped is because of wealthy private interests, who wanted that pie to go to them for profit, rather than to a public agency.

And because the US only cares to do anything if there's a competition involved, the fall of the Soviet Union meant that politicians didn't really care anymore, they got lazy and lost their ambitions. Now China (and India) and speeding up and leaving the US in the dust.

The money spent on private space exploration could be spent much better on public research and space exploration, with international space agencies working together, instead of funding billionaire joyrides and further lining their pockets with money they can barely figure out how to spend.

The fact that NASA was defunded on the whim of the president is a strong indication that no, that money couldn't be spent much better on public research and space exploration because that money never got there. Obama's policies set NASA back a lot.

We absolutely need private companies vying for better space capability. We would have to send someone, whether it be billionaires or someone else up into space to facilitate that. That money would be spent regardless, so why does it matter that Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are doing it rather than any random person?

The goal is to get to the point where it's no longer remarkable to travel through space.

The influence of private corporations are the reason why NASA was stripped of funding, because of lobbyism and having politicians in their pockets.

It's the same old game, lobby for politicians to reduce funding to public agencies and institutions, demand ever-higher profits and put hack-and-slash stooges in charge.

Then after a few years of letting them struggle, publicly declare the public sector horribly inefficient and call for widespread privatization, with the contracts coincidentally going to your biggest sponsors.

The USPS is just the latest in a long lineup of examples of this method. It's corruption, pure and simple.

"possible" has a financial component. They're making a lot of things possible by reducing costs.

Several of the major technological innovations in history are a case of doing something "already possible" at a reduced cost: electric light, printing press, refrigerator...

How much UK tax dollars did Branson end up securing from his tax haven to keep virgin afloat? Anyone know? I'd assume it was zero it was such an hideous thing to try on - your tax should save my wealth while I don't pay it. But we seem to have lost sense about these things at times.

It's worth noting that Elon, for all his faults, does seem to be leading innovation. But I agree with you about Branson and Bezos.

I think it's a shame that people have bundled Elon into the Bezos / Branson battle. What Musk is doing is far more useful (and has been for a while now) than the measuring contest that's happening between the other two.

Don't forget about competition. It's a good thing that Musk has both Bezos and Branson biting his ass from their own rockets, if not only for PR.

Two questions regarding Musk that people should ask more often:

1. If the public money being thrown at SpaceX were redirected, what could NASA (or other private companies) do with it?

2. If the administrators of NASA collected $80B (combined) in salary and bonuses last year, largely from public coffers, would that be considered reasonable?

Isn't the public money being thrown at SpaceX through NASA?

NASA knows exactly what they're buying. They've just become such a bureaucratic, top-heavy, risk-adverse organization (by Congressional design) that it's a better deal to outsource pieces to SpaceX.

They've always outsourced most of their stuff, to Boeing et al. Now they have a company to outsource stuff to that is 10x more efficient and will actually invent new systems.

I would say the difference is fixed-cost vs cost-plus contracts. Paying for the development or paying for the result with less constraints on how it is achieved. Look how hard Boeing has stumbled trying fixed-cost with Starliner.

Except for bigger, better more efficient engines :

Although Raptors are a great achievement, their design if used alone is not made for bigger loads. SpaceX is stacking them now for larger ships. Hopefully the whole system will prove reliable on higher flights, and a different design won't be needed.

Are you saying risk-adverse is a bad thing?

The total NASA budget is 22bn, so how can they be paying 80bn to administrators?

Whilst at the same time endorsing coups because that country's interests didn't align with his private interests.

Elon Musk is not a net positive for humanity.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/elon-musk-confesses-to-l...

I don’t like the endorsement of coups. I’ve seen plenty of other boring ordinary people also endorse coups and other political violence in much the same way as that tweet did, so (sadly) that isn’t a differentiator.

(That said, while I’d like to be part of the first wave of Mars colonists, my concern with his politics make me not want it if he’s in charge of much more than the logistics).

> plenty of other boring ordinary people also endorse coups and other political violence in much the same way as that tweet did

Do these people have the same amount of power and influence as Musk? If they don't that's very much a differentiator.

His influence is a multiplier for his attitude, the good-bad-ness of the attitude matches baseline humanity so it makes no difference in that regard.

His power is a multiplier for his actions, which are better than average, and so in that regard makes him a net positive.

If it turns out I’m being overly pessimistic about human attitudes, the result can be inverted.

I do believe that most people don't endorse coups. In fact, I suspect most people actively condemn them, or at least most people who actually have an opinion on the matter. His words have the power to swing this in the other direction.

Regardless, even if the proportions are inverted, his words have the power to strengthen the pro-coup numbers, which is not the same as keeping baseline humanity numbers and certainly makes a difference.

In any case, by condemning an entire country of roughly 11 million people to live under the rule of a foreign-backed government against the people's will is always going to be a net negative, regardless of other endeavours.

Since this is a matter of opinion (what's positive, what's negative, how much weight each action has on either direction, etc. is very much subjective), it seems like we simply disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com