The new Space Race: Boldly going where no ego has gone before

Not enough power to get them that far into space where they would keep going.

 

We already do that, and by we at this point I mean the entire world. Not sure this rocket has the boost to get to the moon and beyond, NASA is the one working on that (Artemis Program). This was cool to see I guess, hardly world changing. Good for Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic though I guess, maybe they can make some money before there is a failure.

 

This is your take on this thread?
Liberal envy of the successful?
I guess I should learn to write better posts if this is the point you think I was trying to make.

These are literally trips to nowhere that are receiving glowing coverage from MSNBC, CNN, FOX, NEWSMX, etc...

There is currently an effort being led in the US Senate by Maria Cantwell to secure $10B in funding for Blue Origin.
https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/

SpaceX has received contracts for flight services from US federal funding, but at least it has delivered reliable launch services.

Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin flights recently in the news have delivered nothing but super expensive joy rides.
There has been no significant technical evolution resulting from the efforts of these two companies.
There is no significant milestone that has been accomplished with these flights of fancy.
Stephanie Ruhle on MSNBC excitedly just proclaimed that the Blue Origin flight represents an example of American Exceptionalism, rather than a multibillionaire's joyride.
Pfffftttt.... Go ride the freaking Beast at King's Island if you want a real example of American Exceptionalism compared to these joyrides by Branson and Bezos.

Scientific advancements and achievements, nope, not this stuff.

***
Why the first sentence informing me of the source of their wealth? Are you interested in debating this? I did not intend this post to be about how the uber rich spend their money, but I'm willing to get into the socioeconomic impact of equity markets on the overall contribution and motivation for individual success as well as contributions to the overall success of everyone. Will we be including healthcare and infrastructure in the discussion?

I'm curious too about this use of the word private to describe publicly traded companies. Amazon is not a private company; Koch Industries is. You did not use this word in this post, but it is a common phrase that has imo been used incorrectly to describe publicly traded companies as private companies. If we're going to discuss individual wealth created by publicly traded equities then let's open it up a bit. How about we discuss corporate culture as well? Some folks here on Team Trump incessantly bitch and moan about cancel culture. So let's get into that aspect as well about the CEOs and founders of these vast pools of wealth created on the NYSE and the NASDAQ and how they run their companies and whether or not the SEC offers sufficient enforcement of concepts laid down in the US Constitution and in its amendments.

***
I do find it interesting how some of these guys choose to spend their money. Paul Allen I think got into some cool stuff. Personally, if I had a billion dollars I'd buy a yacht, some California Girls, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers and cruise the Mediterranean for the rest of my life. Kinda like Hugh Hefner, but on a ship. Maybe if I had some spare change left over I'd fund a couple of water projects someplace, like California maybe. Meh....

***
My bitch in this thread is simply about the bogus nature of this having anything to do with one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. These flights ain't about s.

 

I don't dispute this point, but that was not what we were debating, was it?

You Sir, asserted that Branson's flight represented the "future of commercial flying."

How did his little up and down flight offer anything approaching a viable demonstration of NY to London in 90 minutes?

 

Musk launched one into space! Straight out of Heavy Metal. Branson and Bezos suck at this compared to Musk.

 

Come on man. Bezos just sent the first AMC Gremlin 2.0 into the upper atmosphere. That has to count for something.

 

While after reading your clarification I guess I partially agree. This rocket launch is not an advancement for man per se, Just someone enjoying his money. But my point was there is nothing wrong with people enjoying their money. The fact that a ordinary person could make the Trip that Bezos did makes we wonder if all of the media coverage surrounding the selection of the Mercury 7, i.e. space travel was for young test pilots in top physical condition, was a bit of theatre.

 

The first VCRs cost up to $1400 in 1977. Things always are more expensive when they first come out. Who knows what will come out of the technology developed from these flights. I would much rather see private business fund this kind of stuff than the severely over bureaucratic government institutions.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Hyperloop.

 

No, humanity's future is among the stars, the Earth cannot sustain us.

 

Just got a new one

 

There was nothing imo theatrical about the selection criteria for the US space program. It was very exciting stuff in the 60s and early 70s. Then, it became a bit ridiculous did it not? The lunar rover images of it as a golf cart on the moon? Golfing on the moon............................................................

There is absolutely no possibility of a sustained human presence on the moon without exorbitant support from Earth.

Water on the moon, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-sofia-discovers-water-on-sunlit-surface-of-moon

400 ppm H2O estimated to be "trapped" in a cubic meter of surface soil.

This stuff is just absurd and ridiculous.

And the media coverage continues pretending that the Blue Origin flight today actually means anything.

SpaceX is already doing this and has done it far more successfully than Blue Origin.

Bezos accomplished sweet f all compared to what Musk has been rocking out for years now.

And you wanted to twist the conversation into a partisan discussion of a lib complaining about what a rich guy does with his money?

Funny, a Trump supporter and avid right wing PF member responding as you did to this thread.

How do you "feel" about Bezos awarding Van Jones $100M?

 

This guy would suggest a young, highly fit, test pilot stud, was perhaps not needed for the Mercury program, ergo the claim of theatre. A little theatre was I guess not a bad thing at the time. Back before the Vietnam War and Great Society created cynicism about Government.



With respect to Van Jones, why not?

There is H3 on the moon. Money to be made if it could be mined and brought to earth.

Not sure if the avid right right supporter is a valid label. I see myself as more of a libertarian. You have apparently missed all my posts and comments in the PF Religion forum.

 

Except that this money does not trickle down, it is rather a gigantic energy (money) burning exercise. In a few minutes going to space, they burn more fuel than the average person uses in their lifetime driving to work. The result: Valuable carbon fuel sources wasted and a lot of entropy created. The 2nd law of thermodynamics at work.

Why do I even bother trying to save a small amount energy by biking to work a couple of days a week, when these guys just wantonly waste tons of energy for frivolous activities (it is basically a dic% measuring exercise).

 

You're right it will not be the rocket used in Blue Origin but it was mentioned a much larger version of Blue Origin will be able to travel at speeds of 17,000 mph and carry large payloads to ISS, the moon and eventually beyond. NASA should do the exploring and leave the heavy lifting to private companies that will provide jobs. Sounds to me like you want private companies to fail and you think the government should be the only one involved? Blue Origin uses a hydrogen based engine.

 

Virgin Galactic Supersonic Jet
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/03/vir...ic-jet-would-go-nyc-to-london-in-2-hours.html

SpaceX still uses kerosene-based fuels but Blue Origin’s rocket flies on Hydrogen, which is a marvelous achievement. And the idea behind using Hydrogen is to produce fuel by breaking water on other planets like mars by using polar ice. So we don’t need to carry preserved fuel for returning journey.

 

Why do people approach their agenda from the perspective that wealth is collectively owned?

If somebody approaches their political agenda from the perspective that others wealth and how they use it is wrong, or that it could be better spent, that's a problem.

For the most part, everybody on this forum is in the top tenth of one percent of income earners globally. Most of you are RIDICULOUSLY wealthy compared to billions of other living on the planet. Yet I don't see these same people speak with actions, living minimally and donating the rest of their wealth to global issues.

It's easy to spend other people's money for purposes you see fit, but people become extremely hypocritical when asked to spend their own wealth.

 

The Saturn V ran on LOX and H2 liquid cryogenic fuel pods. Nothing new with this method of propulsion. You have still failed to support your assertion that either of these flights represents a viable paradigm with respect to commercial NY to London flights.

 

Let's just say I am a believer that private companies do a far better job than any government agency. NASA wasted years after their last flight to the moon on space shuttles and the ISS when we could on the moon with a space station. I believe we will see advancements in the space industry like we've never seen before and very quickly.

 

Let's just say that you have failed to prove your assertion that Branson's flight represented a step toward a 90 minute commercial flight between NYC and London.

 

I try and avoid discussing religion here, so I've likely not seen your comments, and most other's comments in the religion forum.

H3!? On the moon? Do you have a link to your source of this information? H3, a positively charged 'protonated' ion version of H2 present in abundance in interstellar space, is floating around the moon? That would be interesting to learn. It seems unlikely to me. The moon has very little gravity and no atmosphere and no magnetic field and hydrogen is as light a gas as it gets, even with an extra proton. And if it does exist, as you claim it does, the value of it would be to somehow capture it and transport it back to Earth? Do you have any understanding of aerospace, math, physics and accounting? How do you imagine there is a scenario where it would be profitable to burn the fuel needed to get to the Moon, establish a mining and packaging facility, and then ship it back to Earth?

Van Jones - you say why not and I say why? And also ask what is the point? $100M to Bezos is comparable to $1k of me giving money away. Bezos has so much money he could award 10 $1B dollar prizes and still have $190B left over. $100M is him taking a piss. Stupid stupid stupid way to distribute capital imo. No strings attached. I hope Van Jones buys a mega yacht with it and cruises to hang out in Monaco with the rest of the rich and famous. Just for kicks I hope he spends 10% of it on Antarctic infrastructure for Penguins that features a conveyer system between their breeding grounds and the sea.

Interesting conflation with respect to space and war and government you make here mentioning cynicism about government created by the Vietnam War and Civil Rights and the War on Poverty and Billboards: aka the "Great Society".

Amusing your take on the chimp vs the test pilots. Bezos and his crew and Branson and his crew both went up and came down at the same location. But you offer little in our discussion here of what value you see in these flights with respect to actually contributing any significant advancement beyond what was achieved long long ago, and apparently in a Galaxy far far away. Ooh, Bezos used LOX and LH2 - not innovative at all and way more costly than Musk's use of jet fuel / kerosene. Cryogenic LOX and LH2 are super expensive as are all cryogenic processes, whether it's Nasa or Air Liquide.

Interesting that you chose to skip the juicy part of the discussion regarding our current society's fabrication of individuals with wealth that makes the concept of Kings and Queens seem quaint. Bezos has so much money he could likely literally kill the entire British Royal family if he were so inclined.

Ugh.... Apologies, another rant due to too much time on my hands, I suppose....

 

You can Google/Bing H3 and the moon and find many references and discussions about mining H3 by people with various scientific and engineering credentials. H3 has been found in moon rocks that were brought back from Apollo missions. The first discussion of this was probably here.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a235/1283056/

Obviously discovery, and economical mining are two different things, but related.

I don't get concerned about the wealth gap between Bezos and others because I don't view the economy as a zero sum game. Bezos is a guy that enables me to buy stuff cheaply and get it delivered to my house quickly. That is all he is to me.

IMHO the left hates Bezos (himself a lefty) out of envy for his success. I saw a rant on social media today from one of my more liberal friends claiming Bezos was the guy that put bookstores out of business. Yet I don't see liberals complaining that Netflix put video rental stores such as Blockbuster out of business.

Burning Hydrogen and Oxygen with an exhaust product of water seem inherently cleaner than burning Kerosene.

At one point in my life I worked for the IMF (not as an economist) and I had a few discussions with some high powered economists concerning the economic impact to the US from the Vietnam war and the great society. Ergo, my association of the two. We are decades later still debating social programs v. military spending. I am cynical about both the military spending and the social program spending. Discussion of specifics would be outside the scope of this threat. But excluding neocons, and really concervative (IMHO) will share that cynicism.

 

Government is too woke and political to get it done.

 

Well, it's their $ to piss away.

 

It is 3He (with the 3 being superscript), not H3, just saying.

Mining 3He on the moon might actually be useful, but space tourism for billionaires is just a total waste of limited resources.

 

Thanks to @Quantum Nerd for the clarification.

Helium 3. One of the scenarios where this could work is first that we are able to finally build a working fusion power plant. Fusion power is popular, but is imo basically science fiction. We do not have equipment that can operate in such service for maintaining a reactor that operates at fusion temperatures and radiation levels. We do not have material science knowledge and manufacturing abilities to build such equipment. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I have been fortunate enough to have received a fairly decent education in related stuff. To Date, no one has been able to build a net positive energy producing fusion generator. So first, we would need to do that. Then, the value of customizing the reactor to fuse He3 making it worthwhile to mine the moon because He3 fusion produces less radiation would have to be proven. Again, we are into the realm of science fiction.

Also in this scenario, provided that we have successfully built an He3 fusion reactor we would then have to use part of the power to split water, if we want to eliminate the role of current technology that is mostly based on fossil fuel feedstocks. This subtracts a bit from the net power production as we'll need the LOX/LH2 fuel to power the rockets to get the He3 from the moon. To me, this is kind of like a scene from the movie "Oblivion", but it is something that could make mining the moon for He3 viable.

Seems like quite a stretch to me, but hey, I don't wanna get a rep around here for being a Debbie Downer or a Karen, hahaha....

There's no doubt that burning H2 and O2 produces no CO2, but a combustion process like this almost certainly produces NOx pollutants. Not that this matters one way or the other compared to other emission sources from combustion processes. Rocket launches just aren't likely of any significance with respect to emissions, regardless of how "clean" the rocket fuel is.

***
I think that the current trend in the wealth gap, in a nation with the demographics of the US is absolutely dangerous. Especially so given the US predilection for guns and violence. I'm not so sure that discussing the wealth gap and the economics of what we choose to fund with taxes and national debt isn't close enough to this thread to be on topic. Take this phrase you used for example, "I don't view the economy as a zero sum game." It's a bit cliché, no offense intended. To me, I think it's a bit of a Milton Friedman style platitude. If your point is that just because Bezos achieves a net worth of $200B then it does not preclude others from doing so - well, then I agree with you.

However, in this thread as I've tried to point out, my complaint is that neither Branson or Bezos demonstrated anything of particular value unless, I guess, that it is super exciting to some folks to see "private" enterprises pop the cherry into the new commercial era of the space race. They didn't. Musk popped that cherry and he did it by blocking Boeing. Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin weren't even close. These guys haven't done squat with these flights to nowhere. I don't care how they want to spend their money. My point is that these activities don't rate any particular kudos. These guys are no Wernher von Braun, Robert H. Goddard or even comparable to Elon Musk, who isn't himself comparable to Goddard or von Braun. Musk, based on SpaceX results, obviously has obtained better talent at rocketry and has pursued more ambitious goals.

Are there no zero sum analysis scenarios in economics? I'm not a student of economics and I understand that it is not the same as accounting, but it seems to me that economic theories which don't recognize principles of accounting must be flawed at a fundamental level. A budget is a zero sum "game". Our Federal budget is a zero sum game that our 536 federally elected officials simply are incapable of managing. It's actually not a zero sum game though because the US continues to just charge it like Wilma and Betty heading out on a shopping spree. I think it's highly likely that both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin received some public funds. The National Science Foundation funds a lot of stuff. It funds so much stuff that the analysis of what it funds is a task that would require many hours of effort.

Here's a couple of links to a $1B dollar project we're funding for a telescope in Chile,

https://www.nsf.gov/awards/award_vi...rdDollars=true&region=US-DC&instId=4003110000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory

My point here is that publicly funded stuff ought to be a zero sum "game". I'll just briefly mention a couple of DoD disasters that all but preclude any concerns with spending on space or random NSF grants: the Ford Class Carrier and F35 program debacles....

***
Bezos has founded an empire and he has done so in a style that has been displayed by entrepreneurs dating at least as far back as J.D. Rockefeller. I think I bought my first major purchase from Amazon in 1997 - it was the MSFT MCSE bookset and it was half the price I could find anywhere else. I realized then that AMZN was going to kill places that I liked like the Barnes & Nobles shop with the embedded Starbucks where I would often spend a Saturday morning. I was a huge book, magazine and cd junkie for about 20 years. Brick and Mortar shops carrying these items are few and far between here in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the US, and the ones that can be found are vastly smaller than bookstores and record shops used to be.

However, blaming Bezos for this makes no sense to me. The guy spotted an opportunity and relentlessly pursued it and now we can all receive almost anything imaginable with the effort of a mouse click, in 2 days or less. Pretty amazing stuff from Amazon. I'm happy to see a Gen X kid like Bezos kick ass with Amazon. I think he's missing something with Blue Origin. And, I have to question his judgement that Lauren is a $38B upgrade from Mackenzie, but apparently as was mentioned earlier in this thread, even multi-billionaires suffer mid-life crises.

***
That must have been an interesting experience working at the IMF. I've read a few interesting books with themes in Economics.

https://www.amazon.com/Way-World-Works-Gateway-Contemporary/dp/0895263440

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

https://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence-Adventures-New-World/dp/0143114166

https://www.amazon.com/Rigged-Story-League-Changed-Street/dp/B003A02X98

https://www.amazon.com/Too-Big-Fail-Washington-System/dp/0143118242

https://www.amazon.com/Den-Thieves-James-B-Stewart/dp/067179227X

https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Poker-Norton-Paperback-Michael/dp/039333869X

This stuff just piles up in one's head after a certain point. Have you read any of these?