You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
theotherjonv
Full MemberYep, good post. The cross-fertlization of research ideas; work that starts in one area and then someone has a ‘hang on, does this mean….?’ moment
That's the hope. But it doesn't always happen, and less and less so as technologies get mature and the research projects get either massive, or really really specific. Really big projects tend to get spread out so you lose the single-team oversight, meaning that the importance of a side-discovery can be missed, or discounted as an error, or just not resourced. And really specific projects tend to be very target focused. (as do outsourced projects, since you're generally getting paid to deliver a specific piece of work not to just **** around and find out). So a ton of interesting discoveries will just never get picked up on as they're footnotes in the sub-team of the sub-team of the project that's being funded by one company for one purpose, and because the one person or team that knows about it, doesn't have the big picture that would tell them it's important, or is already doing 14 hour days for teh main project.
Not always though. And the plus side is that there's an incredible amount of research happening so while the rate of interesting spinouts falls per hour of research, the total hours goes up. And it does apply less to less mature technologies which is where stuff like "how to not die on mars" comes in handy
Like, smart fabrics are a field that lots of new and interesting stuff is happening, because it's very novel. There's projects with literally only a few thousand pounds of funds and a couple of postgrads involved, that are still producing exciting stuff, whereas that's more or less unthinkable with something like the internal combusion engine.
Equally, battery tech is really old, but the way we're fighting to improve and optimise it in very specific ways is creating new opportunities- the demand for smaller, more portable, less resource intensive, lighter (and also much larger), longer lived batteries and different chemistries is causing lots of things to be looked at in new ways.
So there's always a bunch of tweaks being done with lithium ion batteries and one of them literally started in a lab at my old uni when a postgrad got bored with the project and went offpiste and his supervisor was kinda incompetent and didn't notice, and as a result they completely failed to deliver the research goal and it caused all sorts of political shenanigans and they lost their funding and the entire institution took a hit, but they got some totally unexpected benefits out of it. But the unintuitive thing is that there's actually a bunch of factors that should specifically have stopped that from happening, they just didn't work!
TLDR the more industrialised and commercialised research is, the less eureka moments you get, for a bunch of reasons.
tjagain
Full MemberEVs are no solution. alternative / renewables are limited in the amount we have. Its also intermittent and we have no viable large scale storage
Every KW used in an ev is an extra KW of fossil fuel burning because it increases the total amount of electricity used and that extra generation comes from fossil fuels. Renewables are limited and only acount for a part of the UKs generation mix
"Every KW used in an ev is an extra KW of fossil fuel burning" is only the case if you weren't already making that journey. It'd only apply if we were literally inventing the car today having never had ICEs, or if we were literally abolishing ICE cars and then after that EVs came along. Instead, what it's actually doing is consuming a pretty comparable amount of power, but producing it differently. So without being rude, pretty much everything you said is wrong. It does require a shift in generation- where we used to have millions of little inefficient power plants in cars we'll need much fewer big ones. And it needs good infrastructure. But that's not the same as burning extra, at all.
People get a wee bit hung up on the scale of generation transfer from fossil to renewable on a grid scale- and it's true that moving to EVs makes that bigger. But that's mostly a logical trap of seeing fossil fuel burning in cars as somehow separate from grid scale. Really it all belongs in the same heap and reducing any of it is positive. In fact removing the most polluting part is going to be most productive and that's basically coal, really old plants, and cars.
Oh yeah also cars ARE viable large scale storage. We haven't got that figured out properly yet but it's a fairly simple engineering problem and faster charging makes it much simpler (since it's less and less important to keep an EV permanently charged). Any plugged-in car can be a power bank. EVs are going to be a really important part of electricity load spreading and storage in the near future. As are dead EVs- old batteries are getting turned into power walls already, they're not good enough for car use any more but they're ideal for nonmoving storage.
“Every KW used in an ev is an extra KW of fossil fuel burning” is only the case if you weren’t already making that journey. It’d only apply if we were literally inventing the car today having never had ICEs, or if we were literally abolishing ICE cars and then after that EVs came along. Instead, what it’s actually doing is consuming a pretty comparable amount of power, but producing it differently
Yes - from fossil fuels - because an increase in electricity consumption means an increase in fossil fuel burning in the UK right now. ( not 100% perhaps )
this is why EVs are not a solution. they reduce pollution a small amount and transfer it out of cities - but they do not reduce over all energy consumption - in fact there is evidence that the low per mile cost actually encourages more driving
and of course I am comparing it to not making that journey. Thats the point. we need to reduce energy consumption massively in the west not just use it a slightly less pollutting way
These things need global solutions that allows the developing world to develop and at the same taime needs a massive reduction in energy usage worldwide
Reduce, reuse, recycle. The first and key thing is reduce
Define ‘better off’.
Walk round a graveyard. Look at the dates.
Walk round a graveyard. Look at the dates.
Two things:
1. What does space exploration contribute to improved life expectancy? (Almost none I think)
2. Life expectancy in the west, in particular the US and among the working class elsewhere is declining.
The trickle down 'a rising tide lifts all boats' concept doesn't work. The past 40 years have resulted in unparalleled inequality not just within western countries but internationally between countries too. This idea that people at the bottom should be happy with the scraps they're offered and tolerate excesses of people at the top is a very cynical, negative and self-destructive outlook.
There's no better indicator of where we are as a society than billionaires with childish space travel fantasies spending all their money trying to go to Mars rather than those resources being applied to more socially useful activities.
So we should pack in science and research unless it's got an obvious use for a socially useful activity?
I don't think that's going to end well .... some people want to discover stuff because it's interesting, and commercially , and as a nation it tends to lead you to a dead end and some someone goes into the disctance.
You know this money stuff is an abstract concept right? You know that you can do all these things at the same time if you decide to as a society? Where does this leave football? It takes money from poor people, gives it to rich people, is it useful. What about riding expensive bikes?
tjagain
Full MemberYes – from fossil fuels – because an increase in electricity consumption means an increase in fossil fuel burning in the UK right now. ( not 100% perhaps )
But the cars that they're replacing ran on fossil fuels too. That's the point. The increase in electricity consumption from EVs categorically does NOT mean an increase in fossil fuel burning now, it means a redistribution of where it happens but not an increase. It's like one of those budgeting errors people make where they think that moving things into a different column on a spreadsheet saves money. The possible but unproven increase in mileage which you mention- which I do think is pretty likely- is going to be absolutely eclipsed by the efficiency savings in big power plants over stupidly inefficient little engines, and probably also eclipsed by the efficiency savings of not transporting petrol and diesel to filling stations
Not making the journey is great and the thing is, you can not drive an EV just as well as you can not drive a car.
But the idea that this is a choice, switch to EVs or stop driving, is false. It's a choice of switch to EVs or keep driving ICE cars.
So we should pack in science and research unless it’s got an obvious use for a socially useful activity?
I didn't say that. There's a huge difference between doing science and research and engineering a way to travel to Mars for no particular good reason. What will sending humans to Mars achieve beyond satisfying curiosity about whether it can be done? What benefit will the vast majority of the human race derive from it? Almost nothing in both cases.
You know this money stuff is an abstract concept right?
Of course it's abstract, but it's also materially real as long as the majority are denied access to sufficient amounts of it. I'm actually arguing that going to Mars would be more achievable and more justifiable if we changed our economic system to make it more equal and more decentralised.
What will sending humans to Mars achieve beyond satisfying curiosity about whether it can be done? What benefit will the vast majority of the human race derive from it? Almost nothing in both cases.
You do understand that this is complete bunk don't you?
The standard complaint about the Apollo missions is that all it gave us was non-stick frying pans while casually avoiding all the minor things like decent computers (it supercharged research into electronics and micro-computers which is part of the reason why we all started to get home computers in the late 70's and early 80's....YOURE LITERALLY USING SOMETHING THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OFTHE SPACE RACE RIGHT NOW!!!!!), global telecommunications (how do you send live sound and video across very long distances? hint:microwaves), medicine (so much in this one), fuel cells, ergonomics (technically from aircraft research in the 50's but again, the process was supercharged by the space programme) , fly by wire aircraft (indeed, we've also got planes that don't crash, thats very nice isn't it...) etc and then the very small matter of the overview effect (jeez, where do I begin on that one) oh, and ecology...and thats just a few things.
what about things like GPS? Weather satellites?
So yes, nuffin useful there whatsoever...
Human spaceflight give us some truly incredible technology, long duration spaceflight teaches us a great deal about things that happen to the human body as it ages like osteoporosis, muscle loss, cancer etc
What about really efficient Solar panels? Yup, completely useless, who on earth would want that?
Etc, etc, etc.
Mars: go. Find out something new. I can guarantee we'll get some very surprising and incredibly useful results from this that will benefit almost everyone and change the world for the better, most probably things we would otherwise have never thought of.
Ok, rant over 🙂
Yes – from fossil fuels – because an increase in electricity consumption means an increase in fossil fuel burning in the UK right now. ( not 100% perhaps )
This is not even wrong!
yesterday fossil fuels supplied about 18% of the UK energy needs National Grid live.
1. What does space exploration contribute to improved life expectancy? (Almost none I think)
Well, there's one example amongst many on that Wikipedia page linked earlier.
2. Life expectancy in the west, in particular the US and among the working class elsewhere is declining.
No it isn't.
(It might be, I have no idea, but you're going to have to evidence that claim. Otherwise, "no it isn't.")
What will sending humans to Mars achieve beyond satisfying curiosity about whether it can be done? What benefit will the vast majority of the human race derive from it? Almost nothing in both cases.
Aside from this being abject bollocks (just for a change), even if it were true then so what?
Why did we stick pilgrims in boats and point them West other than curiosity? Yeah, OK, that didn't work out too well for the Native Americans, but I'm fairly confident that we're unlikely to wipe out the indigenous population of Mars or the Moon bar a few Clangers.
How do you suppose we discovered vaccines or antibiotics, by shrugging our shoulders going "what's the point"? Why do people swim the Channel or climb mountains when we have boats and helicopters? Why do you ride a bike when there are cars? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
If we don't know something, then why not try and find out?
Ok - an asteroid passed us inside the orbit of the moon a few weeks ago, it had only been spotted a couple of days prior. We are long overdue for a planet killer type event.
Being a multi planet species will help mitigate against a planet killer type event. It’s not difficult to grasp 🤷♂️
The trickle down ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ concept doesn’t work. The past 40 years have resulted in unparalleled inequality not just within western countries but internationally between countries too.
Hmm. I'm not sure about this. Inequality is far greater, but is life at the bottom end of society better or worse than it was 50 or 100 years ago? What about the bottom 20%?
Clearly the bottom 20% now SHOULD be better of than they currently are, so their lifestyle may be relatively worse than 100 years ago, but that's not the same as worse in absolute terms.
The big issue is that it is worse now than only 15 or 20 years ago.
YOURE LITERALLY USING SOMETHING THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OFTHE SPACE RACE RIGHT NOW!!!!!
Computers (and all the other things you list) would have been invented whether we went to the moon or not. All this space travel fantasy is basically just techno-geekery. I've got no problem with it as long as it's sustainable, but with our current economic system, it's not. We're literally destroying the planet so that people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can act out their egotistical fantasies.
Computers (and all the other things you list) would have been invented whether we went to the moon or not.
Almost certainly true.
But because of Apollo et al, progress happened a lot sooner.
All this space travel fantasy is basically just techno-geekery. I’ve got no problem with it as long as it’s sustainable, but with our current economic system, it’s not. We’re literally destroying the planet so that people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can act out their egotistical fantasies.
No it isn't.
I’ve got no problem with it as long as it’s sustainable, but with our current economic system, it’s not.
Really? As said above, the resources needed to do this are miniscule. The problems of Earth are essentially caused by the likes of you and me buying loads of crap thinking it's important.
Computers (and all the other things you list) would have been invented whether we went to the moon or not. All this space travel fantasy is basically just techno-geekery. I’ve got no problem with it as long as it’s sustainable, but with our current economic system, it’s not. We’re literally destroying the planet so that people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can act out their egotistical fantasies.
That’s 100% incorrect. Without massive, long duration government funding, so many things simply wouldn’t exist. The private sector don’t continue to fund research without ROI I 3-5years.
I can give you a concrete example. OpenMDAO from NASA took 13 years, 3 complete resets and a very patient customer to achieve success. This simply wouldn’t happen in a listed company. There’s a reason why SpaceX and Blue origin are still private and why Musk wanted to take Tesla private again. There’s significant freedom in it. Musk and Bezos can individually act like NASA, they can find real technological moonshots, not worrying about failure as they have the funds to keep going and no board/shareholders to piss off.
It honestly sounds (like many climate arguments) more that you’ve found something you don’t agree with and despite all the evidence to the contrary, would happily see it killed in the name of CO2 reduction as it suits your narrative. Privatised space access reduces costs, increases investment and dramatically speeds development. In return you get faster deployment of technology, superior access to services and reduced costs.
As for the environment - Rockets are less than 1% of the 2% of total emissions in global aerospace. That’s 0.0002%. A cruise liner heading to the Azores consumes more. Ban one cruise and you’re climate neutral. If I were Musk - I’d do just that, but out one cruise and ask it to never leave port. The fuel saved pays for all of his launches.
The biggest technological advance that mankind made was during WW2 i believe, the space race fell out of that due to tensions between East and West, sadly conflict has advanced us more than anything else in the last century.
Anyway, i think the whole Mars thing is just a hell of an advance beyond where we are today, can we get a manned flight there, probably, can we colonise, not a chance under our current constraints, emissions from rockets isn't the concern, it's just the fact that chemical rockets are limited in regards to what we would require to sustain missions, it's a long journey, add in the return and that's over a year to sustain life systems and support for any crew, add in cargo and it's even more unviable.
Effectively if we wanted to do anything over the years, we'd have to create a 'spacebridge', a logistical port, maybe even on the moon, to allow sustained operations and it would be huge, beyond anything we've ever set out to do, would be great to see, but can't see many countries signing up for it!
The trickle down ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ concept doesn’t work. The past 40 years have resulted in unparalleled inequality not just within western countries but internationally between countries too. This idea that people at the bottom should be happy with the scraps they’re offered and tolerate excesses of people at the top is a very cynical, negative and self-destructive outlook.
There’s no better indicator of where we are as a society than billionaires with childish space travel fantasies spending all their money trying to go to Mars rather than those resources being applied to more socially useful activities.
Very much ^^this^^
Over the last decade the financial holdings of the world's Billionaires has more than doubled, there is now a bit over 12 trillion USD tied up under the control of about 2600 billionaires (0.000033% of the global population). Towards the top of that list of gits you'll find Elon and Jeff.
They have the financial muscle to effect real changes on a global level, they could, if they chose to, pour resources into addressing climate change either through the wonders of technological woo or by funding social changes, they could squash huge chunks of poverty.
Instead they 'minimise' their tax bills and keep pushing the narrative that some rich boys getting into orbit will somehow lead to the betterment of all mankind. So long as you pay your Amazon & starlink subs, keep up the finance on your Model X and sign up for a special blue badge on twitter they'll almost definitely save us all with billionaire space magic... Probably.
Humanity are a bunch of suckers, those at the top know that, climate change and growing inequality will drive a century of increasing desperation, we're already well along that trajectory, resources become scarce, hoovered up by the wealthy, and who do you ultimately think will be there to capitalise on that situation?
Where does putting people on Mars even figure in all of this as a priority?
The past 40 years have resulted in unparalleled inequality
I disagree. Back in the good old days, kings lived like kings and the poor had utterly miserable lives. Slavery was considered quite normal, so the level of inequality was essentially infinite.
Rather than just looking at the level of inequality (i.e. the ratio of the poorest people to the richest), you need to look at the level of absolute poverty. Can poor people get food, shelter, clothing, etc.? Being poor in a wealthy country today is still much, much better than being poor in most places two centuries ago. Think about it like this, if your consciousness was going to be transposed onto some random individual at any point in history, would you prefer to take the risk of being poor in 1823 or 2023? I would definitely take 2023.
I disagree. Back in the good old days, kings lived like kings and the poor had utterly miserable lives. Slavery was considered quite normal, so the level of inequality was essentially infinite
The current levels of inequality arent even unparalleled in living memory (just about).
Although Im not arguing against the harm done to income equality by, and since Thatcherism. Dont think any Space exploration endeavors are to blame 🤷♂️
As for the environment – Rockets are less than 1% of the 2% of total emissions in global aerospace. That’s 0.0002%.
I've already said in my first post that carbon emissions from rockets are not the problem. It's the embodied carbon emissions from the financial empires of the billionaires and the economic system that creates them which are the problem. The unrestrained economic activity which makes private space travel possible is going to destroy the planet, all so the likes of Bezos and Musk can address whatever personal insecurity issues they have.
I disagree. Back in the good old days, kings lived like kings and the poor had utterly miserable lives. Slavery was considered quite normal, so the level of inequality was essentially infinite.
Ooh great! Lets all be thankful we aren't slaves and aren't starving! At the risk of repeating myself, the view that we should be content with the scraps we're given while the billionaires act out their childhood fantasies by building space rockets is utterly self-destructive.
I'm sorry but this private space travel stuff is nothing more than alpha-male chest-beating (yes it is mostly men!). Musk, Bezos and Branson need to prove their masculinity and superiority to the world by going into space and they appear to have a willing band of followers blinded by shiny tech and roaring rocket engines. There's a reason the rockets look like penises!
I mean look at it! Tell me this isn't the product of a man with serious issues. Either that or he's trolling the planet.
they could, if they chose to, pour resources into addressing climate change either through the wonders of technological woo
You mean by funding the company that has brought in a major change in the automotive industry and provided the means to significantly decarbonise it? Like that?
I'm no fan of Musk, he's an absolute bell end; nor am I a fan of the cars themselves but I think that company has really kick-started a big change that we will see the benefits of in years to come.
Now of course, we all know EVs aren't the solution - the solution is not to drive - but that goes back to my original point. The technical challenge has been solved, we have cars that can be powered purely via renewable means, but getting people not to drive them all over the place is beyond the means of any billionaire, and pretty damn hard for any government.
yes it is mostly men
There's a reason these things aren't funded by female mega billionaires but I'm not sure it's what you think it is!
Ooh great! Lets all be thankful we aren’t slaves and aren’t starving!
I for one am.
I for one am.
I for one enjoy Roman Numerals.
Think about it like this, if your consciousness was going to be transposed onto some random individual at any point in history, would you prefer to take the risk of being poor in 1823 or 2023? I would definitely take 2023.
I'd take being poor in 2023 over being almost anyone in 1823
Ooh great! Lets all be thankful we aren’t slaves and aren’t starving! At the risk of repeating myself, the view that we should be content with the scraps we’re given while the billionaires act out their childhood fantasies by building space rockets is utterly self-destructive.
Scraps? Erm...what? You aren't forced into living off their products or services. Both Bezos and Musk have built their fortunes by building a business or businesses that people use. They have products or services that people want. Do they exploit tax and labour law deficiencies? Yes, but so do many others. Do they then spend their money on whatever they want? Yes. As do you.
If you want more of their income to be spent how YOU want, you're going to have to vote for parties that significantly TAX the rich, and no one is going to do that or they might leave, and no one really wants that.
As for space and Mars being pointless, it's not, but it's also no the whole goal from the billionaires POV. Musk and Bezos aren't stupid. There's MUCH more money in commercial space than in exploration, but there's MUCH more funding available for exploration. Tesla and SpaceX are successful because they leveraged funding first, to get established with a radical concept and subsequently changed the industry they entered. From Musk's POV, Falcon was born on the premise of the CCP from Nasa, than funding helped build Falcon, raptor and Dragon. That success helped him build Starlink and Starship. When NASA/Governments decide they want to go to the moon and do so regularly, who do you think will be there, ready to serve, to absorb funding, to transition. Musk. Bezos' model is a bit different. Amazon's major source of revenue is now cloud computing, but access to it is still expensive due to infrastructure. Kuiper is Amazon's answer to Starlink and Amazon, through Blue Origin is attempting to connect the cloud, to orbit and beyond, thus giving Amazon substantial power over say Microsoft and others.
You mean by funding the company that has brought in a major change in the automotive industry and provided the means to significantly decarbonise it? Like that?
Are we talking about Elon Perchance?
He's not solved anything he figured out that you could make lots of money by making EVs aspirational (note, not affordable) and getting them to market first.
The Greenwash that slopped over his (already wealthy) publicity loving arse by cuckooing his way into Tesla was a byproduct, not the main aim.
I suppose my objection isn't really to space exploration, it's a thing our species should be doing more of, its more about the current narrative surrounding it, which is strangely dominated by capitalists not governments or scientists.
NASA were very focussed on better development of unmanned missions a few years ago, the obvious stepping stone for more distant manned missions as well as a good way to build knowledge.
Throwing Dr Evil and Lyle Lanley's space aspirations into the mix fundamentally skews the discussions, so let's just not, we just want 'their' resources, not their opinions...
Yes we should be putting more probes and robots around/on the other bodies in our solar system. Not just Mars, although Mars is in some ways "Earth like" so it makes sense to expend resources understanding it, any adjacent benefits are welcome but isn't an actual justification. We should be (and apparently are) getting boots back on the moon as it's one of the best, most convenient places to figure out human survival off-world.
Humans on Mars though? Tail end of the century if not the 2200s I reckon, because we really do need to stabilise our current home before we go shopping for a holiday villa off-planet...
I wonder idly, is it not better for Astro-Karen to be spending his wealth rather than having it languishing in a (presumably offshore) bank? We might argue that there are better potential applications, but it's creating jobs and putting money back into the economy. Isn't it?
Just read some of my last couple of posts and they were way more confrontational than I meant them to be, sorry! I edited them down to try and get them readably short (and failed) but mostly what I took out was the nuance.
Dazh is spot on but, the thing is, changing the economic structure that creates hypercapitalist space-****ing is possibly even harder than doing something about the climate crisis. The vested interests almost by definition have most of the power. It'll take a big dramatic reordering to get the opportunity to change either. Everything is is kind of fiddling while rome burns but ultimately if you can't put out the fire you might as well warm your hands.
I suppose my objection isn’t really to space exploration, it’s a thing our species should be doing more of, its more about the current narrative surrounding it, which is strangely dominated by capitalists not governments or scientists.
This. The advancement of space exploration and it's application for the benefit of all humans is not going to be served by billionaires with giant penis-rockets. Instead it will have massive negative impacts due to the external effects of their need to accumulate extraordinary wealth to pay for it, and the economic system which enables and supports that.
Revenge obviously.
Have you not heard the documentary by Jeff Wayne.
The advancement of space exploration and it’s application for the benefit of all humans is not going to be served by billionaires with giant penis-rockets.
What is it going to be best served by?
This. The advancement of space exploration and its application for the benefit of all humans is not going to be served by billionaires with giant penis-rockets.
we’ll if it were down to NASA - the manned space programme would be in tatters 🤷♂️
SpaceX is keeping the the space station going, and has been for years! SpaceX is responsible for over half of all orbital flights - and that’s just with the Falcon, wait till Starship gets going !!! Private industry has innovated the hell out of space in recent years, if it were solely down to NASA, we’d still be stuck with the 70’s approach to space, expensive, uncommon, and non reusable 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Yea, leaving this stuff to governments is a really great idea.
It's hard to say that with certainty- the existence of spacex has meant that nasa hasn't had do to certain boring stuff, and has been able to focus on the big white elephant and doing that in the most NASA way possible. But it's not impossible that they'd have developed something in the same role as falcon if nobody else had. (I doubt it, but, I do think it's possible). There was frinstance that 1 launch that basically saved spacex from bankruptcy- if that'd failed I think the assets would have been snapped up and it'd be seen as evidence that private launch wasn't a good idea. People forget the ridiculously narrow margins of success they had.
I definitely don't think they'd have gone so hard on reusability, under any circumstances, but while that's really a big win for spacex and a huge improvement to the overall package, it's not a prerequisite.
NASA left itself with zero capability for manned spaceflight after the demise of the Shuttle. They relied on Russia for years (and we now know why that’s a really terrible idea).
First Starship launch hopefully in a week or so (probably longer). 👍👍
Dazh is spot on but, the thing is, changing the economic structure that creates hypercapitalist space-**** is possibly even harder than doing something about the climate crisis. The vested interests almost by definition have most of the power. It’ll take a big dramatic reordering to get the opportunity to change either. Everything is is kind of fiddling while rome burns but ultimately if you can’t put out the fire you might as well warm your hands.
Fully agree with this and that make me very sad. The fire will do more than warm our hands in the midterm though. More like take them off at the elbow! I still think Musk is an utter **** and doesn’t do anything for altruistic purposes or the betterment of mankind. Extremely suspicious of everything he does. Doesn’t even disclose emissions relating to Tesla or any of his other businesses.
NASA left itself with zero capability for manned spaceflight
Maybe they decided that it was a pointless and ridiculously expensive ego-trip which wouldn’t really achieve more than they could do with robots? 🤷♂️
I’d take NASA’s decisions over Musk/Bezos/Branson’s any day. NASA is at the very least publicly accountable and subject to challenge from the people’s representatives.
we’ll if it were down to NASA – the manned space programme would be in tatters
See above. At this point in our history, we don’t need a manned space programme. Maybe at some point in the future we will, but that should be a decision for people considering all the benefits and negative impacts, not for individual billionaires with egotistical fantasies about being a real life Buck Rogers.
See above. At this point in our history, we don’t need a manned space programme.
Except for the ISS that they've been running crewed missions on since they decommissioned the space shuttle. There's also the matter of being able to retrieve things and service them in orbit, like the Hubble telescope and any other scientific instruments up there.
Or are you going to argue that we shouldn't be maintaining them either?
Or are you going to argue that we shouldn’t be maintaining them either?
Err, yeah. The ISS is an expensive white elephant that’s falling apart and on the brink of being abandoned. Hubble is in the last phase of its operational life and won’t be fixed if something goes wrong. 20 years ago both needed manned space flight, but not any more. If those are your best examples then your argument defeats itself.
dazh
Full MemberSee above. At this point in our history, we don’t need a manned space programme. Maybe at some point in the future we will
We don't need it now, but that's not to say it's not delivering results- you can argue not enough to justify it of course, but you can't say none. Need vs want, the mountain biker's dilemma.
But the other thing is, it's far easier to maintain capability and skills than it is to restart from scratch. In your hypothetical, what happens when we come to the point in the future where we do need it, and we've not done it for 20 years and all the astronauts are old and fat, all our launch vehicles are optimised for unmanned and not a single qualified launch controller has ever sent up anything with a person in it? Skills and experience die fast and so does capability. Maintaining a low level of longterm manned space flight- which is what we have- could well be an investment.
Also, this is a wee bit snide but, why worry about the expense of it if it's all government money and therefore we can just print more 😉
I’d take NASA’s decisions over Musk/Bezos/Branson’s any day.
I needed a good laugh this morning! Thanks! 😉😁
but that should be a decision for people considering all the benefits and negative impacts, not for individual billionaires with egotistical fantasies about being a real life Buck Rogers.
This is such a nonsense thing to say, especially as you're both a supporter of MMT and an anarchist Why are you bothered what billionaires spend their money on? I mean rockets are pretty dangerous. There's a better than evens chance they'll kill themselves. Besides, there's nothing more anarchist than launching your own rocket into space, it's pretty much the ultimate **** you to every government.
Starship to launch on Monday 🥳🥳🥳
Also, this is a wee bit snide but, why worry about the expense of it if it’s all government money and therefore we can just print more
Not snide, just stupid. Even in an MMT based system money is not infinite. Think you probably know that though.
This is such a nonsense thing to say, especially as you’re both a supporter of MMT and an anarchist Why are you bothered what billionaires spend their money on?
Jeez, another one. I have no idea what MMT and anarchism have to do with this, but to play along for a second, obviously if the anarchists were in charge people like Elon Musk wouldn't exist. We could still have space travel though, if the collective decision was that it was worth doing.
Starship to launch on Monday 🥳🥳🥳
Wooh! Rockets! Big noisy ones! Which can land themselves! Probably best to have a hand towel to hand when you watch it.
obviously if the anarchists were in charge people like Elon Musk wouldn’t exist
The definition of anarchism is that there isn't anyone in charge.
The definition of anarchism is that there isn’t anyone in charge.
You know I knew some pedant would come back with that comment. That’s why I phrased it as I did. Well done for winning the prize.
Now, back to pointless penis extension space rockets..
Even in an MMT based system money is not infinite.
Thats not how your explanations of it come across. Your solution to any financial issues is "governments can create more money"
Thats not how your explanations of it come across.
I've never said money is infinite, nor has anyone else. It's really not difficult to understand and the information is readily available. My solution to most financial issues is to ensure that private individuals and corporations can't accumulate the money that governments do create in such amounts that it has a materially negative impact on the macro-economy and global environment. That is what's happening now, and the private space travel programmes of the 3 most promininent billionaire oligarchs are perfect symbols of a civilisation gone disastrously wrong. We're basically back in an Egyptian pharoah situation.
And by pure coincidence Elon is on BBC news now being interviewed, looking every bit the insecure, lost teenager that he is. If we wasn't a billionaire he'd probably be polishing an AR15 in advance of shooting up a high school.
if the anarchists were in charge people like Elon Musk wouldn’t exist.
Aside from the point Hols beat me to,
Why wouldn't they? What are the anarchists going to do with people like Musk, string them up? People like Musk exist despite whoever's nominally in charge, not because of them. Rich scum floats to the surface in any pond.
I’ve never said money is infinite, nor has anyone else.
...
We’re basically back in an Egyptian pharoah situation.
A non-prophet organisation?
Probably best to have a hand towel to hand when you watch it.
to wipe away the tears of joy? Or did you mean something else?
You know I knew some pedant would come back with that comment. That’s why I phrased it as I did.
So that it made no sense to anyone who knows what anarchism means? How were you originally going to phrase it?
Err, yeah. The ISS is an expensive white elephant that’s falling apart and on the brink of being abandoned. Hubble is in the last phase of its operational life and won’t be fixed if something goes wrong. 20 years ago both needed manned space flight, but not any more. If those are your best examples then your argument defeats itself.
I did say like the Hubble telescope. There's doubtless more stuff up there that needs human intervention to maintain.
I’ve never said money is infinite, nor has anyone else.
There's doubtless another topic for this so I'm not going to derail this with any more bollocks but that's exactly what "people" have said. It's just a construct. So either you are wrong or he is.
There’s doubtless more stuff up there that needs human intervention to maintain.
And even if Daz is right and it's knackered, what are we going to do? Abandon it and just hope it eventually falls onto one of the less densely-populated areas of Africa?
If the ISS is "falling apart" (and I've no idea how true that claim is) surely that's more reason why we need manned spaceflight to go sort it out?
if the anarchists were in charge people like Elon Musk wouldn’t exist. We could still have space travel though, if the collective decision was that it was worth doing.
Anarchists couldn't give two ****s about individuals like Musk, in fact any anarchist would tell you that deciding how wealthy an individual wants to become is entirely down to the individual and shouldn't have any arbitrary label or value placed on it by others. Besides which; space travel (the sole preserve of govt agencies up until now solely because they're the only group that by and large can have a space programme and provide social services at the same time) is exactly the thing that anarchists should be doing.
I agree with you that Elon is an asshole, but space travel shouldn't just be the preserve of groups or government agencies for no other good reason that they're the only folks who can afford it. People (individuals) should be free to decide that they're going to explore the cosmos.
If the ISS is “falling apart” (and I’ve no idea how true that claim is) surely that’s more reason why we need manned spaceflight to go sort it out?
Its been up there for a long time, and each module will have a serviceable life span, so it seems perfectly plausible to find parts heading towards the end of their usability and in need of replacement or decommissioning.
None of which make it a failure in any way, I suspect were quite some way away from being able to build stuff that will last even as long as a human lifetime and be complex enough to support human life even in short temporary habitats like ISS.
Edit, e.g.
The exterior surface of the ISS regularly experiences temperature shifts from -120 degrees Celsius (-184 degrees Fahrenheit) to 120 degrees Celsius (248 degrees Fahrenheit) as it travels around the Earth passing from sunlight to shadow. These fluctuations cause expansion and contraction unevenly over the whole structure, weakening the hull needed to keep the crew safe.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-international-space-station-cant-operate-forever
but that’s exactly what “people” have said
Nope. You'll never find a single MMT advocate who says money can be created ad-infinitum. To save you the bother of a simple internet search (which no one ever seems to do), the idea of MMT is that the limits of the economy are set by the productive capacity of the labour and raw materials it can use. Money is just the oil in the machine which the government can create as much or as little of as needed by the economy to maintain a productive equilibrium. The important bit, which is relevant to this debate, is how those resources are allocated and utilised. Sending billionaires into space to satisfy their egos is in my opinion not a good use of them.
There’s doubtless more stuff up there that needs human intervention to maintain.
Like what? I'm not aware of any recent space mission which has required human intervention on a satellite or scientific instrument. Satellites these days are single use machines. They launch them, use them, then let them become space junk or fall back to earth. If they stop working they just make a new one and launch it. It sounds very wasteful, but compared to the energy and effort required to send humans into space to repair or retrieve them it's probably more resource and cost efficient. Same goes for going to Mars.
in fact any anarchist would tell you that deciding how wealthy an individual wants to become is entirely down to the individual and shouldn’t have any arbitrary label or value placed on it by others.
You've been reading different stuff to me then. Think you're getting confused with that peculiar American libertarian version which calls itself anarcho-capitalism but has very little to do with traditional anarchist movements.
Anyway, off topic, back to penis rockets. I've still not seen a single justification beyond a liking for shiny gadgets, cool tech and the cult of personality around billionaires like Musk. As I said, it's no different to Pharoahs building pyramids.
Nope. You’ll never find a single MMT advocate who says money can be created ad-infinitum.
its certainly the impression you give in your answers
no different to Pharoahs building pyramids.
And we are still impressed by them today. Maybe in the future, in hundreds of years time our decedents will look back at Musk and his pals and be grateful for what they did.
Think you’re getting confused with that peculiar American libertarian version which calls itself anarcho-capitalism but has very little to do with traditional anarchist movements.
So who's in charge of making sure that anarchists don't deviate from the traditional orthodoxy?
Maybe in the future, in hundreds of years time our decedents will look back at Musk and his pals and be grateful for what they did.
unless they are on mars in a couple of hundred years any humans on earth will be scratching a subsistence living given what runaway climate change is expected to do to the planet. I doubt they will have time or knowledge to know what Musk did
Think you’re getting confused with that peculiar American libertarian version
Nope the fact that money is quantitative rather then qualitative is straight out of anarcho-communism handbooks of the Italians like Cafiero and Covelli. They wanted the collective ownership of production but were content for each individual to gain personally from that ownership, it's pretty orthodox anarchism. edit The only 'rule' is that wealth in of itself shouldn't have societal value placed on it.
and I'll ask again; why are you opposed to individuals exploring the Cosmos?
no different to Pharoahs building pyramids.
(Again) assuming that to be true,
So what? What's wrong with the pyramids?
How is extreme capitalism not an inevitable consequence of anarchy?
dazh
Full MemberNot snide, just stupid. Even in an MMT based system money is not infinite. Think you probably know that though.
I also know that it wouldn't need infinite money to do this, it's a drop in the bucket. Think you probably know that though.
And we are still impressed by them today.
I’d say we’re more curious and mystified as to the folly of an entire civilisation being mobilised to build monuments to leaders who subjugated and enslaved the population. The main difference between then and now is that the impact of the pyramids were relatively benign compared to the results of oligarchic capitalism in the form of billionaire penis extensions in space.
why are you opposed to individuals exploring the Cosmos?
I’ve already said (a couple of times) that I’m not as long as it’s sustainable. Currently it’s not.
How is it not?
Environmentally it could easily be offset by stopping frivolous leisure activities.
Economically it's almost not worth mentioning.
You just don't like it because you're too myopic to see the point. TBH I'm not sure how any of us are going to convince you otherwise.
How is it not?
I’ve already explained. But once again, the embodied carbon emissions of the financial empires of the billionaires pursuing private space travel make it completely unsustainable. When they can make their money sustainably, then I’ll have no problem with it.
If anuone has any good documentary suggests on the current programmes feel free to post.
Got some lingering virus thats giving me grief and need some TV interest.
I’d say we’re more curious and mystified as to the folly of an entire civilisation being mobilised to build monuments to leaders who subjugated and enslaved the population. The main difference between then and now is that the impact of the pyramids were relatively benign compared to the results of oligarchic capitalism in the form of billionaire penis extensions in space.
It's a myth that the pyramids were built by slaves, it's believed today that they were paid labourers. It was likely considered an honour to work on them. As I understand it (and I'm no expert here) Ancient Egyptian slavery was more like bonded labour, it was often to pay off debts rather than enforced subjugation.
You seem remarkably fixated on phallic objects, you've brought it up multiple times now. I'm not sure that's healthy.
It’s a myth that the pyramids were built by slaves
I'm not sure I said that? I said a civilisation was "mobilised". Some will have been slaves, others not. Although depends on how you define 'enslaved'. If you have to work in order to survive, often in jobs you wouldn't choose to do otherwise, are you a slave? How many of the people working for Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would fit that description? Quite a lot I would think.
You seem remarkably fixated on phallic objects
I'm fixated on pointing it out, because ultimately all this is a product of men trying to prove their virility and masculinity, and surprisingly not many people too bothered about a few men destroying the planet in the process.
Huh, interesting read here.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-egypt-s-great-pyramid-changed-civilization/
But his pyramid project, unprecedented in its scope, drove the development of these infrastructures to dizzying new heights and in so doing primed Egypt to flourish in the centuries to come.
Good old dose of science and engineering set them up well
Far from being treated little better than slaves, Merrer's crew and the rest of Heit el-Ghurab's estimated 6,000 residents appear to have lived quite comfortably. The findings suggest that after a long day's work of unloading the barges, the pyramid builders would have headed into town to eat. The smell of baking bread and brewing beer would have wafted from the bakeries a few hundred feet away, advertising what was on the menu.
Doesnt seem to bad a gig for the trades, maybe we should have built a Pyramid instead of HS2.
Interesting program on this eve(13/4) with Brian Cox on a week with the Mars rover. Should be interesting. Exclusive NASA stuff.
He says,trying to steer the thread away from Elon Musk or phallic shaped objects.
Anyway, off topic, back to penis rockets. I’ve still not seen a single justification beyond a liking for shiny gadgets, cool tech and the cult of personality around billionaires like Musk. As I said, it’s no different to Pharoahs building pyramids.
Then you’ve not looked at anything I’ve written or half the stuff posted in this thread never mind what’s on NASA’s strategic goals from 2010-2030, what’s been accomplished and how it’s now used.
I’m fixated on pointing it out, because ultimately all this is a product of men trying to prove their virility and masculinity, and surprisingly not many people too bothered about a few men destroying the planet in the process.
If that’s your take on it, then you’re an idiot with an edifice complex.
They’re not in this for willy waving, they’re in this to make more money. They’re venture capitalists, but with more reserves than most and the ability to keep it to themselves.
Do I agree with the goal? No. But I can’t argue with the results, nor the acceleration of technology development, and it’s there, evident for all to see. Bezos pioneered self landing rockets, though bizzarly, must gets the credit. That capability, coupled with the falcon programmes reusability has dropped by almost 90%, the costs to make an LEO launch.
LEO launches at this price point forced EVERYONE in the launcher business to adapt. Space based solar power, satellite constellations, lunar mining are all now possible due to this reduction.
Tesla’s effect is self evident. With it, there would be no EV revolution. Period.
You need to stop projecting your beliefs on to others actions.
I’m not sure I said that? I said a civilisation was “mobilised”. Some will have been slaves, others not. Although depends on how you define ‘enslaved’. If you have to work in order to survive, often in jobs you wouldn’t choose to do otherwise, are you a slave? How many of the people working for Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos would fit that description? Quite a lot I would think.
This is right up there with the dumbest things you’ve said and that’s saying something. Slaves would be worked to death and killed if they tried to quit. No one working for Tesla, SpaceX, Blue Origin or Amazon faces the same or even remotely close.
Are they dicks to the people that work for them? Often, yes. Should governments do something about it? Yes.
The interview with Musk showed how technically focussed he is, people problems don’t register as he can’t relate. That’s a failure and one which should be protected against, but it’s not. Not fully, anyway
Apollo mobilised a nation to achieve something. Nothing else i. The history of mankind has achieved so much outside of a war time environment and even then it’s arguable if there’s a better example