Forum menu
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?