Space X

[JBird]

Elon rolls on

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-22/the-musk-show-in-washington-roils-rivals-as-fans-applaud.html

[yadayada]

A way to invest in this new possible space race is Gencorp? I was reading about them and saw that they seemed to have 2 competitors. But apparantly these are now all owned by Gencorp :D .

 

edit: Ok so basicly SpaceX makes their own rocket engines, and is actually a reason to not like Gencorp

[rkbabang]

Musk Takes On Boeing, Lockheed, GenCorp and the U.S. Air Force

 

It's hard not to like this guy, he's got chutzpah.

 

[rkbabang]

 

 

"Elon Musk appears to have taken to his official Twitter account to accuse a former Air Force official of having "likely" accepted a bribe to grant the exclusive black sat launch contract to United Launch Alliance."

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/23/musk_air_force_ula_spy_sat_launch_contract/

[yadayada]

http://www.universetoday.com/111534/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-unveil-manned-dragon-space-taxi-on-may-29/

 

Im curious if we will look back on this in 30 years or so like we look back on the internet in the early 90's.

 

What is actually out there that is really valuable to us if we cheapen spaceflight? If we could launch a decent large sized rocket for very cheap for like 100k, could we set up some sort of space mineral mining project to mine very valuable and rare elements that could be of big use here?

 

Only other thing I could think of is colonizing and try to create an atmosphere on another planet. But most planets in our solar system dont really seem suited for human life.

 

Also heard that if we do mining, a moon base could be very handy. Launch costs from a moon base are many times lower and less complicated then from earth because lower gravity. I thin ksomething like 97% of fuel used to go to mars would be to just take off from earth. Remaining 3% gets you to mars.

[value-is-what-you-get]

http://www.universetoday.com/111534/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-unveil-manned-dragon-space-taxi-on-may-29/

 

Im curious if we will look back on this in 30 years or so like we look back on the internet in the early 90's.

 

What is actually out there that is really valuable to us if we cheapen spaceflight? If we could launch a decent large sized rocket for very cheap for like 100k, could we set up some sort of space mineral mining project to mine very valuable and rare elements that could be of big use here?

 

Only other thing I could think of is colonizing and try to create an atmosphere on another planet. But most planets in our solar system dont really seem suited for human life.

 

Also heard that if we do mining, a moon base could be very handy. Launch costs from a moon base are many times lower and less complicated then from earth because lower gravity. I thin ksomething like 97% of fuel used to go to mars would be to just take off from earth. Remaining 3% gets you to mars.

 

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. 

The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. 

We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. 

 

Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject:

 

http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

 

[yadayada]

http://www.universetoday.com/111534/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-unveil-manned-dragon-space-taxi-on-may-29/

 

Im curious if we will look back on this in 30 years or so like we look back on the internet in the early 90's.

 

What is actually out there that is really valuable to us if we cheapen spaceflight? If we could launch a decent large sized rocket for very cheap for like 100k, could we set up some sort of space mineral mining project to mine very valuable and rare elements that could be of big use here?

 

Only other thing I could think of is colonizing and try to create an atmosphere on another planet. But most planets in our solar system dont really seem suited for human life.

 

Also heard that if we do mining, a moon base could be very handy. Launch costs from a moon base are many times lower and less complicated then from earth because lower gravity. I thin ksomething like 97% of fuel used to go to mars would be to just take off from earth. Remaining 3% gets you to mars.

 

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. 

The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. 

We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. 

 

Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject:

 

http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

yeah but it will stay expensive for your everyday man. Personally i would pay a lot of money to go to the ISS. I would kill my own mother to go there :D . But most people dont care, and it will stay too expensive untill we get something of value from outside earth, economically.

[value-is-what-you-get]

http://www.universetoday.com/111534/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-unveil-manned-dragon-space-taxi-on-may-29/

 

Im curious if we will look back on this in 30 years or so like we look back on the internet in the early 90's.

 

What is actually out there that is really valuable to us if we cheapen spaceflight? If we could launch a decent large sized rocket for very cheap for like 100k, could we set up some sort of space mineral mining project to mine very valuable and rare elements that could be of big use here?

 

Only other thing I could think of is colonizing and try to create an atmosphere on another planet. But most planets in our solar system dont really seem suited for human life.

 

Also heard that if we do mining, a moon base could be very handy. Launch costs from a moon base are many times lower and less complicated then from earth because lower gravity. I thin ksomething like 97% of fuel used to go to mars would be to just take off from earth. Remaining 3% gets you to mars.

 

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. 

The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. 

We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. 

 

Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject:

 

http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

yeah but it will stay expensive for your everyday man. Personally i would pay a lot of money to go to the ISS. I would kill my own mother to go there :D . But most people dont care, and it will stay too expensive untill we get something of value from outside earth, economically.

 

It's important only to send up world leaders.  The everyday man will reap the benefits of their adjusted psyche.  Perhaps a prerequisite to assuming power.  Would only require a tiny sliver of the $1.75 Trillion global defence spending budget.

[rkbabang]

http://www.universetoday.com/111534/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-to-unveil-manned-dragon-space-taxi-on-may-29/

 

Im curious if we will look back on this in 30 years or so like we look back on the internet in the early 90's.

 

What is actually out there that is really valuable to us if we cheapen spaceflight? If we could launch a decent large sized rocket for very cheap for like 100k, could we set up some sort of space mineral mining project to mine very valuable and rare elements that could be of big use here?

 

Only other thing I could think of is colonizing and try to create an atmosphere on another planet. But most planets in our solar system dont really seem suited for human life.

 

Also heard that if we do mining, a moon base could be very handy. Launch costs from a moon base are many times lower and less complicated then from earth because lower gravity. I thin ksomething like 97% of fuel used to go to mars would be to just take off from earth. Remaining 3% gets you to mars.

 

The more people that see Earth from space, the better. 

The more we learn there is nothing out there to support our survival anywhere but on Earth, the better. 

We launch people into space but guess what - we are all people in space - existing in a thin film on a blue eyeball we call Earth. 

 

Here are some first hand observations and quotes on the subject:

 

http://www.spacequotations.com/earth.html

yeah but it will stay expensive for your everyday man. Personally i would pay a lot of money to go to the ISS. I would kill my own mother to go there :D . But most people dont care, and it will stay too expensive untill we get something of value from outside earth, economically.

 

It's important only to send up world leaders.  The everyday man will reap the benefits of their adjusted psyche.  Perhaps a prerequisite to assuming power.  Would only require a tiny sliver of the $1.75 Trillion global defence spending budget.

 

Only if we keep them all up there and not let them back.  Sounds like a plan.

[yadayada]

hahaha yeah that sounds like a good plan.

[txlaw]

Check out the Dragon V2 unveil.  It's pretty damn cool.

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

[Morgan]

Check out the Dragon V2 unveil.  It's pretty damn cool.

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

 

This is so cool. Musk and his team are absolutely changing the world.

[JBird]

Check out the Dragon V2 unveil.  It's pretty damn cool.

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

 

Thanks for posting. Amazing stuff.

[Liberty]

Check out the Dragon V2 unveil.  It's pretty damn cool.

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

 

Thanks for posting. Amazing stuff.

 

Awesome. You just know this footage will be shown 30 years from now in a documentary about the second golden age of space flight!  :)

[yadayada]

Im really curious how Musk basicly went into space industry and is now doing it better then everyone else. There are some pretty smart people in NASA and other rocket company's right? I guess bureacracy is just that bad in those organizations? Musk is very smart, but I imagine that a lot of people at NASA and those rocket contracting company's are also very smart.

[Guest hellsten]

Im really curious how Musk basicly went into space industry and is now doing it better then everyone else. There are some pretty smart people in NASA and other rocket company's right? I guess bureacracy is just that bad in those organizations? Musk is very smart, but I imagine that a lot of people at NASA and those rocket contracting company's are also very smart.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-the-untold-story-2014-4

 

As at most startups, in Google’s first year there were no management layers between the CEO, Page, and the engineers. But as the company grew, it added a layer of managers, people who could meet with Page and the rest of Google’s senior executives and give the engineers prioritized orders and deadlines.

 

Page, now 28, hated it. Since Google hired only the most talented engineers, he thought that extra layer of supervision was not just unnecessary but also an impediment. He also suspected that Google’s project managers were steering engineers away from working on projects that were personally important to him. For example, Page had outlined a plan to scan all the world’s books and make them searchable online, but somehow no one was working on it. Page blamed the project managers.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman

 

Feynman's own investigation reveals a disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA's high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. One such concept was the determination of a safety factor.[5]

 

Hire talented engineers, give them a vision, remove obstacles to success, and get out of their way.

[rkbabang]

Hire talented engineers, give them a vision, remove obstacles to success, and get out of their way.

 

NASA did all four in the 1960's and got to the moon.  They may still hire talented engineers, but the other 3 steps are lacking.  You can have the best engineers on the planet, but if you weigh them down with meetings, paperwork, impossible requirements, managers that are more concerned with politics than science, and in general make them believe that they are spinning their wheels endlessly and are never going to get to do anything useful, you aren't going to get much out of them.  I always cringe when I hear people say that we (and when they say 'we' they mean 'the government') should be funding science to a greater extent.  What we (and when I say 'we' I mean the Earth's civilization consisting of individual people) really need is a complete and total separation of science and state.

 

 

[yadayada]

I guess this is a bit of a derail, but what completely blows my mind is that we let the government run education.

 

Isn't education basicly a product? You pay a certain price for people inserting information in your head in a certain way, by trying to motivate you (or the 12-18 year old you) and by explaining this in a certain way.

 

Just look how the free market basicly made every other service and product very good and cheaper. Why can't we let the market do education? Instead the most important thing (maybe after healthcare) is run by a horrible bureacracy that does not care at all about innovation. I think greenblatt is doing good things here, and the bureacrats and teachers unions are actively working against his superior and cheaper model. Makes me cringe.

 

But as soon as a politician mentions it, people point toward corrupt bankers and think horrible things will happen.

[rkbabang]

I guess this is a bit of a derail, but what completely blows my mind is that we let the government run education.

 

Isn't education basicly a product? You pay a certain price for people inserting information in your head in a certain way, by trying to motivate you (or the 12-18 year old you) and by explaining this in a certain way.

 

Just look how the free market basicly made every other service and product very good and cheaper. Why can't we let the market do education? Instead the most important thing (maybe after healthcare) is run by a horrible bureacracy that does not care at all about innovation. I think greenblatt is doing good things here, and the bureacrats and teachers unions are actively working against his superior and cheaper model. Makes me cringe.

 

But as soon as a politician mentions it, people point toward corrupt bankers and think horrible things will happen.

 

But then the poor wouldn't get the wonderful education that they currently do.  You'd have a situation where the middle class and rich kids would get a good to excellent education while the poor would be stuck in dangerous poor inner-city schools with teachers who are burned out or simply don't care, which would make for a poor learning environment. So these kids will simply not have the same opportunities to learn and better themselves as the wealthier kids do.  Of course under government run systems everything is rainbows and unicorns and just works perfectly because the law says it must.

 

 

EDIT:  I don't believe that ending public education would result in the above, I actually think everyone, including the poor, would be much better off. But I just wanted to point out that even if all of the worst fears of ending government funded education that people hold in their head's were all completely valid and came to be, it would only mean that private education would be the equivalent of the public system we have now.

 

Also in case you were not aware of this organization:  The Alliance for the Separation of School & State

[JBird]

Hire talented engineers, give them a vision, remove obstacles to success, and get out of their way.

 

What we (and when I say 'we' I mean the Earth's civilization consisting of individual people) really need is a complete and total separation of science and state.

 

+1

[yadayada]

I guess this is a bit of a derail, but what completely blows my mind is that we let the government run education.

 

Isn't education basicly a product? You pay a certain price for people inserting information in your head in a certain way, by trying to motivate you (or the 12-18 year old you) and by explaining this in a certain way.

 

Just look how the free market basicly made every other service and product very good and cheaper. Why can't we let the market do education? Instead the most important thing (maybe after healthcare) is run by a horrible bureacracy that does not care at all about innovation. I think greenblatt is doing good things here, and the bureacrats and teachers unions are actively working against his superior and cheaper model. Makes me cringe.

 

But as soon as a politician mentions it, people point toward corrupt bankers and think horrible things will happen.

 

But then the poor wouldn't get the wonderful education that they currently do.  You'd have a situation where the middle class and rich kids would get a good to excellent education while the poor would be stuck in dangerous poor inner-city schools with teachers who are burned out or simply don't care, which would make for a poor learning environment. So these kids will simply not have the same opportunities to learn and better themselves as the wealthier kids do.  Of course under government run systems everything is rainbows and unicorns and just works perfectly because the law says it must.

 

 

EDIT:  I don't believe that ending public education would result in the above, I actually think everyone, including the poor, would be much better off. But I just wanted to point out that even if all of the worst fears of ending government funded education that people hold in their head's were all completely valid and came to be, it would only mean that private education would be the equivalent of the public system we have now.

 

Also in case you were not aware of this organization:  The Alliance for the Separation of School & State

you can give subsidy? The less you make, the more subsidy you get. And get the banks to make an account where you can only send that money to schools? Just so poor people wont use it for other stuff.

 

Can also make certain laws that force schools to randomly take kids. So they wont handpick the best students to get the best results and ratings. 

[rkbabang]

I guess this is a bit of a derail, but what completely blows my mind is that we let the government run education.

 

Isn't education basicly a product? You pay a certain price for people inserting information in your head in a certain way, by trying to motivate you (or the 12-18 year old you) and by explaining this in a certain way.

 

Just look how the free market basicly made every other service and product very good and cheaper. Why can't we let the market do education? Instead the most important thing (maybe after healthcare) is run by a horrible bureacracy that does not care at all about innovation. I think greenblatt is doing good things here, and the bureacrats and teachers unions are actively working against his superior and cheaper model. Makes me cringe.

 

But as soon as a politician mentions it, people point toward corrupt bankers and think horrible things will happen.

 

But then the poor wouldn't get the wonderful education that they currently do.  You'd have a situation where the middle class and rich kids would get a good to excellent education while the poor would be stuck in dangerous poor inner-city schools with teachers who are burned out or simply don't care, which would make for a poor learning environment. So these kids will simply not have the same opportunities to learn and better themselves as the wealthier kids do.  Of course under government run systems everything is rainbows and unicorns and just works perfectly because the law says it must.

 

 

EDIT:  I don't believe that ending public education would result in the above, I actually think everyone, including the poor, would be much better off. But I just wanted to point out that even if all of the worst fears of ending government funded education that people hold in their head's were all completely valid and came to be, it would only mean that private education would be the equivalent of the public system we have now.

 

Also in case you were not aware of this organization:  The Alliance for the Separation of School & State

you can give subsidy? The less you make, the more subsidy you get. And get the banks to make an account where you can only send that money to schools? Just so poor people wont use it for other stuff.

 

Can also make certain laws that force schools to randomly take kids. So they wont handpick the best students to get the best results and ratings. 

 

What government gives money to government wants to control.  Any type of voucher is just a backdoor way of controlling private institutions and eventually getting the teachers unions in there as a requirement.  How long before the unions convince the politicians that anyone being paid (however indirectly) with government money to teach children should be held to the same "high standards" as teachers in government schools are?  Would you want your child to be forced to go to school with gang-bangers?  Forced bussing isn't the answer.  If we really wanted to help the poor we'd end the war on drugs, but that isn't going to happen.  It's funny how people worry that some child will fall through the cracks in a private system, when the current situation is that whole sections of society are falling through a huge gaping hole.  This is the same whenever you talk about ending government control of anything.  If the private solution isn't a perfect utopia people would rather stick with a violently enforced government monopoly that is even worse, because it at least gives them the illusion of having some control.  Just pass another law (because magic words on paper are especially powerful, at least that is what they teach in government schools), vote for someone else (because choosing between 2 party stooges is a surefire way to make you feel like you are in control and all is well), steal more money to throw at the problems (Because there is nothing that politically controlled stolen funds can't solve) and maybe all the problems will be solved.  If not, there is always the next election to try again, there will be two more party picked candidates for you to pick from.

 

[yadayada]

So basicly we agree that the free market would do a lot better job. But where it will go wrong is corrupt government. Bureacracy stepping in and ending the party.

 

It seems a lot of these problems are political, the political system is broken at it's core. And before we let anything be regulated by free market, you first need to fix the lobbying problem.

[Guest hellsten]

So basicly we agree that the free market would do a lot better job. But where it will go wrong is corrupt government. Bureacracy stepping in and ending the party.

 

It seems a lot of these problems are political, the political system is broken at it's core. And before we let anything be regulated by free market, you first need to fix the lobbying problem.

 

Ayn Rand?

[yadayada]

So basicly we agree that the free market would do a lot better job. But where it will go wrong is corrupt government. Bureacracy stepping in and ending the party.

 

It seems a lot of these problems are political, the political system is broken at it's core. And before we let anything be regulated by free market, you first need to fix the lobbying problem.

 

Ayn Rand?

common sense?