Blue Origin launch

[Neil]

...happening in about 90mins...

[Tricky]

All I'm seeing across social media is people making snide comments about the evils of Amazon and the environmental effect of launching rockets, and how disgusting it is that Bezos has all this money while people are starving etc. I guess ordinary people aren't excited about space travel any more, or at least not when it's a rich person doing it.

[Neil]

All I'm seeing across social media is people making snide comments about the evils of Amazon and the environmental effect of launching rockets, and how disgusting it is that Bezos has all this money while people are starving etc. I guess ordinary people aren't excited about space travel any more, or at least not when it's a rich person doing it.

Typically feelies over facts virtue signalling. I suspect many of those folks are wannabe communists. ie: Happy to preach it, but not practice it.

The environmental effects of Blue Origin are negligible. Bezos is/was employing millions of people giving them an income. The fact he's spending his insane fortune on technology that could help space travel, rather than other agendas (see Mr Gates) should be considered a good thing!

[EvilNed]

I don't care either way.
But the thought of him shitting in a bag is a bit amusing.

[Neil]

I don't care either way.
But the thought of him shitting in a bag is a bit amusing.

On a 15min flight?

[JDP]

On a 15min flight?

I think that once the rocket started hauling ass straight up, it wouldn't take that long to use your "shitting pants", to use a Neganism.

[Neil]

All I'm seeing across social media is people making snide comments about the evils of Amazon and the environmental effect of launching rockets, and how disgusting it is that Bezos has all this money while people are starving etc. I guess ordinary people aren't excited about space travel any more, or at least not when it's a rich person doing it.

mmU5mUazMI4

[EvilNed]

mmU5mUazMI4

I have no idea what that guys argument is.

He bases his entire argument around certain assumptions that he never bothers to explain.

He's never struck me as very bright.

[Neil]

I have no idea what that guys argument is.

He bases his entire argument around certain assumptions that he never bothers to explain.

He's never struck me as very bright.
"... assumptions" - He quotes people (verbatim) and then explains why he disagrees. It's a fairly common approach?

He explains how these endeavours are improving things, and are not at the expense of things. ie: People are not starving because Bezzos went to space this week, as certain people are implying (such as Bernie Sanders).

[EvilNed]

I only watched the first five minutes then switched it off because he, as I said, makes a few assumptions and then base his arguments around that.
For instance, he assumes that opening up Private space travel is a good thing... Why?

He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization... Why?

Those are bold statements that I want an explanation too and I know enough that I'm not going to get that from him.

[Neil]

I only watched the first five minutes then switched it off because he, as I said, makes a few assumptions and then base his arguments around that.
For instance, he assumes that opening up Private space travel is a good thing... Why?

He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization... Why?

Those are bold statements that I want an explanation too and I know enough that I'm not going to get that from him.

Watch the entire thing before coming to an "assumption"? :) - ie: You declare he doesn't explain something when you only watch 5mins?

I'll field your issues/questions from what I recall him saying. So I may be a bit off/innacurate?

"Private space travel is a good thing" Private industry tends to move economies forwards more than Government - ie: The private sector tends to be more efficient than the public sector.
Lowering the price of space travel - These companies are reducing the cost of getting hardware (as well as people) into space, significantly. ie: Far more than for example NASA has managed, or probably will manage.
Private industry is NOT costing taxes, unlike for example NASA - ie: Their developments are not taking money from your pocket to fund themselves.
May even improve cost and travel times around the planet.
We may well need space travel as a salvation to the species, from a resource, technology, or literally survival POV.

"He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization" I really don't recall him saying that, or inferring that, at all? Especially as it seems a fairly ridiculious thing to suggest? Sure you didn't misunderstand/mishear something?

[EvilNed]

Watch the entire thing before coming to an "assumption"? :) - ie: You declare he doesn't explain something when you only watch 5mins?

I'll field your issues/questions from what I recall him saying. So I may be a bit off/innacurate?

"Private space travel is a good thing" Private industry tends to move economies forwards more than Government - ie: The private sector tends to be more efficient than the public sector.
Lowering the price of space travel - These companies are reducing the cost of getting hardware (as well as people) into space, significantly. ie: Far more than for example NASA has managed, or probably will manage.
Private industry is NOT costing taxes, unlike for example NASA - ie: Their developments are not taking money from your pocket to fund themselves.
May even improve cost and travel times around the planet.
We may well need space travel as a salvation to the species, from a resource, technology, or literally survival POV.

"He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization" I really don't recall him saying that, or inferring that, at all? Especially as it seems a fairly ridiculious thing to suggest? Sure you didn't misunderstand/mishear something?


I don't need to watch it, because you did it for me and it doesn't appear that he answers the questions at all.
You've listed five arguments, none of which answer the question I asked. Why spend money on space travel - at all - when there are clearly much more room for improvements down here.

I just expect more from somebody who blasts his mouth the way that guy did.

As for the Amazon thing, well, he says it. And it's in the first five minutes, because that's all i could bother with the guy.

[Neil]

I don't need to watch it, because you did it for me and it doesn't appear that he answers the questions at all.
You've listed five arguments, none of which answer the question I asked. Why spend money on space travel - at all - when there are clearly much more room for improvements down here.

I just expect more from somebody who blasts his mouth the way that guy did.

As for the Amazon thing, well, he says it. And it's in the first five minutes, because that's all i could bother with the guy.

"Why spend money on space travel - at all - when there are clearly much more room for improvements down here."

I'm confused as it seems clear to me? How is reducing the cost of space flight, not at the expense of your taxes, not a good thing?
How is reducing the cost of technology we rely on, not at the expense of your taxes, not a good thing?
How is indeed even developing technology that could be vital to the species, not at the expense of your taxes, not a good thing?


As for then, "when there are clearly much more room for improvements down here":- Are you suggesting we simply shouldn't pioneer in any technological area, at all, until anything and everything deemed as an "improvement down here" is addressed?
Many of the big tech pioneers do indeed (privately) plough plenty of their money into "improvements down here". Bezzos does and for example Elon Musk, who is pioneering SpaceX is also behind Tesla, which of course is obviously pioneering cleaner energy ("down here").



"As for the Amazon thing ['He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization'], well, he says it. And it's in the first five minutes"
I suspect you misheard or misinterpreted Shapiro's comment where he says although Bezzos gives away hundreds of millions of dollars, Amazon itself has done more good for the world than the large cheques Bezzos simply writes to charity.

I suspect you misheard that, maybe had a preconception of what you wanted to hear, and came away with the notion you did.

Again, happy for a time stamp pointing to, "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization".

[EvilNed]

It's in the first five minutes.

And no, Space travel is pretty far down the list of what we (as a species?) should be prioritizing.
We've created a world where so very, very few sit on so, so much. So much that it's not even realistic to suggest with a straight face that their money is private. After all, Amazon made it's millions by cheating the US Post office and getting US tax payers to pay for it's cheap delivery costs.

It's dumb, but I expect nothing else from humankind these days.

[JDP]

"As for the Amazon thing ['He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization'], well, he says it. And it's in the first five minutes"
I suspect you misheard or misinterpreted Shapiro's comment where he says although Bezzos gives away hundreds of millions of dollars, Amazon itself has done more good for the world than the large cheques Bezzos simply writes to charity.

I suspect you misheard that, maybe had a preconception of what you wanted to hear, and came away with the notion you did.

Again, happy for a time stamp pointing to, "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization".

He means what Shapiro says @4:40, namely: that he has done more good by building Amazon than all the money he has given to charity, which does imply that Amazon is more beneficial to society than charities. Not that I hate Amazon or anything like that (I find it very convenient to buy or sell some types of mechandise, just like I find eBay or Mercari very convenient for similar purposes, so I am not blasting such sites at all, I am all for free enterprise), but this sounds like an exaggerated claim. The number one beneficiary of Amazon still are the owners, not society at large.

[EvilNed]

He means what Shapiro says @4:40, namely: that he has done more good by building Amazon than all the money he has given to charity, which does imply that Amazon is more beneficial to society than charities. Not that I hate Amazon or anything like that (I find it very convenient to buy or sell some types of mechandise, just like I find eBay or Mercari very convenient for similar purposes, so I am not blasting such sites at all, I am all for free enterprise), but this sounds like an exaggerated claim. The number one beneficiary of Amazon still are the owners, not society at large.

It also implies that there was nothing else Bezos would have been able to do with his money.
It's his money, he should be able to do what he want with it. I'm only pointing out how narrow Ben Shapiro's mindset is. His rhetoric is based on a number of assumptions that he then builds his arguments upon - despite the assumptions being rather... Daft.

[Neil]

He means what Shapiro says @4:40, namely: that he has done more good by building Amazon than all the money he has given to charity, which does imply that Amazon is more beneficial to society than charities. Not that I hate Amazon or anything like that (I find it very convenient to buy or sell some types of mechandise, just like I find eBay or Mercari very convenient for similar purposes, so I am not blasting such sites at all, I am all for free enterprise), but this sounds like an exaggerated claim. The number one beneficiary of Amazon still are the owners, not society at large.

Understood - and that's what I suggested he misunderstood too. Because saying (repeatedly), "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization", is very different to saying, Amazon has done more good than (just) the cheques Bezzos has given to charity. It's important to note also, the only reason those cheques are even being written by Bezzos, is because of Amazon ;)

And the entire point of course centres on the fixation (being highlighted in that and other articles) that some people have with these current private space flight enterprises, that they must somehow be a bad thing, so say, "but world hunger?" It's simplistic, naive and rather disingenuous.


These private space ventures are important for a myriad of reasons, are being privately funded rather than via taxes, and to question their importance and funding, because of "down here first," while ignoring a bazillion other questionable antics going on, is again, simplistic, naive and rather disingenuous (& in truth even dangerous). IMHO.

[EvilNed]

My point is that Shapiro makes statements, assumptions and then bases his entire arguments on false truths. Already pointed out two examples.

[MinionZombie]

Shapiro's an insufferable arse whose approach to debate is "talk super fast and hope nobody picks apart what I'm saying".

I still cringe at his drubbing at the hands of Andrew Neil on the BBC, especially after Shapiro made the moronic assumption that Neil was leftwing (he's actually rightwing). Shapiro can make some good points here or there, whether one agrees or not, but oftentimes it's in the face of people far younger than him whose arguments are based on 'feelings over facts' (as you might say, Neil) and aren't suited to debating. Not that I think Shapiro is as skilled as he believes either, because, again, his style generally seems to just be 'bulldoze opponents with really fast talking'. A more gifted orator would know that doing a 'fast forward Bogart' is poor craft, and it suggests his arguments aren't as watertight as he tries to make them appear.

[Neil]

Shapiro's an insufferable arse whose approach to debate is "talk super fast and hope nobody picks apart what I'm saying".

I still cringe at his drubbing at the hands of Andrew Neil on the BBC, especially after Shapiro made the moronic assumption that Neil was leftwing (he's actually rightwing). Shapiro can make some good points here or there, whether one agrees or not, but oftentimes it's in the face of people far younger than him whose arguments are based on 'feelings over facts' (as you might say, Neil) and aren't suited to debating. Not that I think Shapiro is as skilled as he believes either, because, again, his style generally seems to just be 'bulldoze opponents with really fast talking'. A more gifted orator would know that doing a 'fast forward Bogart' is poor craft, and it suggests his arguments aren't as watertight as he tries to make them appear.

All fine... But if we take the case in hand (the discussion above), I'd say ad hominem attacks still doesn't mean it's logical to complain about what someone said, based on what they didn't actually say.... (ie: Shapiro did not say, "Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization". Which is what the criticism of him repeatedly was. And this then formed the gateway to other criticisms which were just as questionable.)

- - - Updated - - -


My point is that Shapiro makes statements, assumptions and then bases his entire arguments on false truths. Already pointed out two examples.

Sorry, but this is comically pot, kettle, black.

"false truths" - From the outset, you criticised him (repeatedly) for saying something he simply did not say.

"assumptions" - You followed it with other criticisms of him for not explaining a point ("why private space travel is a good thing"), when you openly admit only listening to a third of the article in question. And when I carefully listed all the points I could remember him making, strangely the criticism disappeared? ie: Were the points not logical or sensible? If not, then why not?

[EvilNed]

Sorry, but this is comically pot, kettle, black.

"false truths" - From the outset, you criticised him (repeatedly) for saying something he simply did not say.

"assumptions" - You followed it with other criticisms of him for not explaining a point, when you openly admit only listening to a third of the article in question. And when I carefully listed all the points I could remember him making, strangely the criticism disappeared? ie: Were the points (for "why private space travel is a good thing") not logical or sensible? If not, then why not?

Yeah, I only listened to a third of it because within the first third he managed to do exactly what I don't like about him.
I've already listed the grievances I have. I'm not really invested enough in this to go and look up the exact wording of the amazon claim, even though when I look at it (based on what JDP wrote) my point still stands.

He simply doesn't think his arguments through but goes the simple route of asserting something very forcefully and doesn't explain anything behind it.
Sure, he offers explanations. But the actual foundation of his assumption is just bullshit. As it often is.

Like this whole Private or Public Space exploration thing... Dude, that's not my problem. My problem is that it's a vanity project and I've yet to see anything trying to rationalize that part of it (succesfully).

Sorry I only watched a third of it, but Shapiro just isn't worth more of my time.

You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point.

[Neil]

Yeah, I only listened to a third of it because within the first third he managed to do exactly what I don't like about him.
I've already listed the grievances I have. I'm not really invested enough in this to go and look up the exact wording of the amazon claim, even though when I look at it (based on what JDP wrote) my point still stands.

He simply doesn't think his arguments through but goes the simple route of asserting something very forcefully and doesn't explain anything behind it.
Sure, he offers explanations. But the actual foundation of his assumption is just bullshit. As it often is.

Like this whole Private or Public Space exploration thing... Dude, that's not my problem. My problem is that it's a vanity project and I've yet to see anything trying to rationalize that part of it (succesfully).

Sorry I only watched a third of it, but Shapiro just isn't worth more of my time.

You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point.

You did indeed list your grievences:- Complaining about a comment he didn't actually make - "He assumes that Amazon has done more good to the world than any help organization." (You significantly altered/embellished his comment for some reason)
Complaining he didn't make points, when you didn't even listen for them. And when I listed them, you didn't even address them.


"You seem more irritated by the fact that I don't like him than my actual point." - What point? All you're doing is making it clear you don't like him, and you won't even address his (actual) points :)

Heck, I'll list some of the points again I remembered him making why private space travel is a good thing, for which you berated him for not making (even though he did). Feel free to discuss those for a change from character assassination?:- Private industry tends to move economies forwards more than Government - ie: The private sector tends to be more efficient than the public sector.
Lowering the price of space travel - These companies are reducing the cost of getting hardware (as well as people) into space, significantly. ie: Far more than for example NASA has managed, or probably will manage.
Private industry is NOT costing taxes, unlike for example NASA - ie: Their developments are not taking money from your pocket to fund themselves.
May even improve cost and travel times around the planet.
We may well need space travel as a salvation to the species, from a resource, technology, or literally survival POV.

^ Help get this thread back on topic and discuss those?

ps: "My problem is that it's a vanity project" - Elon Musk literally started SpaceX for species survival reasons. Bezzos hopes it is for the potential betterment of the ecology. If that's vanity projects, we need more of them.

[EvilNed]

I think you misunderstood me.
My grievance is with him making assumptions and then basing his arguments around them. He's not really someone I would look to do defend anything, because there's no substance and very little thought put into his arguments. His main driving points is to prove others wrong rather than to actually consider all the options. :)

I feel like this is kinda going nowhere and I'm not really interested in arguing against Shapiro, who's faults I've already made clear. Good thing you like him.

Great job, Jeff! Wish you'd spent your money on something worthwhile instead, but hey... Billionaires and their vanity projects. Do your thing.

And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point... ;)

[Neil]

I think you misunderstood me.
My grievance is with him making assumptions and then basing his arguments around them. He's not really someone I would look to do defend anything, because there's no substance and very little thought put into his arguments. His main driving points is to prove others wrong rather than to actually consider all the options. :)

I feel like this is kinda going nowhere and I'm not really interested in arguing against Shapiro, who's faults I've already made clear. Good thing you like him.

Great job, Jeff! Wish you'd spent your money on something worthwhile instead, but hey... Billionaires and their vanity projects. Do your thing.

And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point... ;)

We are going around in circles, which is kind of hard not to do when you keep saying the likes of, "who's faults I've already made clear", when in reality all that is clear is you've (repeatedly) significantly misquoted him, and (repeatedly) ignored the points he has made, while underlined it all with a sweeping generalisation of, "billionaires and their vanity projects."

I'm still bemused how trying to progress/help the human race at ones own expense/effort is worthy of belittling as a "vanity project." But hey ho...


ps: "And just because Elon Musk says something doesn't mean I have to agree with it or think he's got a point" - Absolutely true. But if someone were to then ask you to explain why, it would be useful if you could do so based on something he did say, rather than didn't. Or suggest it was due him not justifying/explaining something, when he did ;)

[EvilNed]

Well, I think Space exploration is a vanity project. I think those resources are put to better use elsewhere. By far.

But hey, go ahead. Blast yourself into space while the divide between rich and poor grows greater... (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/01/amazon-workers-fighting-for-their-rights)

Just don't tell me it's for the greater good, cause I'm not buying it.

[Neil]

Well, I think Space exploration is a vanity project. I think those resources are put to better use elsewhere. By far.

But hey, go ahead. Blast yourself into space while the divide between rich and poor grows greater... (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/01/amazon-workers-fighting-for-their-rights)

Just don't tell me it's for the greater good, cause I'm not buying it.

We have NO choice but to move into space. None. Unless of course your proposal is in the long term as a species we are happy to languish in nigh on medieval societies. Because without moving into space, that's the sort of outcome.

So we must get a serious footing in space, ASAP, for multiple reasons:-

Resources - We will need more resources, and will need them from beyond the Earth.
Ecology - The more industry we can move off the Earth, the better.
Technology - The space industry helps improve technology (& economy).
The survival of the species (or at least millions of lives) - Yes, it could literally be that black and white. On a number of different fronts.


"the divide between rich and poor grows greater..." - Consider that statement... Made at a time when more people, have a better standard of living, than ever before. So, how meaningful is a statement like that, and how much is it just hyperbole?

[EvilNed]

We have NO choice but to move into space. None.

Disagree.

[Neil]

Disagree.

So by inference, you're OK with:-
1) With resources depleting, we risk losing technological advancement, and indeed even risk slipping backwards? ie: Rare metals etc will run out. Note: Reduced technology risks reduced quality of life/standard of living.
2) The prospect that a mass extinction event could wipe out all of humanity on Earth - Albeit natural or man-made. All gone. End of.
3) Large asteroid impacts could kill millions of people - It's not if. It's when! These could be detected and more important prevented with a sufficiently advanced space program.

(Or do you have different views or disagree with those?)

So ignoring all the technological and quality of life improvements that privately funded space development could bring, you don't see the above as important, if not a necessity?

[EvilNed]

So by inference, you're OK with:-
1) With resources depleting, we risk losing technological advancement, and indeed even risk slipping backwards? ie: Rare metals etc will run out. Note: Reduced technology risks reduced quality of life/standard of living.
2) The prospect that a mass extinction event could wipe out all of humanity on Earth - Albeit natural or man-made. All gone. End of.
3) Large asteroid impacts could kill millions of people - It's not if. It's when! These could be detected and more important prevented with a sufficiently advanced space program.

(Or do you have different views or disagree with those?)

So ignoring all the technological and quality of life improvements that privately funded space development could bring, you don't see the above as important, if not a necessity?

A Very Shapiro-esque assumption to make, to not even consider alternatives... ;)

No, but I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues - nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either.
To suggest that I do agree with that would be to support the exploitation of the masses (more so than ever before, in the history of mankind) for the enrichment of the very, very few.

I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield, but I do believe that there are better ways to reach those ends without a dick measuring competetion by the top 1%.

[Neil]

A Very Shapiro-esque assumption to make, to not even consider alternatives... ;)

No, but I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues - nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either.
To suggest that I do agree with that would be to support the exploitation of the masses (more so than ever before, in the history of mankind) for the enrichment of the very, very few.

I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield, but I do believe that there are better ways to reach those ends without a dick measuring competetion by the top 1%.

As well as not listening to what you're commenting on, do you not read what you're commenting on? Because you suggest, "to not even consider alternatives" - But how much more considerate to alternative can I be than asking, "do you have different views..."? I'm literally asking you... :)

"I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues"
How would you suggest we improve space travel then to solve those issues? More taxes to fund NASA, who is stagnated and not as effective or cost effective as some of these private space ventures? You realise NASA is relying more and more on private space ventures themselves to become more cost effective? Their SLS development is a tour de force of expensive, sluggish, rather unimaginative development.

"nor do I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either"
No one said they were. Are you suggesting everyone and everything should be dedicated to "pressing thing number one", before then moving on to "pressing thing number two"?

Mind you, personally, I'd suggest preventing a mass extinction event, or the death of millions, should require a modicum of attention when we have the capability to do so, at in reality such a small effort and cost. Continuing to simply cross fingers seems rather naive.

"I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield"
And there may be a glimpse at the core of the issue...

[EvilNed]

As well as not listening to what you're commenting on, do you read what you're commenting on? Because you suggest, "to not even consider alternatives" - But how much more considerate to alternative can I be than asking, "do you have different views..."? I'm literally asking you... :)

"I don't believe billionaire vanity projects are the best way to solve those issues"
How would you suggest we improve space travel then to solve those issues? More taxes to fund NASA, who is stagnated and not as effective or cost effective as some of these private space ventures? You realise NASA is relying more and more on private space ventures themselves to become more cost effective?

"I believe that they're necessarily the most pressing issues either"
No one said it was. But should everyone and everything be dedicated to "pressing thing number one", before then moving on to "pressing thing number two"?

Mind you, personally I'd suggest a mass extinction event, should require a modicum of attention when we have the capability to do so. Simply crossing fingers seems rather naive.

"I have no idea what technological or quality of life improvements that space travel can yield"
And there may be the core of the problem...

Anyway, this isn't going anywhere and I kinda feel like I'm not getting through to you.
Appreciate that you like space and all, but I don't see anything constructive coming out of these vanity projects that couldn't have been solved in any number of other ways.

Bezos can do what he wants with his money, it's his. All I'm saying is Shapiro's points are easily picked apart and he's not really worth my time.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the core of the problem is probably that we have massively different ideas on what challenges mankind is facing.

[Neil]

I don't see anything constructive coming out of these vanity projects that couldn't have been solved in any number of other ways.So can I ask (again) what are these other ways of solving them?:- How do we get more rare elements, once they're all but used up on Earth?
How do we prevent that next large asteroid from hitting Earth (killing millions, or worse)? Cross fingers humanity isn't decimated needlessly?
How do we ideally put as much industry as possible into space to prevent it being required on Earth?


Shapiro's points are easily picked apartPossibly. If only you'd actually do it. Because thus far you picked fault with a point he didn't even make; You instead misquoted him, significantly. And then you picked fault saying he didn't explain his position, which he did. Some of the points are akin to the one above, so I'm keen to see where/how you disagree.



I'd like to add that the core of the problem is probably that we have massively different ideas on what challenges mankind is facing.
And that's uber fine. There are indeed a myriad from economic, to ecological, to political. All need attention... And some of them are above...

[EvilNed]

So can I ask (again) what are these other ways of solving them?:- How do we get more rare elements, once they're all but used up on Earth?
How do we prevent that next large asteroid from hitting Earth (killing millions, or worse)? Cross fingers humanity isn't decimated needlessly?
How do we ideally put as much industry as possible into space to prevent it being required on Earth?

The problem with debating on the internet is that you can always go deeper and deeper into a subject. There is no end.
The reason I'm not answering is because I don't agree with the assertions that these points are something we need to fix or look into, especially not given the situation we're in down here. So arguing the points is not really in my interest. All I can say is; We don't need to solve them right now.

[Neil]

The problem with debating on the internet is that you can always go deeper and deeper into a subject. There is no end.
The reason I'm not answering is because I don't agree with the assertions that these points are something we need to fix or look into, especially not given the situation we're in down here. So arguing the points is not really in my interest. All I can say is; We don't need to solve them right now.

OK... A fingers crossed approach is it is then for the Tunguska event we may be overdue... Actually as it's potentially millions of lives or more, let's cross toes too. That seems wise :)

[JDP]

OK... A fingers crossed approach is it is then for the Tunguska event we may be overdue... Actually as it's potentially millions of lives or more, let's cross toes too. That seems wise :)

If something like that happens anytime in the near future, then we are simply screwed, private or government space programs notwithstanding. Current technology simply isn't at such a level to allow for taking any sizable amount of people into space and then to somewhere where they can keep a civilization going on. We have more chances of surviving such an event by going underground or underwater, since current technology could mobilize and sustain sizable numbers of people in those environments.

[EvilNed]

OK... A fingers crossed approach is it is then for the Tunguska event we may be overdue... Actually as it's potentially millions of lives or more, let's cross toes too. That seems wise :)

There are many more pressing issues down here which may lead to our extinction.

[Neil]

There are many more pressing issues down here which may lead to our extinction.
More pressing than millions of lives lost, or even our potential extinction, down here, today? We should ignore that, even when addressing it comes at potentially such a small outlay?

And it of course continues to be a terribly cryptic and difficult conversation when any and all points are simply parried away with a vague and mysterious, "other more pressing issues".... But all we can determine is, what ever they are, it of course means investment in space, and what it can offer the species on so many levels, should stop, because all that effort should instead be dedicated to _______?

I think it's clear, that without specifics to explain/justify/validate points, we're wasting out time.

- - - Updated - - -


If something like that happens anytime in the near future, then we are simply screwed, private or government space programs notwithstanding. Current technology simply isn't at such a level to allow for taking any sizable amount of people into space and then to somewhere where they can keep a civilization going on. We have more chances of surviving such an event by going underground or underwater, since current technology could mobilize and sustain sizable numbers of people in those environments.

The most simple approach of stopping another large impact, which could easily kill millions (or worse), are:-
1) Detecting the object soon enough.
2) Getting a craft to that object soon enough, because making a tiny change to its path soon enough, means a big change in its path later.

Both of those are achievable, and the kind of quick turn around and strong footing in space required by (2) is exactly what the private space enterprises are beginning to offer us.

Another large impact will happen, and we're simply playing Russian roulette at the moment day to day. If a small amount of effort can mean we prevent it? Great! And if that same effort offers a multitude of other benefits at the same time? Great!

Seems to me that at a time when we can finally take action to potentially save millions of lives, or indeed protect the entire species, and when that action is also in truth so minor and small (it's not even costing tax dollars), not doing so ASAP is just madness.

ps: This thinking is the entire reason Musk has dedicated himself to SpaceX. So I find it odd when such a grand venture is described (belittled), as a "vanity project."

[EvilNed]

More pressing than millions of lives lost, or even our potential extinction, down here, today? We should ignore that, even when addressing it comes at potentially such a small outlay?


Yes of course.
I don't buy into the whole cataclysmic excinction level event argument because if that's what you're worried about you should look into saving the polar ice caps, stopping yellowstone from erupting, educating people about the benefits of GMO or why not - the godsend of them all - cheap technology that desalinate salt water?

None of them are as sexy as flying into space, mind you. Cause fuck yeah, rockets.

[JDP]

The most simple approach of stopping another large impact, which could easily kill millions (or worse), are:-
1) Detecting the object soon enough.
2) Getting a craft to that object soon enough, because making a tiny change to its path soon enough, means a big change in its path later.

Both of those are achievable, and the kind of quick turn around and strong footing in space required by (2) is exactly what the private space enterprises are beginning to offer us.

Another large impact will happen, and we're simply playing Russian roulette at the moment day to day. If a small amount of effort can mean we prevent it? Great! And if that same effort offers a multitude of other benefits at the same time? Great!

Seems to me that at a time when we can finally take action to potentially save millions of lives, or indeed protect the entire species, and when that action is also in truth so minor and small (it's not even costing tax dollars), not doing so ASAP is just madness.

ps: This thinking is the entire reason Musk has dedicated himself to SpaceX. So I find it odd when such a grand venture is described (belittled), as a "vanity project."

If you haven't seen it already, you should watch Meteor (1979).

[MinionZombie]

But how specifically does Bezos launching himself into space for a jolly result in the ability to detect and blow up an incoming asteroid?

The optics of this is what's the problem, at least in this discussion on HPOTD perhaps. They've not done enough PR work to explain the future implications of the likes of Blue Origin et al, because it just looks like a staggeringly wealthy guy playing astronaut while the people working in his fulfilment centres are routinely discouraged from forming a union, or truly gaining upwards movement on the job ladder, or even getting a decent break to have a comfortable lunch and drop the kids off at the pool.

SpaceX has done a slightly better job - e.g. working on re-usable rockets, satellite-based superfast Internet connectivity, etc.

Blue Origin looks far too much like a billionnaire's jolly in a cock-shaped rocket, regardless of intent or future implications, and after the hellish time we've all been having globally in the last 18 months, it's ... well... :rockbrow:

[Neil]

But how specifically does Bezos launching himself into space for a jolly result in the ability to detect and blow up an incoming asteroid?It's a private industry so needs to entice paying customers (at this stage). Would you suggest they try and pitch the journey as dull? The fact Bezos actually put his own life on the line for the first flight is a good thing.

After Blue Origin will no doubt come more and more projects, getting a bigger and bigger footing in space. Which is what we of course need to "detect and blow up an incoming asteroid."


The optics of this is what's the problem, at least in this discussion on HPOTD perhaps. They've not done enough PR work to explain the future implications of the likes of Blue Origin et al, because it just looks like a staggeringly wealthy guy playing astronaut while the people working in his fulfilment centres are routinely discouraged from forming a union, or truly gaining upwards movement on the job ladder, or even getting a decent break to have a comfortable lunch and drop the kids off at the pool.

SpaceX has done a slightly better job - e.g. working on re-usable rockets, satellite-based superfast Internet connectivity, etc.

Blue Origin looks far too much like a billionnaire's jolly in a cock-shaped rocket, regardless of intent or future implications, and after the hellish time we've all been having globally in the last 18 months, it's ... well... :rockbrow:Guess it depends on what's reported. What you choose to digest. And of course, ones own personal choice how to view things as a whole?

But, just a click away, does this feel like someone on a vanity project, or someone with hopefully a greater goal? Just one click - https://www.blueorigin.com/our-mission

Is it just fake PR? Who knows... But I don't believe so...

"This is the most important work I'm doing" - Jeff Bezos




If you haven't seen it already, you should watch Meteor (1979).

A classic! But IMHO, "Deep Impact" for the win...




a cock-shaped rocketDon't know what you're talking about you pervert!

xW-Ch590IsI

[Neil]

So, William Shatner going up soon... Fingers crossed.

[JDP]

So, William Shatner going up soon... Fingers crossed.

"Beam my diapers up, Scotty."

[Neil]

Shatner looked in good shape TBH. Noticed him putting his shoes on/covers on, and he put his feet on his knees. Not bad at 90!

[shootemindehead]

He's the only one coming back though.



https://i.ibb.co/tHv750j/Untitled-1.jpg

[Neil]

^ Oh tell me that was a geniune gag! Too good to be true!

[shootemindehead]

Unfortunately, it's just a little bit of creative Photoshoping, but still...



https://assets-jpcust.jwpsrv.com/thumbnails/m4a0of79-720.jpg

[Neil]

Oh well. Funny none the less :)