Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
#26

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 03:30 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: “I want to thank every Amazon employee and customer because you guys paid for this"

This quote is going to be iconic.  Widening wealth gap has been creeping and accelerating for some time now, but I wonder if looking back on this 100 years from now these rich guy space trips will be seen as landmark kind of "aha" moments, real zeitgeist-shifters.  Nah, probably not.

Does that come with free returns?
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#27

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 12:58 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 12:37 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Some people would throw away babies who don't help support the family.

So you want a full-blown space-tourism industry?  I don't.  I think it's an embarrassment, especially considering how it's being hyped.  It's just rich people lying to themselves again.  They don't need a space trip to feel sometime or other.  They need to think about what they're doing.

My personal "Rule of So" says that any response that begins with "So..." should be scrutinized for a strawman argument. Very reliable rule.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#28

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
I don't get this whole stupid thing. This was big news 60 years ago when Alan Shepard was the first man who touched outerspace.   Why is this even noteworthy today?  Because they're billionaires?  Big woop.
                                                         T4618
The following 3 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Alan V, Inkubus, Gwaithmir
Reply
#29

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 04:01 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 12:58 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 12:37 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Some people would throw away babies who don't help support the family.

So you want a full-blown space-tourism industry?  I don't.  I think it's an embarrassment, especially considering how it's being hyped.  It's just rich people lying to themselves again.  They don't need a space trip to feel sometime or other.  They need to think about what they're doing.

My personal "Rule of So" says that any response that begins with "So..." should be scrutinized for a strawman argument. Very reliable rule.

You are the person who used an ambiguous metaphor.  I was just giving it my best shot.

If you don't want a real conversation, fine.   hobo
Reply
#30

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
I don't want strawmen, thank you very much.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#31

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 04:40 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I don't want strawmen, thank you very much.

It wasn't a strawman if it was a question looking for an answer.
Reply
#32

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 04:43 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 04:40 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I don't want strawmen, thank you very much.

It wasn't a strawman if it was a question looking for an answer.

You stated a position you claim I hold. Fuck off.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#33

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 06:14 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 04:43 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 04:40 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I don't want strawmen, thank you very much.

It wasn't a strawman if it was a question looking for an answer.

You stated a position you claim I hold. Fuck off.

And you misinterpreted what I wrote because of a "so" rule of thumb which was inaccurately applied.  Too bad.
Reply
#34

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
You can't undig that hole.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#35

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
Both of you shut the fuck up!

And I've had an unexpected delivery of pungent parsley. So are either of you saying Brian Cox 'the Planets, of Fifth Element? Again.

Please advise soonest.

Edit. the Telly at nine that is.
Reply
#36

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 12:37 PM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 12:20 PM)trdsf Wrote: Elon Musk is at least delivering cargo and crews to the ISS.  Bezos and Branson are just dicking around with Roman candles and paper planes.
And Musk had a head start.

Some people would throw away babies who don't help support the family.
I don't think the suborbital hop model is sustainable, and I don't think it's going to get them the financial or technical leverage to do anything further.  Musk's system is sustainable—and more importantly, expandable.  He's actually getting things done while Branson and Bezos are just swinging their dicks at each other.  The only service they're actually providing is keeping people interested in space, but even that is only really in the same way that people follow celebrity "news".
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 1 user Likes trdsf's post:
  • Inkubus
Reply
#37

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 04:03 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I don't get this whole stupid thing. This was big news 60 years ago when Alan Shepard was the first man who touched outerspace.   Why is this even noteworthy today?  Because they're billionaires?  Big woop.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space.  Shepard was only the first American in space, and he didn't even achieve orbit, which Gagarin had.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Astreja
Reply
#38

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 07:39 PM)Inkubus Wrote: Both of you shut the fuck up!

Va fongula.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#39

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 04:03 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I don't get this whole stupid thing. This was big news 60 years ago when Alan Shepard was the first man who touched outerspace.   Why is this even noteworthy today?  Because they're billionaires?  Big woop.
It is noteworthy in that access to space is no longer the exclusive domain of governments and government program—although Branson and Bezos' "space" is the equivalent of letting the surf wash over your feet and then saying you've been in the ocean.  It remains to be seen whether this evolves into an actual gateway to space, or becomes yet another private playground for millionaires and billionaires.  There's a vast difference between the commercialization of space, and the privatization of space.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 3 users Like trdsf's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Thumpalumpacus, Inkubus
Reply
#40

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 08:51 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 04:03 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I don't get this whole stupid thing. This was big news 60 years ago when Alan Shepard was the first man who touched outerspace.   Why is this even noteworthy today?  Because they're billionaires?  Big woop.
It is noteworthy in that access to space is no longer the exclusive domain of governments and government program—although Branson and Bezos' "space" is the equivalent of letting the surf wash over your feet and then saying you've been in the ocean.  It remains to be seen whether this evolves into an actual gateway to space, or becomes yet another private playground for millionaires and billionaires.  There's a vast difference between the commercialization of space, and the privatization of space.

Don't we still need reusable rockets for the cost to drastically reduce also?
Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply
#41

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 08:39 PM)trdsf Wrote: I don't think the suborbital hop model is sustainable, and I don't think it's going to get them the financial or technical leverage to do anything further. 

Musk with his orbital-resupply angle stands a chance of carving some profits.

I think the Branson thing of a suborbital space-plane may at least provide the possibility of profit, flying the hyper-rich from Beijing to London in 30 minutes or whatever, a sort of 21st-century Concorde for either same-day hard-cargo/passenger delivery or on the other hand the cachet of having flown on an exotic beast. Whether or not that's economically viable or not remains to be seen.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#42

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
English speakers bastardising other languages never ceases to leave me speechless. Though it should have stopped right after I came across "vamoose" Deadpan Coffee Drinker
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
Reply
#43

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 09:45 PM)Vera Wrote: English speakers bastardising other languages never ceases to leave me speechless. Though it should have stopped right after I came across "vamoose" Deadpan Coffee Drinker

If you're referring to me, I served three years in Sicily and learned to cuss with WWII veterans. Dance
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
Reply
#44

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
^Pff. I had people who were in the service ask me (before I joined the Navy) what branch I served in. It goes all the way back to admonitions about my sulfurous language being mentioned in my high school year book!  Dance
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
The following 1 user Likes Fireball's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#45

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 09:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 08:39 PM)trdsf Wrote: I don't think the suborbital hop model is sustainable, and I don't think it's going to get them the financial or technical leverage to do anything further. 
Musk with his orbital-resupply angle stands a chance of carving some profits.

I think the Branson thing of a suborbital space-plane may at least provide the possibility of profit, flying the hyper-rich from Beijing to London in 30 minutes or whatever, a sort of 21st-century Concorde for either same-day hard-cargo/passenger delivery or on the other hand the cachet of having flown on an exotic beast. Whether or not that's economically viable or not remains to be seen.
If Branson's even heading in that direction anymore.  He has the advantage of not needing a launchpad and being able to land on a more or less normal runway—at least if SpaceShipTwo requires a special length of landing strip, I don't know about it.

Up to this point, SpaceShipTwo has never flown as high as SpaceShipOne did.  SpaceShipOne crossed the Kármán Line, but SpaceShipTwo never has.  The next iteration of the craft, SpaceShip III, was originally designed for point-to-point flights, London to Sydney in two hours, that sort of thing... except they dialed it all the way back to just suborbital hops again.

Branson is so far going the route of reduced expectations, and point-to-point suborbital transit is falling into the same class as artificial intelligence and fusion power reactors—always ten to twenty years in the future, no matter what year one makes the prediction.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 1 user Likes trdsf's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#46

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-21-2021, 09:17 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 08:51 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(07-21-2021, 04:03 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I don't get this whole stupid thing. This was big news 60 years ago when Alan Shepard was the first man who touched outerspace.   Why is this even noteworthy today?  Because they're billionaires?  Big woop.
It is noteworthy in that access to space is no longer the exclusive domain of governments and government program—although Branson and Bezos' "space" is the equivalent of letting the surf wash over your feet and then saying you've been in the ocean.  It remains to be seen whether this evolves into an actual gateway to space, or becomes yet another private playground for millionaires and billionaires.  There's a vast difference between the commercialization of space, and the privatization of space.
Don't we still need reusable rockets for the cost to drastically reduce also?
Absolutely.  But if all they're going to be used for is dipping a toe in the ocean, so to speak, then Bezos is not the face of the future.  Musk is already putting his reusables to useful work, and Branson is bypassing the need for a traditional rocket entirely.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 1 user Likes trdsf's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#47

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-22-2021, 12:02 AM)Fireball Wrote: ^Pff. I had people who were in the service ask me (before I joined the Navy) what branch I served in. It goes all the way back to admonitions about my sulfurous language being mentioned in my high school year book!  Dance

I've had strikers ask me to help remove the paint on a bulkhead. Pro tip: Stand back about ten feet or get hit with paint chips.
  [Image: attachment.php?aid=31] Dog  
The following 1 user Likes Gawdzilla Sama's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#48

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-22-2021, 12:07 AM)trdsf Wrote: If Branson's even heading in that direction anymore.  He has the advantage of not needing a launchpad and being able to land on a more or less normal runway—at least if SpaceShipTwo requires a special length of landing strip, I don't know about it.

Up to this point, SpaceShipTwo has never flown as high as SpaceShipOne did.  SpaceShipOne crossed the Kármán Line, but SpaceShipTwo never has.  The next iteration of the craft, SpaceShip III, was originally designed for point-to-point flights, London to Sydney in two hours, that sort of thing... except they dialed it all the way back to just suborbital hops again.

Branson is so far going the route of reduced expectations, and point-to-point suborbital transit is falling into the same class as artificial intelligence and fusion power reactors—always ten to twenty years in the future, no matter what year one makes the prediction.

And to be perfectly fair, I don't really regard Branson's efforts as space-flight myself. I think it's more in line with German experimental thinking about skipping a V-2 off the boundary to enhance range while maintaining speed, and think that that's what Branson is chasing -- entirely suborbital, mainly unballistic, and in its own way the extreme of aerodynamics; using atmospheric layering rather than ballistic flight-plans for range.

I think Branson's reduced expectations hold more promise for moving people or cargo from point A to point B (on Earth) than either Bezos (who seems to be selling a thrill-ride) or Musk (who seems to be aiming at the space-cargo market, but has to wave his dick this month as well).
Freedom isn't free.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • trdsf, Inkubus
Reply
#49

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-22-2021, 12:57 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(07-22-2021, 12:07 AM)trdsf Wrote: If Branson's even heading in that direction anymore.  He has the advantage of not needing a launchpad and being able to land on a more or less normal runway—at least if SpaceShipTwo requires a special length of landing strip, I don't know about it.

Up to this point, SpaceShipTwo has never flown as high as SpaceShipOne did.  SpaceShipOne crossed the Kármán Line, but SpaceShipTwo never has.  The next iteration of the craft, SpaceShip III, was originally designed for point-to-point flights, London to Sydney in two hours, that sort of thing... except they dialed it all the way back to just suborbital hops again.

Branson is so far going the route of reduced expectations, and point-to-point suborbital transit is falling into the same class as artificial intelligence and fusion power reactors—always ten to twenty years in the future, no matter what year one makes the prediction.

And to be perfectly fair, I don't really regard Branson's efforts as space-flight myself. I think it's more in line with German experimental thinking about skipping a V-2 off the boundary to enhance range while maintaining speed, and think that that's what Branson is chasing -- entirely suborbital, mainly unballistic, and in its own way the extreme of aerodynamics; using atmospheric layering rather than ballistic flight-plans for range.

I think Branson's reduced expectations hold more promise for moving people or cargo from point A to point B (on Earth) than either Bezos (who seems to be selling a thrill-ride) or Musk (who seems to be aiming at the space-cargo market, but has to wave his dick this month as well).
Musk has made no secret of wanting to go to the Moon and Mars (himself), so I think he's in it for more than just hauling cargo and personnel to the ISS.  That's just the limits of the business right now.  His remark "I want to die on Mars, just not on impact" at least has the best-and-the-brightest, let's-do-this attitude.  Don't forget he landed (no pun intended) the Artemis contract—barring changes, it'll be one of his craft returning people to the Moon's surface.  NASA's current plan is a little complicated (SLS/Orion to lunar orbit and Gateway, then SpaceX Starship to the surface) but if they're serious about building Gateway, it's going to have to be complicated at first, with the benefit of making it easier later.

Branson's main problem right now is that if his model for suborbital flight can't be scaled up to handle passengers and cargo, then he's at a dead end too—and that his system looks no further than low Earth orbit even if it does.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Inkubus, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#50

obscenely rich wanker off on a jolly.
(07-22-2021, 01:41 AM)trdsf Wrote: Musk has made no secret of wanting to go to the Moon and Mars (himself), so I think he's in it for more than just hauling cargo and personnel to the ISS.  That's just the limits of the business right now.  His remark "I want to die on Mars, just not on impact" at least has the best-and-the-brightest, let's-do-this attitude.  Don't forget he landed (no pun intended) the Artemis contract—barring changes, it'll be one of his craft returning people to the Moon's surface.  NASA's current plan is a little complicated (SLS/Orion to lunar orbit and Gateway, then SpaceX Starship to the surface) but if they're serious about building Gateway, it's going to have to be complicated at first, with the benefit of making it easier later.

Branson's main problem right now is that if his model for suborbital flight can't be scaled up to handle passengers and cargo, then he's at a dead end too—and that his system looks no further than low Earth orbit even if it does.

Excellent analysis. Thanks!
Freedom isn't free.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)