251–260 of 303 posts
Bezos is coming .. already $1B a year from Amazon stock. And Amazon is more successful every year. I am very curious how things will go.
I'm all for more competition driving down costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vast majority of government research for space launches was done by the Nazis. Everyone has access to that and NASAs research, yet... SpaceX is currently launching space shuttle sized payloads for a price that is over 40 times less than the shuttle, and less than half the cost of other private competitors, and at a cadence none of them have ever achieved. Re-use is the key launch technology of the future and its…
They're a private company the same way any company that is effectively funded by government contract is. Technically it's true, but they haven't demonstrated actual viability in the private market (much less profitability). And the achievements you note have little or nothing to do with their status as a private company and almost everything to do with taking advantage of government research from the past half-centur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe I read about a month or so ago that Bezos plans on selling ~$1 billion worth of stock annually to fund BO, I could be misremembering the exact figures though. Even at that burn rate, assuming Amazon continues to do well, I don't think it will be too much of a drain on his wealth. Plus, he seems like a pretty long term thinker so I don't think he'll throw in the towel even in FH captures a big chunk of heavy…
Well, at a net worth of approximately 90 billion and assuming a 5% return rate, he can sped 4.5 billion dollars every year forever on the blue origin and never lose a penny. I don't think he's too worried
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I found the valuation mildly depressing for similar contexts.. considering the total value of spaceX is less than half of the proposed ~increase~ to annual US military expenditure this year. We could afford 2 fully-blown spaceX per year just by maintaining our present disproportionately large military rather than expanding it by roughly a Great Britain this year.
This can't be stressed enough. The military does a lot of R&D spending, but it's nowhere near as beneficial to the U.S. or the world than if we encouraged more space programs with that money. It's unbelievably depressing to me that we could be leading civilization into a multi planetary age but choose not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having played several hundred hours of KSP I can confirm you shouldn't underestimate momentum. It's amazing that it's even possible. I think the number I've heard is if the earth's gravity was something like 10% stronger this wouldn't be feasible.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying with a 10% higher gravity we wouldn't be able to escape Earth's field with any amount of thrust? What?
It's not about the amount of thrust. It's about being able to carry enough fuel to sustain that thrust long enough, without the weight of the fuel making the rocket too heavy to lift high enough to reach orbit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a Musk interview with Pelley a while back on SpaceX/Tesla: >>Scott Pelley: How did you figure you were going to start a car company and be successful at it? >Elon Musk: Well, I didn't really think Tesla would be successful. I thought we would most likely fail. But I thought that we at least could address the false perception that people have that an electric car had to be ugly and slow and boring like a golf car…
Yeah my point is that I absolutely don't buy that. If Bezos came out and said that the reason for starting Amazon is really altruism or if Kalanick, speaking to the NY Times explained that, actually, Uber is rooted in fixing the false perceptions people have that public transportation has to be ugly and slow and boring we would all see right through that. Those are obvious examples of bullshit but when Musk comes out…
Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't see any reason not to believe similar sentiments from Bezos/Kalanick (if they actually said them -- I think the fact that they don't adds credence to those that do), even after a brief stint at Amazon (and having a prior Amazon VP as an investor). Obviously I've heard both good and bad things about both in the media, but I don't know either personally well enough to make a judgement call on their primary drive to succeed.
Uber has solved huge problems in transportation. Amazon's beginnings were humble and (IMO) hugely important as well. Musk is clearly doing big things as well, and I'm glad that all of the above have developed tech that benefits everyone. I would believe that was their goal as readily as I would believe they were just in it for the money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Falcon 9's first stage certainly reaches and (fairly greatly) exceeds the Kármán line in RTLS boostback, as the graphic shows. Even in an ASDS landing, it exceeds the Kármán line. I think the typical apogee is around 120-130 km. Stage sep happens below the line, however.
Having played several hundred hours of KSP I can confirm you shouldn't underestimate momentum. It's amazing that it's even possible. I think the number I've heard is if the earth's gravity was something like 10% stronger this wouldn't be feasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you expect it to turn up in 3 minutes, be clean and responsible and cost half of what it used to? I sometimes feel as if people who criticize Uber didn't ever use taxi services in the pre-Uber times.
Not everywhere around the world taxis are so awful as in USA. In my town, for example, Uber is both slower and usually more expensive than taxis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can't be stressed enough. The military does a lot of R&D spending, but it's nowhere near as beneficial to the U.S. or the world than if we encouraged more space programs with that money. It's unbelievably depressing to me that we could be leading civilization into a multi planetary age but choose not to.
The [space program] does a lot of R&D spending, but it's nowhere near as beneficial to the U.S. or the world than if we encouraged reduction in taxes so [private consumers and businesses] can instead spend that money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm neither an Amazon nor Bezos fan, but that ethos is something I respect. Rocketry isn't something you rush. Frankly I'm surprised SpaceX hasn't had more mishaps given the breakneck speed at which they operate.
The vast majority of SpaceX's current success is attributable to government funded research and experiments (the entire space program for the last several decades) and government funding (currently) that Musk is taking advantage of. They don't have more mishaps because the innovations they're undertaking are small relative to the existing body of research and experiment, and built on a solid foundation that already e…
But it's also true that without Musk there would currently be no prospect of significant rocket component reuse for another generation. Rocket launch costs would be double or triple what they currently are. It also seems very likely now that within my lifetime we will see launch costs to orbit close to 100th what they were just a few years ago. Some of us think that's a good thing.
A graph of the improvement in rocket technology from 1945 to now would look like a hockey stick early on, levelling off more or less flat for the last 40 years. Musk has bent that curve back up into a hockey stick shape again.