271–280 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many centuries ago was that? Do we really want to go back to a world where the biggest threat to your life was starvation?
Less than 2 centuries. You think it's good to have bigger threats than starvation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being publicly traded never necessarily meant you focus on short term. If that were actually true you'd never have seen Intel shelling out $15bn for a fab, or Westinghouse designing nuclear reactors.
So then only the bad companies do it, right? I just want that to be clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everybody knows that BO is basically in. They string along the other engine to reassure the military.
ULA has one foot outside the launch business already. The BE-4 won't be ready for years. It's not inkkely ULA exits the launch business completely before it's ready, it's at a huge cost disadvantage even with the BE-4.
ULA isn't out at least until BO has a few good launches under its belt, which means BE-4 or something similar is reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber is not really cheaper, they are just burning their investors cash to project the illusion. When a) that runs out and b) they have to pay the same fees and taxes and follow the same regulations as other taxi companies, the true cost will be revealed
You're speculating. As it stands right now, Uber is absolutely cheaper than taxi's (at least where I am from). What they have to do in the future is anyone's guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Bezos isn't playing, he's going all in, selling $1 billion of shares a year to fund Blue Origin [4]. One way to look at this situation is Musk and Bezos competing to be king of transportation infrastructure for the Solar System. High stakes indeed. I used to wonder what could happen if the guys with billions decided to do something interesting with all their money. This is some of the most interesting stuff I've e…
Yep. At one time a mark of being super-rich was owning a megayacht and a palatial estate. Nowadays you haven't really arrived until you can afford to fund your own space program. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the most active secondary market for it?
> What is the most active secondary market for [SpaceX stock]? The secondary markets for private securities trade "over the counter" [1]. There is thus no singular "market" which could be said to be the most active. (If you're looking for a more-actionable response, feel free to pop up your email.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-counter_(finance)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon can fail a lot because money for private companies is a lot more expensive and harder to get than for public companies. Musk is playing on hard mode because he wants to retain control.
Musk claims he won't take SpaceX public because public investors have short attention spans and would require profit/return too soon. Because he wants goals set out further than the next quarter, he has kept the company in the hands of like minded investors. That may just be bloviating on his part, but it does seem at least sensible on the surface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blue Origin has turtles in it's coat of arms because the strategy is slow and steady...Bezos doesn't feel the need to compete on speed here.
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.
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.
If gravity was 10% stronger rockets might be much more powerful and been reusable much sooner. Having the military need to produce nuclear powered rockets for effective ICBMs would have produced a very different nuclear power development path than the one on this Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is probably false. They have way more failures than successes, but the successes far outpace the losses in output.
Amazon phone, lol.