6 ms·
People who are saying that is not possible and that it does not make sense economically speaking have won. We are now in hands of managers, not dreamers.
by aphroz 5y ago
People who are saying that is not possible and that it does not make sense economically speaking have won. We are now in hands of managers, not dreamers.
- lordnacho 5y agoBureaucrats, not engineers. The difference being that bureaucrats are there to pour glue over something to stabilise it, whereas engineers are meant to try new things.
- grp000 5y agoI never thought about bureaucrats that way, it makes sense and it's refreshing.
- gibolt 5y agoA company or government reducing quality and effectiveness over time is not stabilization, but erosion of core principles. Engineering is innovation and maintenance. Bureaucrats slow good change while pushing to cut corners.
- amelius 5y agoI'd say the difference managers vs dreamers is better. Musk is a dreamer. He is not really an engineer.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoIt is possible, perhaps even 10 or 20 years ago, But it isn't economically feasible. You could build or refurbish the ISS into something that looked a Japanese capsule hotel 'fairly cheaply', but getting there still costs millions, we are thousands or 10s of thousands of spacecraft away from making them cheap to produce and run. Hotels on earth aren't exactly money spinners and apart from the zero gravity and looking at the earth the novelty of being in space would probably wear off after a day or two. Projects like Virgin Galactic - for a 'near space' fun ride will probably be more lucrative in the short term. Getting (government funded) astronauts and satellites into orbit is where the money is right now.
- hutrdvnj 5y agoAnd we need a transportation that is much more economical than rockets, otherwise it will always be very costly to lift a kilogram into space.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoActually rocket fuel although very old fashioned doesn't seem that costly. Falcon 9 flight to LEO costs $200K in fuel but can lift 22,800Kg. If a person and their seat could be squeezed into 200Kg that's only $2K per person. I think the biggest cost is that the forces and extremes of temperature mean the 'rocket' needs to be engineered and maintained very well as any small failure is likely to be catastrophic - its very hard to abandon ship or divert to the the nearest airport.
- zizee 5y agoRockets aren't inherently expensive. Air travel would also be prohibitively expensive if the aircraft was disposed of at the end of each flight. If SpaceX's Starship plans come to fruition, the $/kg to orbit cost will fall dramatically.
- cm2187 5y agoNot to talk about the environmental impact!
- DennisP 5y agoNot necessarily that high with methane fuel. The exhaust is CO2 and water, and you can make it from water, CO2 in the air, and clean energy.
- dangerbird2 5y agoAnd potentially near-zero emissions with hydrogen/liquid oxygen rockets. Of course, methane rockets probably ends up having lower emissions in practice due to hydrogen typically being produced in methods that emit CO2. Ultimately, even if we massively increased the rate of rockets being launched, the greenhouse gas impact would be pretty minimal compared to cars, electricity, and cement production.
- DennisP 5y agoThe managers won for a while. A few dreamers are getting it done now, though.