5 ms·

Way to sensationalize a quote into a headline, CNN. Relevant portion from the article (which itself isn't much more than PR reprint and fluff): Earlier in the

by ethbr0 5y ago

Way to sensationalize a quote into a headline, CNN. Relevant portion from the article (which itself isn't much more than PR reprint and fluff): Earlier in the day, during an interview that aired on "New Day," Crane asked Bezos, "There have been a chorus of critics saying that these flights to space are, you know, just joyrides for the wealthy, and that you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth. So what do you say to those critics?" Bezos didn't tap dance around the question: He said, "Well, I say they're largely right. We have to do both. You know, we have lots of problems here and now on Earth and we need to work on those, and we always need to look to the future. We've always done that as a species, as a civilization. We have to do both." He said this mission is about "building a road to space for the next generations to do amazing things there, and those amazing things will solve problems here on Earth."

KozmoNau7 5y ago
He's really trying hard to cast billionaire space hops as something with the same scientific and societal impact as the space race. But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years. There's no innovation or societal benefit to their private joyrides.
- harry8 5y ago
  How much UK tax dollars did Branson end up securing from his tax haven to keep virgin afloat? Anyone know? I'd assume it was zero it was such an hideous thing to try on - your tax should save my wealth while I don't pay it. But we seem to have lost sense about these things at times.
- sideshowb 5y ago
  It's worth noting that Elon, for all his faults, does seem to be leading innovation. But I agree with you about Branson and Bezos.
  - danielsamuels 5y ago
    I think it's a shame that people have bundled Elon into the Bezos / Branson battle. What Musk is doing is far more useful (and has been for a while now) than the measuring contest that's happening between the other two.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Don't forget about competition. It's a good thing that Musk has both Bezos and Branson biting his ass from their own rockets, if not only for PR.
  - beloch 5y ago
    Two questions regarding Musk that people should ask more often: 1. If the public money being thrown at SpaceX were redirected, what could NASA (or other private companies) do with it? 2. If the administrators of NASA collected $80B (combined) in salary and bonuses last year, largely from public coffers, would that be considered reasonable?
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Isn't the public money being thrown at SpaceX through NASA? NASA knows exactly what they're buying. They've just become such a bureaucratic, top-heavy, risk-adverse organization (by Congressional design) that it's a better deal to outsource pieces to SpaceX.
      - mavhc 5y ago
        They've always outsourced most of their stuff, to Boeing et al. Now they have a company to outsource stuff to that is 10x more efficient and will actually invent new systems.
        Gwypaas 5y ago
        I would say the difference is fixed-cost vs cost-plus contracts. Paying for the development or paying for the result with less constraints on how it is achieved. Look how hard Boeing has stumbled trying fixed-cost with Starliner.
- least 5y ago
  We haven't even entered the real "Space Age." Commoditization of space flight is an important step. Call it whatever you want, it might be frivolous for Bezos and Branson to be the ones going into space, but who cares? It's such a small aspect of what's going on behind the scenes, where we have several private companies pouring billions into research of space flight. > But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. Except that these companies absolutely are doing R&D. We don't know what sort of "real world applications" might come from it in the future. We do know that right now, it's extremely expensive and difficult to go into space for anyone. Hopefully in the future going into space will become more than an expensive hobby for billionaires, but you can't get there without investment into space exploration. > All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years. Yet we still haven't returned to the moon and haven't gone to Mars, or to an asteroid, or to really anything else in that time. Being able to do it and it become a thing that we do are two different things entirely. We can't rely solely on NASA for innovations in space flight, especially when its funding can be stripped and killed off on the whim of a President, like Obama's disastrously bad space policy did during his presidency.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    All smartphone companies did was the same thing anyone could do in 1970 with a truck sized computer and radio tower. Doing the same thing but 10x cheaper is progress, also makes the thing that's 10x too expensive that's never been done before possible. Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit are making air launches easy, but they're not the first. Pegasus first flew in 1990, released at 12km, can launch 443 kg into orbit for $56 million. Virgin's LauncherOne, releases at 10.7km, can carry 500kg into orbit for $12 million
  - KozmoNau7 5y ago
    The entire reason NASA was down-prioritized and had finding stripped is because of wealthy private interests, who wanted that pie to go to them for profit, rather than to a public agency. And because the US only cares to do anything if there's a competition involved, the fall of the Soviet Union meant that politicians didn't really care anymore, they got lazy and lost their ambitions. Now China (and India) and speeding up and leaving the US in the dust. The money spent on private space exploration could be spent much better on public research and space exploration, with international space agencies working together, instead of funding billionaire joyrides and further lining their pockets with money they can barely figure out how to spend.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  "possible" has a financial component. They're making a lot of things possible by reducing costs. Several of the major technological innovations in history are a case of doing something "already possible" at a reduced cost: electric light, printing press, refrigerator...
cassianoleal 5y ago
> you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth. I think that largely misses the point, either on purpose or out of sheer ignorance. So far the main contention is that they should never have been allowed to amass such insane amount of money that they can have this dystopic billionaire space race. Had they paid better salaries to their employees, kept working conditions sane, had lower working hours, etc etc etc. they might have solved (or at least not created / helped with) many of said problems in the first place. Edit: typo
- nojito 5y ago
  I find this logic quite interesting. Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.
  - cassianoleal 5y ago
    > many individuals What's the proportion of those to the total number of individuals employed, directly or indirectly by them?
  - WJW 5y ago
    Yes, most of the world being so shitty that even Amazon is one of the better employers is one of the problems back on earth that needs to be fixed. It's always a little sad to see some researcher work out a ballpark estimate for (say) giving every child on earth proper healthcare and even the pessimistic estimates are no more than 10% of what the western world spends on cosmetics alone. That said, I don't begrudge Bezos&Branson their space race hobby. Certainly better than the "who has the biggest yacht" type of shenanigans most rich people get up to.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      Apperantly Jeff Bezos has a yacht that is so big that it comes with a smaller support yacht. The small one has a helipad.
codyswann 5y ago
Journalists today are such hacks. The whole "So and so is saying.... How would you like to respond?" Is so weak. As a journalist, do your research. If you have a question, ask YOUR question.

by ethbr0 5y ago

KozmoNau7 5y ago

He's really trying hard to cast billionaire space hops as something with the same scientific and societal impact as the space race. But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years. There's no innovation or societal benefit to their private joyrides.

harry8 5y ago
How much UK tax dollars did Branson end up securing from his tax haven to keep virgin afloat? Anyone know? I'd assume it was zero it was such an hideous thing to try on - your tax should save my wealth while I don't pay it. But we seem to have lost sense about these things at times.
sideshowb 5y ago
It's worth noting that Elon, for all his faults, does seem to be leading innovation. But I agree with you about Branson and Bezos.
- danielsamuels 5y ago
  I think it's a shame that people have bundled Elon into the Bezos / Branson battle. What Musk is doing is far more useful (and has been for a while now) than the measuring contest that's happening between the other two.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Don't forget about competition. It's a good thing that Musk has both Bezos and Branson biting his ass from their own rockets, if not only for PR.
- beloch 5y ago
  Two questions regarding Musk that people should ask more often: 1. If the public money being thrown at SpaceX were redirected, what could NASA (or other private companies) do with it? 2. If the administrators of NASA collected $80B (combined) in salary and bonuses last year, largely from public coffers, would that be considered reasonable?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Isn't the public money being thrown at SpaceX through NASA? NASA knows exactly what they're buying. They've just become such a bureaucratic, top-heavy, risk-adverse organization (by Congressional design) that it's a better deal to outsource pieces to SpaceX.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      They've always outsourced most of their stuff, to Boeing et al. Now they have a company to outsource stuff to that is 10x more efficient and will actually invent new systems.
      - Gwypaas 5y ago
        I would say the difference is fixed-cost vs cost-plus contracts. Paying for the development or paying for the result with less constraints on how it is achieved. Look how hard Boeing has stumbled trying fixed-cost with Starliner.
least 5y ago
We haven't even entered the real "Space Age." Commoditization of space flight is an important step. Call it whatever you want, it might be frivolous for Bezos and Branson to be the ones going into space, but who cares? It's such a small aspect of what's going on behind the scenes, where we have several private companies pouring billions into research of space flight. > But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. Except that these companies absolutely are doing R&D. We don't know what sort of "real world applications" might come from it in the future. We do know that right now, it's extremely expensive and difficult to go into space for anyone. Hopefully in the future going into space will become more than an expensive hobby for billionaires, but you can't get there without investment into space exploration. > All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years. Yet we still haven't returned to the moon and haven't gone to Mars, or to an asteroid, or to really anything else in that time. Being able to do it and it become a thing that we do are two different things entirely. We can't rely solely on NASA for innovations in space flight, especially when its funding can be stripped and killed off on the whim of a President, like Obama's disastrously bad space policy did during his presidency.
- mavhc 5y ago
  All smartphone companies did was the same thing anyone could do in 1970 with a truck sized computer and radio tower. Doing the same thing but 10x cheaper is progress, also makes the thing that's 10x too expensive that's never been done before possible. Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit are making air launches easy, but they're not the first. Pegasus first flew in 1990, released at 12km, can launch 443 kg into orbit for $56 million. Virgin's LauncherOne, releases at 10.7km, can carry 500kg into orbit for $12 million
- KozmoNau7 5y ago
  The entire reason NASA was down-prioritized and had finding stripped is because of wealthy private interests, who wanted that pie to go to them for profit, rather than to a public agency. And because the US only cares to do anything if there's a competition involved, the fall of the Soviet Union meant that politicians didn't really care anymore, they got lazy and lost their ambitions. Now China (and India) and speeding up and leaving the US in the dust. The money spent on private space exploration could be spent much better on public research and space exploration, with international space agencies working together, instead of funding billionaire joyrides and further lining their pockets with money they can barely figure out how to spend.
HPsquared 5y ago
"possible" has a financial component. They're making a lot of things possible by reducing costs. Several of the major technological innovations in history are a case of doing something "already possible" at a reduced cost: electric light, printing press, refrigerator...

cassianoleal 5y ago

> you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth. I think that largely misses the point, either on purpose or out of sheer ignorance. So far the main contention is that they should never have been allowed to amass such insane amount of money that they can have this dystopic billionaire space race. Had they paid better salaries to their employees, kept working conditions sane, had lower working hours, etc etc etc. they might have solved (or at least not created / helped with) many of said problems in the first place. Edit: typo

nojito 5y ago
I find this logic quite interesting. Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.
- cassianoleal 5y ago
  > many individuals What's the proportion of those to the total number of individuals employed, directly or indirectly by them?
- WJW 5y ago
  Yes, most of the world being so shitty that even Amazon is one of the better employers is one of the problems back on earth that needs to be fixed. It's always a little sad to see some researcher work out a ballpark estimate for (say) giving every child on earth proper healthcare and even the pessimistic estimates are no more than 10% of what the western world spends on cosmetics alone. That said, I don't begrudge Bezos&Branson their space race hobby. Certainly better than the "who has the biggest yacht" type of shenanigans most rich people get up to.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Apperantly Jeff Bezos has a yacht that is so big that it comes with a smaller support yacht. The small one has a helipad.

codyswann 5y ago

Journalists today are such hacks. The whole "So and so is saying.... How would you like to respond?" Is so weak. As a journalist, do your research. If you have a question, ask YOUR question.