10 ms·

> Bezos and especially Branson's ventures feel much more like personal vanity projects than something that will actually push space exploration. I'm not sure w

> Bezos and especially Branson's ventures feel much more like personal vanity projects than something that will actually push space exploration. I'm not sure why people feel this need to draw this weird line in the sand and say that SpaceX is okay because Musk built a business, but Blue Origin and Virgin are bad because... reasons? Technology advances for all sorts of reasons. Lamborghinis exist because a farmer was pissed at Ferrari. Motorolla made the first cellphone to steal the thunder from AT&T. Hell, the first space race back in the 60s was basically done to flex on the USSR. If this is all a massive dick measuring contest, I honestly couldn't care less. It's advancing space exploration and providing competition in the space. Even Bezos and Branson stopped right now, they've still proven that it's possible for a company other than SpaceX to put a man in orbit and dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. When I hear people complain about this being a vanity project like that somehow taints the accomplishment, all I can think about is a particularly on the nose quote from the TV show Community. "Who cares if Troy thinks he's all that? Maybe he is. You think astronauts go to the moon because they hate oxygen? No, they're trying to impress their high school's prom king."

geocrasher 5y ago
Even Bezos and Branson stopped right now, they've still proven that it's possible for a company other than SpaceX to put a man in orbit and dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. False. I hate to be "that guy" but neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. Those were sub-orbital flights with parabolic trajectories. To use your analogies: If Tesla were the Ferrari, then Virgin Galactic and friends would be the kit cars that look like a Ferrari but have a typical muscle car under the skin. That's not to say that neither is impressive. They are definitely impressive. But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves.
- superfrank 5y ago
  You're correct, but that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make Since you've edited your post, I'll respond to the rest. > But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves. If Bezos or Branson had sent someone else up in their place, does that really change anything? Sure, it's expensive and only the super wealthy can afford to go into space right now, but there are plenty of technologies in our past that only the wealthy could afford at first, but as time went on, they became more affordable.
  - geocrasher 5y ago
    Sorry about that, I realized I had more to say after I had posted the reply. Your point about expensive technology becoming more affordable in the long run- that makes a lot of sense, and I totally get it. At first, basic air travel was such a thing, as was travel by rail. Or fancy carriage. So yes. That much is true. And I think if they'd sent up other billionaires instead, it would have made no difference. The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider.
    - superfrank 5y ago
      > The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider. I hear you there, but I don't understand why Musk gets a free pass then? He's just as rich as Bezos and just as out of touch with what the needs of average American.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - geocrasher 5y ago
        Because in a lot of people's eyes all Branson and Bezos have done is show up late to the game with inferior technology and thrown themselves a party for it.
        ozzythecat 5y ago
        You seem to believe space flight and cost efficient rocketry are as simple as flipping hamburgers. Bezos grilled a cheeseburger and invited friends for beer after McDonalds already produced a billion Big Macs, and so obviously Bezos was just show boating. If you despise Bezos and Branson because of their wealth, you can just leave it at that. But trivializing the hard work and accomplishment that went into what happened two now this month is near sighted, short term thinking. IMO it actually explains why America’s Congress is basically at a stand still. People are better feeling outraged about something rather than celebrating something right in front of them.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Frankly it would be more accurate to say they are go-karts dressed up like a sports car.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  So the purpose of Blue Origin and Branson’s companies are just to be space rides for billionaires? And these guys are pumping billions of dollars into these companies just for fun, not because they might actually believe in space exploration? What exactly would they need to do to prove its not a carnival ride? Help me understand what your bar is. Before you can run, first you learn to walk. And before that, you learn to crawl. So in your view, Blue Origin is nothing more than a vanity/fun project. I’d really like to understand what objective take you have. For the record, I do know engineers at Blue Origins, and knowing how much they believe in the mission (their words), I’m struggling to understand what objective take you might have other than “I don’t like Bezos or billionaires and so I’m going to dismiss all the hard work that went into this as a carnival ride”
- duchenne 5y ago
  > neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. It is true that reaching orbit is much more difficult than reach space but Branson has another company called Virgin Orbit that did reach orbit. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit : > The first successful flight was on 17 January 2021, which delivered a payload of 10 CubeSats to low Earth orbit (LEO) It uses an unusual strategy. A boeing 747 carries the rocket under its left wing. So, it does not need a spaceport and can can be pre-aligned on any orbit. Bezos is also trying hard to reach orbit with the New Glenn space rocket. But this one had a lot of delays.
dahfizz 5y ago
> If this is all a massive dick measuring contest, I honestly couldn't care less. It's advancing space exploration and providing competition in the space. This is the crux of your argument, and it's the core disagreement. Blue origin does nothing to advance space exploration just by virtue of existing. They are not competitive.
- eloff 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. Even if they are never competitive with SpaceX you can't employ that many people and spend that much money without advancing the industry. The benefits are just second order effects.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    This. Every engineer employed at BO is one engineer not wasting their talents doing adtech at FAANG to pay the bills.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Different kind of engineers usually, but yeah.
      - sidr 5y ago
        I have worked with multiple folks with Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering backgrounds who have switched to being data scientists or software engineers. Often because of the dismal job prospects in their fields. So yes, quite often the same kind of engineer.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    Give me a 10000 people and 100 billion dollars. I guarantee you I can squander it like a pro.
UnpossibleJim 5y ago
I think one of the main reasons that a line gets drawn between Musk and the others is the focus of the business models. While Musk focuses of space station resupply and satellite launch, in addition to "Mars Missions", Branson and Bezos have fully stated that they are in the business of space tourism. Those are very real reasons to draw a line in the sand between SpaceX and Blue Origin and Virgin. As for the founders. Meh. They're circus show men, but at least Musk comes from an engineering back ground, I guess? But the difference in mission is important.
- superfrank 5y ago
  > While Musk focuses of space station resupply and satellite launch, in addition to "Mars Missions", Branson and Bezos have fully stated that they are in the business of space tourism. That's kind of a silly argument in my mind. Tesla started out making electric sports cars that cost $100,000+ each. Just because a company focuses on high margin products for the super rich when they are starting off, doesn't mean they aren't making significant technological progress that can benefit the world.
  - UnpossibleJim 5y ago
    Sure, but in the automotive world Musk is taken to task plenty when it comes to "more serious" EV's with more moderate performance that appeal to a broader market. He is given credit for popularizing the market, again, thanks to his carnival barker style, but he isn't bringing EV's to the masses. That's a large void that companies like Ford, Volkswagen and Toyota are filling =/
    - least 5y ago
      Musk's contribution to EVs isn't just that he brought them to market, but that he made them a highly desirable technology. That it's "cool" and "hip" to own an electric vehicle, something that everyone else up to this point had failed to do. Like you said, "carnival barker style." Yeah, the reality is that the big car manufacturers are going to be the ones to commoditize it because they are experts in commoditization and manufacturing processes that Tesla still struggles with today. That may have even happened without Tesla. But I am confident that Tesla has accelerated the adoption of EV and I think it's fair to say that in this sense, yes, Musk absolutely is "bringing EVs to the masses."
teawrecks 5y ago
No one has a problem with dick measuring contests, the criticism is that Bezos and Branson aren't "whipping it out", so to speak. They're just continuing to do what's already been done before and drumming up press about it. I don't have a position one way or the other, it just sounded like you were missing the argument of the post you responded to.
adventured 5y ago
> I'm not sure why people feel this need to draw this weird line in the sand and say that SpaceX is okay because It's because they know exactly what it really means if they cut SpaceX off at the knees and include them. It reveals what they're really saying they want to do. And that's just too far in polite company. With Blue Origin they think they can chop them down and use them as an example and it's ok, because it doesn't imply a desire to return to the stone age and the crushing of technological progress. Blue Origin is a convenient example in other words, for now. If they use SpaceX, it would go too far in making them look like a luddite, lusting to dial back centuries of progress. They apparently think it's possible to preordain from the word go which company will be the successful one. It's a product of centrally planned thinking, centrally planned fantasy. Such that it was okay for Musk to be doing what he was with his great wealth back when he had $100 million, and not if he crossed some arbitrary wealth line. It was ok for SpaceX to fail over and over and over again, and to burn through a large sum of money trying to get the Falcon 9 flying. It's just not ok for anybody else to fail trying. It's ok to take N time to succeed at $N money, but not ok if it takes more time and more money. Funny little needle the central planners want threaded. When Bezos had $20 billion, nobody cared much about him. You'd very rarely see his name eg on Reddit or HN or Imgur or anywhere else outside of the business press. He'd occasionally pop up on HN in an Amazon story, it was rare though. Few people actually knew his name or who he was. That's ~2012, he had been a billionaire for about 14 years by that point and had been working on Blue Origin for around 12 years. So now he's worth $200 billion, everybody knows his name, zillions of people apparently hate him, people post vicious shit about him 24/7. They're all lying. They don't know Bezos anymore today than they did in 2012, what they know is his name is at the top of the rich list now, and the mob loves nothing more than to chop people down. The exact same thing happened to Gates once he took the rich list title. What you're witnessing is mimic-based mob behavior in action. That's why it's so irrational, so emotional, so very much not thought-out. It's very predictable, most people that join in likely struggle to control their urge to mimic and join the rage mobs, and it goes after anybody that pops their head up too far. It's what social media is largely filled with today, ignorance and rage mobs. It's probably genetically wired in behavior for some people and then amplified depending on the culture and context.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
sanderjd 5y ago
It isn't "because... reasons", it's because of specific reasons. Those reasons are actually right there in your comment: Blue Origin and Virgin don't strike me at all as "advancing space exploration". Like the comment you replied to said: we already knew how to do the stuff they've done, a long time ago. Spacex on the other hand is progressing the state of the art.
telesilla 5y ago
As much as we'd like to think otherwise, tech can be political. Think what happened with Edison and Tesla for example : we could be living in a very different world. It's OK to criticize the development of technology because of who and how it's used.
delusional 5y ago
> dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. And how did they do that? By wasting earthly resources and real human lives on pointless rocket launches. The disgusting part isn't that they are going to space. The disgusting part is that ONLY they get to go to space. They are pushing the worst conditions here on earth (forcing shit hours and trash work conditions) so that they can go fly in a rocket. It's pathetic.
- dumpsterdiver 5y ago
  Noone bats a eye when those same companies perform test launches that are just as expensive. I mean I get it that it seems extravagant, but if you just think about it as another test launch that they risked their lives to ride along with, it’s less troubling.
LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
But they have not put someone in orbit. Neither of them. Let's see if New Glenn 'delivers'...

geocrasher 5y ago

Even Bezos and Branson stopped right now, they've still proven that it's possible for a company other than SpaceX to put a man in orbit and dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. False. I hate to be "that guy" but neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. Those were sub-orbital flights with parabolic trajectories. To use your analogies: If Tesla were the Ferrari, then Virgin Galactic and friends would be the kit cars that look like a Ferrari but have a typical muscle car under the skin. That's not to say that neither is impressive. They are definitely impressive. But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves.

superfrank 5y ago
You're correct, but that doesn't really change the point I was trying to make Since you've edited your post, I'll respond to the rest. > But they're also just carnival rides for Billionaires, and that's what gets on peoples nerves. If Bezos or Branson had sent someone else up in their place, does that really change anything? Sure, it's expensive and only the super wealthy can afford to go into space right now, but there are plenty of technologies in our past that only the wealthy could afford at first, but as time went on, they became more affordable.
- geocrasher 5y ago
  Sorry about that, I realized I had more to say after I had posted the reply. Your point about expensive technology becoming more affordable in the long run- that makes a lot of sense, and I totally get it. At first, basic air travel was such a thing, as was travel by rail. Or fancy carriage. So yes. That much is true. And I think if they'd sent up other billionaires instead, it would have made no difference. The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider.
  - superfrank 5y ago
    > The truth is that a lot of people are hurting badly, and to watch others do extravagant things that don't make a difference for the bettering of humanity now just pours salt on the 'wound' of poverty. For many people, it's visible proof of the gaps getting wider and wider. I hear you there, but I don't understand why Musk gets a free pass then? He's just as rich as Bezos and just as out of touch with what the needs of average American.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - geocrasher 5y ago
      Because in a lot of people's eyes all Branson and Bezos have done is show up late to the game with inferior technology and thrown themselves a party for it.
      - ozzythecat 5y ago
        You seem to believe space flight and cost efficient rocketry are as simple as flipping hamburgers. Bezos grilled a cheeseburger and invited friends for beer after McDonalds already produced a billion Big Macs, and so obviously Bezos was just show boating. If you despise Bezos and Branson because of their wealth, you can just leave it at that. But trivializing the hard work and accomplishment that went into what happened two now this month is near sighted, short term thinking. IMO it actually explains why America’s Congress is basically at a stand still. People are better feeling outraged about something rather than celebrating something right in front of them.
garmaine 5y ago
Frankly it would be more accurate to say they are go-karts dressed up like a sports car.
ozzythecat 5y ago
So the purpose of Blue Origin and Branson’s companies are just to be space rides for billionaires? And these guys are pumping billions of dollars into these companies just for fun, not because they might actually believe in space exploration? What exactly would they need to do to prove its not a carnival ride? Help me understand what your bar is. Before you can run, first you learn to walk. And before that, you learn to crawl. So in your view, Blue Origin is nothing more than a vanity/fun project. I’d really like to understand what objective take you have. For the record, I do know engineers at Blue Origins, and knowing how much they believe in the mission (their words), I’m struggling to understand what objective take you might have other than “I don’t like Bezos or billionaires and so I’m going to dismiss all the hard work that went into this as a carnival ride”
duchenne 5y ago
> neither Bezos or Branson made it to orbit. It is true that reaching orbit is much more difficult than reach space but Branson has another company called Virgin Orbit that did reach orbit. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit : > The first successful flight was on 17 January 2021, which delivered a payload of 10 CubeSats to low Earth orbit (LEO) It uses an unusual strategy. A boeing 747 carries the rocket under its left wing. So, it does not need a spaceport and can can be pre-aligned on any orbit. Bezos is also trying hard to reach orbit with the New Glenn space rocket. But this one had a lot of delays.

dahfizz 5y ago

> If this is all a massive dick measuring contest, I honestly couldn't care less. It's advancing space exploration and providing competition in the space. This is the crux of your argument, and it's the core disagreement. Blue origin does nothing to advance space exploration just by virtue of existing. They are not competitive.

eloff 5y ago
I'm not sure that's true. Even if they are never competitive with SpaceX you can't employ that many people and spend that much money without advancing the industry. The benefits are just second order effects.
- foobarian 5y ago
  This. Every engineer employed at BO is one engineer not wasting their talents doing adtech at FAANG to pay the bills.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Different kind of engineers usually, but yeah.
    - sidr 5y ago
      I have worked with multiple folks with Aerospace/Mechanical Engineering backgrounds who have switched to being data scientists or software engineers. Often because of the dismal job prospects in their fields. So yes, quite often the same kind of engineer.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- teawrecks 5y ago
  Give me a 10000 people and 100 billion dollars. I guarantee you I can squander it like a pro.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago

I think one of the main reasons that a line gets drawn between Musk and the others is the focus of the business models. While Musk focuses of space station resupply and satellite launch, in addition to "Mars Missions", Branson and Bezos have fully stated that they are in the business of space tourism. Those are very real reasons to draw a line in the sand between SpaceX and Blue Origin and Virgin. As for the founders. Meh. They're circus show men, but at least Musk comes from an engineering back ground, I guess? But the difference in mission is important.

superfrank 5y ago
> While Musk focuses of space station resupply and satellite launch, in addition to "Mars Missions", Branson and Bezos have fully stated that they are in the business of space tourism. That's kind of a silly argument in my mind. Tesla started out making electric sports cars that cost $100,000+ each. Just because a company focuses on high margin products for the super rich when they are starting off, doesn't mean they aren't making significant technological progress that can benefit the world.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  Sure, but in the automotive world Musk is taken to task plenty when it comes to "more serious" EV's with more moderate performance that appeal to a broader market. He is given credit for popularizing the market, again, thanks to his carnival barker style, but he isn't bringing EV's to the masses. That's a large void that companies like Ford, Volkswagen and Toyota are filling =/
  - least 5y ago
    Musk's contribution to EVs isn't just that he brought them to market, but that he made them a highly desirable technology. That it's "cool" and "hip" to own an electric vehicle, something that everyone else up to this point had failed to do. Like you said, "carnival barker style." Yeah, the reality is that the big car manufacturers are going to be the ones to commoditize it because they are experts in commoditization and manufacturing processes that Tesla still struggles with today. That may have even happened without Tesla. But I am confident that Tesla has accelerated the adoption of EV and I think it's fair to say that in this sense, yes, Musk absolutely is "bringing EVs to the masses."

teawrecks 5y ago

No one has a problem with dick measuring contests, the criticism is that Bezos and Branson aren't "whipping it out", so to speak. They're just continuing to do what's already been done before and drumming up press about it. I don't have a position one way or the other, it just sounded like you were missing the argument of the post you responded to.

adventured 5y ago

> I'm not sure why people feel this need to draw this weird line in the sand and say that SpaceX is okay because It's because they know exactly what it really means if they cut SpaceX off at the knees and include them. It reveals what they're really saying they want to do. And that's just too far in polite company. With Blue Origin they think they can chop them down and use them as an example and it's ok, because it doesn't imply a desire to return to the stone age and the crushing of technological progress. Blue Origin is a convenient example in other words, for now. If they use SpaceX, it would go too far in making them look like a luddite, lusting to dial back centuries of progress. They apparently think it's possible to preordain from the word go which company will be the successful one. It's a product of centrally planned thinking, centrally planned fantasy. Such that it was okay for Musk to be doing what he was with his great wealth back when he had $100 million, and not if he crossed some arbitrary wealth line. It was ok for SpaceX to fail over and over and over again, and to burn through a large sum of money trying to get the Falcon 9 flying. It's just not ok for anybody else to fail trying. It's ok to take N time to succeed at $N money, but not ok if it takes more time and more money. Funny little needle the central planners want threaded. When Bezos had $20 billion, nobody cared much about him. You'd very rarely see his name eg on Reddit or HN or Imgur or anywhere else outside of the business press. He'd occasionally pop up on HN in an Amazon story, it was rare though. Few people actually knew his name or who he was. That's ~2012, he had been a billionaire for about 14 years by that point and had been working on Blue Origin for around 12 years. So now he's worth $200 billion, everybody knows his name, zillions of people apparently hate him, people post vicious shit about him 24/7. They're all lying. They don't know Bezos anymore today than they did in 2012, what they know is his name is at the top of the rich list now, and the mob loves nothing more than to chop people down. The exact same thing happened to Gates once he took the rich list title. What you're witnessing is mimic-based mob behavior in action. That's why it's so irrational, so emotional, so very much not thought-out. It's very predictable, most people that join in likely struggle to control their urge to mimic and join the rage mobs, and it goes after anybody that pops their head up too far. It's what social media is largely filled with today, ignorance and rage mobs. It's probably genetically wired in behavior for some people and then amplified depending on the culture and context.

skinnymuch 5y ago

sanderjd 5y ago

It isn't "because... reasons", it's because of specific reasons. Those reasons are actually right there in your comment: Blue Origin and Virgin don't strike me at all as "advancing space exploration". Like the comment you replied to said: we already knew how to do the stuff they've done, a long time ago. Spacex on the other hand is progressing the state of the art.

telesilla 5y ago

As much as we'd like to think otherwise, tech can be political. Think what happened with Edison and Tesla for example : we could be living in a very different world. It's OK to criticize the development of technology because of who and how it's used.

delusional 5y ago

> dumped billions of dollars back into the economy. And how did they do that? By wasting earthly resources and real human lives on pointless rocket launches. The disgusting part isn't that they are going to space. The disgusting part is that ONLY they get to go to space. They are pushing the worst conditions here on earth (forcing shit hours and trash work conditions) so that they can go fly in a rocket. It's pathetic.

dumpsterdiver 5y ago
Noone bats a eye when those same companies perform test launches that are just as expensive. I mean I get it that it seems extravagant, but if you just think about it as another test launch that they risked their lives to ride along with, it’s less troubling.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

But they have not put someone in orbit. Neither of them. Let's see if New Glenn 'delivers'...