3 ms·

> > So your argument is... > Well, I made no such argument, the GGP did, and I'll quote: You are talking in other posts about how no one is able to rebut you,

by clucas 5y ago

> > So your argument is... > Well, I made no such argument, the GGP did, and I'll quote: You are talking in other posts about how no one is able to rebut you, but then when I try to restate your argument so I can rebut it, you refuse to engage and just say "I'm not making an argument." Help me out here, I'm trying to engage in good faith. > > First of all, just because the trend is exponential now doesn't mean it always will be. That's silly. > Silly why? Silly as the amount of processors that are sold every year? Exponential growth never goes forever. Not in nature, not in economics, not in physics, not anywhere. It is limited by the available resources. You seem to be arguing that space flight will continue to grow exponentially, consuming all the resources required to sustain that growth, unless we stop it right now, or very soon. I think that is a silly argument. You brought up processor sales as an example, but why not consider processor transistor density? That's something that was growing exponentially for a long time (Moore's law), but has since fallen off. We're putting lots of resources into processors, but only as much as it makes economic sense to do so. Why would space flight be any different? > Even if costs do 'reduce exponentially' they are reducing towards a lower limit, not to zero. Of course! But the argument isn't that the cost of space flight will somehow reach zero, the argument is that we aren't spending that much on space flight right now, we don't seem to be increasing our spending on it, and we're still getting benefits from cheaper launches, so why would we want to stop it? > especially now that a whole bunch of use cases now become profitable I think that looking at the profitability of use cases of space flight really only strengthens my argument, and weakens the one I think you're making.

h0l0cube 5y ago
> but then when I try to restate your argument The argument, nothing more, nothing less: > One can project from SpaceX's launch history that as the commercialization of space intensifies, this figure is going to continue to grow exponentially I have made further arguments, but this is the one that is downvoted. I imagine most of the people that downvoted were Elon stans, but what's funny is that I doubt Elon himself would disagree with this statement. He has made exactly this kind of superlinear growth with Tesla, his battery production, and I'm certain he has the same ambition for SpaceX. > You seem to be arguing that space flight will continue to grow exponentially, consuming all the resources required to sustain that growth, unless we stop it right now, or very soon, unless we stop it right now, or very soon Once again, I have never made this point. I am in sympathy with directing attention and capital to problems with earth, but I reserve that as my opinion and beyond this discussion. Allow me to restate my claim so that we're both certain: The estimate that capital expenditure for SpaceX's space projects is 2 billion per year is short-sighted, and maybe a little disingenuous, given that that figure will grow exponentially in the longer term. It's this exponential growth we're arguing about, whether it will be 'eventually drawing from other, more worthy projects' is a morality question I did not pose. Agreed? > It is limited by the available resources Err, yes. I'm not saying growth goes forever, obviously, but by the time the space industry (on earth) saturates, spending on space will be many orders of magnitude more. Let alone that acquisition of raw materials and manufacturing for space can continue off earth, so I don't think depletion of resources are a problem in the very long term. > but why not consider processor transistor density? Because it's completely orthogonal to my point. I'm not talking about efficiencies, I'm talking about gross spending on the technology. Full stop. > we don't seem to be increasing our spending on it But we will be increasing this spending year-on-year, likely at an exponential rate. You disagree with this, but it seems we're both speculating. Though for at least my speculation, the current trend, and history, broadly agrees. > I think that looking at the profitability of use cases of space flight really only strengthens my argument, and weakens the one I think you're making. The one I wasn't making. But I'm not sure about the argument you're making? If SpaceX is making exponentially more profit, capital expenditure on commercial space ventures must be increasing. If there's more profit, it's because someone, somewhere, is fronting up the cash. Could this money be better allocated in order to solve Earth's problems? Probably. Might space tech in some way help Earth anyway? Maybe. But will the spending for a new frontier of wealth increase exponentially in the medium to long term? Barring some major catastrophe or extinction event, it's inevitable.

by clucas 5y ago

h0l0cube 5y ago

> but then when I try to restate your argument The argument, nothing more, nothing less: > One can project from SpaceX's launch history that as the commercialization of space intensifies, this figure is going to continue to grow exponentially I have made further arguments, but this is the one that is downvoted. I imagine most of the people that downvoted were Elon stans, but what's funny is that I doubt Elon himself would disagree with this statement. He has made exactly this kind of superlinear growth with Tesla, his battery production, and I'm certain he has the same ambition for SpaceX. > You seem to be arguing that space flight will continue to grow exponentially, consuming all the resources required to sustain that growth, unless we stop it right now, or very soon, unless we stop it right now, or very soon Once again, I have never made this point. I am in sympathy with directing attention and capital to problems with earth, but I reserve that as my opinion and beyond this discussion. Allow me to restate my claim so that we're both certain: The estimate that capital expenditure for SpaceX's space projects is 2 billion per year is short-sighted, and maybe a little disingenuous, given that that figure will grow exponentially in the longer term. It's this exponential growth we're arguing about, whether it will be 'eventually drawing from other, more worthy projects' is a morality question I did not pose. Agreed? > It is limited by the available resources Err, yes. I'm not saying growth goes forever, obviously, but by the time the space industry (on earth) saturates, spending on space will be many orders of magnitude more. Let alone that acquisition of raw materials and manufacturing for space can continue off earth, so I don't think depletion of resources are a problem in the very long term. > but why not consider processor transistor density? Because it's completely orthogonal to my point. I'm not talking about efficiencies, I'm talking about gross spending on the technology. Full stop. > we don't seem to be increasing our spending on it But we will be increasing this spending year-on-year, likely at an exponential rate. You disagree with this, but it seems we're both speculating. Though for at least my speculation, the current trend, and history, broadly agrees. > I think that looking at the profitability of use cases of space flight really only strengthens my argument, and weakens the one I think you're making. The one I wasn't making. But I'm not sure about the argument you're making? If SpaceX is making exponentially more profit, capital expenditure on commercial space ventures must be increasing. If there's more profit, it's because someone, somewhere, is fronting up the cash. Could this money be better allocated in order to solve Earth's problems? Probably. Might space tech in some way help Earth anyway? Maybe. But will the spending for a new frontier of wealth increase exponentially in the medium to long term? Barring some major catastrophe or extinction event, it's inevitable.