5 ms·

Because it takes deep pockets and willingness to take big risks. Something gov organizations can not do.

by rapsey 3y ago

komali2 3y ago
> Something gov organizations can not do. From what I understand about space exploration, this is an opposite-world position. Can you expand on what you mean? Governments ("gov organizations") have been defining the term "space exploration" since 1944. First object in outer space, first object in orbit, first human in outer space, first space station, first interstellar space flight, first human on the moon, first man-made objects on mars, venus, all by "gov organizations." I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable?
- rapsey 3y ago
  And they did most of it decades ago when the public supported grand endeavours. Now risk aversion is very high and budgets are very limited.
  - komali2 3y ago
    So what? Governments are clearly capable of achieving these things, they've done it before. Private industry, remains to be seen. Worth nothing that it has to be profitable for it to work for private industry - possibly not what we actually want for space exploration. Would private industry have kept the voyager probes going this long?
    - rapsey 3y ago
      I am speaking about willingness to take big risks not ability. You are arguing with me while talking about completely different things.
      - soperj 3y ago
        Apollo wasn't a risk?
    - rocqua 3y ago
      There are two parts to profitability. Revenue and costs. I don't want space exploration for unlocking massive new revenues, but reduced costs would be amazing. Not just for opportunities that get unlocked, but also for freeing up resources for other things.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Simply not accurate. NASA budget today is actually about the same as the avg during Apollo. The problem is how the money is spent. And the 'risk aversion' isn't really the problem either.
- chasd00 3y ago
  > I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable? i would say the appetite for risk and prioritization in the private space industry makes them more capable. Don't forget the Apollo program and the space race was in response to a real existential threat. Once the threat lessoned the appetite for risk went down and other priorities took center stage. The private space industry has taken all that innovation, adding to it, and moving forward where the governments don't because they have other fish to fry. To mangle a quote, "If [private space industry] have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants [government science/engineering]". I think the private space industry is further validation the public investment in space is worth it.
  - komali2 3y ago
    > Don't forget the Apollo program and the space race was in response to a real existential threat. Once the threat lessoned the appetite for risk went down and other priorities took center stage. Yes, there are various motives and pressures at play, but that doesn't change for private industry. And I worry about the core motive of the private industry: Profit. If a launch won't be profitable, why would it happen, no matter how much it benefits humanity? I worry about the profitiziation of space. I don't think profitization has done good things to the internet, media, and technology in general.
    - nickpp 3y ago
      Profit is exactly how we make sure individual and societal interests are aligned. Otherwise, how do we know what "benefits humanity"? Who decides? One says "let's feed the poor". Another "let's explore space". Yet another "let's build an AI". Who decides the allocation? During Cold War, everything USSR did here in the Eastern Block was "for the benefit of all mankind". We all know what a crock of BS that was...
      - komali2 3y ago
        > Profit is exactly how we make sure individual and societal interests are aligned. That's interesting, I disagree, but I'm curious why you think so? Slavery is extremely profitable, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it is illegal - a distinctly unprofitable decision made and enforced by a government for the sole purpose of it's better for mankind. Arguably all regulation under capitalism fulfills this purpose, outside of those designed to form regulatory capture. If what you say is true, wouldn't we be able to just remove all law and let the divine will of profit determine our every action? Or, where do you see the line? > Otherwise, how do we know what "benefits humanity"? Who decides? One says "let's feed the poor". Another "let's explore space". Yet another "let's build an AI". Who decides the allocation? You genuinely feel that profit motive will allocate this better than the normal way of "who decides," that being debates and appeals to rationality and ethics? What profit is there to be gained from feeding the poor? The most profitable thing to do is to collude to ensure there is a class of people who are one paycheck from a missed meal or missed rent, therefore you can pay them as little as possible and they have to accept that because they can't afford to spend the time to look for a new job. I just don't see how profit could possibly align with actual human ethics. Sometimes, certainly, but rarely. > During Cold War, everything USSR did here in the Eastern Block was "for the benefit of all mankind". What do you mean? Where does that statement come from? I'm searching for uses by USSR fokls but the most definitive historical usage I can find is from a US navy officer saying of the nuclear weapons, "We are testing these bombs for the good of mankind." Hm, I agree, that is a crock, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the USSR or why you brought it up. The USSR was a state capitalist nation, it suffered similar issues with profit motive, though exacerbated by a centrally planned economy. Hence the holomdor: caused partially by the purging of wheat fields in Ukraine so as to plant cash crops instead to fund Stalin's feverish mega-projects. That's the heart of my argument: profit almost never puts the needs of humans first. Edit: IIRC "for all mankind" is also inscribed... yes, on the moon, by the USA lol. "We came in peace for all mankind."
- pixl97 3y ago
  > have been defining the term "space exploration" At insanely massive expense. Note that this isn't a bad thing, R&D is expensive and humanity has benefitted from this. The problem here is just the government doing it never leads to cost decreases. The lack of cheap orbital access has crippled the expansion of space industry. Industry tends to be exceptionally capable in producing assembly line style production. Up until this point rockets have been much more custom productions, use once and throw away. There was pretty much zero headway in the government achieving this scale of production. SpaceX in two decades has dramatically decreased the cost to orbit. And with their new rocket will drop costs by order of magnitude or more. This will lead to far more government R&D expenditure in space. >which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit And by that you mean "has accomplished in putting more satellites than all other governments/entities added together into space". I don't know, you tell me.
  - rocqua 3y ago
    A key advantage of the assembly line production of these things is fast iterative development. At first, in a 'move fast and break things' way, when doing tests. But just as significantly, by learning about non-fatal flaws in a working design so you can improve it. The 100th rocket you build and attempt to fly will be much more optimized than the 5th. So by ramping production you can develop much quicker. Another related point is tolerance of failure. A failed test for a government program will immediately see pressure to cancel the program by it's political opponents. Any detractors for a company will have a much harder time exerting influence.
  - rdedev 3y ago
    I mean ISRO is a government organization and it's been provided pretty cheap services. I don't know enough about rockets to comment further. Just wanted to say that govt does not always mean expensive
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure ISRO costs around 10x per kg more than spacex on a falcon 9. In theory starship could lower the costs 10x more.
chasd00 3y ago
I thing the talent is there, I mean the incredible scientific and engineering accomplishments made by government research bodies make that point clear. The problem is governments are filled to the brim with committees and competing priorities. Frankly, to most people and therefore governments, Starship/Superheavy just isn't that important or at the very least, there's a thousand other things of equal importance competing for talent/money/attention. Also, the risk of failure is so high. Musk was literally laughed out of the room when he proposed re-usable orbital boosters. I'm sure he was laughed at again when he proposed a full-flow staged combustion engine (Raptor). And again when he said they were going to put 33 engines beneath a stainless steel water tower. Governments can't weather the ire of public opinion the way a private company can. edit: after all that typing i just realized i'm basically saying "i agree" to your comment hah. The risk of failure is just too high for governments to stomach.
soperj 3y ago
Last I checked, they put someone on the moon.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  At 1% gdp spend

Because it takes deep pockets and willingness to take big risks. Something gov organizations can not do.

by rapsey 3y ago

Because it takes deep pockets and willingness to take big risks. Something gov organizations can not do.

> Something gov organizations can not do. From what I understand about space exploration, this is an opposite-world position. Can you expand on what you mean? Governments ("gov organizations") have been defining the term "space exploration" since 1944. First object in outer space, first object in orbit, first human in outer space, first space station, first interstellar space flight, first human on the moon, first man-made objects on mars, venus, all by "gov organizations." I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable?

rapsey 3y ago
And they did most of it decades ago when the public supported grand endeavours. Now risk aversion is very high and budgets are very limited.
- komali2 3y ago
  So what? Governments are clearly capable of achieving these things, they've done it before. Private industry, remains to be seen. Worth nothing that it has to be profitable for it to work for private industry - possibly not what we actually want for space exploration. Would private industry have kept the voyager probes going this long?
  - rapsey 3y ago
    I am speaking about willingness to take big risks not ability. You are arguing with me while talking about completely different things.
    - soperj 3y ago
      Apollo wasn't a risk?
  - rocqua 3y ago
    There are two parts to profitability. Revenue and costs. I don't want space exploration for unlocking massive new revenues, but reduced costs would be amazing. Not just for opportunities that get unlocked, but also for freeing up resources for other things.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Simply not accurate. NASA budget today is actually about the same as the avg during Apollo. The problem is how the money is spent. And the 'risk aversion' isn't really the problem either.
chasd00 3y ago
> I'm super confused why you think the comparatively young private space industry, which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit, is somehow more capable? i would say the appetite for risk and prioritization in the private space industry makes them more capable. Don't forget the Apollo program and the space race was in response to a real existential threat. Once the threat lessoned the appetite for risk went down and other priorities took center stage. The private space industry has taken all that innovation, adding to it, and moving forward where the governments don't because they have other fish to fry. To mangle a quote, "If [private space industry] have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants [government science/engineering]". I think the private space industry is further validation the public investment in space is worth it.
- komali2 3y ago
  > Don't forget the Apollo program and the space race was in response to a real existential threat. Once the threat lessoned the appetite for risk went down and other priorities took center stage. Yes, there are various motives and pressures at play, but that doesn't change for private industry. And I worry about the core motive of the private industry: Profit. If a launch won't be profitable, why would it happen, no matter how much it benefits humanity? I worry about the profitiziation of space. I don't think profitization has done good things to the internet, media, and technology in general.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    Profit is exactly how we make sure individual and societal interests are aligned. Otherwise, how do we know what "benefits humanity"? Who decides? One says "let's feed the poor". Another "let's explore space". Yet another "let's build an AI". Who decides the allocation? During Cold War, everything USSR did here in the Eastern Block was "for the benefit of all mankind". We all know what a crock of BS that was...
    - komali2 3y ago
      > Profit is exactly how we make sure individual and societal interests are aligned. That's interesting, I disagree, but I'm curious why you think so? Slavery is extremely profitable, the only reason it doesn't happen is because it is illegal - a distinctly unprofitable decision made and enforced by a government for the sole purpose of it's better for mankind. Arguably all regulation under capitalism fulfills this purpose, outside of those designed to form regulatory capture. If what you say is true, wouldn't we be able to just remove all law and let the divine will of profit determine our every action? Or, where do you see the line? > Otherwise, how do we know what "benefits humanity"? Who decides? One says "let's feed the poor". Another "let's explore space". Yet another "let's build an AI". Who decides the allocation? You genuinely feel that profit motive will allocate this better than the normal way of "who decides," that being debates and appeals to rationality and ethics? What profit is there to be gained from feeding the poor? The most profitable thing to do is to collude to ensure there is a class of people who are one paycheck from a missed meal or missed rent, therefore you can pay them as little as possible and they have to accept that because they can't afford to spend the time to look for a new job. I just don't see how profit could possibly align with actual human ethics. Sometimes, certainly, but rarely. > During Cold War, everything USSR did here in the Eastern Block was "for the benefit of all mankind". What do you mean? Where does that statement come from? I'm searching for uses by USSR fokls but the most definitive historical usage I can find is from a US navy officer saying of the nuclear weapons, "We are testing these bombs for the good of mankind." Hm, I agree, that is a crock, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the USSR or why you brought it up. The USSR was a state capitalist nation, it suffered similar issues with profit motive, though exacerbated by a centrally planned economy. Hence the holomdor: caused partially by the purging of wheat fields in Ukraine so as to plant cash crops instead to fund Stalin's feverish mega-projects. That's the heart of my argument: profit almost never puts the needs of humans first. Edit: IIRC "for all mankind" is also inscribed... yes, on the moon, by the USA lol. "We came in peace for all mankind."
pixl97 3y ago
> have been defining the term "space exploration" At insanely massive expense. Note that this isn't a bad thing, R&D is expensive and humanity has benefitted from this. The problem here is just the government doing it never leads to cost decreases. The lack of cheap orbital access has crippled the expansion of space industry. Industry tends to be exceptionally capable in producing assembly line style production. Up until this point rockets have been much more custom productions, use once and throw away. There was pretty much zero headway in the government achieving this scale of production. SpaceX in two decades has dramatically decreased the cost to orbit. And with their new rocket will drop costs by order of magnitude or more. This will lead to far more government R&D expenditure in space. >which has accomplished putting satellites and a car in low earth orbit And by that you mean "has accomplished in putting more satellites than all other governments/entities added together into space". I don't know, you tell me.
- rocqua 3y ago
  A key advantage of the assembly line production of these things is fast iterative development. At first, in a 'move fast and break things' way, when doing tests. But just as significantly, by learning about non-fatal flaws in a working design so you can improve it. The 100th rocket you build and attempt to fly will be much more optimized than the 5th. So by ramping production you can develop much quicker. Another related point is tolerance of failure. A failed test for a government program will immediately see pressure to cancel the program by it's political opponents. Any detractors for a company will have a much harder time exerting influence.
- rdedev 3y ago
  I mean ISRO is a government organization and it's been provided pretty cheap services. I don't know enough about rockets to comment further. Just wanted to say that govt does not always mean expensive
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure ISRO costs around 10x per kg more than spacex on a falcon 9. In theory starship could lower the costs 10x more.

chasd00 3y ago

I thing the talent is there, I mean the incredible scientific and engineering accomplishments made by government research bodies make that point clear. The problem is governments are filled to the brim with committees and competing priorities. Frankly, to most people and therefore governments, Starship/Superheavy just isn't that important or at the very least, there's a thousand other things of equal importance competing for talent/money/attention. Also, the risk of failure is so high. Musk was literally laughed out of the room when he proposed re-usable orbital boosters. I'm sure he was laughed at again when he proposed a full-flow staged combustion engine (Raptor). And again when he said they were going to put 33 engines beneath a stainless steel water tower. Governments can't weather the ire of public opinion the way a private company can. edit: after all that typing i just realized i'm basically saying "i agree" to your comment hah. The risk of failure is just too high for governments to stomach.

soperj 3y ago

Last I checked, they put someone on the moon.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
At 1% gdp spend