ERICOPOLY Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 And before we let anything be regulated by free market, you first need to fix the lobbying problem. You also need to eliminate the "limited liability" legal protections granted to corporate owners (by government) before you can possibly have a free market. So I'm skeptical of the possibility of a free market. You would need less offshore drilling regulation, for example, if the investors were personally responsible for cleaning up every drop of oil spilled. Instead, they are only liable for the equity they have invested in the company. This invites regulation upon them -- because if their financial liability is limited, then they will cut corners if they can. That's why there are people who feel the need to heavily regulate them. Sure, regulations have costs. They pay these costs instead of paying for the full price of their mistakes. That's the present system. I guess we have this system because nobody would go out there and drill otherwise without the limited liability protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sys Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Im really curious how Musk basicly went into space industry and is now doing it better then everyone else. There are some pretty smart people in NASA and other rocket company's right? I guess bureacracy is just that bad in those organizations? Musk is very smart, but I imagine that a lot of people at NASA and those rocket contracting company's are also very smart. spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Im really curious how Musk basicly went into space industry and is now doing it better then everyone else. There are some pretty smart people in NASA and other rocket company's right? I guess bureacracy is just that bad in those organizations? Musk is very smart, but I imagine that a lot of people at NASA and those rocket contracting company's are also very smart. spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost. they are doing it better by finding out how to land the rocket back to earth? That is how it becomes cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
value-is-what-you-get Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Im really curious how Musk basicly went into space industry and is now doing it better then everyone else. There are some pretty smart people in NASA and other rocket company's right? I guess bureacracy is just that bad in those organizations? Musk is very smart, but I imagine that a lot of people at NASA and those rocket contracting company's are also very smart. spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost. Musk has applied the same basic process to SpaceX as he used with Tesla. He calls it engineering based on first principles. This is a world of difference from engineering and design based on analogy. He explains all this in several of his interviews. Do you think the ModelS is the safest car ever tested by a fluke? It s a concious effort to design to a standard. With rockets, his thinking process is basically to add up the weight of all components and fuel, multiply by the price per pound, and then minimize the cost to form all the constituant parts into a rocket. Certainly safety is a number one priority as well. I will go out on a limb and suggest SpaceX will run the safest launch program ever with live people. With rockets andastronauts it s really easy to price better than the competition because you re competing with governments - the least efficient way to get things done. What an ideal circumstamce when the low bid turms out to be the highest quality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost. They're doing everything much better -- price is just one of those things. I suggest you look into what the company is doing and what others have been doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sys Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 you are assuming they are/will do things better. this may be a correct assumption, but it is not based on evidence. ula has produced many more safe and successful heavy launches than spacex. i also don't understand the comment about competing with governments. as i understand it, spacex is complaining about not being allowed to bid on the future launches which were awarded to ula as a block. they are, or want to be, competing with ula, not with governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
value-is-what-you-get Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 you are assuming they are/will do things better. this may be a correct assumption, but it is not based on evidence. ula has produced many more safe and successful heavy launches than spacex. i also don't understand the comment about competing with governments. as i understand it, spacex is complaining about not being allowed to bid on the future launches which were awarded to ula as a block. they are, or want to be, competing with ula, not with governments. Musk stated that the primary reason they do not file patents on much of their technologies related to SpaceX is because their primary competitors are governments which makes patents more or less unenforceable. USA is not the only customer on Earth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBird Posted June 13, 2014 Author Share Posted June 13, 2014 On the design of a spacecraft that warps Spacetime in order to travel faster than light. Sponsored by SpaceX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 is that real? Anyone with physics knowledge know if it is remotely feasable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 is that real? Anyone with physics knowledge know if it is remotely feasable There has been some published papers and a lot of talk in the last 2 years about the feasability of this and even some experimental evidence. http://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/science/nasa-developing-star-trek-warp-drive-future-space-travel http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.1649v6.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.4601.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Elon Musk Says Spacex on getting the first people to Mars by 2024 to 2026 ""We need to get where things are steady and predictable," Musk said. "Maybe we're close to developing the Mars vehicle, or ideally we've flown it a few times, then I think going public would make more sense."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 what is on mars that is interesting? You have to build an atmosphere through terraforming (which might not be feasible). And you also need a magnetic field to protect from radiation from the sun right? And I dont think that is currently present on mars? ALso I can imagine that staying on mars for and extended period could be bad for your body given that there is less gravity. Isnt he really using mars for PR reasons? There might be other planets in our solar system that could potentially be more interesting once we learn more about them. But ofcourse if you say you will try to go to these planets, it will sound a lot less interesting to your average person. Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Musk doesn't want to go to Mars for the money. He thinks it's good for the human civilization to eventually become multi-planetary, and Mars is #1 on the list of places where a self-sustaining base could be possible. We're not going to terraform the whole planet any time soon, but you have to start somewhere. He's mentioned it many times in interview. I suggest you have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Musk doesn't want to go to Mars for the money. He thinks it's good for the human civilization to eventually become multi-planetary, and Mars is #1 on the list of places where a self-sustaining base could be possible. We're not going to terraform the whole planet any time soon, but you have to start somewhere. He's mentioned it many times in interview. I suggest you have a look. yeah but good for human civilization = economic reasons. And to make it cheap and practical, we need a new technological break through. The size of things we can launch into space is limited by our shitty fuel sources we have now. And it is still somewhat risky. If something goes wrong, you are toast. It is not like the work for this new necesairy technology is not being done, as the world is hugely benefited from it if you exclude space flight. His argument is, if nobody does it, then no progress will be made. But Im not so sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Musk doesn't want to go to Mars for the money. He thinks it's good for the human civilization to eventually become multi-planetary, and Mars is #1 on the list of places where a self-sustaining base could be possible. We're not going to terraform the whole planet any time soon, but you have to start somewhere. He's mentioned it many times in interview. I suggest you have a look. yeah but good for human civilization = economic reasons. And to make it cheap and practical, we need a new technological break through. The size of things we can launch into space is limited by our shitty fuel sources we have now. And it is still somewhat risky. If something goes wrong, you are toast. It is not like the work for this new necesairy technology is not being done, as the world is hugely benefited from it if you exclude space flight. His argument is, if nobody does it, then no progress will be made. But Im not so sure about that. You don't think that SpaceX has been making pretty good progress on making it cheap and practical, and making technological breakthroughs, in the last than 12 years that this private company has existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Musk doesn't want to go to Mars for the money. He thinks it's good for the human civilization to eventually become multi-planetary, and Mars is #1 on the list of places where a self-sustaining base could be possible. We're not going to terraform the whole planet any time soon, but you have to start somewhere. He's mentioned it many times in interview. I suggest you have a look. Yes the economic payoff comes when the earth is struck by a very large rock, but humanity still survives on Mars. Right now we have all of our eggs in one small and vulnerable basket. Besides humanity needs a new frontier, there has always been a place to run to, a place to get away from the powers that be and start anew. There is no (habitable) place left on this planet to go. Someday there will be cheesy movies about the wild wild Mars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 yeah i agree that they are doing great things, and I am a fan of the guy. I just wonder why the hell we should bother with going into space besides satellites. And why should we go to mars. Ofcourse it would be great if he would make launching satellites into space cheaper. But other then that? You can only launch small space crafts with our current fuel sources, this isnt like to be improved on much. It takes a v long time to get to another planet. And once you get there, there is really nothing there. For other more practical planets that we could actually colonize, the distance is way further, and it would take years to get there (or possibly much longer). And it would be extremely risky and expensive (even with much cheaper launch costs from earth) So you would need huge spacecrafts to make that possible and practical. I guess one way to build a v large space craft is to build them actually in space or on the moon, and mine asteroids to get hydrogen fuel for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just trying to see the economic benefits and payoffs for the risk you are taking. Musk doesn't want to go to Mars for the money. He thinks it's good for the human civilization to eventually become multi-planetary, and Mars is #1 on the list of places where a self-sustaining base could be possible. We're not going to terraform the whole planet any time soon, but you have to start somewhere. He's mentioned it many times in interview. I suggest you have a look. yeah but good for human civilization = economic reasons. And to make it cheap and practical, we need a new technological break through. The size of things we can launch into space is limited by our shitty fuel sources we have now. And it is still somewhat risky. If something goes wrong, you are toast. It is not like the work for this new necesairy technology is not being done, as the world is hugely benefited from it if you exclude space flight. His argument is, if nobody does it, then no progress will be made. But Im not so sure about that. Did the first people from Europe to settle the new world wait until it was cheap and practical to do so, thinking "we'll just sit back and wait for some technological breakthroughs that will make it easier", or did they just go anyway and assume the risks? I give you a hint, many of them died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Difference between mars and the america's is, with the America's you could actually live there without resources from the other side of the ocean. And there were things of value there. And second, there was not much research done on ships otherwhise, because the incentives werent really there. I really dont think space flight will not be advanced by a lot if Musk wasn't around. We would invent new materials and fuel sources for other industry's that could also be used for space flight. For example very light and strong materials to build airplanes (and also spaceships). There is an enourmous incentive to make breakthroughs there right now. So I seriously doubt spaceflight wouldnt be advanced by a lot without musk. With current technology we could for example not really reach the nearest earthlike planet which is many light years away still. Just playing devil's advocate :) edit: http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/blog/why_elon_musks_colony_on_mars_in_2020s_is_unfeasible_what_could_we_do_really-134586 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I really dont think space flight will not be advanced by a lot if Musk wasn't around. Humanity's practical spaceflight capacity was actually going backwards until SpaceX came around, with prices going up, not down. Better materials and computers from other industries are great, but they don't get you a foot off the ground. What you need are better rockets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I really dont think space flight will not be advanced by a lot if Musk wasn't around. Humanity's practical spaceflight capacity was actually going backwards until SpaceX came around, with prices going up, not down. Better materials and computers from other industries are great, but they don't get you a foot off the ground. What you need are better rockets... yeah but my point is, he is trying to make extremely good steam engines in an airplane to fly to antartica. I think that is a better analogy then columbus going to the americas. No matter how good the rockets, once you get to any planet inside our solar system, living there is not practical and usefull and many times more risky expensive and dangerous then living across the ocean a thousand years ago. With a lot less to gain. Terraforming will take at least a thousand years (so why the rush?). And going to some planet light years away is not feasible with rocket technology, unless you can build a self sustaining space ship. But for that you need to advance many other scientific area's that is outside the control of musk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Look at prediction of the future from 50 or 100 years ago. How off base were they? So I think it's hard to say what we can and can't do. Progress can go in reverse (look at the dark ages). We need people who are pushing things forward. It doesn't just all happen by itself. People like Musk are making a real difference. If they thought the way you think, our civilization would be much worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTEJD1997 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 You can only launch small space crafts with our current fuel sources, this isnt like to be improved on much. It takes a v long time to get to another planet. And once you get there, there is really nothing there. For other more practical planets that we could actually colonize, the distance is way further, and it would take years to get there (or possibly much longer). And it would be extremely risky and expensive (even with much cheaper launch costs from earth) So you would need huge spacecrafts to make that possible and practical. I guess one way to build a v large space craft is to build them actually in space or on the moon, and mine asteroids to get hydrogen fuel for them. There are many ways around this... A). You could assemble the transport ship in space by using multiple launches from Earth. Over time, you could build something huge... B). There may be alternative methods for getting some materials into space. For example, using a "gun" to launch water, steel, etc into space. There has also been talk of using magnetic acceleration, perhaps other methods? C). Perhaps the best method of all would be a "space elevator". There have been studies that suggest that this could be built with our current technology. If not, could we build it in 5-10-15 years if we put concentrated resources towards it? If successful, a space elevator would lower the cost of getting most stuff into space by a factor of 250X? It would also get cheaper the more we sent up. This would be a great way to start colonization. If lifting a pound of material cost $5 instead of $1,000, just think of all that could be done. Also, we could work almost 24x7. Elevator would also be easier/safer than launching stuff. I think the space elevator is the way to go, and would be a complete game changer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 yeah i read about that. But apparantly that is not possible with current materials. You would need some kind of break through with carbon nanotubes I think. I do think that technological progress will not be linear, but more like an exponential function. There are a lot of smart people saying that the next 20-30 years will make the last 100 years look pale in comparison. Also I am not too worried about the dark ages returning. We have very advanced communication networks to prevent that, that werent present before the middle ages. Even if we run out of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Also I am not too worried about the dark ages returning. We have very advanced communication networks to prevent that, that werent present before the middle ages. Even if we run out of oil. Don't read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Catastrophic-Risks-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199606501/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now