Slashdot Mirror
Paul Allen Confirmed as SpaceShipOne's Sponsor
Shafe writes "Space.com confirmed suspicions that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was the secret investor in Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne, which completed a successful supersonic flight on the same day as the centennial of flight. Allen hopes Rutan's ship will win the $10 million X-Prize to help kickstart private manned space flight."
This is not the first time Mr. Allen has contributed to the common good: google link
Good for him. If only more plutocrats thought the same way.
Turkey Guts,BTW.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
I dont think it matters which team succeeds, I'm glad they are all taking part and actually progressing as a whole.
:)
I would practically give my right arm to go on any one of these trips.
I feel blessed to be born in an age where spaceflight is possible
liqbase
Perhaps a financial wreck, but it's also an amazing place to visit. If you're a music fan, that is.
Why would that be ironic? Most people do not view their OS as a religon and use the best tool for the job.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
This has to be some kind of ideological statement by this guy. 10M is nothing, for gods sakes, he pays ALL of his Seattle Supersonics more than that every year, so it can't be the money.
Whatever his investment amount is, its good to see both noteriety and cash flow in to private space programs. Maybe we can set a trend where rich geeks get sick of waiting, and goto space on our own. If you think about it, it's kinda the way we (as in geeks as a whole) tend to act anyway (when we're at our best that is).
I forget who said it, but someone quoted that every good program begins as an itch that needs to be scratched by the programmer... maybe this one's his?
-chitlenz
Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
Let's hope the winner of X-prize and other participants won't patent their work like mad, to the point of disabling others to build similar machine.
If ship was patented to death for example, I don't think there would be that many ships on the ocean now.
I have high hopes for the future of humanity with X-prize and its participants, but then again I've yet to see the limit of human's ability to shoot itself on the foot.
If paul allen hadn't made boat loads of cash working for M$. I don't see Linus financing the Nina and Pinta of the infant space age.
>:O
It's kind of amazing, in the last two days we've had a couple of interesting space stories, both involving about the same sum. Two more 'space tourists' are going to fly to the ISS in Soyuz capsules, for $20MM. Paul Allen is revealed as the sponser of Rutan's effort -- total cost, about $20MM.
So, where one person gets to go into space, by himself, atop a converted Russian ICBM -- somebody with a little more sand kickstarts an entire private space industry. The tourists have only their memories, while Allen will have his own spaceship!
Very inspiring, Mr Allen.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
I wouldn't call Bill Gates bad at spending his money for a good cause. He's well known for donating significant sums for charity which, I might add, is much more moral than contributing to an X-prize attempt.
The owls are not what they seem
Paul Allen likes to spend his money on more "visionary" pursuits, trying to further push the technology envelope, but Gates has certainly thrown plenty of money to good causes in his own right.
There are lots of ways to look at how Gates and Allen spend their money. You pointed out one distinction. However, I'd like to go a little deeper into that and ask why.
Here's my theory: Gates has convinced himself that he's a genius. That he's smarter than almost everyone. He feels that he's the elite. This explains his attempts to so fully dominate and control the future of computing. He certainly doesn't need the money. He's doing it because he honestly feels that he knows better than anyone else how computing should evolve.
But he's not entirely heartless. He sees the poor unfortunate masses who aren't as great as he is and feels like he should give them a few bucks. Kind of like royalty flinging coins out the windows of their buggies and at the miserable wretches in the crowd as they roll down the common street. It makes him feel good about himself and, quite frankly, those who are lucky enough to catch those coins he chucks out the window really do need the money so they are grateful.
Allen, on the other hand, has a much more modest view of his place in the world. Unlike Gates, he does not believe that he's one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He can fully appreciate the fact that there are scores of other people out there with great ideas. Since he has the money, he funds their work in the hopes that they will be able to develop their ideas into fantastic technologies that advance the human race.
There's no right or wrong here. Both are doing what they feel is best.
GMD
watch this
Unless of course you are meaning to imply that private space travel is more important than these other causes.
"It is good to see people with his kind of wealth putting it to work for society."
They all do, it's just that most of it isn't high-profile or 'cool' stuff like space travel.
Wealthy people don't stuff their mattresses full of cash or have a Scrooge McDuck vault where they hoard coin and bill, or in any other way keep it totally removed from the economy.
No, instead what you find is that their money is socked away in investment portfolios, mutual funds, annuities, or their own businesses as capital investments. All that money gets invested somewhere in society, whether it's in government bonds, other companies, loans, etc etc etc.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Was the post meant to be ironic? As a space nerd, I'm happy that Paul Allen is funding the development of a spacecraft, but all in all, I don't think a suborbital spacecraft is more important than trying to eradicate AIDS, malaria, and hunger. Check the Gates Foundation web site.
And no, I'm not saying we have to choose between earthly needs and exploration.
moving forward in technology and space travel is just as important as moving forward in medicine and food production.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Umm, "much more moral"? WTF d00d?
You have $10B. You wanna make the world a better place.
Scenario 1:: Give $10000 to 1,000,000 third-worlders. If you want that to last for 25-30 years, your million people will have $300-400 per year. They will have running water, but the vast majority of those million people will be living in mud huts and abject squalor. At the end of your 25 years, most will have reproduced at least once, leaving you with 2,000,000 people still living in squalor.
Number of lives improved: 1,000,000 for 25 years.
Funds remaining: $0.00
Choice 2: Drop $9B on a development programme to reduce lift costs to orbit from $10000/pound to $100/pound. Invest $1B in companies that have neat ideas, like doing science (which leads to more technology), strip-mining the moon or asteroids (reducing environmental loads on earth) for metals and silicon for solar cells. 25 years later, you've doubled your money (and can feed the 2,000,000 third-worlders that Mister Morality left behind if you so choose), and six billion people now have practically free electrical power and consequently, pure water as extracted from seawater through desalination plant, also becomes too cheap to meter.
Number of lives improved: 6,000,000,000 permanently improved.
Funds Remaining: Very probably more funds than you started with. So you can fund the next big thing, whatever that might be.
And as an added bonus: If you still wanna help 10000 third-worlders because they're somehow a very special bunch of third-worlders (as opposed to the other 2-3 billion of them), just build them their very own hollowed-out asteroid for $850M, and use $150M (10000 people * 150 pounds * $100/pound) to fly them to it.
Some of Gates' "charitable" actions are Good Things, such as his funding of medical research. Others are props for the monopoly, such as giving away free-as-in-beer Microsoft licenses to schools so that the kids never hear about penguins.
But to pretend that "charity" is somehow intrinsically more moral than funding the development of cool technology for private gain is utter and complete bunk.
Damn near every improvement in your quality of life over the past 100 years has come from people just trying to make a buck by building a better mousetrap.
You go, Paul Allen. And don't let the whining moralists get you down. Investing in private space development is one of the most moral acts a human being can perform.
Yes, certainly. I mean, we should not mind it when someone hoards money and distributes to various charities. Certainly they're the best people to decide how to distribute the money. Certainly it's best to withold money to those who need it just to give it to them in an "officious manner".
I was just talking about this with someone about Carnegie. It goes like this:
let's exploit the workers and make them live in miserable conditions. Then let's reap our profits from this exploitation. Now, after we've made thourough use of the power large sums of money affords, let's give it away and build museums. Now, we fill these museums full of art depicting the struggle/misery/plight of the downtrodden. Finally, we add insult to injury and call the whole process "edificaiton".
Man, fuck Gates and all the other fucks like them who think that they can exonerate themselves by giving away what they never should've had to begin with.
We should *always* be leary of an individual having that sort of power that Gates has because of the money he has. Franky, I don't trust him to decide what the pressing issues of the day are, nor to influence our politics as much as he certainly does.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
1. $9bn will not "reduce lift costs to orbit from $10000/pound to $100/pound". NASA funding was ~$14bn in 2002 alone, and you can't increase efficiency that much, even in cuckoo land, unless you have a very good idea?
...six billion people now have practically free electrical power and consequently, pure water as extracted from seawater through desalination plant. I'm sorry, but unless the electricity is beamed and desalinated water materialised you still need low level electricity distribution and water transportation. Production costs are low compared to costs of transportation.
2. 1bn is way way way below the invested amounts in NASDAQ, even on IPO, full of tech companies that have neat ideas.
3.
I'm all for teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish, but although $10bn is obscene for an individual, is is small fish on the global investment scale of things. Cool technology is cool, but it is not a cure-all, it is a part of a means to an end, but only a part. Nor will space-travel/exploitation be a cure-all for world poverty et al, low level solutions need to be made, the UN needs more money, development charities need more money, developing countries need more money (or be freed from their debt, but this is another discussion). Bringing back trillions of tons of ore from asteriods will make no difference if the price of ore is immediately depressed and people from developing countries still have no direct water supply, still have no electricity pylons to their village, or still have inadequate access to education. Old fashion engineering and logistics are the only things that can solve this.
karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
Linus bought a Z3, yeah big deal. He has like $3 or 4 million if memory serves me right, and he spends wisely, like on his house. Bill Gates has $50 odd BILLION and gives 0.01 % to charity. Big deal. Linus Torvalds doesn't get money as people pay for linux, he gets it as a thank you from companies granting him stock interests. He isn't even the head developer (Andrew Morton is now...) so basically, he's just the face. Bill Gates OWNS Microsoft. Linux doesn't own Linux. He owns the copyright, but not the source. It's free for all, and every Linux developer (even user?) owns a share. Correct me if I'm wrong, IANAL.
"Bill Gates does not run... blah blah blah"
/. rants. Even if that has some basis in fact (which it could), it doesn't change the fact that countless people have benefitted with their lives from the grants. And it doesn't stand to reason that Gates would say "Hey, here's $200 million. But first, sign this $4 million contract." I'm no math major, but that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
You're right. It's only his $26 BILLION (sorry, $6.2 billion is just what they've given out so far) that comprises the endowment.
"Mr. Gates did not get on the philanthropic exploits... blah blah blah"
So? Just as I don't know "the amount of money or time" that you've committed to charities, you don't have a clue as to what Mr. Gates' motives are, and the smarmy, self-important intimation that you do is part of what angers me. And "guilt-tripping"? Is that a joke? Bill Gates can either be an emotionless corporate hard-heart, hell-bent on world domination, or he can be swayed by the "guilt" laid on him by people. He can't be both. Pick one.
And does he "go around to countries asking them" for contracts? I'd like to see any evidence of that beyond anecdotal
Speaking of not making sense, let's examine part of what you're saying:
"He doesn't run the Foundation."
"He does run the Foundation and uses it to get Microsoft contracts."
Huh?
"You don't know me... blah blah blah."
You're right. And you don't know Bill Gates. Maybe you should take some of your own advice, and not speculate as to the intentions of another person.
But, given the size of the entire endowment, I think it's safe to guess you (just like I and most of the rest of the population of the world) haven't given 56% of their net worth to charity. That, unlike your assumptions, has at least some statistical validity to it (somewhere... I'm not about to look up average charitable donations by household as a percentage of income, but I'll betcha 50 bucks it's a whole shitload less than 56%. Feel free to look it up, though, if you think that statistical assumption is wrong).
Either way, I suppose I don't really care what you donate. I think it's absurd for you dismiss the significance of the donations as being executed for personal reasons of ego, while ignoring the benefits they've caused -- regardless of their source. I don't think it's any better of you to criticize Mr. Gates like you do than it would be for you to say to me "Bah, whatever chartitable donations you've made have only been to make yourself feel good and only for your benefit" or something to that effect. And that'd get me wicked-pissed off.
> Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!