Virgin Galactic's Quiet News: Virgin Now Owns The SpaceShip Company

RocketAcademy writes "While all eyes were focused on SpaceX, which is preparing for another launch to the International Space Station, Virgin Galactic quietly put out a press release. Virgin Galactic has acquired full ownership of The SpaceShip Company, which will build production versions of SpaceShip Two. Ownership was previously shared with Scaled Composites, which built SpaceShip One and is building the SpaceShip Two prototype. There have been rumors of strained relations between Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites. This news, which was not announced until after the close of business Friday, raises some interesting questions about Virgin's relationship with Scaled and its plans for the future."

Comments

Interesting questions

[girlintraining]

I'm going to skip the rhetoric and just ask my question as food for thought for anyone who reads this: Why are we building space ships for rich tourists, while real science languishes in the land of budget cuts and resource shortages? Why is it okay for the very wealthy to build yachts in space while poor people starve and wonder if they'll be able to afford the medication they need to stay alive? I know these aren't easy questions -- any answer I can provide seems woefully inadequate. But I think we should be asking those questions too, not just about the businesses, but their relationship to the larger society.

Re:Interesting questions

[91degrees]

Because our society is largely based on capitalist principles which uses the profit motive as an incentive to create economic growth and technological development. Being able to afford space yachts is one of the incentives that encourages this growth.

Re:Interesting questions

[girlintraining]

Because our society is largely based on capitalist principles which uses the profit motive as an incentive to create economic growth and technological development. Being able to afford space yachts is one of the incentives that encourages this growth.

That's a lie that's told over and over again to justify massive wealth inequity. But after the first couple of million, you've got enough to live a very comfortable life, and there's no relationship between comfort and a desire to create. In fact, quite the opposite is true: It's adversity that is the mother of invention. We aren't creating multibillionaires because these people are millions of times more productive or valuable than others.

Re:Interesting questions

[man_of_mr_e]

The simple answer is:

There's no profit in helping the poor. They have no money, and what little they have is spent on luxuries like clothing, food, and shelter. That leaves them no left to pay anyone back for helping them.

Simple fact is, nobody becomes rich by giving stuff away. You only become rich by ensuring you get a healthy profit on anything you do.

Even people like Bill & Melinda Gates, who have setup foundations to help the poor have structured them in such a way that they only give out money that is essentially profit on the foundations investments. This keeps the foundation solvent and going for years after the donations stop coming in.

Re:Interesting questions

[girlintraining]

Hmm. Apparently it's a "troll" if you ask people deeper questions about personal and corporate responsibility, instead of pointing and saying "Oh look! Something new and shiny for the rich!"

Re:Interesting questions

[91degrees]

That's a lie that's told over and over again to justify massive wealth inequity.

Which part? We do have a society largely based on capitalist principles. The stated reason for this is that it promotes innovation. Evidence seems to suggest that it does so.

But after the first couple of million, you've got enough to live a very comfortable life, and there's no relationship between comfort and a desire to create.

Of course there's not. It's not about comfort. It appears to be more about competitiveness. After the first million, money's just a way of keeping score. Of course there is the incentive that if you really excel you might get to go to space.

We aren't creating multibillionaires because these people are millions of times more productive or valuable than others.

No we're not. And nobody says we are. This is a side effect of the system.

We have a system that largely works. Yes, it does lead to wealth inequality. Yes, this is a problem that should be addressed. The fact that the super-rich can afford this sort of thing isn't the problem though. It's just a symptom.

Re:Interesting questions

[petsounds]

The more work private companies to do on this problem -- that is, the putting people in space and on planets problem -- the better we get at it, the cheaper it becomes, the more sustainable the industry becomes, all of which enable more science to be done. There's also the whole deal of creating jobs for Americans (and other countries), which is a nice bonus. It's the same model as Tesla -- build an expensive sports car for the wealthy, use those profits to use a somewhat less expensive sedan, and on down the line.

Maybe it doesn't fit into your Platonic ideal of how this should go, but if you have a better idea then float it. Unless you were suggesting that spaceflight is a waste of time compared with the problems we need to solve on this planet, which I don't think has to be a binary answer.

Re:Interesting questions

[icebike]

It is not that we have programs, but that we spend on one thing instead of another.

Who is this WE you speak of?

Virgin is a private company. They will sell their services to whoever pays them.
Or are you suggesting someone like you should get to dictate where they spend their money?

Money is never WASTED.

All the money Virgin spends is spent here on Earth, in the US, putting people to work all up and down the supply chain. How is this different than having the government taking from Virgin to give to some homeless drunk? Oh, wait, Virgin will be taxed, as will the space tourists, and the engineers, and the guy that sweeps Virgin's hangers, and waters their corporate lawn, and those taxes will prop up the drunkard, and the salary for those that support him, and we get both frivolous space tourism AND social programs.

Money is never WASTED.

Re:Interesting questions

[girlintraining]

And here I thought adversity made you get a second job at McDonald's to pay your rent because your immediate needs are so precarious that you can't afford to think about the long run

Some people would be happy with just one job; And instead are selling their medications on the street or prostituting so they can keep gas in their car, which is also their home, running on cold winter nights.

Sure poor people do get creative at stretching their dollars, but rich people get creative at finding ways to make their life more convenient, pleasurable or exotic.

... That is not what "adversity is the mother of invention" means. It means that when people get in trouble, they get creative. It doesn't mean there aren't other motivations for creativity, it just means that nothing motivates a person better than statements ending with "or die." Much of our advancement from a pre-agricultural society to present was based on scarcity of a resource. It's also the principle reason why we commit acts of violence. Desperation focuses the mind like nothing else does. That does not mean we should strive to make a society of desperate people, nor does it justify having so many desperate people so a few can live in superfluous abundance.

It seems painfully obvious to me that a society that prizes personal liberty would know that personal freedoms don't mean much to the starving, sick, or weak. All they want is to not be starving, sick, or weak. Our founding document for this country talks about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as essential and undeniable. Why then, do we allow an increasingly smaller number of our population to actually achieve those in any meaningful capacity?

Wealth inequity is destroying our way of life. There is no justification for it: Every argument you can make for it I can just point to any of the other 19 largest countries (by GDP) and say "No. Wrong." We don't need to be paying CEOs 450 times the income of their lowest-paid worker... in Japan, it's about 23 times. Nobody's going to sit here and tell me the Japanese do not find ways to make their live more convenient, pleasurable, or exotic. They're designing fully animatronic sex dolls right now for shits and giggles... and there are not many Japanese starving to death or dying of preventable causes per capita compared to us.

Give me an example, any example, of where a multibillionaire, through the act of hoarding money, has benefited society. There aren't any. So we're left with the idea that we need to reward people with billions of dollars. Why? What service does a single person provide that can be worth so much? I can at least entertain the idea that there might be someone, amongst the nearly 7 billion currently on this planet, that may be able to provide some insight, some product, some innovation, so valuable as to justify this.

But I can't find any examples.

Re:Interesting questions

[Sarten-X]

We've danced that tune already. It's a common staple of revolution to seize the assets of the rich and redistribute the wealth to the poor... but then what? The money itself isn't worth much and just inflates, because the people were just given handouts. The education isn't valued any more than any current government-sponsored public school. The roads might be nice for a while, but then they'll deteriorate, assuming they can even be built in time... then the money runs out. Then what?

Do we let the new distribution stand? The only ones who have been hurt then are the original multi-millionaires who lost their money, but soon the owners and investors who benefited most from the redistribution are just as wealthy, and civilization has done nothing of importance.

Do we find the next group of rich folks and seize their assets as well? That works fine for the first round or two, until people realize that as they accumulate wealth, they should immediately move out of the country to somewhere more amiable. Then you don't get their money or their taxes. Those that stay in the country must do anything they can to hide their wealth, so charity's out of the question.

Here's an alternative idea, perhaps better: Support your current millionaires. Yes, I'm serious. When a big donation is given to guarantee the local community theater's continued operation, make sure the local paper knows and runs a nice article on it. When an important bit of research is finished, make sure the funding foundations are noted in the press release. Do your best to show appreciation for charitable grants and gifts, so the wealthy are encouraged to support their communities. While there are some folks who will hold on to their money no matter what, most I've worked with are happy to give to a good cause, and fully aware of the fact that they just don't need as much money as they have.

I believe it was John D. Rockefeller who at one point quipped, while writing a large (by anyone else's standards) check, that in the time it took to actually give the money, he'd already made more. This is a common problem today for rich folks. While everyone's quick to say that the millionaire could give them the money and they'd spend it easily, it's actually very hard to find good ways to spend a lot of money. Not every school will actually use the money for improvement, not every church's message is beneficial to spread, and not every unemployed person actually wants to work. This is why so many donations come from "foundations" rather than directly from wealthy individuals. The foundation itself does the due-diligence research into whether a cause is worth supporting.

Disclaimer: I currently work for a firm catering to high-net-worth individuals. We help them find ways to manage their fortunes, leave assets for their futures and families, start their foundations, and connect those foundations with charities.

Re:Interesting questions

[evilviper]

Why is it okay for the very wealthy to build yachts in space while poor people starve and wonder if they'll be able to afford the medication they need to stay alive?

Stopping the building of this "space yacht" wouldn't cause that money to go to better uses, and spending this money here doesn't mean any other programs are going to be cut or slowed because of it. And you can ALWAYS find slightly better uses for your money... Why are we buying candy, when there are people in the world that are starving? Why are you spending time on the internet, when there are people in the world that are starving?

Your argument is a rather simple, old logical fallacy. That's why you got modded as a troll.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20misericordiam

Re:Interesting questions

[Tubal-Cain]

You can do IT by doing everything manually, OR you can write scripts to do most everything for you and collect a check for browsing Slashdot all day. Well, what the rich do is write a real-world script that makes money.

if rent-house-occupied = True;
then collect rent payments;
else advertise house for rent;
fi

Re:Interesting questions

[I_am_Jack]

It is nothing of the sort. It is the best fucking economic system yet devised by man, despite the recent abuse of it by government and corporations.

If it's subject to abuse, and it is (and has been for centuries), and because of those abuses, can drive the world economy to its knees, which was within several hours of happening in 2008, how again does it make it the best fucking economic system yet devised by man?

If I was going to put my trust in the best fucking economic system yet devised, I'd want to make sure that it could indeed negate the abuse. That's yet to occur.

Re:Interesting questions

[Teancum]

If you have been working at McDonald's for 20-30 years and still are a grill cook, either you have some serious mental handicaps, are a total jackass that make you unpromotable, or you are deliberately sabotaging your career in other ways. I have no problems for the mentally challenged in this country being able to do something useful with their lives by being a grill cook either, but somebody who has the mental capacity to do more should over time.

At the very least, after 30 years of working at McDonald's you should be managing your own restaurant, if not being in a position of higher management. Opportunities even exist for somebody who is a career McDonald's employee like that to own their restaurant or at least be earning a very respectable salary. It takes hard work and dedication to the job, but not much more.

For folks who either have incredibly bad luck by getting hired by company after company who is closing down, or if you are such a lazy jerk that you don't bother showing up for work or do something equally stupid like picking a fist fight with your boss on a regular basis....of course you are going to struggle throughout your life and be incapable of holding down a steady job.

If you have the attitude to work hard and show some respect to your potential employer, you will usually be able to hold down a job for a reasonable length of time. You may end up quitting that job at McDonald's, but that is because you have a higher paying job. It may be a gamble to quit and move on to another employer, but that is a risk you take in life for any such career move.

This doesn't even cover those who may follow a more entrepreneurial route to achieve their life goals, but lazy people shouldn't be rewarded for being lazy.

Re:Interesting questions

[gagol]

Most of the time, when you get rich, you do so leveraging an infrastructure mostly paid for by average workers (roads, electricity, water, etc...) It only makes sense they contribute back to the system that enabled them to rise in the first place. In the US, the interstate and space program was paid for by taxing the very rich something like 90% of their income. Bear in mind it happened just after the great depression of the 30's and it was a compromise to not just take everething past 1 million dollars (not sure of the exact figure, may have been 100,000$US then).

Re:Interesting questions

[Smauler]

Money is never WASTED.

Sounds to me like you're falling victim to the broken window fallacy.

Re:Interesting questions

[AmiMoJo]

That would all be true if everyone started their career from the same place, but obviously some people have much better upbringings and education than others. If your local school is a sink and your parents can't/won't help you may be unable to reach your potential though no fault of your own. That isn't being lazy, that is life screwing you.

Re:Quietly?

[RocketAcademy]

How does a company quietly put out a press release?

By releasing it after the close of business on Friday, prior to a three-day holiday. Better still, do it while another company is grabbing all the headlines.

Re:Quietly?

[jfengel]

By putting it out on a Friday after work. The main business journalists will have gone home for the weekend, and the business people who might read it are going to pay less attention to the Saturday paper. It also means that people don't rage-sell the stock the following day. They hope that by the time Monday's market opens, tempers will cool a bit.

It's not a secret. You couldn't hide it; it's public knowledge. You just dump it when nobody's paying much attention and is too busy mowing the lawn or watching the kids play soccer to get all that outraged about it. You get to put your spin on it without the business news channels putting it in heavy rotation. It's not secret; it's just "quiet".