Actually, if you consider that the first two launches were with the older Merlin 1A engine with ablative cooling, as opposed to the new Merlin 1C which uses a regeneratively cooled nozzle, the actual SpaceX success rate goes up to a respectable 50% with the current design of the Falcon 1.
Translating, if we had a true governmental agency that simply took from the private sector what it wanted instead of having to pay for it, we could get to space for free!
Well, we can point out to the availability of credit practically free of charge from the Federal Reserve since 9/11 - that's a governmental intervention.
The Community Reinvestment Act that mandated banks extend loans to high risk individuals in 'need' while giving them the ability to repackage those high-risk mortgages and sell them in the market as a consolation prize - that's a governmental intervention.
Maybe you should stop quoting Joseph Stiglitz's buzzwords and start educating yourself on what actually IS a free market before blabbering nonsense about it.
Wow, you like cursing and insulting other people huh? Let's brush that silly ad hominem aside and look at the facts.
Many people have ALREADY put their money into F1 launches, check their launch manifest. And that was when, by your standards, they had a 100% failure rate. I expect SpaceX to receive more bids now.
The F9 and F9 Heavy uses the Merlin engine, but in multiple configurations for added thrust. Now, you would want to prove your concept in the smallest scale possible to minimize losses, so they did, the F1 flying around our rock as we speak.
Now if they say the F9 Heavy will take about 30 tons to LEO, don't mind if I believe they can deliver.
I know, I know, I'm more than anyone aware of the 'sexless caricatures that speak in long monologues' being a fine portrayal of Atlas Shrugged, which I like very much from the philosophical standpoint, but during that Galt speech I was going - like many others I believe - "jesus, won't he ever finish?".
So whether he is a staunch capitalist or an altruist doing it for humanity is besides the point. He WILL make loads of money, and it is obviously a motivation, even if he says he's doing it for selfless reasons.
In a free economy which follows the Rule of Law, bettering society and acquiring money go hand in hand, as always. When taking others property by force or fraud is not an option, producing and creating wealth becomes the only means to earn a living.
I disagree on your last point though. I see it as he's someone who made his millions by bettering society and sees no reason to stop while there's industry and initiative in him to keep doing so.
Well, actually no, I was not aware of that. But the Falcon 1 is more like a proof of concept than a workhorse. Check out the 9 and Heavy models. How do they stack up price/performance-wise against the Shuttle?
If the shuttle carries more payload than the F9 Heavy will but costs more than it's increased capacity, it's still a better deal to go with the F9.
Let me put it this way; if SpaceX gets to orbit successfully in Flight 98 it still will have spent 20 million dollars less than one Space Shuttle flight. ONE.
There's just no way private enterprise can compete with government when it comes to wasting money. We'd have to see private central banks emitting fiat money to have even a remote chance of seeing this kind of a dispute.
In the US there is already such a very nice contract, it's called the United States Constitution and breaching it is grounds for impeachment.
It provides for awesome limitations on government, such as prohibiting the use of anything but gold and silver as money, thus preventing government from seizing people's wealth through inflation, protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizues, makes confessions obtained under torture null and void, habeas corpus, prohibits direct taxation without apportionment and...
Line-item veto is a Very Bad Thing(tm). It effectively allows the Executive to usurp some legislative powers from Congress, since hand picking parts of a Bill can twist it in too many novel ways to anticipate.
In this case, the remedy is worse than the poison.
Funny, I'm a social liberal, fiscally I run middle-ground (as long as there isn't deficit spending, I don't care what the government's budget is). As a social liberal, I'm more than happy to hear someone else's argument, nod in disagreement, and say "well, good thing we don't have to agree". I don't try to push my morals on anyone, so long as they give me the same leeway. I really don't see how that's evil. I think there would be a bunch of money left over for big planes and ships to keep enemy armies from invading my home, and ample money left over for healthcare, etc (although I would prefer the states to handle that), if they would stop blowing so much money on cracking down on consentual crimes, as well as ensure that education (you need a degree to do anything anymore) is affordable. If that makes me left-wing, so be it. But calling me evil, that's pretty well off the mark. Evil does require the desire for harm to come to another, so I'd be interested in how my views are "evil".
"I don't try to push my morals on anyone, so long as they give me the same leeway."
Yet you support that as long as there's no deficit it is perfectly OK for the government to take from some people to give to others. That's the evil hidden right there.
If the government spends 100 billion dollars it's got two choices, since the State is not a fountain of goods, education and miracle drugs; it either takes the 100 billion from people who earned it through productive activites, or he prints the 100 billion, making everyone foot the bill when all prices go up in consequence of this inflation. I like that you support a balanced budget as that restricts the government to the first method, but taxing someone is still harming them.
Funny thing is that rampant US government growth has only been truly significant after the US instituted its central bank and later went off the gold standard - which was quite unpractical for politicians who wanted to spend money without having to raise taxes i.e. inflating the money supply. That enabled them to increase their spending without actually taking money from people, which had that nasty side effects of getting yourself thrown out of office more often than not. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, as we all know.
To paraphrase Bastiat, when the law ceases to limit itself to being just, it necessarily becomes a 'weapon' for injustice, and everyone will enter politics to get the chance to swing it at somebody else or protect himself from getting hit by it.
If you want to drink at the source and figure out for yourself what you think of it: Bastiat's The Law
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you consider that the first two launches were with the older Merlin 1A engine with ablative cooling, as opposed to the new Merlin 1C which uses a regeneratively cooled nozzle, the actual SpaceX success rate goes up to a respectable 50% with the current design of the Falcon 1.
You forget that inflation results in increased prices. $1M is a price. It will, thus, increase along with the others.
Translating, if we had a true governmental agency that simply took from the private sector what it wanted instead of having to pay for it, we could get to space for free!
People and their pesky rights.
Well Duncan, that's a beautiful example of the nonsensical idiotic AC comments we get from time to time here for no reason whatsoever.
*chuckes* Only in Slashdot folks! Good night!
heh, I think you're looking at the flight 2 video that got into trouble in the 2nd stage.
today's launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-XOPgaGsQ
Well, we can point out to the availability of credit practically free of charge from the Federal Reserve since 9/11 - that's a governmental intervention.
The Community Reinvestment Act that mandated banks extend loans to high risk individuals in 'need' while giving them the ability to repackage those high-risk mortgages and sell them in the market as a consolation prize - that's a governmental intervention.
Maybe you should stop quoting Joseph Stiglitz's buzzwords and start educating yourself on what actually IS a free market before blabbering nonsense about it.
Wow, you like cursing and insulting other people huh? Let's brush that silly ad hominem aside and look at the facts.
Many people have ALREADY put their money into F1 launches, check their launch manifest. And that was when, by your standards, they had a 100% failure rate. I expect SpaceX to receive more bids now.
The F9 and F9 Heavy uses the Merlin engine, but in multiple configurations for added thrust. Now, you would want to prove your concept in the smallest scale possible to minimize losses, so they did, the F1 flying around our rock as we speak.
Now if they say the F9 Heavy will take about 30 tons to LEO, don't mind if I believe they can deliver.
I know, I know, I'm more than anyone aware of the 'sexless caricatures that speak in long monologues' being a fine portrayal of Atlas Shrugged, which I like very much from the philosophical standpoint, but during that Galt speech I was going - like many others I believe - "jesus, won't he ever finish?".
So whether he is a staunch capitalist or an altruist doing it for humanity is besides the point. He WILL make loads of money, and it is obviously a motivation, even if he says he's doing it for selfless reasons.
In a free economy which follows the Rule of Law, bettering society and acquiring money go hand in hand, as always. When taking others property by force or fraud is not an option, producing and creating wealth becomes the only means to earn a living.
I disagree on your last point though. I see it as he's someone who made his millions by bettering society and sees no reason to stop while there's industry and initiative in him to keep doing so.
Oh... ok...
*looks around*
but why would we want to do such a thing?
Huh?
Elon Musk is friggin' Hank Rearden man.
Now he is really gonna swim in the money. Tip my hat to all involved. :-)
Well, actually no, I was not aware of that. But the Falcon 1 is more like a proof of concept than a workhorse. Check out the 9 and Heavy models. How do they stack up price/performance-wise against the Shuttle?
If the shuttle carries more payload than the F9 Heavy will but costs more than it's increased capacity, it's still a better deal to go with the F9.
Man, did you see the Falcon Heavy? I disagree with you on that. Can you tell me those other important capabilities that the SpaceX launchers lack?
I hope you didn't get offended or anything, I really meant it like a joke.
And I just noticed, OMG, I really got modded up informative. *slaps forehead* :-)
Karma whore. :-P
Lemme see if I can get some too: In case you're wondering, SpaceX actually means Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
Let me put it this way; if SpaceX gets to orbit successfully in Flight 98 it still will have spent 20 million dollars less than one Space Shuttle flight. ONE.
There's just no way private enterprise can compete with government when it comes to wasting money. We'd have to see private central banks emitting fiat money to have even a remote chance of seeing this kind of a dispute.
Elon Musk throws a chair at his Sony flat-screen TV upon hearing the news.
Oh c'mon, be fair.
It IS outlandish, but not NEARLY as so as FTL travel. I think we can pull it off, but we still need a lot of green tubes.
In the US there is already such a very nice contract, it's called the United States Constitution and breaching it is grounds for impeachment.
It provides for awesome limitations on government, such as prohibiting the use of anything but gold and silver as money, thus preventing government from seizing people's wealth through inflation, protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizues, makes confessions obtained under torture null and void, habeas corpus, prohibits direct taxation without apportionment and...
Oh shit. :-|
Line-item veto is a Very Bad Thing(tm). It effectively allows the Executive to usurp some legislative powers from Congress, since hand picking parts of a Bill can twist it in too many novel ways to anticipate.
In this case, the remedy is worse than the poison.
vote Third Party. FTW.
What are you doing postin on slashdot? Buy diablo 2 and the expansion now! Go!
Funny, I'm a social liberal, fiscally I run middle-ground (as long as there isn't deficit spending, I don't care what the government's budget is). As a social liberal, I'm more than happy to hear someone else's argument, nod in disagreement, and say "well, good thing we don't have to agree". I don't try to push my morals on anyone, so long as they give me the same leeway. I really don't see how that's evil. I think there would be a bunch of money left over for big planes and ships to keep enemy armies from invading my home, and ample money left over for healthcare, etc (although I would prefer the states to handle that), if they would stop blowing so much money on cracking down on consentual crimes, as well as ensure that education (you need a degree to do anything anymore) is affordable. If that makes me left-wing, so be it. But calling me evil, that's pretty well off the mark. Evil does require the desire for harm to come to another, so I'd be interested in how my views are "evil".
"I don't try to push my morals on anyone, so long as they give me the same leeway."
Yet you support that as long as there's no deficit it is perfectly OK for the government to take from some people to give to others. That's the evil hidden right there.
If the government spends 100 billion dollars it's got two choices, since the State is not a fountain of goods, education and miracle drugs; it either takes the 100 billion from people who earned it through productive activites, or he prints the 100 billion, making everyone foot the bill when all prices go up in consequence of this inflation. I like that you support a balanced budget as that restricts the government to the first method, but taxing someone is still harming them.
Funny thing is that rampant US government growth has only been truly significant after the US instituted its central bank and later went off the gold standard - which was quite unpractical for politicians who wanted to spend money without having to raise taxes i.e. inflating the money supply. That enabled them to increase their spending without actually taking money from people, which had that nasty side effects of getting yourself thrown out of office more often than not. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, as we all know.
To paraphrase Bastiat, when the law ceases to limit itself to being just, it necessarily becomes a 'weapon' for injustice, and everyone will enter politics to get the chance to swing it at somebody else or protect himself from getting hit by it.
If you want to drink at the source and figure out for yourself what you think of it: Bastiat's The Law
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Protectionism, Socialism and Communism are but different grades of the same sickness.