Jump to content

DeepSeaBase

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DeepSeaBase

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't disagree with what you said except for one point. The US is investing a lot less money into space exploration than China is, and China has advantages afforded its government organized space agency where as you noted the US is devolving its space industry. As such, in the Angry Astronaut video, he points out how little Congress financed the Axios Space Station request that NASA did give. So NASA awarded them an amount and Congress said no. China is full steam ahead. So maybe I should ask a question. Must US government invest more?
  2. China is going to beat the pants off private industry and militarize space. They also have orbited a space plane. So they are now on par with US but way beyond SpaceX or Axios or ULA. Found a very interesting video on Chinese capabilities and where they are headed. Am I mistaken? I thought the whole reason US is giving money to private billionaires is because they will provide a better service than NASA did at securing space. But now you're telling me it doesn't matter they are failing? Why are we paying them then? So bil
  3. I think this "Angry Astronaut" guy makes a great point. Can private industry compete against China? China has basically hit the tarmac with full afterburners and they already have achieved more than SpaceX or Axios combined. US private companies like SpaceX have had some significant accomplishments such as their finally successful re-landing of Starship, but I think time has ran out. China already has equal lift capacity to SpaceX and ULA and Arianne, and they are going bigger. And they are going for a unilateral space station approach which has some very interesting speculative militariz
  4. I agree, sometimes it's hard for enthusiasts or even industry-professionals to separate the complexities of adding "safety" and "assurance" and stagnation. So often times we get pushed onto timeframes that are unrealistic, or expectations that compromise safety and think of that as progress but really we could have done it better had we remained focused. That's an oversimplification. Just before JFK said that h spent 5 minutes detailing the national security risks of allowing Russia to advance rocket technology while the US remains behind, and made the other point that Russia was poised
  5. I'm pretty sure that since people can now build computers in minecraft, that can run sizeable programs even, that running these programs in the game still constitutes running a program on the hardware running the game. Therefore that host running the game can be hacked in similar principles to how a host can be used to hack the virtual machines it hosts and vice versa. From me, this is a prediction, not an estimation of how it will be pulled off.
  6. At this point I'm just concerned about the immediate claims. They seem a bit far fetched. I suppose that's OK as long as some progress is made but not at the integrity of the mission. If people get jaded because of tall tales that never turn into anything, then eventually it erodes public support.
  7. We're not having this discussion until you admit that you can't have a $23Billion industry ($23Billion as in profit) unless you earn $5million profit from each seat you sell which works out to 4,600 tourists a year. An absurd number to claim possible in next 10 years, and at current accident rates would kill 460 passengers a year. (I detail this in a thread more appropriate for this whole side of the discussion)
  8. An interesting point developed in another thread but because it's not directly related to that thread I'll just ask the question here and see what discussion forms of it. It fascinates me that NASA actually has asked this question in response to the loss of the Columbia. Brief background, Columbia is just one of many missions that had foam insulation come off the tank and break off tiles. Before whoever throws NASA under the bus, they actually ran through a lot of scenarios to evaluate the tiles and see if the Atlantis should be sent or a jury-rigged repair be made. They determined an unplanne
  9. How about you address the fact that to achieve $23Billion in revenue at $5million per seat you need to fly 4,600 seats per year. How about you just focus on that absurd prediction and stop hiding behind some non-technical, non-peer reviewed, opinion paper from a bank? That's all I really want you to acknowledge is how do you think space tourism will achieve that kind of lift capacity?
  10. I agree with Tom Booth. It's fine to present observation, in order to understand what went wrong versus our understanding of 2nd law of Thermodynamics, the problem isn't Tom Booth's observation being "speculation" the problem is the thread failed to achieve discovery of the parameters of the experiment. For instance, I'm not sure what the parameters were. So if the thread were to remain open I'd suggest Tom Booth start from the beginning an enumerate the parameters better so we can all review it in a more meaningful way and get to the bottom of it? It's a curiosity and the quest
  11. I did some simple math on their own numbers provided. How much networth does someone need to have enough control over their own finances in order to justify a $5million expense? Most wealthy people have powers of attorney in case of accidents who most likely will declare them insane if they want to spend a sizeable chunk of family or estate wealth on a risky venture. If a family has $25million dollars then dad decides to spend $5million, chances are his heirs have enough money to stop him and declare him mentally incapable. You think 3 children want to split $25million or split $20mi
  12. Don't be facetious. $23Billion / $50 million = 460 tourists per year. If you lower the cost from $50 million to $5 million then you get 4,600 tourists per year. These numbers are absurd assumptions. Starship, Blue Origins, etc, none of them propose anything that can conduct 460 seats per year let alone 4,600 seats. This is one of those moments where commonsense says whoever the "reputable source is" got paid by the industry to fluff the numbers because no one is going to check them or hold them accountable.
  13. Challenge economic forecasters with commonsense. I suppose though if you redefine space tourism to "suborbital transport" then you can justify the industry. There's actually a revenue stream unthought of by the reputable source. Organ transport. Highly time sensitive cold-chain dependent medical couriers will favor near-direct suborbital flights for 30minute transit times across the globe rather than long and complicated flight-patterns to get these precious medical materials from source to consumer.
  14. Awesome, I actually did not know this but now I do! Makes me wonder why we didn't just pay ULA to do it any differently? I mean decades ago...now that boat has kind of sailed. If SpaceX can bring the cost down to like ... $40,000 per seat for a meaningful visit (few days, a week?) I'd probably be more supportive of the tourism program myself. Currently I'm probably just miffed that I'm getting older, a lot older, and all the cool stuff to do is being done by rich people who never worked a day in their life. Even the engineers building SpaceX rockets aren't the ones getting
  15. Almost no death on Everest is investigated. Any death in space will be investigated and by the NTSB in the US if any US citizens are on board, etc? Regardless, that will be very public. And since it'll be the first, and great effort goes into no accidents, it'll also be highly scrutinized. Also, as you mentioned earlier, it is easier to go into space. This is a false perception. It is harder than going to Everest, but Everest gives you a more immediate feedback that tells you that you're in danger. Shortness of breath, hard beating heart, burning legs, all these say "do not
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.