RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 18 of 30«1216171819202930»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
AerospacefagDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 00:00 | Message # 256
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote JackDole ()
It is definitely not propaganda. It's advertising.

It is about ideas and views of the world in the first place, not about business and products. Private companies in business do advertising, but this is only important for their customers, they do not sell ideas like interplanetary travel and life on Mars. But in the same time, there are some companies that present themselves as owners of these ideas, meant to monopolize them, no matter the cost. It is not even important if they are going to make them true - as soon as you grasped attention of general public, you just have to hold on it, which functionally turns you into a political figure.

Quote JackDole ()
States, governments and ideologues make propaganda; business people advertise.

That is called double standard.

Quote JackDole ()
There are people who rather give trillions of dollars for wars, as a few billion for the survival of mankind really necessary things.

That would be a great idea, but I tend to believe that governments generally have a better grasp of reality as they tend to stay around longer. Any way, I am sure, even if Musk would just so much as squeak about his government cutting on war spendings for his favour, he would be catapulted out oh his business with little remorse.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 01:34 | Message # 257
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
Musk would just so much as squeak about his government cutting on war spendings for his favour, he would be catapulted out oh his business with little remorse.

LOL How? SpaceX is a private corporation owned by Elon Musk, no one has the authority to get rid of him. He does not have to answer to shareholders or a board of directors. He can say or do anything he wants and as long as he doesn't break the law he can remain in charge of his company.

I know that in Russia the government sometimes removes business leaders who speak out against it, but SpaceX is an American company, and things like that simply do not happen in this country.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
FastFourierTransformDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 11:57 | Message # 258
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 542
Status: Offline
I must admit that I totally agree with aerospacefag.

Quote JackDole ()
It is definitely not propaganda. It's advertising.

Yes it is propaganda. It is advertisment in one hand (because it tries to sell as every business) but it's also a way of promoting a very specific ideology with a very specific economical and political worldview in a biased way. Been biased doesn't mean false claims but insteed not exposing or accounting for the other parts of the evidence that could bring a much realistic picture of the situation.
This doesn't mean that propaganda is evil, but just an inadecuate source for realistic claims. We are embeded in propaganda, it doesen't matter if someone changed the notation for that without any change in the definition of the concept (public relations). It dosen't matter if you believe it is a reasonable acount of all that is involved (just because there is some truth) because that is exactly how propaganda operates, cherrypicking some truths.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
I know that in Russia the government sometimes removes business leaders who speak out against it

I find quite interesting that you said that considering the fact that the russian government has done that with brutal oligarchs that breaked the law, empoverished the country by pillage and had links to the russian mafia. In fact the economic power of this gentlemen interferes with gubernamental power in many ways. I think Putin or Yeltsin politics are very influenced in many issues by these preasures also by the way (they have had more of a coorporate related agenda than a statist one even if considering the authoritarian smell that many in your contry equate with statism).

With the post-soviet economic reforms it was very evident that large quantities of materials where been robbed by groups of new bussinessmen and dealers. For example, the Kalashnikov factories, that where abbandoned beacuse of the loose of public control over the installations, have been looted by these same oligarchs (and they commerce with it evading international law and taxation with the corresponding consequences).

You should know also that Elon Musk first steps in building his company involved preciselly taking advantage form this pillage situation that the Russian market had. He travelled to Russia to buy very cheap stolen ICBMs (because they where owned by the state and where built with the Russians money, but passed to the private hands of oligarchs with the collapse of the USSR) that is totally legal but not legit in any consideration.

Space X also profited of public services degradation in USA. NASA funds had been decreasing with the consequent lost of many jobs because in the american economic doctrine the public spending has not to be invested in public healthcare, research, public transport and social aids. Space X staff is full of ex-NASA employees because of this mentality. Space X could not exist if the americans money didn't financed NASA and the formation of their engineers and physicists. The products of that investment done by society as a whole are been transfered to private hands in the case of Space X. This is also legal. But legit?

This doesn't mean that Elon Musk is a bad guy and this doesn't mean that Space X is an evil organization
. What this means is that there are certain structures that operate following a specif mechanism in a specif economic system. And we have to understad that Space X objectives are not the good for all humanity but gaining profits with a business (if this wasn't the main goal then Space X would be crushed in the market). The fact that some people link this two goals toghether is quite a huge expression of underlying idealogical bias. There is no scientific reason or mechanism to explain why the gain of profits for the company should equate with social benefits for mankind. In fact the USA is where this becomes more evident than anywhere in my opinion. This doesn't mean that Space X can't make some good for mankind, just the fact that the two goals are not linked in any way and is just the restrictions imposed by the law (not done by privates yet, thanks Darwin) and the random external consequences of the business. The random consquences can also go in a wrong, very wrong direction, because many many times the gains of privates can indeed be counterposed to the benefit of society.

Space X as a private company, for example, would never invest in basic research because it has no inmediate or predictable impact in the gains of the company (the only reason by wich a private company by it's own means could do that without collapsing, is by assuming an incredible risk and danger and relying in the inertia of an initial charitable investment). But basic research is directly benefitial to the public and even private companies benefit indirectly because of the existence of a basic research, that can only be done by other kinds of economic structures: public ones, because only a state with the incomes of society due to taxes can aim to this kind of non-guarante-of-return projects. This is clearly shown by the linear relation between private funding and applied research that happens in all capitalist economies, for example that of Germany:



If a goverment cuts the spending in basic research the applied one would collapse and with it also all the business that emerge around it as it have happend in my country (Spain) the last 4 years and as has happend in Russia with the destrucction of the accademy of sciences (as have been stated by SpaceEngineer). Who would want to finance the thompson research around the electron, or theoretical physics (if not the states or people that make charity without any intended gains).
As we all here probably consider science as a basic element for the future and benefit of society and mankind, then why promoting a speech that aims to erase the influence of state (remember that in democracy the state shold be intrinsically linked to the problem solving of social issues and first needs) with less "ineficient NASA", more "weakening of the public state" and more amazing mythical "entrepreneurs that would take us to the next humanity's giant leap"?

Quote werdnaforever ()
It's a progression towards what everyone thought spaceflight should be like.

Quote Watsisname ()
It's exciting to see SpaceX keeping at the forefront of development.

Quote werdnaforever ()
Privatization is hands down the best thing that will ever happen to the spaceflight industry.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
CST on the other hand shouldn't progress any further. It is expensive, lacks innovation, and offers almost nothing that Dragon doesn't

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
if anyone can get humanity to Mars in the next 2 decades it is most definitely him

Quote Destructor1701 ()
I love how personable and enthusiastic he is.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Agreed. He's really great.


How you don't see the propaganda in this? I can even see the cult of personality that distorts the reality of the market dynamics (as was done with the figure of Steve Jobs for example). I don't see any insight analysis here.

For clarifiaction: I consider the new technologies developed in Space X something inspiring and awesome. It's a scientific fact that some of the products developed here are trully efficient and well designed. I also understand that some ideas can be better developed with different types of risks, markets and conditions that NASA doesn't have this days.

The point of what I'm saying is that neither of this progress or triumphs can be blamed to the market economy or the individual private entrepreneurialism. We have to be proud of scientist and engineers, we have to be proud of science, at witch backs is climbing the private sector as it cans.

Wouldn't the fact that the first satellite, first animal, first human orbit, first woman, firs cultivated plants in space, fist space station, first crewed mission, first spacewalk, first flyby of the moon, first landing on the moon, first mission to collect samples and return to earth from the moon, the first images of the far side, the firs docking, the first lunar orbit, the first landing on Venus, the first helicentric orbit, the first impact on Mars, the most revolutionary an avant-garde rocket designs and innovation of the time mean that a bolshevick statist ideology is "the best thing that has happened to spaceflight" because they where accomplished by the Soviet Union?
I think anyone would consider this propaganda. It is difficoult to see this when you are submerged in it all days of your life. Is just normal. But the triunph of the grasshopper or the dragon is because of science, not because of private companies trying to archive benefits in rought market terrains.


Edited by FastFourierTransform - Sunday, 08.05.2016, 11:59
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 13:01 | Message # 259
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
Quote FastFourierTransform ()
But the triunph of the grasshopper or the dragon is because of science, not because of private companies trying to archive benefits in rought market terrains.


You sound like one of those people who gets upset because the SpaceX employees chant "USA USA USA" when they have a success. The fact of the matter, regardless of what you seem to believe, the achievements are because of a private company and because of the economic circumstances available in the US. Elon has a vision, he has goals, and he has used his own hard earned education and money to try and achieve that. You can try all you like and claim it is an achievement because of mankind or science or whatever else but the fact of the matter is these achievements are because of a private company.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
It is difficoult to see this when you are submerged in it all days of your life. Is just normal.


No we're not. I barely even follow SpaceX news compared to most people here. I choose to be exposed to their news when I want. I don't know the culture where you are from but here the term propaganda has a very negative connotation to it. SpaceX doesn't even do large scale public advertising and they only broadcast things so people who are interested can watch. Elon has stated his goals and his dreams for the future and is using his companies to accomplish that and that is all there is to it.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 14:00 | Message # 260
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote FastFourierTransform ()
the russian government has done that with brutal oligarchs that breaked the law, empoverished the country by pillage and had links to the russian mafia

In some cases, perhaps, but in other cases the motivations were obviously political and evidence of criminal activity on the part of the oligarchs was flimsy to nonexistent (I'm primarily referring to Mikhail Khodorkovsky here since his case is the one I'm most familiar with). In more than a few cases it was the Russian government itself that was acting criminally, and received some convictions in international courts (again, for example, in the case of Yukos).

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
Space X could not exist if the americans money didn't financed NASA and the formation of their engineers and physicists.

A fact which SpaceX has stated publicly numerous times.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
And we have to understad that Space X objectives are not the good for all humanity but gaining profits with a business (if this wasn't the main goal then Space X would be crushed in the market).

You're completely wrong here. This is a common misconception that I hear all the time, and it's entirely false. The main motivation of a business does NOT have to be profit, that simply must be an outcome of the business. It is entirely possible for a business to be ideologically motivated and devote its profits to the goal of bettering humanity, instead of just earning greater profits. This is exactly what companies like SpaceX and Tesla do.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
There is no scientific reason or mechanism to explain why the gain of profits for the company should equate with social benefits for mankind.

You seem to be implying that because profitable business does not necessarily lead to benefits for humanity, that profitable business will only INCIDENTALLY lead to benefits for humanity. Again this does not apply to companies with a strong ideological motivation, as I have explained.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
Space X as a private company, for example, would never invest in basic research because it has no inmediate or predictable impact in the gains of the company (the only reason by wich a private company by it's own means could do that without collapsing, is by assuming an incredible risk and danger and relying in the inertia of an initial charitable investment). But basic research is directly benefitial to the public and even private companies benefit indirectly because of the existence of a basic research

What does any of that have to do with SpaceX? No one here is suggesting that SpaceX is a research organization, nor that government funding of research should be reduced. It's possible to support BOTH private industry AND government programs simultaneously, and every remotely intelligent person I know does so.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
How you don't see the propaganda in this? I can even see the cult of personality that distorts the reality of the market dynamics (as was done with the figure of Steve Jobs for example). I don't see any insight analysis here.

lolwut? Half of the things you quoted were evidence-based statements about technological development. The others were just personal opinion statements about one man. None of that can be called "propaganda". At all.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
first mission to collect samples and return to earth from the moon

This was actually an American achievement (Apollo 11).

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
the firs docking

So was this (Gemini 8).

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
mean that a bolshevick statist ideology is "the best thing that has happened to spaceflight" because they where accomplished by the Soviet Union?

No, because those things were not accomplished BECAUSE of that fact, as demonstrated by a significantly different country achieving the same things at around the same time (and, as I showed above, achieving some of its own records). But some of the things SpaceX and other aerospace companies are doing are achievable only by private enterprise. It's not the technology itself, it's the efficiency, the rate of development and low cost, and breadth of utilization. Those things rarely or never come from government. Governments are good at pioneering, but industry is best at refining technologies and techniques and exploiting them for practical use. Your comments seem to imply that government deserves credit for everything, and that industry does not contribute to anything but its own profits. This is quite obviously false if you look at history.



When you say there is a cult of personality around Elon Musk, of course you're right. But when you say that SpaceX produces a lot of propaganda, or that private industry does not deserve credit for what companies like SpaceX are accomplishing, you're wrong.

Especially about the propaganda thing, seriously guys, someone show me some examples of SpaceX propaganda. Please. Mars One, now yes, there's a project that produces a lot of propaganda. But SpaceX? All you guys have given so far is assertions which I cannot connect to any real facts. Back it up or leave it alone.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
Destructor1701Date: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 14:29 | Message # 261
Pioneer
Group: Users
Ireland
Messages: 531
Status: Offline
FastFourierTransform, I'm not really sure what the basic point you're trying to make there is, but it seems to boil down to an over-simplified distrust of private enterprise.

It's certainly wise to approach any company with a degree of distrust and suspicion of their motives, but not all companies are motivated 100% by profit. And even in companies that are, there are people who take pride in the product. In the case of SpaceX, Tesla, and Solar City, I happen to believe Musk when he says that the profit is not the primary motive, but an enabler of the primary motive, which is to move humanity away from dangerous habits and expand the frontier.

There's plenty of evidence of this, for example, you say:

Quote
And we have to understad that Space X objectives are not the good for all humanity but gaining profits with a business (if this wasn't the main goal then Space X would be crushed in the market).


SpaceX's innovations in rocket-manufacturing-efficiency have allowed them to undercut the market by 20% internationally and 300% domestically. If profit were the prime motivation, the could fire the R&D division as soon as Falcon Heavy is flying, and rake in the cash for the next 20 years. There's no indication that they intend to do that.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
Space X also profited of public services degradation in USA. NASA funds had been decreasing with the consequent lost of many jobs because in the american economic doctrine the public spending has not to be invested in public healthcare, research, public transport and social aids. Space X staff is full of ex-NASA employees because of this mentality. Space X could not exist if the americans money didn't financed NASA and the formation of their engineers and physicists. The products of that investment done by society as a whole are been transfered to private hands in the case of Space X. This is also legal. But legit?


Of course it's legit! That's what NASA exists to do! They develop technology to disseminate to industry, which helps the economy. If NASA sat on all their IP, nobody would benefit. SpaceX is at pains to acknowledge their debt to NASA at every juncture, but it's not like it's a one-sided arrangement.
SpaceX are in the middle of their 9th re-supply mission to the ISS. They charge NASA about $110 million for those flights. The last Cygnus re-supply cost about $300,000,000 (a conservative estimate, since ULA and Orbital ATK are cagey about publishing their prices).

That's a 60% saving at least for NASA, funded by the tax payer.

Quote FastFourierTransform ()
You should know also that Elon Musk first steps in building his company involved preciselly taking advantage form this pillage situation that the Russian market had. He travelled to Russia to buy very cheap stolen ICBMs


This is a well-known story. And it's not like he sought out criminals - that was the state of Russia at the time. They had rockets, he had money and an idea. And the part of that story that you neglect to tell is that he walked out of his dealings with them when he became disgusted with their attitude and business practices.

You speak as if our fandom of the company isn't based in research and experience. As if someone came along and told us they were cool. As if we are incapable of evaluating the probability of what they say being a lie, or (more likely) over-optimistic predictions.

Personally, I have gained my trust is Musk and SpaceX over a long period of optimistic scepticism. When they reached the ISS for the first time, it caught my notice. When I heard Musk speak about Mars, it piqued my interest, but I didn't buy it wholesale first time. I lost my doubt in Musk's sincerity through countless interviews with him and reading books about him. He seems to have an autism-spectrum "disorder" - a mild one, but one that enables him to think through problems very clearly and see unlikely solutions unencumbered by the fear of failure. That tallies very well with having incredibly ambitious plans - and makes me think he couldn't deceive people about his intentions if he wanted to.

Finally, the stage-landings they have now pulled off give me confidence that SpaceX have the flexibility to adapt around challenges and perfect their approach iteratively - and that they can apply that to Mars. They may splat twenty capsules on the surface before they perfect their landings, but they will do it, and if they lose people along the way, it's not going to stop them, because just as in aviation or transport development, casualties are tragic sacrifices, not the end of the world.





 
AerospacefagDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 16:18 | Message # 262
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
You sound like one of those people who gets upset because the SpaceX employees chant "USA USA USA" when they have a success. The fact of the matter, regardless of what you seem to believe, the achievements are because of a private company and because of the economic circumstances available in the US. Elon has a vision, he has goals, and he has used his own hard earned education and money to try and achieve that. You can try all you like and claim it is an achievement because of mankind or science or whatever else but the fact of the matter is these achievements are because of a private company.

I am not a person to sing odes to my country simply by the reason I'm living in it, I know where we are great and where we are not. Sure, this guy have everything you told, and he is not afraid to demonstrate it to everyone (which is, actually, is pretty rude and impolite for any f***ing educated person), but so does every other competent person in the world in charge of space industry. Space industry is DEFINED by these qualities, what makes his cause more special then others? His money, his country, or his personal character? I do understand that this is a heavy element of charisma involved, but this is not a thing that defines the future.

Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
I don't know the culture where you are from but here the term propaganda has a very negative connotation to it

Exactly, as I said, because of double standard system. The original meaning does not have any positive or negative subtext in it, it is just a difference in the language - somehow, "propaganda" is always about "them" and simple truth is always about "us". And yes, it is not a very common difference, it is pretty specifically defined by the "first world". You would argue that you choose what is put has been put into your news feed and it is completely impossible for this information your personal beliefs and ideas, but every time you read a sentence in the Internet, it is already in your head and you do nothing about it.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
In some cases, perhaps, but in other cases the motivations were obviously political and evidence of criminal activity on the part of the oligarchs was flimsy to nonexistent (I'm primarily referring to Mikhail Khodorkovsky here since his case is the one I'm most familiar with).



Quote HarbingerDawn ()
A fact which SpaceX has stated publicly numerous times.

In the same manner people love to empathise this is all Elon's personal achievement and no one else's. I have no idea how people can cram both of these concepts in one head. It is either joint, or personal, but never both at the same time.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
The main motivation of a business does NOT have to be profit, that simply must be an outcome of the business.

The only outcome of business is profit (and surprisingly, it can be public or personal). It is so basic knowledge that writing it somewhere would bring up too much unnecessary questions about life, the Universe and etc. SpaceX motivations are based entirely on perspectives of future profit, that comes from their view of their future - where they are the leaders and they occupy most of the market, including military, civil, scientific and exploration contracts. The goals are written on every corner of their company and all of them are useless without idea of increasing company's turnover. Not creating other companies, nor it is about assisting other companies, it's mainly about SpaceX, bulldozering through national space programs to make a way to their ambitions.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
This was actually an American achievement (Apollo 11).

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
So was this (Gemini 8).

There are so many manipulations surrounding these, I wouldn't really reason about it. By American definitions, first human in space was Shepard, as he reached the space and returned in capsule, but it turns out not entire world lives by them.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
But some of the things SpaceX and other aerospace companies are doing are achievable only by private enterprise. It's not the technology itself, it's the efficiency, the rate of development and low cost, and breadth of utilization. Those things rarely or never come from government. Governments are good at pioneering, but industry is best at refining technologies and techniques and exploiting them for practical use. Your comments seem to imply that government deserves credit for everything, and that industry does not contribute to anything but its own profits. This is quite obviously false if you look at history.

I can see your point, and it is not entirely wrong. As it was noted by many of competent economists I've already heard, government do pioneer in many areas with their vast resources and massive amount of funds, and private companies do follow them in their efforts to bring this achievement to the rest of humanity. So it was with Apollo, if we believe in history books. The computers came out of it, the world wide web came out of it, and everybody lived ever happy since then.

But this is not the case of modern venture business, completely it is not. If you have any recollection of the time, there was already a boom in space exploration in 1990s, especially American one, and a new perspective were opening - international cooperation, private contracts for space launch systems, rise of satellite television and internet, mobile phones and everything we use today. And many of these achievements were useful up to the recent time, such as ISS and Hubble telescope. Commercial payload, in fact, outweighted government launches by a brief period of time.

http://visual.ly/space-launches

You do know how the story ends. All of it, ALL of the hard work went down in flames, consumed by the same crisis that crashed the internet boom - and it continues to get down as we speak. What is left of the space industry, has been swiftly grabbed by "daring entrepreneurs" like Musk and still-strong government-aligned companies like Lockheed and Boeing. I do not exaggerate, I live in a country that walked the same path on much larger scale. Now they are reinventing space flight, electric cars and solar panels (along with the history and a future perspectives), and these definitely will be labelled and regulated by the private companies and only by them, there's no way around it.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 17:41 | Message # 263
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
The original meaning does not have any positive or negative subtext in it, it is just a difference in the language - somehow, "propaganda" is always about "them" and simple truth is always about "us".

Again, you're wrong. The definition of propaganda is "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." The purpose of propaganda is not to inform, but to manipulate. Almost any reasonable and intelligent person would consider that to be negative.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
If I would tell you, you would probably never believe how many deaths, corruption and simple grief surround this story

You're right, I would not believe it if you said those things, at least not if you said they were his fault. All evidence that I've seen indicates that his arrest, trial, and incarceration were political, and that his judicial rights were violated. You would have to show me strong opposing evidence that comes from credible sources for me to take your claims seriously - evidence that does not come from personal blogs or from Russian state media. If you want to PM me such evidence I will look at it.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
In the same manner people love to empathise this is all Elon's personal achievement and no one else's. I have no idea how people can cram both of these concepts in one head. It is either joint, or personal, but never both at the same time.

It's simple: SpaceX and Elon Musk say, and have ALWAYS said, that NASA has been extremely helpful to them. Only ignorant SpaceX fans would say that Elon has done it all by himself. If you are trying to judge the truth about a company from what their most ignorant fans say, then you have very poor reasoning skills.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
SpaceX motivations are based entirely on perspectives of future profit

No, you're wrong, as I've already explained. SpaceX is a very ideologically motivated company, their motivation is to achieve their ideological goals, they use profit only as a tool to achieve that objective.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Not creating other companies, nor it is about assisting other companies, it's mainly about SpaceX, bulldozering through national space programs to make a way to their ambitions.

Where do you get that idea? SpaceX is not trying to interfere with NASA's work in any way, because NASA provides no obstacle to them. In reality, SpaceX and NASA are helping each other develop techniques for landing human-mission payloads on Mars, and it's very likely that the first human Mars mission will be led jointly by NASA and SpaceX working together. They are synergistic with each other, not competitive.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
There are so many manipulations surrounding these, I wouldn't really reason about it.

What manipulations? These are simple facts. If two spacecraft docked in orbit before Gemini 8, or if a spacecraft returned samples to Earth before Apollo 11, tell me about them. I do not claim that the Russian accomplishments in spaceflight are surrounded by "manipulations" because I have studied them and know they are legitimate. The same is true for American accomplishments. Be careful that you do not have your own double standard here.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
By American definitions, first human in space was Shepard

That's not true, only the most ignorant of Americans believe that Shepard was first in space. Almost all recognize and celebrate that accomplishment as belonging to Yuri Gagarin. As far as I know only the FAI cared whether or not someone landed with their spacecraft for their record keeping. Anyone with a brain does not care that Gagarin landed by parachute.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
AerospacefagDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 20:33 | Message # 264
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
The purpose of propaganda is not to inform, but to manipulate.

There's a specific word for that type of action, which is "a fraud", and original definitions do not contain anything resembling the word "manipulate" - if you are educated differently, it is time to reconsider. An again, it does not mean a bad thing for Musk himself, I do not accuse him of a fraud or manipulation, only worrying about his ideas themselves. I have learned that people can be honest in their ignorance, and that does not inspire at all.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
It's simple: SpaceX and Elon Musk say, and have ALWAYS said, that NASA has been extremely helpful to them.

Well, as you mentioned before, he is a free person and he may say whatever he wants.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech....67.html

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Only ignorant SpaceX fans would say that Elon has done it all by himself. If you are trying to judge the truth about a company from what their most ignorant fans say, then you have very poor reasoning skills.

I see them a lot. They are everywhere.
http://clapway.com/2016/05/03/spacex-compete-nasa-space-race-china/

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
No, you're wrong, as I've already explained. SpaceX is a very ideologically motivated company, their motivation is to achieve their ideological goals, they use profit only as a tool to achieve that objective.

Or so they say. So far primary ideology of SpaceX seems to be annoying everybody with ridiculous statements.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
They are synergistic with each other, not competitive.

They would be really "synergistic" if Musk would attract investments independently of NASA, but unfortunately it is not the case. SpaceX is not promoting space exploration among people with money and power, it boarded a bandwagon and making a great deal out of it.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
What manipulations? These are simple facts. If two spacecraft docked in orbit before Gemini 8, or if a spacecraft returned samples to Earth before Apollo 11, tell me about them.

He meant that first automated retrieval of soil sample was performed by USSR - Luna 16(USA used human spaceflight). He also means that first docking using sealed docking port (USA just secured two ships in place). These are simple facts as well.

And I would really address the problem I've mentioned before. The problem you seem to ignore completely. Private companies have already failed us once in space exploration, and yet there's another generation of venture capitalists and their supporters that completely ignored not only errors of precious attempts but also their success stories. There' is no history involved, no engineering, and god forbid mention public opinion, all arguments are going to boil down to tug of war over who's ideology, goals, words are better.

Come year 2016, there's only one space station, and there's only one ship that can deliver people there. Private companies are trapped in a circle of competition, accusations and lawsuits, even sanctions and politics come into play. Programs are battling over the last bits of space budget.
We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine
And the machine is bleeding to death

http://spacenews.com/nasa-cuts-funds-for-mars-landing-technology-work/
http://www.albanydailystar.com/science....64.html
 
Antza2Date: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 21:09 | Message # 265
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
Come year 2016, there's only one space station, and there's only one ship that can deliver people there. Private companies are trapped in a circle of competition, accusations and lawsuits, even sanctions and politics come into play. Programs are battling over the last bits of space budget.
We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine
And the machine is bleeding to death


This sounds like a blurb for a political thriller novel.





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 21:12 | Message # 266
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
original definitions do not contain anything resembling the word "manipulate"

So... you're saying the dictionary is wrong about the definition of a word?

Quote Aerospacefag ()
So far primary ideology of SpaceX seems to be annoying everybody with ridiculous statements.

...such as? You keep making assertions, and repeatedly fail to back them up with examples.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
I see them a lot. They are everywhere.

Yes they are, but what does it matter? What ignorant people say about a company has nothing to do with the truth about that company.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
They would be really "synergistic" if Musk would attract investments independently of NASA, but unfortunately it is not the case.

Lolwut? The majority of their money comes from commercial contracts, not government contracts.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
He meant that first automated retrieval of soil sample was performed by USSR - Luna 16(USA used human spaceflight). He also means that first docking using sealed docking port (USA just secured two ships in place). These are simple facts as well.

That's not what he said. You're manipulating his words to make them fit the facts. He did NOT say "sealed docking", nor did he say "automated sample return". He just said first docking and first sample return.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
And I would really address the problem I've mentioned before. The problem you seem to ignore completely. Private companies have already failed us once in space exploration

Two issues with that. 1) You didn't explain any details at all, you simply made some vague statements about the 1990s, and I know a lot about spaceflight history, and what happened in the 1990s was not similar to what's happening now. 2) Even if you were right about what happened before, just because something happened once does not mean it will happen again. For example, Europeans failed to establish permanent settlements in the Americas during the Viking era. Does that mean that they would necessarily fail again later during the colonial era? Of course not, because the circumstances were different. Just as the circumstances today are different than they were in the 1990s. Your statements have almost no logic to them.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
AerospacefagDate: Sunday, 08.05.2016, 23:05 | Message # 267
Pioneer
Group: Users
Russian Federation
Messages: 401
Status: Offline
Quote Antza2 ()
This sounds like a blurb for a political thriller novel.

Real life is in many ways more interesting than any thriller you can possibly write.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
So... you're saying the dictionary is wrong about the definition of a word?

No, I mean, you are probably not very good at reading dictionaries.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
...such as? You keep making assertions, and repeatedly fail to back them up with examples.

Such as this. Every single time. "Of course we didn't mean exactly what we wrote in the article title, but you already know what that article is about regardless the contents, wink wink nudge nudge."
http://gizmodo.com/spacex-....5190895
"Cool! Awesome! Go SpaceX!"

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Yes they are, but what does it matter? What ignorant people say about a company has nothing to do with the truth about that company.

Yeah, for reasonable, educated persons this may not be a serious problem. But there's one problem with them - they don't have any power over decision making. A reasonable person would ask a number of questions to the SpaceX plans and then face a shower of counter arguments and verbal abuse rather than get his demands answered.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
The majority of their money comes from commercial contracts, not government contracts.

Still don't see how that meant to be a cooperation since there are no increase in funding of NASA or no complex programs in development. Musk and his followers repeatedly state that they will make it to the Mars independently of NASA or any other space agency.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
That's not what he said. You're manipulating his words to make them fit the facts. He did NOT say "sealed docking", nor did he say "automated sample return".

I did not say these words either. I said different words, they just, incidentally, mean the same thing. Look, if you are going to stick to the words to prove your position, it will be a very painful experience.

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
1) You didn't explain any details at all, you simply made some vague statements about the 1990s, and I know a lot about spaceflight history, and what happened in the 1990s was not similar to what's happening now.

That is what I said to you, but this was a basis of argument. The argument is the following:

Quote HarbingerDawn ()
2) Even if you were right about what happened before, just because something happened once does not mean it will happen again.

Neither does it not mean the opposite. The circumstances do indicate that the prime mode of thinking of modern capitalism is a vague idea that if you pile up a lot of money, advertising and ambitious plans in one place, you will somehow receive a ready project in a matter of month, rarely years. It did not work last time, why would it work again?
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Monday, 09.05.2016, 00:17 | Message # 268
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Aerospacefag ()
I mean, you are probably not very good at reading dictionaries.

I quoted you the definition directly from the dictionary, and you said it wasn't accurate. I think YOU'RE the one who's not good at reading dictionaries.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Such as this.

Um... where is the ridiculous statement made by SpaceX there? The only thing SpaceX said is that they're designing a spacesuit and that they consider aesthetics to be important in the design. That's not a "ridiculous statement", it's a fact. They ARE designing a spacesuit, and they DO care about how it looks. If that's your only example then you've massively failed at supporting your argument.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Yeah, for reasonable, educated persons this may not be a serious problem. But there's one problem with them - they don't have any power over decision making. A reasonable person would ask a number of questions to the SpaceX plans and then face a shower of counter arguments and verbal abuse rather than get his demands answered.

I don't understand what you're saying here... are you saying that ignorant SpaceX fans make it difficult for reasonable and curious people to get good information on the company? If so, then I guess that's... somewhat accurate, but it still has nothing to do with the company itself.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
Still don't see how that meant to be a cooperation since there are no increase in funding of NASA or no complex programs in development. Musk and his followers repeatedly state that they will make it to the Mars independently of NASA or any other space agency.

I didn't say that was an example of cooperation. I said it disproved your assertion that SpaceX relied on government funding.

As for evidence of cooperation, SpaceX's rocket recovery experiments serve, in part, as pioneering tests of supersonic retropropulsion, a necessary technology to allow human exploration of Mars. SpaceX has shared its experiment data with NASA, and NASA has publicly said that the data they got from SpaceX's tests resulted in millions of dollars in savings for NASA, since it meant that NASA did not have to conduct its own test program in that field. The same is true for the upcoming Red Dragon missions; NASA and SpaceX are sharing data and resources with each other, and each one is saving the other a lot of money that they otherwise would have had to spend getting the data by themselves. This data sharing is a shining example of cooperation between SpaceX and NASA, and is beneficial to both parties, which both have publicly stated.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
The circumstances do indicate that the prime mode of thinking of modern capitalism is a vague idea that if you pile up a lot of money, advertising and ambitious plans in one place, you will somehow receive a ready project in a matter of month, rarely years.

LOL what are you talking about? You seem to have some extremely simplified and erroneous ideas about capitalism... no one I know of thinks that way. Certainly not any successful business leaders. So your claim is simply false, and therefore your argument is invalid.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
It did not work last time, why would it work again?

As I already said, you still have not told me what happened "last time". And I don't think you understand it yourself.

There was no burgeoning commercial space revolution in the 1990s. What you're referring to simply DID NOT EXIST. There were a couple of companies which played around with some new ideas - with significant government involvement - like Orbital Sciences and Lockheed, but they did not achieve very much. The current situation is vastly different: there are many companies pursuing much bolder and more diverse ideas, and actually succeeding with them. SpaceX and Blue Origin are perfect examples of this. Nothing similar happened at any time in the past history of spaceflight. So your attempts to compare the present state of the commercial space industry to some point in the past are pointless, because there was no equivalent point in history to compare it to. Again, this invalidates your argument.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
Destructor1701Date: Monday, 09.05.2016, 00:54 | Message # 269
Pioneer
Group: Users
Ireland
Messages: 531
Status: Offline
AerospaceFag, I'm having a really hard time understanding exactly what your issue with SpaceX is. Perhaps the life-experience informing your arguments is just so different from mine that I can't hope to follow your reasoning.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
So far primary ideology of SpaceX seems to be annoying everybody with ridiculous statements.


Like "We're going to land our first stages on a robot boat"?



Quote Aerospacefag ()
They would be really "synergistic" if Musk would attract investments independently of NASA, but unfortunately it is not the case.


Wall Street Journal: SpaceX Gets $1 Billion From Google, Fidelity

For synergy in another form, NASA gets access to all of SpaceX's Mars-related research and telemetry (except that which would harm the company through NASA's public domain status) as well as performing their own research during SpaceX development flights.

Quote Aerospacefag ()
In the same manner people love to empathise this is all Elon's personal achievement and no one else's. I have no idea how people can cram both of these concepts in one head. It is either joint, or personal, but never both at the same time.


It's very easy - it's called a hierarchy, and it's how most organisations function. There's a boss, who decides the direction of the organisation, and the people who work with them to make it happen. Ordinarily, the boss is someone who is more familiar with business than the ins-and-outs of the company's products and their design and development.
The reason Musk stands out as the boss of both SpaceX and Tesla is that he's a physicist and an engineer first, and a businessman second. By absolutely ALL accounts by people who've known him, even those of people who hate his guts, Musk is intimately involved with the design and engineering of his company's products, and knows every detail of each rocket, capsule, and car they've made.
So he's a very rare example of a boss who has the courage to have a truly Grand vision and a very detailed understanding of what it will take to execute. But just because we praise him for the direction he's taking his companies in doesn't mean we ignore the contribution of the people who work for him. Just off the top of my head, I'm going to reel off a bunch of names of present or past Tesla and SpaceX employees:

Gwynne Shotwell, Molly McCormick, Benjamin Higganbotham, Hans Koenigsman, Franz Von Holzhausen, Cariann Higganbotham, Jessica Jensen, Kim Lyons, Kate Tice, Garrett Reissman, Diarmuid O'Connor, Michael Hammersley, Mary-Beth Browne, John Insprucker, John Federspiel, Sarah Walker, Kiko Dontchev... and there are more, but those are the ones that bubbled to the top just now. I think they're all fantastic for their contributions to both companies (admittedly, there's a strong SpaceX bias there - it's my favoured company and the topic of this discussion).

Your position on exactly why SpaceX is bad is really unclear - all I can parse is a general idea that private companies shouldn't tread where government agencies lead, which is absurd. Every time you are presented with valid arguments you seem to shift your own argument. Are you arguing an actual point, or just trying to win the argument?

I suspect it is the latter, because reading the discussion so far feels like quicksand (quicksand I'm unwilling to wade back into to find you the examples of contradiction you will inevitably demand) - degrading the argument to frustrate your interlocutors is not a winning strategy, it's an indication of defeat.







Edited by Destructor1701 - Monday, 09.05.2016, 01:03
 
WatsisnameDate: Monday, 09.05.2016, 07:07 | Message # 270
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

Quote
ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us....paganda

Quote
chiefly derogatory
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view


Seems pretty "manipulative" to me, Aerospace, but then again maybe I too am bad at reading dictionary definitions.

Please keep it civil and engage your peers in good faith. As it stands currently, I think the rationale behind your position is somewhat foggy -- as in I don't understand why you hold the views that you do and your argumentation has thus far not made it more clear to me. It would be great if you could elaborate without using evasive discussion tactics or mudslinging.

Just a friendly mod reminder. Cheers.





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » The Future of Humanity & Intelligent life in the universe
Page 18 of 30«1216171819202930»
Search: