Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"Space exploration" is lending way, way too much credence to this.

These two flights were ~60mi altitude. The ISS, for reference, is at 250mi. We've launched people there more than a hundred times, never mind having to put it there in the first place. The moon, which we landed and recovered people from in 1969, is 240,000mi away.

This is a hobby project, which is totally fine in that it's their money to spend, and it's kind of neat that we can generate enough wealth that private individuals could even imagine doing this, but let's not dress it up as more than that.

Edit: Musk/SpaceX is definitely in a different category. That actually seems to be shooting for space exploration, which is pretty neat, though I still think there are earthly priorities that we'd see much higher ROI from.



> it's their money to spend

Not everyone agrees.


Sure. I myself am not entirely bought into this position, but it is in fact the position of "our society." Figure we have to start by not calling these people explorers before making our way to questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place.


> questioning whether such extreme accumulation of wealth is optimal in the first place

But why is it anyone's choice? People are already taxed disproportionately, why can't Musk spend his money, or the money people invest in him?

The US is free to outlaw large accumulations of wealth, it would just lose a lot of people in the process (assuming emigration wasn't also outlawed).

People in the US are, equally, free to move to places with fairer tax laws.


Can you expand on this? I've never looked into who is financing this project. I've always assumed it was just Bezos' own money he was using.


Bezos sells ~$1B of his Amazon stock per year to finance it.


Not everyone agrees the earth is round but we don't take their opinions seriously




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: