Alternative explanation (or maybe just a compounding factor): we just got through being ruled by the absolute worst billionaire. And even if you're not in the US, you still had to deal with the major economic superpower being ruled by... etc.
I need the alternate universe machine to see what people would be saying if the rocket race had been 5 or 6 years ago.
Alternative explanation (or maybe just a compounding factor): we just got through being ruled by the absolute worst billionaire. And even if you're not in the US, you still had to deal with the major economic superpower being ruled by... etc.
I need the alternate universe machine to see what people would be saying if the rocket race had been 5 or 6 years ago.
If we're talking about compounding factors, you don't need to go further than before the pandemic. The way people like Bezos and Musk handled workplace safety did not win billionaires many good image points.
Alternative explanation (or maybe just a compounding factor): we just got through being ruled by the absolute worst billionaire. And even if you're not in the US, you still had to deal with the major economic superpower being ruled by... etc.
I need the alternate universe machine to see what people would be saying if the rocket race had been 5 or 6 years ago.
If we're talking about compounding factors, you don't need to go further than before the pandemic. The way people like Bezos and Musk handled workplace safety did not win billionaires many good image points.
Yeah, I guess that's what's odd to me. The outrage over the space dicks has been about 10x louder and more sustained than the outrage over that of which you speak. It's as if it's not really about logic and more just striking an emotional chord. If I had to pick one of those two things to spend my outrage on, it wouldn't be the space dicks.
It kind of seems like the opposite to me. I guess I take it for granted that everything billionaires do with their money is comically sinister. I feel like I have been encountering this idea that this time, it's cool because it's space. Which I could probably get behind if it seemed like any actual research was being done.
Even if it's an accidental resemblance, it's still impossible for me not to make the connection with the imagery of the rocket. On the heels of a year where Amazons treatment of its workers has been brought to light, as well as Amazons tax dodging, as well as a global pandemic in which Amazon joined the other mewling corporations whining about how their profits would suffer if they actually tried to protect their employees...to have all that followed up with a giant, expensive dick shooting into space?
Bezos knows what we think of him. And he knows it'll never matter. He's the one with the, er, giant rocket, and we're just a big ol' ...space....waiting to take it.
Billionaires aren't going to space with their own money. They're doing it with yours. And they'll keep doing it. The best way to become very rich is to spend other people's money.
Alternative explanation (or maybe just a compounding factor): we just got through being ruled by the absolute worst billionaire. And even if you're not in the US, you still had to deal with the major economic superpower being ruled by... etc.
I need the alternate universe machine to see what people would be saying if the rocket race had been 5 or 6 years ago.
If we're talking about compounding factors, you don't need to go further than before the pandemic. The way people like Bezos and Musk handled workplace safety did not win billionaires many good image points.
Yeah, I guess that's what's odd to me. The outrage over the space dicks has been about 10x louder and more sustained than the outrage over that of which you speak. It's as if it's not really about logic and more just striking an emotional chord. If I had to pick one of those two things to spend my outrage on, it wouldn't be the space dicks.
Louder maybe since it's much easier and more fun to make memes about penis shaped rockets than people working in unsafe conditions. More sustained is flatly untrue since the rocket thing has just blown up (hah) in the last few weeks whereas there has been stuff about wages and working conditions at Amazon for years.
It's just that in a environment where new stuff worth being mad about keeps coming to light, the old stuff often ends up getting pushed to background with the ever increasing mass of stuff.
But it's still there, and the vast majority of the stuff I've seen about it isn't "billionaire space penis, how dare they" it's "billionaire space tourism while <issues caused or exacerbated by said billionaire that have been talked about for years. "
Billionaires aren't going to space with their own money. They're doing it with yours. And they'll keep doing it. The best way to become very rich is to spend other people's money.
That's a very inaccurate article.
What really happened is that NASA announced they were going to pick two contractors, and asked Congress for enough money to do so, and took bids for those two positions. Then Congress turned around and gave NASA a third of what they were asking for, so NASA just picked one contractor (SpaceX). The losers had their lawyers complain that NASA had said they were selecting two bidders and couldn't change their mind so late in the process, and Congress started talking about giving NASA the money they asked for originally - and there are entirely valid reasons for NASA to go with two contractors (which is why NASA wanted to do it in the first place).
Now, the reason a few congressmen are suddenly interested in giving NASA the money they asked for almost certainly has nothing to do with space exploration and more to do with private corporations receiving bids, but characterizing it as a bailout is just them trying to be sensationalist. No, the billionaires aren't going to be building lunar landers for NASA pro bono, but the companies they created competing for space contracts with the old boys like Boeing or Northrop Grumman is actually probably going to reduce the kind of transfer of taxpayer cash to shareholders you're talking about.
Billionaires aren't going to space with their own money. They're doing it with yours. And they'll keep doing it. The best way to become very rich is to spend other people's money.
That's a very inaccurate article.
What really happened is that NASA announced they were going to pick two contractors, and asked Congress for enough money to do so, and took bids for those two positions. Then Congress turned around and gave NASA a third of what they were asking for, so NASA just picked one contractor (SpaceX). The losers had their lawyers complain that NASA had said they were selecting two bidders and couldn't change their mind so late in the process, and Congress started talking about giving NASA the money they asked for originally - and there are entirely valid reasons for NASA to go with two contractors (which is why NASA wanted to do it in the first place).
Now, the reason a few congressmen are suddenly interested in giving NASA the money they asked for almost certainly has nothing to do with space exploration and more to do with private corporations receiving bids, but characterizing it as a bailout is just them trying to be sensationalist. No, the billionaires aren't going to be building lunar landers for NASA pro bono, but the companies they created competing for space contracts with the old boys like Boeing or Northrop Grumman is actually probably going to reduce the kind of transfer of taxpayer cash to shareholders you're talking about.
And apparently we were both wrong, as Jeff Bezoz is now offering to cover billions of dollars of the cost of the landing system with his own money if NASA awards Blue Origin the contract.
Billionaires aren't going to space with their own money. They're doing it with yours. And they'll keep doing it. The best way to become very rich is to spend other people's money.
That's a very inaccurate article.
What really happened is that NASA announced they were going to pick two contractors, and asked Congress for enough money to do so, and took bids for those two positions. Then Congress turned around and gave NASA a third of what they were asking for, so NASA just picked one contractor (SpaceX). The losers had their lawyers complain that NASA had said they were selecting two bidders and couldn't change their mind so late in the process, and Congress started talking about giving NASA the money they asked for originally - and there are entirely valid reasons for NASA to go with two contractors (which is why NASA wanted to do it in the first place).
Now, the reason a few congressmen are suddenly interested in giving NASA the money they asked for almost certainly has nothing to do with space exploration and more to do with private corporations receiving bids, but characterizing it as a bailout is just them trying to be sensationalist. No, the billionaires aren't going to be building lunar landers for NASA pro bono, but the companies they created competing for space contracts with the old boys like Boeing or Northrop Grumman is actually probably going to reduce the kind of transfer of taxpayer cash to shareholders you're talking about.
And apparently we were both wrong, as Jeff Bezoz is now offering to cover billions of dollars of the cost of the landing system with his own money if NASA awards Blue Origin the contract.
I guess he really doesn't want some other billionaire to be the one putting us on the moon.
Blue Origin is in bigger trouble than just Artemis. Bezos threw his checkbook around to get ULA to switch the Vulcan from Aerojet Rocketdyne engines to Blue Origin engines, and then utterly failed to deliver them. The rocket has been ready to go for a couple years but the engines are I think three years late now, and it's looking like ULA is positioning to bring AR into the alliance which would cut Blue Origin out entirely.
From a couple leaks, the company had been sinking their resources into New Shepard and tourism systems, and was counting on a huge windfall from Blue Moon to finish the engine delivery to ULA, and then the revenue stream from that to actually deliver on Artemis.
They were planning to rob Peter to pay Paul, but turns out Peter was fucking broke and now Paul is at the door with two Volkswagen shaped gentlemen and an empty money bag.
There's a good chance that if the company loses the Vulcan deal, they'll never amount to more than a fun ride for rich people, because even with NASA getting told by Congress to pick a second lander... Blue Origin was the third ranked choice, Dynetics will probably get the B slot.
Posts
I need the alternate universe machine to see what people would be saying if the rocket race had been 5 or 6 years ago.
If we're talking about compounding factors, you don't need to go further than before the pandemic. The way people like Bezos and Musk handled workplace safety did not win billionaires many good image points.
Yeah, I guess that's what's odd to me. The outrage over the space dicks has been about 10x louder and more sustained than the outrage over that of which you speak. It's as if it's not really about logic and more just striking an emotional chord. If I had to pick one of those two things to spend my outrage on, it wouldn't be the space dicks.
Even if it's an accidental resemblance, it's still impossible for me not to make the connection with the imagery of the rocket. On the heels of a year where Amazons treatment of its workers has been brought to light, as well as Amazons tax dodging, as well as a global pandemic in which Amazon joined the other mewling corporations whining about how their profits would suffer if they actually tried to protect their employees...to have all that followed up with a giant, expensive dick shooting into space?
Bezos knows what we think of him. And he knows it'll never matter. He's the one with the, er, giant rocket, and we're just a big ol' ...space....waiting to take it.
So I can't really attribute much to the optics of the space dick.
Billionaires aren't going to space with their own money. They're doing it with yours. And they'll keep doing it. The best way to become very rich is to spend other people's money.
Louder maybe since it's much easier and more fun to make memes about penis shaped rockets than people working in unsafe conditions. More sustained is flatly untrue since the rocket thing has just blown up (hah) in the last few weeks whereas there has been stuff about wages and working conditions at Amazon for years.
It's just that in a environment where new stuff worth being mad about keeps coming to light, the old stuff often ends up getting pushed to background with the ever increasing mass of stuff.
But it's still there, and the vast majority of the stuff I've seen about it isn't "billionaire space penis, how dare they" it's "billionaire space tourism while <issues caused or exacerbated by said billionaire that have been talked about for years. "
That's a very inaccurate article.
What really happened is that NASA announced they were going to pick two contractors, and asked Congress for enough money to do so, and took bids for those two positions. Then Congress turned around and gave NASA a third of what they were asking for, so NASA just picked one contractor (SpaceX). The losers had their lawyers complain that NASA had said they were selecting two bidders and couldn't change their mind so late in the process, and Congress started talking about giving NASA the money they asked for originally - and there are entirely valid reasons for NASA to go with two contractors (which is why NASA wanted to do it in the first place).
Now, the reason a few congressmen are suddenly interested in giving NASA the money they asked for almost certainly has nothing to do with space exploration and more to do with private corporations receiving bids, but characterizing it as a bailout is just them trying to be sensationalist. No, the billionaires aren't going to be building lunar landers for NASA pro bono, but the companies they created competing for space contracts with the old boys like Boeing or Northrop Grumman is actually probably going to reduce the kind of transfer of taxpayer cash to shareholders you're talking about.
And apparently we were both wrong, as Jeff Bezoz is now offering to cover billions of dollars of the cost of the landing system with his own money if NASA awards Blue Origin the contract.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1419631175694438402
I guess he really doesn't want some other billionaire to be the one putting us on the moon.
Blue Origin is in bigger trouble than just Artemis. Bezos threw his checkbook around to get ULA to switch the Vulcan from Aerojet Rocketdyne engines to Blue Origin engines, and then utterly failed to deliver them. The rocket has been ready to go for a couple years but the engines are I think three years late now, and it's looking like ULA is positioning to bring AR into the alliance which would cut Blue Origin out entirely.
From a couple leaks, the company had been sinking their resources into New Shepard and tourism systems, and was counting on a huge windfall from Blue Moon to finish the engine delivery to ULA, and then the revenue stream from that to actually deliver on Artemis.
They were planning to rob Peter to pay Paul, but turns out Peter was fucking broke and now Paul is at the door with two Volkswagen shaped gentlemen and an empty money bag.
There's a good chance that if the company loses the Vulcan deal, they'll never amount to more than a fun ride for rich people, because even with NASA getting told by Congress to pick a second lander... Blue Origin was the third ranked choice, Dynetics will probably get the B slot.