SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
During a press conference at his company's Hawthorne, CA headquarters, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk announced the first planned private passenger to travel into deep space and around the Moon. Yusaku Maezawa, a billionaire fashion entrepreneur and art collector, paid an undisclosed amount to become one of the first people to fly on a SpaceX Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), with a target date of 2023. If the launch happens, he won't be going alone. Maezawa (aka "MZ") plans to invite at least six to eight artists to accompany him on a journey around the Moon. The passengers chosen may be painters, sculptors, musicians, fashion designers, dancers, film directors, architects, etc. and are intended to represent the Earth and participate in an art exhibition after returning to Earth. Musk himself has also been invited. The project is called #dearMoon.
Yusaku Maezawa approached SpaceX and made a contribution that will pay for a "non-trivial" amount of the BFR's development costs. During the Q&A, Musk estimated that the entire development of BFR would cost around $5 billion, or no less than $2 billion and no more than $10 billion. Other potential sources of funding for BFR development include SpaceX's top priority, Crew Dragon flights to the International Space Station (ISS), as well as satellite launches and Starlink satellite broadband service.
Maezawa (along with a guest) was a previously announced anonymous customer for a Falcon Heavy ride around the Moon. SpaceX currently has no plans to human-rate the Falcon Heavy. The switch from Falcon Heavy to BFR will substantially increase the maximum number of passengers and comfort level attainable on a nearly week-long mission, since the Crew Dragon 2 has a pressurized volume of just 10 m3, about 1% of the volume of the BFS.
Some changes have been made to the BFR's design. The height of the full rocket (spaceship and booster) will now be around 118 meters, from 106. Incidentally, the Space Launch System Block 2 Cargo will be 111.25 meters tall. The pressurized volume of the spaceship (BFS) portion was estimated at around 1,000-1,100 m3, greater than that of the ISS, and up from a previous estimate of 825 m3. The booster now has 3 prominent fins, two of which can rotate. The third does not move and has no aerodynamic function whatsoever; it serves as the third landing leg. One major motivating factor behind the redesign? Aesthetics, according to Musk. This is supposed to be the final iteration of the design in terms of broad architectural decisions.
Early in the presentation, BFR's payload capacity to low-Earth orbit and other destinations (with in-orbit refueling) was listed as "over 100" metric tons with full reuse, down from the 150 metric tons that has been talked about since 2017. This appears to be due in part to the use of seven sea-level Raptor engines on the BFS. Two of the rear cargo sections around these engines could be removed and the engines can be switched out for vacuum Raptor engines in another iteration of BFS, which would presumably have a higher payload capacity. Two, and possibly as many as four, of the seven engines can fail without compromising the BFS's ability to land.
"Grasshopper"-style vertical takeoff and landing tests are still planned for 2019, at the company's South Texas Launch Site near Brownsville, TX. High velocity flights and tests of the booster are planned for 2020. The first orbital flights could happen around 2021, and may launch from a floating platform. Musk indicated that there would be several uncrewed tests of the BFR before any humans are sent on it, including an uncrewed flight around the Moon.
Due to the low amount of payload on a cislunar joyride, passengers may only have to experience 2.5-3 g during ascent, instead of around 5 g. Depending on how the BFS returns to Earth, passengers could experience 3 g or 6 g on re-entry. Although the exact mission profile has not yet been decided, the BFS will probably "skim" the surface of the Moon before returning to a higher altitude, so that the passengers can get a much closer look at the Moon's surface than what is portrayed in the current flight plan. The total flight time is estimated at just over 5 days and 23 hours, with around 31 hours spent in the vicinity of the Moon (the flyby).
SpaceX press conference (1h11m44s).
Also at Ars Technica, The Verge (alt), and Fox News.
Previously: SpaceX Plans to Fly a Passenger Around the Moon Using BFR
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:08PM (5 children)
Big discussion of the design over here: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9gqd4g/change_in_bfs_design/ [reddit.com]
Didn't check that subreddit until a few minutes ago, obviously it's exploding.
The mass-volume tradeoff for this new design seems particularly well-suited for this crewed Moon trip and any crewed Mars trip. You want more room for each astronaut and aren't going to fill up the vehicle with the maximum number of tons.
The rear/aft cargo segments around the BFS engines could be used to release Starlink satellites, or maybe CubeSats.
It's too bad that most of the reporters at the press conference felt the need to ask the same questions about cost over and over. If it wasn't for Everyday Astronaut [everydayastronaut.com] being there, there would have been much less clarification about the design.
Also about the cost, some are saying that 80% of the BFR dev costs are going to be payroll (with existing engineers switched from Crew Dragon, etc. soon), so the material/testing costs are much closer to $1 billion. And even if NASA or the Air Force aren't pitching in any money now, they probably will want to at some point, even if it's not a development grant but a launch contract (like the one that saved SpaceX from dying).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:03PM (4 children)
Indeed, and why give Reddit all the fun. From various video clips it sounds like some of the big tradeoffs and other details are:
LEO payload reduced from 150t to 100t
Cargo volume increased from 825m^3 to 1000m^3
Removal of vacuum engines, increased number of total engines to 7
Ring of 6 cargo pods around the engine bells, totaling 88m^3 of additional capacity (supposedly can be replaced with 3 vacuum engines if needed)
Addition of mobile fins
Landing on the fins/legs instead of the base
Total height increased from 109m to 118m
More info? Corrections? Thoughts?
The weight-for-volume tradeoff is interesting - it seems that it's now planned to contain more pressurized volume than the ISS. It would seem to be especially relevant to passenger flights (e.g. tourism, Mars colonization) and transporting space station modules to orbit. I wonder if the Bigelow 2000(?)m^3 inflatable habitat would fit in the expanded bay - I seem to recall it was a bit too large for the old design.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:15PM (3 children)
I'm not sure that the removal of the cargo pods would allow the "addition" of 3 vacuum engines. I thought I heard that some of the sea-level engines would have to be swapped out.
Specs of the Raptor engine, such as the specific impulse and chamber pressure, appear to have been improved.
Previous height was 106 meters, not 109 meters.
Bigelow's BA 2100 [wikipedia.org] which is what you're referring to, has a pressurized volume of 2,250 m3 and an uncertain mass of 65 to 70 or even 100 tons. BA 2100 is just a concept right now, so maybe Bigelow could size something in its class to fit BFR or... SLS?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:42PM (2 children)
You might be right - I only came across one second-hand reference to Musk (supposedly) describing the vacuum engine/cargo ring swap. Would love to find a definitive reference. I could even see simply replacing the ring with a secondary bell being possibly viable, akin to your initial thoughts in the previous thread, before the nature of the ring was established.
Thanks, I looked for it, but without the 100 of B2100 I was coming up blank.
My impression was that the 2100 was well along in design, if not in production - it would seem to serve everyone involved if it could be ready for launch in either vehicle soon after the BFR and/or SLS is ready to carry it. Once you have a protective shell, the interior is much easier to outfit in orbit.
There's also the possibility that, with that much volume, BFRs could be retired to serve as space stations in their own right. I would imagine refurbishing windows, docking rings, etc. would be considerably easier than doing the same for the more active parts. And of course the fuel and oxygen tanks offer additional potential living volume with only moderate in-orbit retooling - especially if most of the prep-work was done on Earth - e.g. bond hatches and "hallways" between the tanks and cargo bay, so you need only cut out "doorways" along the dotted lines to complete the conversion.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:20PM (1 child)
Passenger BFSs are intended to have a "closed-loop" life support system, due to targeting destinations that are in deep space, including Mars. If that is the case, it could definitely be a good space station, or at least a healthy-sized component of one. Heck, if you detected a problem with your BFS that could be catastrophic for re-entry, maybe you could just leave it at the ISS or LOP-G indefinitely, to be used as large living quarters or storage.
B330 [wikipedia.org] is the Bigelow module that is closer to being realized.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:17PM
Excellent point about re-entry critical flaws.
As for the B330... I imagine it will be rather difficult for anyone to care about when you can launch a much larger (and probably cheaper) rigid module fully assembled within the BFR's cargo bay. I think they largely missed the boat with that one - their technology is just getting proven on the ISS, and along comes much bigger rockets that render their mainline module irrelevant. It certainly seems like they were banking on even the SLS taking a lot longer than planned.
Or, perhaps it really is just an intermediate tech demo itself. Might prove useful on the moon though, where unloading size could be a significant hurdle.
I'm trying to imagine how large modules would even be unloaded from the BFR - Musk showed a crane sticking out a side hatch in his lunar/martian mockups - and that's great for human-scale cargo, but to unload even a B330 you're going to have to open the main hatch (Maybe doable under Moon gravity?) and presumably have a much larger crane as part of the payload. Having a sufficiently large crane on the Moon would be incredibly handy - but getting it there would be a challenge. I mean I suppose you could just unload a giant "erector set" boom and assemble it by hand - but that's probably weeks or months of assembly. Though I suppose if you just leave a passenger rocket standing nearby as a habitat until the crane is built so you can unload your proper habitat... Hmm, or perhaps just use small rockets and design the cargo bay to survive their firing. You could even extend 2-3 of them outside the BFR to lift the cargo - Musk did mention that several F1 rockets would fit in the cargo bay, so existing technology could potentially be harnessed. It's not like you have far to go - just lift it up and out of the ship, travel a short distance horizontally, and land gently enough not to break anything. Not ideal, but it could serve to at least get a proper grane down to the ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:30PM (5 children)
A rocket full of artists and such. No hairdressers? God this is just begging to draw Simpsons comparisons. Are we sure it is going around the Moon and not into the Sun [youtube.com]? Is Tom Arnold and Pauly Shore going to be on it too?
(Score: 4, Funny) by zocalo on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:42PM (3 children)
crash oncolonise Mars first.UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:41PM (1 child)
Just don't forget to rename it to the A+ Ark prior to launch.
Otherwise, Trump might get on the wrong one.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday September 18 2018, @09:09PM
Yusaku is a billionaire. And so am I. As you know. As everybody knows. So I could ride on BFR if I wanted to. I'll tell you, I won't be riding it. Because they made it look like a shark. Like a space shark. With the fins and everything. They know I HATE sharks, they went ahead and did that. Not funny, guys!! foxnews.com/science/2018/09/17/rocket-reveal-elon-musk-unveils-new-images-bfr.html [foxnews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:44PM
I think we can skimp on the B-ARC development costs. Just fill it with old cell phone stuck on vibrate and put computer screens where windows would be. Y'know, without actual windows the crew will be safer as they *ahem* launch into space.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @02:43PM
http://www.messynessychic.com/2016/05/13/the-french-fartist-who-headlined-the-moulin-rouge/ [messynessychic.com]
Missed opportunity: Space Fartiste.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by CZB on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:31PM (14 children)
At least this crop of billionaires are building cool stuff!
Now how is it that Elon's rocket crew is making more progress than all the other rich guy rocket ventures? Are his guys smarter? Got lucky? Willing to take more risks?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:49PM (7 children)
SpaceX got a lot of money from uncle sam, which helped, and they have progressed a lot in the field
But make no mistake that this announcment is not progression. the BFR does not exist. Maybe one day it will, I hope it does. I hope that this tourist does a trip round the moon. But this isn't the first time spacex have announced a lunar trip -- last time they said it would launch in 2018.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:58PM
This tourist was the previously planned tourist. They moved it from Falcon Heavy to BFR, and there are a lot of great reasons for doing that.
As for it not existing, they have showed off images of its construction, and are promising the first BFS tests next year, which is a lot sooner than this lunar trip.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:21PM (4 children)
Yep, and you should always add 50-100% to Musk's timeline estimates to compensate for his optimism. Add that in and they'd be well on track to deliver, if not for the fact that they basically abandoned the Falcon Heavy once they realized they could scale down the ITS to something that could still get the job done while being small and cheap enough to profitably replace even the normal Falcon 9 launches. At which point the Heavy became nothing more than a stop-gap to use existing hardware to establish themselves as a player in the sparse high-payload market until the BFR could take over.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)
> Yep, and you should always add 50-100% to Musk's timeline estimates
That is pretty much true for any project on this scale. Factor 2 contingency in cost and time is even quite conservative. See, for space examples, SLS, JWT; but one could extend beyond the space sector to LHC, SNS, UK's crossrail and HS2, etc etc.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:56PM (1 child)
A major difference is that Musk is typically not being paid more when he's late, unlike most of your list.
He really needs to master the art of profitable stagnation, instead of constantly rocking the boat.
> High velocity flights and tests of the booster are planned for 2020. The first orbital flights could happen around 2021
"Mine will most likely take off a lot earlier than yours."
> pressurized volume of the spaceship (BFS) portion was estimated at around 1,000-1,100 m3, greater than that of the ISS
"Mine's bigger than yours, yet it will go much farther"
> full rocket (spaceship and booster) will now be around 118 meters, from 106.
> Incidentally, the Space Launch System Block 2 Cargo will be 111.25 meters tall.
"Mine's bigger than anybody's."
> [traditional capsule] Crew Dragon 2 has a pressurized volume of just 10 m3
"In summary, delays or not, either it blows up, or you all look like chumps pouring all those billions into the SLS boondoggle. Prepare your prayers and your resumes."
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:51PM
> A major difference is that Musk is typically not being paid more when he's late, unlike most of your list.
Those darn folks at CERN, just trying to slow down the LHC build to shred more pork from the bone. Wait to see how much they can get out of the current upgrade cycle!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:13PM
Agreed. It's a rare large-scale project of any sort that manages to deliver on time, even without the presence of "cost-plus" perverse incentives. I think Musk gets so much grief in large part because he makes big public announcements at the "the engineers are starting to think about it seriously" stage, whereas most endeavors aren't publicized at least until production has begun, and possibly not until a great deal of tests and revisions have already been completed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:50PM
Some of SpaceX competitors have long gotten money from uncle sam too. Yet SpaceX made such huge leaps so quickly.
One answer to the GP post is that some of SpaceX competitors operate on the
pork pluscost plus model.I for one am hoping that SLS gets off the ground in time to send a mission to mars before the SpaceX colony already on mars can roll out the red carpet for Orion capsule.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @03:56PM (3 children)
You don't stay a billionaire by spending your own money. SpaceX scored lucrative contracts even when it wasn't clear that they would be able to deliver. As Musk noted at the press conference, SpaceX's first three Falcon 1 flights were failures, and the fourth was finally successful. Then NASA gave them a launch contract. If that test flight had been a failure, that would have been the end of SpaceX. But they still hadn't flown a Falcon 9, and landing and reusing rockets multiple times was a distant dream.
Compared to old players like Boeing/ULA, SpaceX may have been helped by starting from a clean slate and relying more heavily on computers to design and simulate rockets. They also operated with the goal of creating cost-efficient rockets, rather than cost-plus pork contracts. And now that they have a working rocket that can become cheaper over time with partial reusability, they get to pocket the difference, including the difference between their rocket and competitors (NASA pays way more than $60 million for ISS cargo launches).
SpaceX does take risks. Attempting landings when it was unclear whether it would be achievable, modifying the rocket design for increased reusability, "load-and-go" fueling, etc.
The most directly comparable venture to SpaceX is Bezos's Blue Origin, since they are actually looking at the super-heavy launch business, unlike Virgin Galactic or Bigelow Aerospace. Blue Origin was founded before SpaceX. Their slowness is alluded to by their own motto: Gradatim Ferociter, or "Step by Step, Ferociously". They have taken a token milestone away from SpaceX, but the real fight is going to be with Falcon 9 and especially the BFR. New Glenn or New Armstrong could target 100 tons to LEO or higher, with at least partial reusability.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:00PM (2 children)
SpaceX has certainly taken some big risks, but I'm not sure that the landing attempts are among them. After all - what was risked, exactly? The rockets were going to be destroyed anyway, so all they really risked was wasting the engineering and production time of the landing-specific components, along with a relatively cheap and sturdy landing barge. Risking a small percentage of profits in pursuit of much larger profits is practically no risk at all.
Also, what token milestone did Blue Origin take from SpaceX? The only thing I can think of offhand was the "first" successful landing - years after Falcon 1 had already done the same. Granted F1 was just a testing platform while the New Shepard is... I'm not sure exactly. Expensive amusement park ride?
Blue Origin is certainly taking the safe route though, and I hope it eventually pays off for them. SpaceX could use some real competition.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:24PM (1 child)
It is a risk because they had to devote company resources to developing the reusable capability, building drone ships, etc. with no guarantee that any of it would pay off. The stuff needed to land the rocket also added to the mass.
At least this:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10815800/blue-origin-rocket-launch- [theverge.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:40PM
Sure, but it's a risk of lower profit margins, nothing that jeopardizes the company, or the rocket. And I seem to recall them leaving out the landing system when that extra payload was actually needed. I suppose I just don't think of that in the same terms as the sort of company-gambling behavior usually considered as risky. "We're betting the company on the success of X" is risky "We'll slow down development of systems that are already working well, in a market where we have no real competition, to develop technology that will radically increase profit margins" is the sort of thing any non-stagnating company would jump on.
That's right. I forgot about that one. Though I have to wonder about the article calling the New Shepard a "commercial rocket" - have they successfully sold... anything yet? Though I'll grant them that it's a lot more refined than you'd expect for a test platform. They're certainly at least *targetting* a commercial application for it, even if it's not something rockets are typically used for.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:13PM
A big part is probably first-mover advantage.
SpaceX was a serious project before any of the "competition" was much more than a hobby project. I suspect that's part of the reason Blue Origin targeted the suborbital tourist market rather than doing anything useful, they'd be nothing but an also-ran in that market. By the time they got off the ground SpaceX was well on their way to orbit. By the time their current rocket was undergoing serious test flights, SpaceX was already launching commercial payloads to orbit and was mastering the art of landing the first stage.
And once they went commercial, SpaceX had the advantage of being dramatically cheaper than any other launch options - they could undercut all other launch services while still maintaining huge profit margins to fund further development. The next commercial competition will have to be able to undercut SpaceX launch costs if they want to be able to use their profits to fund development, and that just doesn't look realistic for a rocket company just starting out. There was really only one window of opportunity for a cost-conscious company to undercut the globally political-pork-acclimated launch business.
Incidentally though, the Blue Origin looks an awful lot like their initial plans for a second stage rocket, so they may also have be positioning it as a second stage vehicle to launch atop a much more powerful first stage. That remains to be seen, but tourism would seem to be the only chance there is of operating a profitable launch business now that all the easy money has been taken out of the orbital launch market. Of course, if BFR manages to deliver on its goal of lower overall launch costs than the Falcon, that could well destroy the suborbital tourism market for them before it even gets off the ground. If you're buying a space tourism ticket, would you rather go suborbital in a little passenger capsule for a few minutes, or a bigger-than-the-space-station passenger liner where you could fool around in free-fall for hours or days?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:59PM
This. We need to keep in mind that Musk was able to get the pick of the litter. "I'm going to launch rockets. You in?" is a strong selling point in a world with a lot of skilled rocket designers and not a lot of opportunities to use those skills. That world is changing now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:02PM (16 children)
"a billionaire fashion entrepreneur"
so he's filthy rich from all the asian pseudo slave labor then?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @04:07PM
That, or his company's "at-home measurement system".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:04PM (14 children)
Words have meaning [oxforddictionaries.com].
Just about everyone rich has done so by employing the labor of free people (that is, pseudo slaves).
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:24PM (13 children)
Part of the definition of pseudo-X is resembling the thing being referenced. A pillow is not a rock, but that doesn't make it a pseudo-rock unless it superficially resembles a rock.
So what are the defining superficial qualities of slave labor? You can't quit, you're routinely abused, and you receive essentially none of the wealth you generate.
Hmm, you know what - I retract my objection. You're right, just about everyone rich HAS become so by employing pseudo-slaves. Sure, you can theoretically quit, but they've done a good job of forging chains out of people's greed, consumerism, and superficial social status to keep them feeling like they can't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:03PM
While I like to hype the cynicism train myself I just can't get 100% on board with this one. There are a fuck ton of pseudo-slaves in every country, but there are a ton of "free-ish" people as well. That is how the pseudo-slaves are kept down. The "free" people claim that the slaves can just work hard and save to improve their own situation.
It is THEIR fault the corporations profit massively from the shit wages. If only they had more positive qualities to offer society /sarcasm
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:06PM (5 children)
In the countries where the kinds of sweatshops under discussion are common, quitting your job is pretty close to suicidal. The reason that 12-year-olds are working stitching shoes and clothing for pennies is that their families can't afford to feed them or their younger siblings if they don't work. And there are more than enough families in this position that even if the entire staff of 12-year-olds quits or strikes or something, they can be replaced in a matter of hours. If they quit, they will be blacklisted as unreliable, and be unable to find work at another factory. And that plus a lack of a social safety net means that there are millions of families that aren't making ends meet in these societies, which provides a steady supply of desperate and powerless people for sale as slaves to global drug cartels, prostitution rings, and other human traffickers.
Efforts by these impoverished workers to organize to improve their situation tend to be quashed by force. On the small scale, anyone attempting to organize a union is likely to be murdered, and the government will routinely look the other way when that happens. On the larger scale, if they manage to elect a government that tries to institute and enforce labor laws like higher minimum wages or overtime or protection for unions, their country will be very likely to face a coup or civil war with the anti-laborer side having US backing.
Make no mistake: The massive amounts of cheaply-made stuff from overseas comes with a body count of people whose only crime was being born poor in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, China, Taiwan, or southern Asia. Their chains aren't forged by their own greed, consumerism, or social status, but the threat of starvation, slavery, and murder. And that's what OP is getting at.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:50PM
Hey, you'll get no argument from me. I actually started my post to make a similar point, but my inner smart-ass won out before I got to the conclusion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:24PM (3 children)
Except of course, you already said sweatshops are common and hence, it's not hard to find another sweatshop job.
Ok. Those jobs also mean that down the road there are less people [ourworldindata.org] not more in those desperate straits.
I wonder what the excuse will be in 30 years when those places have massively improved from the present?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:45PM (2 children)
I already addressed this: The sweatshop managements talk to each other and blacklist employees who quit, because they have a shared interest in punishing people for quitting sweatshop jobs.
This is one of those instances where theoretical capitalism differs from real-life capitalism: In theoretical capitalism, each employer is making decisions in a vacuum with no information beyond what they've garnered from the resume and interviews plus the wage the employee is willing to accept. In real-life capitalism, employers tend to work together to drive down wages for their employees and make it harder for their employees to quit. You don't even need to go to dirt-poor countries and sweatshops to see this in action, because those kind of anti-competitive efforts have been proven to happen right here in the US, e.g. between Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe [cnet.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:04PM (1 child)
And how does that catch people who give fake names? Or are poached by competitors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:53PM
Fuck off you dip.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:40PM (5 children)
I see some pseudo-thinking there. Let's do some actual thinking.
You think those qualities are "superficial"? I would wager instead that they are what makes slavery slavery. Now let's compare that to workers who can quit, aren't abused, and receive a considerable portion of the wealth they generate - that is the pseudo-slaves. Ok, um, not much really to think about there. So sure, there's people hand wringing away about the badness of pseudo-slavery. But don't we all have better things to do with our time than worry about sham slavery?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)
Sure, there's plenty of people working comparatively pleasant jobs - but we're talking about the jobs that made other people rich. I'd wager that there's a very short list of those that treated the lower-echelon employees (or "contractors") that well.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:21PM (1 child)
Compared to slavery? There's a reason it's "pseudo".
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:55PM
Agreed, and I was being a bit of a smart ass with that last line. You talk about pseudo-slavery in China, etc. though, where losing your job may mean you don't eat until you find a new one, you may be locked in so you literally have to escape to quit, etc. and that "pseudo" starts looking a lot thinner.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:22PM (1 child)
The people described as "pseudo-slaves":
- Can't quit unless they like starving. So while they could quit in theory, in practice they can't.
- Are definitely abused, unless you think standing their sewing shirts for 16 hours straight day-in and day-out without breaks isn't abuse. And if you think it isn't abuse, why didn't you sign up for it.
- They get about 20 cents for making an item that sells for at least $10 (if it's considered "high fashion", then it's selling for more like $100, but let's focus on the cheap stuff). What is your threshold for a "considerable portion" of the wealth they created? I'm guessing it's higher than 2%.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:13PM
Or like a better job better.
Always relative. There's that starvation thing.
What did they do? They didn't supply the capital to make the clothing. They didn't supply all the labor either (numerous workers would be involved in the making of that clothing). They didn't ship it. They didn't market or sell it. Seems considerable to me for the value they actually generated.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:29PM (1 child)
I'm an artist:
http://www.warplife.com/mdc/drawings/ [warplife.com]
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:39PM
I think you might get screened out during astrotourist training.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 19 2018, @01:30AM (2 children)
One thing that annoyed me is that when Musk was trying to come up with a list of solar system objects with atmospheres, he left out Titan [wikipedia.org]. Let's see BFR land there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)
Titan is pretty far away, bit you're right, with its thick atmosphere and pretty low gravity, it shouldn't be that hard. But the flight time to Saturn, we are really fantasizing SF stories here. We'll see. The only place we could walk around without a full pressure suiit, though. Just warm clothing. If that could only happen for us to see it. Damn.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 19 2018, @05:59PM
Well, even if you don't want to put humans on it, we definitely want additional landers on Titan. Titan is a target for: rovers, drones, boats, and submarines.
BFR should be able to get a payload to Saturn faster [crowlspace.com] than the Titan IV-B rocket that got Cassini-Huygens there.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]