Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday September 18 2018, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the fun-is-underrated dept.

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


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:04PM (14 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:04PM (#736605) Journal

    pseudo

    Words have meaning [oxforddictionaries.com].

    Not genuine; spurious or sham.

    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)

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @05:24PM (#736608)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:03PM (#736624)

      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)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:06PM (#736626)

      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.

      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

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:50PM (#736648)

        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)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:24PM (#736670) Journal

        In the countries where the kinds of sweatshops under discussion are common, quitting your job is pretty close to suicidal.

        Except of course, you already said sweatshops are common and hence, it's not hard to find another sweatshop job.

        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.

        Ok. Those jobs also mean that down the road there are less people [ourworldindata.org] not more in those desperate straits.

        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.

        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)

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:45PM (#736687)

          Except of course, you already said sweatshops are common and hence, it's not hard to find another sweatshop job.

          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)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:04PM (#736699) Journal

            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.

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:53PM (#736724)

              Fuck off you dip.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:40PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:40PM (#736646) Journal

      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.

      I see some pseudo-thinking there. Let's do some actual thinking.

      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.

      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)

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @06:53PM (#736650)

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:21PM (#736666) Journal

          I'd wager that there's a very short list of those that treated the lower-echelon employees (or "contractors") that well.

          Compared to slavery? There's a reason it's "pseudo".

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:55PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:55PM (#736695)

            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)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday September 18 2018, @07:22PM (#736667)

        You can't quit, you're routinely abused, and you receive essentially none of the wealth you generate.

        You think those qualities are "superficial"? I would wager instead that they are what makes slavery slavery.

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 18 2018, @08:13PM (#736701) Journal

          Can't quit unless they like starving.

          Or like a better job better.

          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.

          Always relative. There's that starvation thing.

          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%.

          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.