As the cost of spaceflight comes down and launch frequency goes up, I suspect we'll start seeing reusable launch systems emerge that have had thousands of launches across dozens of rockets. Once that happens I think spaceflight's safety record will improve significantly.

If people are interested in going somewhere, who are you to denigrate their ambitions? What is wrong with dreaming of orbiting the planet? How does that dream fall short? Is it a weak dream for a midwestern child, landlocked a thousand miles in every direction, to want to see the ocean? Is it a weak dream for a city child, blocked by light pollution, to want to see the stars?

What kind of comment is this? What does it even mean to have a "better" dream?

It's an old story, as expressed by Dr. Seuss in his story Yertle the Turtle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yertle_the_Turtle_and_Other_St...

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-blast-s...

If it makes everyone who can afford to go more circumspect about that, I think it’ll have been completely worth it, even ignoring all the useful stuff that’ll come out of it.

Also, off topic, but thanks very much for all the things you make, they’re wonderful.

There is something so unimaginative about this kind of thinking it's really off putting.

As a society one should always strive to do better in all areas, not only in the areas you deem worthy.

We are entering an age of global techno oligarchy

I want my masters to see the earth from space. Get a feel for the stakes, see the delicate ribbon of air, the vastness of space.

See it as the rare jewel we spent a short time on, and the obligation to treat it well

"It's small, I want to own the others" might be the Bezos response.

I’m more inclined to believe that there is something intrinsically profound in seeing all the known life in the universe in one field of view. I also am inclined to believe that billionaires are just the world’s most wealth-atypical people, not the world’s most neuro-atypical people, and thus would respond in the typical way to the overview.

But maybe that’s an optimism bias on my part.

I'm inclined to consider the Neil Armstrongs of the world more service-oriented than subjugation-oriented, as a general impression of their careers as astronauts.

It could end up being a very therapeutic endeavor for the average person if space-tourism becomes more accessible, putting people's problems in perspective.

The real magic of human spaceflight for me is the science that is done up there. Sending a bunch of untrained rich people into space for the fun of it is not especially inspiring. The idea of getting crammed like sardines into a giant rocket so I can experience this with the masses is just not a great dream.

For me personally? I just want to mess around in 0G for a day or two. That seems like it'd be a rather unique experience; well worth a few thousand bucks and a couple hours packed shoulder to shoulder in a ship with a thousand other people.

The carbon emissions of Starship already pale in comparison to the reforms we need to pass, but lack the political will to do so.

If rockets became commonplace, they would most like replace leisure travel on airplanes and would eliminate car traffic once you arrive at your destination. The CO2 emission of the current SpaceX rockets is about the same as one full plane across the Atlantic. So if you could take 300 people in one launch, you'd probably take those 300 people away from an airplane flight and it would actually be better for the planet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

And rockets need special start locations to reduce the amount of fuel to reach the desired altitude, additionally the landing places must be way outside of your flight location, so you need extra transportation to your destination too.

Yes, there are environmental benefits to putting the actual destination in space, I hadn’t really considered that.

"i do X high-carbon thing to bring awareness to the plebs"

It seems obvious to me that climate activists can use leverage, like anyone else. In other words it's perfectly reasonable to produce a small amount of carbon in pursuit of making the sweeping changes necessary. Climate change isn't going to be solved by parts of the population choosing to fly a little less often.

That's just a mathematical fact.

The reality of solving climate change is a separate topic. 70% of emissions come from large corporations -- that's where the impact is and always was going to be made.

10k in space will get you what?

---

Random thought:

If they were able to get enough water into space such that one could swim through a sphere of water in a weightless environment, what would the sensation of being encapsulated in water while weightless feel like (clearly needing scuba or some other air connection..)

And what if you’ve already done all that?

Private jets (well, fractional ownership) gets boring after a few years.

Or you can stay here on earth, go scuba diving and experience the exact same weightlessness... :)

What would the difference in sensation be for one who is submerged on earth, versus one who is encapsulated in a floating sphere of water...

Is what we need to invent then...

lol you would have to pay me to go golfing