Ethel mermania wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Fair enough. But it's funny how most billionaires recieve harsh criticism for being too rich, yet when the world's least charitable billionaire, Jeff Bezos, does something like this, which is impossible for non-billionaires, many of the billionaire haters aren't batting an eye about it. Whatever your opinion of billionaires is, you have to acknowledge that endeavours as running a space program, running a rail company, starting an airline, or building infrastructure are only achievable by governments or billionaires. Also, it's funny how many environmentalists are willing to sign up for such endeavours, even though space travel is one of the worst things imaginable as far as the environment is concerned. And burning so much fuel for 10 minutes in space is just a waste of fuel i say that as one of one of the least environmentalist members of this community.
SpaceX has a lot more investors than just Musk, he is just the lead. I dont think they are public yet. Google i know had a piece of them. Same for the others.
Edison for electricity, Ford for automobiles, it the way its always worked. Air travel for plebians wasn't a thing till the late 1960's. It use to be extremely expensive now its 150 bucks to get on an airplane and go 1,000 miles.
Aside from from the fact that these billionaires are paying thousands of people serious money to advance the technology and speed up the pace of innovation, aeronautic engineers ain't cheap,, and because its capitalism drive down the cost. Its because of Musk et. al. that space will be affordable to the masses not because of anything NASA or the ESA are doing.
I'm very pro-capitalism, but I know that many people on NationStates aren't, and yet they support this. I like pointing out irony. Same applies to my post about environmentalism. Pointing out irony
