I'd guess this is more like what the designers of the US Space
Shuttle had in mind. Amazing. Fire it off, retrieve, check it
out, load 'er up, fill 'er up and off she goes again.

from
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-group-6-5-record-breaking-launch

SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launches for record-breaking 16th time, lands on
ship at sea
By Mike Wall last updated about 10 hours ago
The rocket sent 22 of SpaceX's Starlink 'V2 Mini' satellites skyward.

Comments (0)
Click here for more Space.com videos...
SpaceX just set a new rocket-reuse record.

A Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in
Florida Sunday at 11:58 p.m. EDT (0358 GMT on July 10), sending 22 of
SpaceX's Starlink satellites toward low-Earth orbit (LEO).

It was the unprecedented 16th launch for this Falcon 9's first-stage
booster, according to the company.

Related: SpaceX's Starlink satellite megaconstellation launches in photos

a black and white spacex falcon 9 rocket launches at night from florida

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launches 22 Starlink "V2 Mini" satellites from
Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on July 9, 2023. It was
the record-breaking 16th launch for this rocket's first stage. (Image
credit: SpaceX)
The booster came back to Earth for a 16th landing as well, touching down
on the deck of the SpaceX droneship Just Read the Instructions in the
Atlantic Ocean about 8.5 minutes after liftoff.

The Falcon 9's expendable upper stage, meanwhile, continued hauling the
22 Starlink satellites aloft. The batch is scheduled to be deployed in
LEO 62 minutes after launch.

The 22 satellites are "V2 Minis," a newer and more powerful version of
SpaceX's broadband craft. They're actually bigger than the previous
Starlink iteration, about 50 of which can fit on a Falcon 9. But they're
"mini" compared to the final V2 satellites, 1.25-ton (1.1 metric tons)
spacecraft that will launch aboard SpaceX's giant, next-gen Starship
vehicle.

"V2 minis include key technologies — such as more powerful phased array
antennas and the use of E-band for backhaul — which will allow Starlink
to provide ~4x more capacity per satellite than earlier iterations,"
SpaceX said via Twitter in February.

two panels showing a spacex falcon 9 rocket landing on a droneship at
sea at night

The first stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket comes down for a landing on
a droneship at sea shortly after its record-breaking 16th launch, which
occurred on July 9, 2023. (Image credit: SpaceX)
RELATED STORIES:
— SpaceX rocket launches on record-setting 15th mission, lands on ship
at sea (video)

— 8 ways that SpaceX has transformed spaceflight

— SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance
maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse

The Falcon 9 first stage that flew Sunday night last launched in
December 2022. Among its 15 previous flights are Demo-2, SpaceX's
first-ever crewed mission, which sent two NASA astronauts to the
International Space Station in 2020.

The booster is not a reuse outlier; another Falcon 9 first stage has 15
flights under its belt, and a few others have launched 14 times.

Starship will take reflight to another level, if all goes according to
plan. The giant vehicle, the most powerful rocket ever built, is
designed to be fully reusable. And both of its stages will be capable of
flying multiple times in a single day, SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk
has said.

Editor's note: This story was updated at 1 a.m. ET on July 9 with the
new launch time of 8:36 p.m. EDT. The original launch target was July 9
at 4:36 a.m. EDT. It was updated again at 9 p.m. ET on July 9 with the
new launch time of 11:58 p.m. EDT. It was updated again at 12:25 a.m. ET
on July 10 with news of successful launch and rocket landing.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions,
night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment,
let us know at: community@space.com.

Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching
events and more!

Your Email Address
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands
Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors
By submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and
Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.
Mike Wall
Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer
Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team
in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space,
but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the
search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018.
Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and
wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the
University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University
of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the
University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest
project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:j4WqM.175968$Bq67.100688@fx13.iad...

I'd guess this is more like what the designers of the US Space
Shuttle had in mind. Amazing. Fire it off, retrieve, check it
out, load 'er up, fill 'er up and off she goes again.
-----------------

The tradeoff is lower payload weight and orbital altitude due to the mass
fraction of fuel that brings the booster back down instead of contributing
to velocity, as engine thrust limits the total vehicle + fuel + payload
weight. The system is economical for routine missions to low orbits but less
suited to the more demanding ones into deep space.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-orbital-refueling-details/

The overwhelming problem is that rockets need to burn fuel to accelerate the
remaining fuel, like piling up sand where most of it is near the bottom
supporting the rest, and to reach orbital velocity that means that only 10%
or less of launch weight gets there. For Falcon 9 the payload weight to
orbit is 4.1% of launch weight.

Warning! Warning! Rocket science ahead!
https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/

The explanation to Congress is that satellites are kept in orbit by Funding,
and if it fails they will crash down on our heads.

NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for educated
workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if you believe
that the government has to create employment to make up for jobs lost to
automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand for
non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to make up
for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in advancing our
technology to keep us ahead.

The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing
bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent (recycled)
on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among the states.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:u8i5mj$2lsg6$1@dont-email.me...

NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for educated
workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if you believe
that the government has to create employment to make up for jobs lost to
automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand for
non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to make up
for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in advancing our
technology to keep us ahead.

The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing
bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent (recycled)
on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among the states.

----------------------------
Keynesian economics:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
"The central tenet of this school of thought is that government intervention
can stabilize the economy"

However the government shouldn't compete with private enterprise, so they
manipulate demand for products the people may benefit from but don't
consume, such as roads, dams, military and space hardware. In effect they
transmute iron and aluminum into gold.

On 7/10/23 16:53, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple"  wrote in message news:j4WqM.175968$Bq67.100688@fx13.iad...
>
> I'd guess this is more like what the designers of the US Space
> Shuttle had in mind.  Amazing.  Fire it off, retrieve, check it
> out, load 'er up, fill 'er up and off she goes again.
> -----------------
>
> The tradeoff is lower payload weight and orbital altitude due to the
> mass fraction of fuel that brings the booster back down instead of
> contributing to velocity, as engine thrust limits the total vehicle +
> fuel + payload weight. The system is economical for routine missions to
> low orbits but less suited to the more demanding ones into deep space.
>
> https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-orbital-refueling-details/
>
> The overwhelming problem is that rockets need to burn fuel to accelerate
> the remaining fuel, like piling up sand where most of it is near the
> bottom supporting the rest, and to reach orbital velocity that means
> that only 10% or less of launch weight gets there. For Falcon 9 the
> payload weight to orbit is 4.1% of launch weight.
>
> Warning! Warning! Rocket science ahead!
> https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/
>
> The explanation to Congress is that satellites are kept in orbit by
> Funding, and if it fails they will crash down on our heads.
>
> NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for
> educated workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if
> you believe that the government has to create employment to make up for
> jobs lost to automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand
> for non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to
> make up for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in
> advancing our technology to keep us ahead.
>
> The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing
> bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
> control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent
> (recycled) on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among
> the states.
>

All Interesting.

#1 IMHO cost of getting lots of 'stuff' to orbit is important to
make permanent space stations in orbit. Fuel is cheaper than
complete rockets.

#2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
them.

Kind of related,

"a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra.51521@fx09.iad...

#2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
them.

----------------------

Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to the
Republicans.

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:31:42 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
> #2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
> of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
> gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
> them.
> ----------------------
>
> Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to the
> Republicans.

Now that statement right there illustrates the problems caused by zero-sum thinking and polarization of politics. I used to be a die-hard Republican without questioning much. Now as I've gotten older (close to retirement), I have definitely moved toward the middle. In my opinion, the greatest danger this country (and probably the world) faces is the ever expanding gulf between the rich and the poor. I have been fortunate to have moved from lower middle class as a child to upper middle class now as an adult. Somehow, civilization needs to understand that this fgulf needs to be bridged and sooner rather than later.

Dean

"Dean Markley" wrote in message
news:397f4516-f825-4c0a-8369-eeec856cf068n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:31:42 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
> #2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
> of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
> gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
> them.
> ----------------------
>
> Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to
> the
> Republicans.

Now that statement right there illustrates the problems caused by zero-sum
thinking and polarization of politics. I used to be a die-hard Republican
without questioning much. Now as I've gotten older (close to retirement), I
have definitely moved toward the middle. In my opinion, the greatest danger
this country (and probably the world) faces is the ever expanding gulf
between the rich and the poor. I have been fortunate to have moved from
lower middle class as a child to upper middle class now as an adult.
Somehow, civilization needs to understand that this fgulf needs to be
bridged and sooner rather than later.

Dean
----------------------

My statement is about why it isn't being bridged by those who claim to care
the most.

"Dean Markley" wrote in message
news:397f4516-f825-4c0a-8369-eeec856cf068n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:31:42 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to
> the
> Republicans.

Now that statement right there illustrates the problems caused by zero-sum
thinking and polarization of politics. I used to be a die-hard Republican
without questioning much. Now as I've gotten older (close to retirement), I
have definitely moved toward the middle. In my opinion, the greatest danger
this country (and probably the world) faces is the ever expanding gulf
between the rich and the poor. I have been fortunate to have moved from
lower middle class as a child to upper middle class now as an adult.
Somehow, civilization needs to understand that this fgulf needs to be
bridged and sooner rather than later.

Dean

----------------------------

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/452439-democrats-wage-war-on-poor-americans/

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Dean Markley" wrote in message
> news:397f4516-f825-4c0a...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:31:42 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > "a425couple" wrote in message news:eBfrM.171928$RIra....@fx09.iad...
> > #2 So it is, to spend money on poverty and homelessness, instead
> > of giving them money, we spend LOTS on college graduates who have
> > gotten their degrees in Sociology etc. to talk to them and lecture
> > them.
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Teaching the poor to support themselves and succeed risks losing them to
> > the
> > Republicans.
>
> Now that statement right there illustrates the problems caused by zero-sum
> thinking and polarization of politics. I used to be a die-hard Republican
> without questioning much. Now as I've gotten older (close to retirement), I
> have definitely moved toward the middle. In my opinion, the greatest danger
> this country (and probably the world) faces is the ever expanding gulf
> between the rich and the poor. I have been fortunate to have moved from
> lower middle class as a child to upper middle class now as an adult.
> Somehow, civilization needs to understand that this fgulf needs to be
> bridged and sooner rather than later.
>
> Dean
> ----------------------
>
> My statement is about why it isn't being bridged by those who claim to care
> the most.

Jim, yes, I understood that but my reply may not have reflected that.

"Dean Markley" wrote in message
news:86c5177c-4030-44d0-873e-fbbf692fd18en@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> My statement is about why it isn't being bridged by those who claim to
> care
> the most.

Jim, yes, I understood that but my reply may not have reflected that.

----------------------------

https://www.povertycure.org/learn/issues/charity-hurts/zero-sum-fallacy

My family rose quite far above their Southern Appalachian barefoot farm boy
beginnings. Their "privilege" was motivation and night school education. I
was the first one to reach college and continue to take night classes. They
didn't let these attitudes hold them back:

https://sojo.net/magazine/july-august-2002/dont-get-above-your-raisin

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

> Warning! Warning! Rocket science ahead!
> https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/
>
> The explanation to Congress is that satellites are kept in orbit by
> Funding, and if it fails they will crash down on our heads.
>
> NASA's expensive approach could be justified as social welfare for
> educated workers; engineers and technicians like me. It makes sense if you
> believe that the government has to create employment to make up for jobs
> lost to automation, and generate artificial and adjustable demand for
> non-consumable, non-competitive military and aerospace products to make up
> for the economy's shortfalls. They purposely invested in advancing our
> technology to keep us ahead.
>
> The left may oppose this but it's their idea, expressed as a growing
> bureaucracy of Liberal Arts grads, they just don't like not being in
> control. It was the basis of the New Deal. All the money is spent
> (recycled) on Earth, mostly in the USA, and spread fairly evenly among the
> states.

Humanity has always had the cycle of needing the number with
associated brainpower to deal with the problems of having that
many people. Also the quotes by someone pointing out the
problems that were later fixed and the quotes by someone
pointing out there is no problem which turned out to be very wrong.
When predicting the future how the system chooses to forget and
remember predictions according to current needs. After all the
Earth had to be quite young as the sun burning the best available
fuel, coal, had to be young, meantime someone has just come
up with the idea the age of the universe is around 26.7 billion
years, or nearly twice the current generally accepted age.

NIARU. Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment is a
theoretical level of unemployment below which inflation would
be expected to rise. In the United States, estimates of NIARU
typically range between 5 and 6%, that is unless that many of
the available work force is not in work inflation will become a
problem. The idea says as soon as unemployment starts with
a 4 it is time to raise interest rates to push unemployment back
up. Been in fashion for 40 to 50 years, whatever the rate is the
system insists on a quite real chunk of the workforce being out
of work at any one time.

Think of it as a way to artificially dampen demand by purposely
destroying jobs.

You can adopt one of two extreme positions, those unemployed
are sacrificing at least some of their financial future (or it is being
sacrificed by those in power and therefore in employment) to
preserve the value of everyone’s money, or you can say
unemployment is a self inflicted voluntary choice, nothing to do
with anything or anyone else.

Economics is a good way to do things like make better widgets
more efficiently, it is a bad way to organise society.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message news:u8tfmn$b1qk$1@dont-email.me...

....
NIARU. Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment is a
theoretical level of unemployment below which inflation would
be expected to rise. In the United States, estimates of NIARU
typically range between 5 and 6%, that is unless that many of
the available work force is not in work inflation will become a
problem. The idea says as soon as unemployment starts with
a 4 it is time to raise interest rates to push unemployment back
up. Been in fashion for 40 to 50 years, whatever the rate is the
system insists on a quite real chunk of the workforce being out
of work at any one time.

--------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU
"In the U.S. boom years of 1998, 1999, and 2000, unemployment dipped below
NAIRU estimates without causing significant increases of inflation. There
are at least three potential explanations of this: (1) Fed Chair Alan
Greenspan had correctly judged that the Internet revolution had structurally
lowered NAIRU, or (2) NAIRU is largely mistaken as a concept, or (3) NAIRU
correctly applies only to certain historical periods, for example, the 1970s
when a higher percentage of workers belonged to unions and some contracts
had wage increases tied in advance to the inflation rate, but perhaps
neither as accurately nor as correctly to other time periods."

NAIRU may be an example of confusing correlation with causation, an
obviously faulty example being that the weather is always clear during a
full moon because you never see it full during rain. The left is notorious
for conflating the two to further the goal of blaming and confiscating the
success they envy but aren't able to achieve by themselves. Rich folk don't
really cause poverty, the zero-sum fallacy, they just highlight it and
incite toxic envy. High ability can do very well by filling a demand even in
poor countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

The chicken and egg is a good example of popularly misunderstood cause and
effect. The cycle is broken when the rooster mates with the hen to produce
an offspring that doesn't exactly duplicate either of them and may have
survivable mutations.
https://grubblyfarms.com/blogs/the-flyer/10-rare-exotic-chicken-breeds-to-add-to-your-flock

To get back to rockets, I assume everyone agrees they treat
a government funded rocket going bang exactly the same as
a similar mission similar private funded rocket going bang,
otherwise expect the two to have different risk profiles and
associated costs.

And of course no change in attitude depending on whether
group A or B or C etc. is in government at the time or
provided the public funding.

"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u8u70g$d7mm$1@dont-email.me...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU
> "In the U.S. boom years of 1998, 1999, and 2000, unemployment dipped below
> NAIRU estimates without causing significant increases of inflation. There
> are at least three potential explanations of this: (1) Fed Chair Alan
> Greenspan had correctly judged that the Internet revolution had
> structurally lowered NAIRU, or (2) NAIRU is largely mistaken as a concept,
> or (3) NAIRU correctly applies only to certain historical periods, for
> example, the 1970s when a higher percentage of workers belonged to unions
> and some contracts had wage increases tied in advance to the inflation
> rate, but perhaps neither as accurately nor as correctly to other time
> periods."

Nothing in the above changes the reality that a number of central
bankers around the world are currently stating they need to get
unemployment up. Despite a significant chunk of the current
inflation being due to a pandemic, a significant war and the
potential for an even more significant war. Tariffs are taxes and
increase prices, breaking and remaking supply lines costs. And
my main point, governments are expected and do deliberately
create and destroy jobs, not just create them. The best way to
fight poverty and whole lot of other problems is full employment,
the economic system says that must not happen.

That leaves upping the median wage, distributing the money more
widely, invoking the collective wisdom of many more people rather
than a small number of wealthy ones or the government. All the
options have costs and a lot of effort goes into the narrative someone
else paying is the best.

The NAIRU theory at least needs to explain the low unemployment
and inflation rates in the two or so decades after WWII happened.

That said the credit system will tend to freeze if interest rates are
well below the inflation rate.

If you pull apart the various economic theories you discover how
many value judgements are built into them, results tend to agree
with the world view of the person proposing the theory. It was
a while ago now but being shown how one economic model
was in fact nothing more than a mirror, reflecting back the
input assumptions. It would be fun to test the latest models
on the optimum level of slavery (do what the Romans did, it
worked for hundreds of years) or the effect of one person
owning everything and so on.

> NAIRU may be an example of confusing correlation with causation, an
> obviously faulty example being that the weather is always clear during a
> full moon because you never see it full during rain. The left is notorious
> for conflating the two

Politics and humanity usually conflate the two, not just a sub
section, most political statements that make the mass media
reportage are the good/bad guys are in power which is why so
much good/bad is happening. It can be the same event but
badged accordingly.

> to further the goal of blaming and confiscating the success they envy but
> aren't able to achieve by themselves.

By the way as some people could own the universe and consider
themselves poor, plenty of the rich "blaming and confiscating the
success they envy but aren't able to achieve by themselves" It
is a part of the human condition and often reinforced, one very
obvious example is artists where success = big sales, not some
sort of artistic quality, and can easily be the latest fashion.

Confiscation is taking things, I see plenty of people claiming
credit for anything considered a success. Plenty of bonus
payments have little to do with individual performance, being
based on metrics the company or the market sector as a whole
achieved but paid out to only some of the staff. After all that is
money that otherwise would have gone to the investors who
have had the success to enable them to invest, so are the
workers in the company "further the goal of blaming and
confiscating the success they envy but aren't able to achieve
by themselves"?

Yes I know, payment to us is valid, payment by us is unfair. If
the government allows the above can it also arrange "bonus"
rather than welfare payments to the poorer people, paid for
by the investors, payments based on sector wide metrics etc.
Or "bonus" employment at the company for those struggling?

How about given the unemployed are providing the service of
keeping the value of money they receive a fee for the service,
plus a bonus depending in the rate of inflation. Comes with the
"I'm an inflation fighter" t-shirt, with space to add your preferred
company or billionaire to show who you are fighting for. And
space to show how long you have been fighting the good fight.

A government rule that is liked is called a law, as law and order is good.
A government rule that is disliked is called a regulation, as deregulation
is good. The public is educated to agree with this so a public figure
can be pro law and order and pro deregulation instead of saying they
want that rule but not that other rule.

No unemployment benefit, it is inflation fighting fees plus bonus.

So much of politics is defining key words and whether they are
then good or bad,

How do you confiscate success, taking credit, or is it confiscating
the material results of success?

> Rich folk don't really cause poverty, the zero-sum fallacy, they just
> highlight it and incite toxic envy.

The rest is really a response to the it is them that is responsible
rhetoric. And they are defective people so can be ignored.

As for the causes of poverty the rich like all of us are a contributor,
but the rich have more power and so have a greater input, phrases
like toxic envy are the usual rhetoric, like the rhetoric about how all
bosses are criminals, making the problems worse. We like the
flood of cheap fashion clothing but few would like to have the working
conditions of the mass garment industry. Volunteer to take a pay
cut, it will enable more people to afford your work, help make poverty
history. The reality your income is other people's costs.

Put it another way the rich person could invest in new ventures
or pay twice the last price to own a trophy old master, the poor
person could upskill or spend money on an addiction, both
create economic activity, but not the same effect on building
a better world.

Having a physical or mental disability is poverty determining,
along with poor health. Wheelchair access adds costs to
buildings for example, so how much should the person in the
wheelchair pay for it or for the wheelchair itself? When it
comes to health if the people around you do not have adequate
food, clothing, shelter and medical support then you are in
trouble as communicable diseases do not run credit checks.
Medicine or surgery to give people better quality of life also
makes them more employable and able to afford the care.
So how much should medical care be a public or a private
good? Welcome to politics. Add education etc.

We all draw on the resources of the state, changing over
time. The poor are obvious as they receive direct payments.
Businesses tend to prefer not have to pay a tax others do,
as that is less visible than refunds or subsidies.

The wealthier you are means having more property and doing
more business. Think of the cost of insurance and doing
business if the government does not bother much with
stopping theft or fraud, or providing resources to settle
business disputes. Or just more business usually means
more use of roads. Kidnapping and other crimes are
generally more profitable when done to the wealthy.

One way to fight poverty is to regularly change governments,
the greater the electoral margin a representative has the
more they are the system's representative to the electorate,
not the electorate's to the system. As it is the power brokers
that determine whether the representative stays. The longer
one group stays in power the more the system is set up to
help particular groups and not others.

We now know any organisation, public, private, religious,
charity etc. rapidly abandons its official reason for existence
to prioritise defending the organisation and especially the
people in charge. It is the paradox that the organisations
humans create to enable the co-operation to do good
things better need strong competitors to enable that
co-operation to stay focused on better for the clients.

The more powerful someone is the more they are able
to influence the rules, at the extreme a monopoly or a
cartel sets both prices and wages. Plenty of examples
about how people claim making it easier for "us" will
make a better world, but easier tends to push towards
monopolies. Or just current practice of the difference in
payment terms and prices a big business can impose
on its suppliers versus a small business, add any
economies of scale and watch the small competitors
financially strangle. No need for predatory pricing. Then
tell the customers for example no warranty if your vehicle
is serviced by non approved people.

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message news:u90fl4$o61f$1@dont-email.me...

To get back to rockets, I assume everyone agrees they treat
a government funded rocket going bang exactly the same as
a similar mission similar private funded rocket going bang,
otherwise expect the two to have different risk profiles and
associated costs.

-----------------------

As for me, I was highly invested in a successful launch when I had worked on
the project, less so if I hadn't but taxes paid for it, and hardly at all
when Musk's haste cost him the failure. Of course they all matter when lives
are involved.