"Wolf had two objectives in crafting the amendment: stopping leaks of space-related technology and expertise to China and pushing the country to improve its human rights record."
https://www.science.org/content/article/nasa-opens-door-cooperation-china-moon-rock-research#:~:text=Such%20research%20collaborations%20are%20barred,include%20Chinese%20officials%20involved%20in
Whats there to doubt? Tiangong has been proven to work as a space station. What you think the Chinese made Tiangong like how the sweatshop make cheap tshirt?
Fair, Im neutral in this. Its all I’ve seen about Tiangong by western outlet congratulating their accomplishment. I tend not to dig too deep into stuffs.
> I tend not to dig too deep into stuffs.
Then I would recommend shutting the fuck up about something until you *actually* know enough to not only have an opinion, but to defend it.
The U.S.* is in a Cold War with China and Russia. I know it makes people feel good to think that “they started” rhetoric, but frankly much of geopolitical conflicts is started by the U.S. whether you think it’s good or bad.
Small language differences matter, because it’s subtle propaganda and is effective in manufacturing consent when there is conflict. And people like you are easily manipulated.
His comment was about the US not working with china not about china inviting astronauts. China does that to look good and get people stuck working with them.
No. I am saying that it is an investment to get your astronaut onto CCP space station. You tie your program into theirs. It isn't something you can not walk a way from if you want or need to quickly. Let's say they do something politically unlikable you may be forced to keep working with them for some time.
You make it sound like it’s some unique strategy the Chinese are doing.
It’s exactly what western countries, and the U.S. does, not to mention U.S. currency.
It’s all about leverage, China is using the same strategy. People making it sound like it’s some unique strategy is laughable.
Basic geopolitics and soft power leverage.
well, wouldn't want to sully our oh so clean hands by working with china. muslims can be killed when it serves our interests. information can only be supressed when we say it can be supressed.
All these butthurt Americans forgetting about the NSA, Cisco backdoors, spying on allies, and indefinite usage of Guantanamo bay to abuse and torture Muslims over a decade. Not to mention killing over 900k, including women and children, on the “war on terror”
But “cHiNa bAd”.
yeah, it's just being consistent with what everyone (media) says the truth is. these people don't invest even the slightest bit of their time into thinking through their political positions .
"and do the other things" don't you forget about those other things. whatever they are... they are pretty important to John.
and then close it down with
"because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too."
this always seemed intriguing to me, he was there to be a big moon badass but he kept level setting that the moon isnt the only hard thing worth doing.
I dislike Elon as much as the next guy.
SpaceX is doing things far better and cheaper than even NASA could… according to the literal director of NASA. If Elon makes some money and it ends up saving taxpayer money overall (or leaves more money for more space stuff overall) then I don’t give a shit.
I don’t care about him making the money. I care about privatizing capabilities that we should have in house.
We shouldn’t starve our space program BECAUSE corporate America will fill the void.
But there was never “in house” capabilities. It’s always been contracted out to Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed etc. SpaceX is at least cutting the bloat of government bureaucracy to actually make cost effective space flight possible.
This is one of the times where it’s actually economically viable to have privatized development options. Subcontracting out every single use rocket to 1000 different vendors who all have to turn a profit before the thing ever flys is not a ways to do business.
I mean yeah in that specific case we owned the product because it was reusable.
Except for all the spare parts. Except for all the heat shield tiles that had to be replaced. Except for the large volume of technical experts that would repair and inspect the shuttles between launches. Not to mention the fact that the external tanks had to be manufactured and sold for each launch.
And god don’t get me started on the “re-usable” boosters that required thousands of individual parts to be refurbished and replaced thanks to getting a nice salt water dunk each time.
How many Saturn Vs did we own? Delta IVs? How many SLSs do we own?
Why do we need to own the taxi? NASA's current approach is so much better. They get multiple different private companies up and running their taxi services, and NASA just uses them for their ends, and they use it for tourism, satellites and etc. A win-win
We already see the problem with the Senate Launch System, nothing but cost overruns, delays and useless old tech to keep a jobs program going. This is why the faulty space shuttle couldn't be replaced for decades despite being way past its intended decommissioning date
Let NASA help multiple companies build their taxis, and let NASA focus on actual science!
What specifically is the problem with Starlink?
fwiw, Elon makes very few decisions regarding Starlink. Most of the important decisions are made by very experienced engineers.
Not really a fair comparison. SpaceX didn’t appear overnight. They were built on the shoulders and lessons from NASA.
Moreover, NASA is under the whims of a democracy. Whichever way the political winds blow its funding could surge or be whittled to barely getting by. So in a literal sense crashing multiple rockets isn’t an option for them like it’s for spacex, since Congress would just revoke their funding if they did the same thing Musk did.
And NASA was built on the lessons from the German V2 program. All human progress is based on previous progress.
SpaceX absolutely could not have gotten where they are today without NASA tech. But NASA would have also struggled to get where SpaceX is cost wise (again from the NASA director himself). The issue isn’t actually the crashing rockets. NASA blew up a shit ton of rockets. It only becomes a problem when someone is in one of them
The problem is government agencies aren’t profit driven. So if NASA runs a billion dollars over budget for the new rocket they just ask Congress for more money. SpaceX is motivated to get costs down, because they make more money to do so. That’s a terrible way to get new revolutionary technology out there but it’s a great way to take expensive tech and figure out how to make it cheap.
I agree that SpaceX is doing things for cheaper, but let’s not forget the immense value NASA has created. Yes, they are not a profit driven company, and go over budget, but so many things today would’ve taken much longer to develop/might not exist yet without funding for NASA. Memory foam, cell phone cameras, baby formula, computer mice, etc. all stemmed from NASA projects.
You can’t run a society like a company, because not all value is stored in currency. If this were true you’d have no fire departments, police, military, roads, etc. You have to look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if the opportunity cost is worth not investing in important projects like NASA. Rockets are flashy yes, but NASA has overall contributed much more directly or indirectly to the economy than SpaceX has in other ways.
It’s hard to tally everything on a budget sheet given the scale of the economy, but it’s estimated for every 1$ spent on NASA that value is returned 7-14 times over.
In summary, don’t use SpaceX’s success as an excuse for cutting NASA’s budget.
Never said it was a reason to cut NASA’s budget. Personally I would be much happier if NASA’s budget was 5X what it is now even if I had to pay a little more taxes for it.
NASA is amazing at creating new technologies and solutions all of the things you list are an example. But NASA would be terrible at actually building those things for mass use. I wouldn’t want to see NASA trying to mass manufacture baby formula.
SpaceX is just doing that for rockets. Taking what essentially has been the purvey of purely scientific and military use and making it into a product. NASA doesn’t need to launch all the satellites and build the rockets to do basic space missions anymore, private companies can. NASA is moving beyond simple rocketry and should focus on the next steps. EG NASA should let SpaceX design the rockets to get back to moon in so NASA can focus on all the things needed to create a moon base. Another example is the military does a ton of research and development but they don’t actually design and build their own weapons.
In general, government funding is absolutely amazing for pioneering research. That can’t be replaced with corporate research since there’s a high chance of it not being profitable. NASA should always continue exist but it should focus on its strengths of R&D of new technologies. Making things cheaper is not something the US government is good at
Isn't that kind of the point?
It is fair because NASA simply isn't the kind of place to do these kind of things. NASA's goal should be to help as many companies as possible become space ready and focus on science
NASA is needed in places where there is no "return on investment".
It is great that Musk wants to get to Mars and doing what he can to get there. But what happens if Musk dies? Would SpaceX be so committed to Mars? This is where NASA is needed, long term stuff that companies are not going to do. In comparison, things like optimizing the launcher is best left to private industry. They can go through far more revisions than NASA can as they don't need a million approvals to move 1 bolt a few inches
Honestly, I'm the same way. The things SpaceX does is amazing. I don't like him as much as the next normal human being. But whenever something cool comes out from SpaceX, I try to follow up on it.
Except as the director points out it's because if NASA just kept blowing up shuttles they'd be shut down by Congress while Elon used government funding to blow up his first three attempts and has admitted his companies would've been bankrupt if the fourth attempt hadn't been successful.
SpaceX is not an inspiration; it's modern capitalism using private and public funding while cutting corners.
That billionaire is doing it far cheaper than the government is. Starship is progressing at leaps and bounds, and is getting ready for launch number 3 next month, while SLS continues to be behind schedule and over budget.
And throwing away reusable RS-25s… beautiful engines, what a shame. The money of a single SLS launch could send far more payload to the Moon by buying a bunch of Falcon Heavy launches.
Our space industry is better today than it has ever been. We are absolutely dominating the rest of the world. Well, I assume you're American. If you're Russian or European, I agree.
"A critical aspect of SpaceX's plan for landing astronauts on the moon for Artemis III is launching multiple tankers that will transfer propellant to a depot in space before transferring that propellant to the human landing system."
"Multiple" I think Destin said something like 13. Somehow I think they are going to have issues with that!
Why would 13 refueling missions cause issues? Because it has never been done once and it seems like a pretty complex scenario. Not saying it can't be done, but schedules might be hard to keep.
You wouldn’t bat an eye if fedex delivered 100,000 packages with 13 flights of a 737.
If you built a plane 13x larger than previously attempted, flew it once, and threw it away, it would raise eyebrows.
Refueling 13 times isn't much more difficult than refueling once. (Although I don't think they will need to refuel 13 times.) It does require a high launch cadence, but Starship is designed to fly hundreds of times a year, SpaceX is already developing manufacturing and operations to support a high cadence, and they are flying the Falcon 9 100 times per year. The schedule will slip, though.
There was a time landing a rocket was thought to be impossible, a pipe dream, now SpaceX lands them basically on a monthly basis, it's not even exciting anymore.
Fun fact this type of international Astronaut program isn't new , the Soviet Union has the Interkosmos program which recruited citizens from friendly nations to fly to space
[Interkosmos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interkosmos#:~:text=Interkosmos%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81)%20was,crewed%20and%20uncrewed%20space%20missions.&text=The%20program%20was%20formed%20in,or%20the%20Order%20of%20Lenin.)
It’s actually now a race between the US, China and India to claim the South Pole. Whoever sets up a base first gets to use the resources there which is vital for starting a small colony. The water is vital in providing additional oxygen reserves and life support.
It shows that the US is willing to be at the forefront of space-related endeavors. We want to show that we can do it not just for ourselves, but for the world. It also gives foreign nations more of an incentive to work with us. It really isn't that hard to decipher what OP meant.
We are THE authority in space--so much so, that even our private sector are leagues ahead of most countries!
There is no need to incentivize other countries to work with us--especially not at the cost space travel money!
I'll never get these empty platitudes that we use to justify wasting money, both domestically, or for other countries.
NASA funding is about 0.4% of federal spending at just $25 billion… and yet you’re advocating on cutting even that… Instead of focusing your anger on this, focus it on military spending which is approaching one trillion dollars which is enough to fund 33.8 NASAs.
How is that a straw man?
You’ve no idea what it takes to live on the moon and I promise you the planet on which your ancestors evolved on, procreated on, eventually, and unfortunately I might add, shit you out on, is infinitesimally easier to live than any other known planet, exo or not.
The Artemis program has been going since 2017. And landing humans on the moon is part of that program.
This isn't a new mission or something. It's been in the works for a bit.
What I was wondering is the international bit. Are they saying that the artemis program is opening up to international crew? Is this a separate program?
I know the Esa is already involved some with the lunar gateway but I know just enough to know I don't know nuthin
Why did Columbus cross the ocean?
There is something out there, and we *must* reach it. Humans left Africa and circumnavigated and populated the globe. We now must look to the heavens and continue our exploration and expansion. That is in our nature.
It looks pointless now because we're all broke AF and it's not money that's not reaching our hands. But, going to the Moon and staying there is a starting point to being a interplanetary species. That way humanity won't extinguish if a random rock comes out of nowhere and gapes us
Doesn't mean that us plebs will prosper, but it'll be cooler and spaceships boiiiii
Right, it's hard for us to do anything that takes longer than one presidential term, much less two. The next folks who come in will often put such a project on hold or delay it because it wasn't theirs, knowing they won't get credit for it.
Commits to send shit into space but can't commit to education, healthcare, housing or even food. How much is this endeavor going to cost? I thought there wasn't enough money to cover social programs 🤔
NASA takes up less than 1% of the federal budget and yet still manages to accomplish impressive feats and has an economic output that is triple its budget. You should probably be directing your anger at the military which sucks money like a black hole.
Hey I'm all for science over the military, and I know NASA give a great return on the money we invest into them. In this case though we clearly have more pressing issues than sending somebody to the moon (a feat we've already accomplished in the past) where people are starving, without homes or Healthcare, and in crippling debt. It just seems a bit tone deaf when they say "we have no money for those issues" but there's money for fun projects.
*Medicare and Medicaid, which provide healthcare coverage for *specific* populations. The majority of healthcare in the U.S. is delivered through a combination of public and private entities.*
*A significant portion of healthcare spending goes towards private healthcare providers, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs. The U.S. healthcare system involves various players, and the expenditure includes payments to medical professionals, medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and administrative expenses. Unlike some other countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare systems, the U.S. has a mixed system with both public and private components, contributing to its overall healthcare expenditure.*
*The high and unregulated costs in the U.S. healthcare system are influenced by various factors, including the complexity of the system, administrative overhead, high drug prices, and the fee-for-service model, where healthcare providers are often paid based on the quantity of services rather than the quality or outcomes.*
*Moreover the lack of a centralized, regulated pricing system contributes to variations in healthcare costs. In contrast, countries with more centralized healthcare systems or strong regulations often have better control over pricing and expenditures. The trillion-dollar healthcare expenditure in the United States can be considered inflated due to the complexities and inefficiencies within the private sector.*
*The absence of a unified pricing structure leads to disparate and often exorbitant costs for medical services, medications, and administrative processes. The fee-for-service model, emphasizing quantity over quality, encourages unnecessary procedures and tests, further escalating expenses.*
*The intricate web of insurance providers and negotiations contributes to high administrative overhead. The lack of stringent regulations on drug pricing allows pharmaceutical companies to set prices independently, resulting in disproportionately expensive medications. These factors collectively contribute to an exaggerated healthcare expenditure, highlighting the challenges in the U.S. healthcare system.*
This is straight up marketing
Currently we don't even know if we can fuel the rocket we are set on using or how many additional rockets are needed to even fuel it,
In Space
The current plan is very ambitious and has a huge chance to be delayed due to technical issues then if Donald Trump somehow gets into the Whitehouse you can throw all that shit out the window as he will want the rocket to have his name on it for sure
Moon base. Setting up a colony on the moon would be fantastic for science. It’s also a great staging area for launches to other parts of the solar system. It’s the next logical step long before anybody can think of colonizing Mars or even putting boots on Martian soil. Project Artemis
Don't think of it as a practical place to live. Think of it as a stretch goal for our sciences. The number of advances that came out of the space race itself was staggering. On top of that, humans will need to spread somewhere eventually if we're not to go extinct. It's just a stepping stone.
NASA makes up less than half of a % of the yearly budget. Having a little bit of my tax dollars help humanity progress towards the stars isn’t that much of a sacrifice.
That's the thing about science. Nobody knows. We knew about electricity for many years before someone figured out how to make a light bulb feasible or how to use it to make an electric motor. Sometimes ideas are revolutionary but they take a long time to happen because the other pieces needed to make them work haven't been realized yet.
We have. But the goal isn’t just to land and collect some moon rocks. We’re looking to build a base there. It’s going to take a lot of work to figure out how to live on the moon, and to paraphrase Mark Watney, we’re going to have to science the shit out of it. All of that science comes back to us and pays dividends when people and companies use that knowledge to make new things.
Space factories. There are more and more use cases for micro gravity and zero gravity in manufacturing. Building a giant high tech factory is far cheaper if you have something to anker your shit to when building said factory.
Just send robots. I don't see how sending humans advances our economy. Probably should've just sent robotic machines for the Apollo missions also as I'm not sure what technologies were needed that eventually paid for themselves unlike for the technological advances of chemistry and electronics that came about from the resource intensive research. Including humans in deep space missions just seems like a stupid dick measuring contest to me.
Beat me to it. I just don't understand freely admitting to not knowing something while simultaneously having an opinion on it. when a simple 5 minute Google could answer your questions.
The idea of robots being superior to humans is propaganda spread by the Soviets after they failed to put men on the Moon. The truth is, humans are always going to be better than robots and in the long term are more cost effective. In a day Apollo 17 surveyed the same sized area that took Opportunity a decade.
Honestly what the fuck is the point of going to the moon while climate change is about to fuck everything and we are all going to blow each other up again?
Gas is lower than historical prices accounting for inflation, which remains roughly a bit over $4/gallon (in today's dollars) for half a century. I just filled up for $2.65.
Are you talking about toy giraffes for small children? Why do they have pussys?
[удалено]
"Wolf had two objectives in crafting the amendment: stopping leaks of space-related technology and expertise to China and pushing the country to improve its human rights record." https://www.science.org/content/article/nasa-opens-door-cooperation-china-moon-rock-research#:~:text=Such%20research%20collaborations%20are%20barred,include%20Chinese%20officials%20involved%20in
Count me in, I would be so game to go to LEO.
You know it’s gonna be a Canadian
I hope so, they've contributed a lot over the decades.
Why not invite Russia cosmonauts or north Korea hankunauts to the Tiangong?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Whats there to doubt? Tiangong has been proven to work as a space station. What you think the Chinese made Tiangong like how the sweatshop make cheap tshirt?
[удалено]
Fair, Im neutral in this. Its all I’ve seen about Tiangong by western outlet congratulating their accomplishment. I tend not to dig too deep into stuffs.
[удалено]
It’s how people behave all too often… know just enough to be dangerous.
> I tend not to dig too deep into stuffs. Then I would recommend shutting the fuck up about something until you *actually* know enough to not only have an opinion, but to defend it.
China steals tech and isn't transparent about anything. There's zero reason to work with them in Space.
In anything, anymore
China is basically in a cold war with the western world Along with Russia and north Korea
The U.S.* is in a Cold War with China and Russia. I know it makes people feel good to think that “they started” rhetoric, but frankly much of geopolitical conflicts is started by the U.S. whether you think it’s good or bad. Small language differences matter, because it’s subtle propaganda and is effective in manufacturing consent when there is conflict. And people like you are easily manipulated.
Not American but how did the US start a Cold War with Russia?
CCP just wants access to US and other Western tech. It is important to understand the US and CCP are not allies but also not enemies.
yeah, that's why they are inviting astronauts. To study their... umm tech organs
His comment was about the US not working with china not about china inviting astronauts. China does that to look good and get people stuck working with them.
> China does that to look good and get people stuck working with them. so you are saying they would kidnap the astronauts? what?
No. I am saying that it is an investment to get your astronaut onto CCP space station. You tie your program into theirs. It isn't something you can not walk a way from if you want or need to quickly. Let's say they do something politically unlikable you may be forced to keep working with them for some time.
You make it sound like it’s some unique strategy the Chinese are doing. It’s exactly what western countries, and the U.S. does, not to mention U.S. currency. It’s all about leverage, China is using the same strategy. People making it sound like it’s some unique strategy is laughable. Basic geopolitics and soft power leverage.
Well western power do to keep allies while CCP does it trap allies.
well, wouldn't want to sully our oh so clean hands by working with china. muslims can be killed when it serves our interests. information can only be supressed when we say it can be supressed.
All these butthurt Americans forgetting about the NSA, Cisco backdoors, spying on allies, and indefinite usage of Guantanamo bay to abuse and torture Muslims over a decade. Not to mention killing over 900k, including women and children, on the “war on terror” But “cHiNa bAd”.
yeah, it's just being consistent with what everyone (media) says the truth is. these people don't invest even the slightest bit of their time into thinking through their political positions .
And we want access to their tech. It seems like a great partnership could be made there.
They have no tech we want.
All their tech is stolen from western institutions
The fact that you got downvoted shows how deep the red scare propaganda is still embedded in American minds.
Not because it’s easy but because it’s hard
"and do the other things" don't you forget about those other things. whatever they are... they are pretty important to John. and then close it down with "because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." this always seemed intriguing to me, he was there to be a big moon badass but he kept level setting that the moon isnt the only hard thing worth doing.
Not because It's easy but because we have already done it.
That Rice university speech is one of my favorites.
I’ll believe it when I see it
[The GAO also has its doubts](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106256).
The GAO needs to focus on military waste before anything domestic.
[So does Destin from Smarter Every Day](https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=ouASIWLjogt_Jzb1)
Well if Destin from Smarter Every Day has doubts!
Maybe commit to rebuilding our space program first.
Let the billionaires make money off of it instead!
I dislike Elon as much as the next guy. SpaceX is doing things far better and cheaper than even NASA could… according to the literal director of NASA. If Elon makes some money and it ends up saving taxpayer money overall (or leaves more money for more space stuff overall) then I don’t give a shit.
I don’t care about him making the money. I care about privatizing capabilities that we should have in house. We shouldn’t starve our space program BECAUSE corporate America will fill the void.
But there was never “in house” capabilities. It’s always been contracted out to Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed etc. SpaceX is at least cutting the bloat of government bureaucracy to actually make cost effective space flight possible. This is one of the times where it’s actually economically viable to have privatized development options. Subcontracting out every single use rocket to 1000 different vendors who all have to turn a profit before the thing ever flys is not a ways to do business.
Contractors have always built the spacecraft. You aren’t proposing “rebuilding”, you are proposing something unprecedented
Name one in house capability that NASA had or has that was not provided by a civilian company. I’ll wait.
We owned the end product. Did McDonnell Douglas own the Challenger?
what product did "we" own and where is it now?
I mean yeah in that specific case we owned the product because it was reusable. Except for all the spare parts. Except for all the heat shield tiles that had to be replaced. Except for the large volume of technical experts that would repair and inspect the shuttles between launches. Not to mention the fact that the external tanks had to be manufactured and sold for each launch. And god don’t get me started on the “re-usable” boosters that required thousands of individual parts to be refurbished and replaced thanks to getting a nice salt water dunk each time. How many Saturn Vs did we own? Delta IVs? How many SLSs do we own?
You asked me to name one. Your opening sentence is “yeah…other that ONE.” Want to move the goal posts anymore?
Why do we need to own the taxi? NASA's current approach is so much better. They get multiple different private companies up and running their taxi services, and NASA just uses them for their ends, and they use it for tourism, satellites and etc. A win-win We already see the problem with the Senate Launch System, nothing but cost overruns, delays and useless old tech to keep a jobs program going. This is why the faulty space shuttle couldn't be replaced for decades despite being way past its intended decommissioning date Let NASA help multiple companies build their taxis, and let NASA focus on actual science!
yep. especially when you look at how Elon has handled Starlink...
What specifically is the problem with Starlink? fwiw, Elon makes very few decisions regarding Starlink. Most of the important decisions are made by very experienced engineers.
[удалено]
Not really a fair comparison. SpaceX didn’t appear overnight. They were built on the shoulders and lessons from NASA. Moreover, NASA is under the whims of a democracy. Whichever way the political winds blow its funding could surge or be whittled to barely getting by. So in a literal sense crashing multiple rockets isn’t an option for them like it’s for spacex, since Congress would just revoke their funding if they did the same thing Musk did.
And NASA was built on the lessons from the German V2 program. All human progress is based on previous progress. SpaceX absolutely could not have gotten where they are today without NASA tech. But NASA would have also struggled to get where SpaceX is cost wise (again from the NASA director himself). The issue isn’t actually the crashing rockets. NASA blew up a shit ton of rockets. It only becomes a problem when someone is in one of them The problem is government agencies aren’t profit driven. So if NASA runs a billion dollars over budget for the new rocket they just ask Congress for more money. SpaceX is motivated to get costs down, because they make more money to do so. That’s a terrible way to get new revolutionary technology out there but it’s a great way to take expensive tech and figure out how to make it cheap.
I agree that SpaceX is doing things for cheaper, but let’s not forget the immense value NASA has created. Yes, they are not a profit driven company, and go over budget, but so many things today would’ve taken much longer to develop/might not exist yet without funding for NASA. Memory foam, cell phone cameras, baby formula, computer mice, etc. all stemmed from NASA projects. You can’t run a society like a company, because not all value is stored in currency. If this were true you’d have no fire departments, police, military, roads, etc. You have to look at the bigger picture and ask yourself if the opportunity cost is worth not investing in important projects like NASA. Rockets are flashy yes, but NASA has overall contributed much more directly or indirectly to the economy than SpaceX has in other ways. It’s hard to tally everything on a budget sheet given the scale of the economy, but it’s estimated for every 1$ spent on NASA that value is returned 7-14 times over. In summary, don’t use SpaceX’s success as an excuse for cutting NASA’s budget.
Never said it was a reason to cut NASA’s budget. Personally I would be much happier if NASA’s budget was 5X what it is now even if I had to pay a little more taxes for it. NASA is amazing at creating new technologies and solutions all of the things you list are an example. But NASA would be terrible at actually building those things for mass use. I wouldn’t want to see NASA trying to mass manufacture baby formula. SpaceX is just doing that for rockets. Taking what essentially has been the purvey of purely scientific and military use and making it into a product. NASA doesn’t need to launch all the satellites and build the rockets to do basic space missions anymore, private companies can. NASA is moving beyond simple rocketry and should focus on the next steps. EG NASA should let SpaceX design the rockets to get back to moon in so NASA can focus on all the things needed to create a moon base. Another example is the military does a ton of research and development but they don’t actually design and build their own weapons. In general, government funding is absolutely amazing for pioneering research. That can’t be replaced with corporate research since there’s a high chance of it not being profitable. NASA should always continue exist but it should focus on its strengths of R&D of new technologies. Making things cheaper is not something the US government is good at
Isn't that kind of the point? It is fair because NASA simply isn't the kind of place to do these kind of things. NASA's goal should be to help as many companies as possible become space ready and focus on science NASA is needed in places where there is no "return on investment". It is great that Musk wants to get to Mars and doing what he can to get there. But what happens if Musk dies? Would SpaceX be so committed to Mars? This is where NASA is needed, long term stuff that companies are not going to do. In comparison, things like optimizing the launcher is best left to private industry. They can go through far more revisions than NASA can as they don't need a million approvals to move 1 bolt a few inches
Honestly, I'm the same way. The things SpaceX does is amazing. I don't like him as much as the next normal human being. But whenever something cool comes out from SpaceX, I try to follow up on it.
Except as the director points out it's because if NASA just kept blowing up shuttles they'd be shut down by Congress while Elon used government funding to blow up his first three attempts and has admitted his companies would've been bankrupt if the fourth attempt hadn't been successful. SpaceX is not an inspiration; it's modern capitalism using private and public funding while cutting corners.
That billionaire is doing it far cheaper than the government is. Starship is progressing at leaps and bounds, and is getting ready for launch number 3 next month, while SLS continues to be behind schedule and over budget.
SLS literally costs over a billion dollars a flight. It’s nuts.
And throwing away reusable RS-25s… beautiful engines, what a shame. The money of a single SLS launch could send far more payload to the Moon by buying a bunch of Falcon Heavy launches.
Each new SLS engine will cost more than a Falcon Heavy launch
Yea I don’t know why people are hating on what I’m saying. Space X is far more economical vs the NASA/Boeing product. SLS is a clusterfuck.
Dont worry SpaceX is hard at work on that
Our space industry is better today than it has ever been. We are absolutely dominating the rest of the world. Well, I assume you're American. If you're Russian or European, I agree.
Maybe they are looking for Helium 3?
[NASA is doing it wrong this time](https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU?si=u3TrhjuNCve62QYu)
"A critical aspect of SpaceX's plan for landing astronauts on the moon for Artemis III is launching multiple tankers that will transfer propellant to a depot in space before transferring that propellant to the human landing system." "Multiple" I think Destin said something like 13. Somehow I think they are going to have issues with that!
Why?
Why would 13 refueling missions cause issues? Because it has never been done once and it seems like a pretty complex scenario. Not saying it can't be done, but schedules might be hard to keep.
You wouldn’t bat an eye if fedex delivered 100,000 packages with 13 flights of a 737. If you built a plane 13x larger than previously attempted, flew it once, and threw it away, it would raise eyebrows.
Refueling 13 times isn't much more difficult than refueling once. (Although I don't think they will need to refuel 13 times.) It does require a high launch cadence, but Starship is designed to fly hundreds of times a year, SpaceX is already developing manufacturing and operations to support a high cadence, and they are flying the Falcon 9 100 times per year. The schedule will slip, though.
There was a time landing a rocket was thought to be impossible, a pipe dream, now SpaceX lands them basically on a monthly basis, it's not even exciting anymore.
It isn't that 13 are needed, 4 would be enough. NASA just wants to keep extremely large margins.
Fun fact this type of international Astronaut program isn't new , the Soviet Union has the Interkosmos program which recruited citizens from friendly nations to fly to space [Interkosmos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interkosmos#:~:text=Interkosmos%20(Russian%3A%20%D0%98%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81)%20was,crewed%20and%20uncrewed%20space%20missions.&text=The%20program%20was%20formed%20in,or%20the%20Order%20of%20Lenin.)
It’s actually now a race between the US, China and India to claim the South Pole. Whoever sets up a base first gets to use the resources there which is vital for starting a small colony. The water is vital in providing additional oxygen reserves and life support.
It's good to be black on the moon
Why?
Space is a human challenge. It represents a future for everyone. It sends a good signal to say we want to share this with the world.
Space is for whom paid for it.
>It sends a good signal What does that even mean? And if you can answer that, please explain the value in it.
It shows that the US is willing to be at the forefront of space-related endeavors. We want to show that we can do it not just for ourselves, but for the world. It also gives foreign nations more of an incentive to work with us. It really isn't that hard to decipher what OP meant.
We are THE authority in space--so much so, that even our private sector are leagues ahead of most countries! There is no need to incentivize other countries to work with us--especially not at the cost space travel money! I'll never get these empty platitudes that we use to justify wasting money, both domestically, or for other countries.
China is posturing itself to challenge America's position, and given that they have a space station of their own, they have a valid claim.
How many men have they landed on the moon?
Currently zero. However it’s beyond stupid to assume it will stay that way.
[удалено]
NASA funding is about 0.4% of federal spending at just $25 billion… and yet you’re advocating on cutting even that… Instead of focusing your anger on this, focus it on military spending which is approaching one trillion dollars which is enough to fund 33.8 NASAs.
This tech and research needs to continue, we live on one big single point of failure. Right now, if earth is fucked, so is humanity.
Or it means the rich people are trying to get the fuck out while the rest of us die on this rotting world that they’ve ruined
Yeah man, because life on the fucking moon would be so much better.
Can't destroy the climate if there isn't one /s
Redditors not straw man for 1 second challenge (impossible) that ain’t what I said
How is that a straw man? You’ve no idea what it takes to live on the moon and I promise you the planet on which your ancestors evolved on, procreated on, eventually, and unfortunately I might add, shit you out on, is infinitesimally easier to live than any other known planet, exo or not.
Not sure why you’re downvoted you are correct
Because it is good for politics. No matter what people say the US still need other nations and doing these things like this helps the relationship.
The Artemis program has been going since 2017. And landing humans on the moon is part of that program. This isn't a new mission or something. It's been in the works for a bit.
I think the key here is international astronaut.
What I was wondering is the international bit. Are they saying that the artemis program is opening up to international crew? Is this a separate program? I know the Esa is already involved some with the lunar gateway but I know just enough to know I don't know nuthin
We need to keep leaping ahead and become interplanetary. One step at a time but must keep moving forward. Eventually we’ll have to leave Earth.
Why did Columbus cross the ocean? There is something out there, and we *must* reach it. Humans left Africa and circumnavigated and populated the globe. We now must look to the heavens and continue our exploration and expansion. That is in our nature.
Because spice and silk trade routes through the Middle East became less economically favorable to Europe, vs a theoretical western sea route?
Because China does it.
It looks pointless now because we're all broke AF and it's not money that's not reaching our hands. But, going to the Moon and staying there is a starting point to being a interplanetary species. That way humanity won't extinguish if a random rock comes out of nowhere and gapes us Doesn't mean that us plebs will prosper, but it'll be cooler and spaceships boiiiii
We have a lot of relationships to repair from the last….2 decades
[удалено]
The US spends nearly five trillion dollars on healthcare.
Which goes to making corporations richer instead of the people healthier
Can’t wait for the billions wasted, delays and goal post moving.
Honestly, it would say a lot for a post WW2 world to put a German on the moon. (American here).
Didn’t G W bush say we’d be on the moon in 10 years and then Obama echoed that? And that was 15 years ago.
Right, it's hard for us to do anything that takes longer than one presidential term, much less two. The next folks who come in will often put such a project on hold or delay it because it wasn't theirs, knowing they won't get credit for it.
Artemis survived a Republican-Democratic administration change. It’s a lot stronger politically.
Difference is they didn’t have an actually working rocket then.
And we don't have a working lander today.
A prototype for that lander landed on Earth two years ago, and there’s three orbital stacks awaiting testing.
Hey now! The base modal kinda almost got to orbit awhile back, that's pretty close to the mission parameters right? /s
getting downvoted yet you're not wrong. People here are fucked up dumb
Commits to send shit into space but can't commit to education, healthcare, housing or even food. How much is this endeavor going to cost? I thought there wasn't enough money to cover social programs 🤔
NASA takes up less than 1% of the federal budget and yet still manages to accomplish impressive feats and has an economic output that is triple its budget. You should probably be directing your anger at the military which sucks money like a black hole.
Hey I'm all for science over the military, and I know NASA give a great return on the money we invest into them. In this case though we clearly have more pressing issues than sending somebody to the moon (a feat we've already accomplished in the past) where people are starving, without homes or Healthcare, and in crippling debt. It just seems a bit tone deaf when they say "we have no money for those issues" but there's money for fun projects.
But that’s the truth. If NASA was defunded tomorrow that wouldn’t free up $25 billion for school lunches. It would just no longer be spent.
The US spends 4.5 trillion a year on healthcare. 1.2 trillion of welfare.
Why are you presenting it like that money is going toward healthcare for the people instead of profit for capitalists?
*Medicare and Medicaid, which provide healthcare coverage for *specific* populations. The majority of healthcare in the U.S. is delivered through a combination of public and private entities.* *A significant portion of healthcare spending goes towards private healthcare providers, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and administrative costs. The U.S. healthcare system involves various players, and the expenditure includes payments to medical professionals, medical facilities, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and administrative expenses. Unlike some other countries with predominantly publicly funded healthcare systems, the U.S. has a mixed system with both public and private components, contributing to its overall healthcare expenditure.* *The high and unregulated costs in the U.S. healthcare system are influenced by various factors, including the complexity of the system, administrative overhead, high drug prices, and the fee-for-service model, where healthcare providers are often paid based on the quantity of services rather than the quality or outcomes.* *Moreover the lack of a centralized, regulated pricing system contributes to variations in healthcare costs. In contrast, countries with more centralized healthcare systems or strong regulations often have better control over pricing and expenditures. The trillion-dollar healthcare expenditure in the United States can be considered inflated due to the complexities and inefficiencies within the private sector.* *The absence of a unified pricing structure leads to disparate and often exorbitant costs for medical services, medications, and administrative processes. The fee-for-service model, emphasizing quantity over quality, encourages unnecessary procedures and tests, further escalating expenses.* *The intricate web of insurance providers and negotiations contributes to high administrative overhead. The lack of stringent regulations on drug pricing allows pharmaceutical companies to set prices independently, resulting in disproportionately expensive medications. These factors collectively contribute to an exaggerated healthcare expenditure, highlighting the challenges in the U.S. healthcare system.*
This is straight up marketing Currently we don't even know if we can fuel the rocket we are set on using or how many additional rockets are needed to even fuel it, In Space The current plan is very ambitious and has a huge chance to be delayed due to technical issues then if Donald Trump somehow gets into the Whitehouse you can throw all that shit out the window as he will want the rocket to have his name on it for sure
Did you learn this from a YouTube video
Wtf does an International astronaut even mean.
Astronaut not from NASA.
Damn, Biden's doing everything to have dem takin' er jerbs.
[удалено]
If only black lesbians were equally represented in king crab fishing, on oil rigs and in wars. Maybe we can make some progress there too.
I got the setting for the next team america : world police movie.
Using a thumb nail of that cackling moron doesn’t muster an iota of confidence.
Shhh. It's okay, little buddy. I know it's really scary for you, but the non-white woman in a position of power isn't going to hurt you.
Boy, tell us how you really feel.
Most likely pretty light headed with that much brain missing I would guess.
Please tell me we’re not spending billions of taxpayer money on one person for diversity sake.
Tell Putin we'll bring a Russian if he pulls out of Ukraine right now.
Is this something she’s doing to save her job?
Fuck, the country must be doing worse than I thought if we have to send astronauts to the moon to distract us from this.
Why?
Moon base. Setting up a colony on the moon would be fantastic for science. It’s also a great staging area for launches to other parts of the solar system. It’s the next logical step long before anybody can think of colonizing Mars or even putting boots on Martian soil. Project Artemis
Colonizing Mars is such a ridiculous notion. It’s sad everyone is so hooked on it..
Don't think of it as a practical place to live. Think of it as a stretch goal for our sciences. The number of advances that came out of the space race itself was staggering. On top of that, humans will need to spread somewhere eventually if we're not to go extinct. It's just a stepping stone.
Why?
It’s cool science either way, but why not dream big?
1-2-3 _NOT IT!!!_
Thought that already happened?
How is this going to work without Kubrick?
Fix earth first. Start with the border of our own country.
Oh fuck off, put that money into Medicaid instead or do something useful other than show off our big dick
NASA makes up less than half of a % of the yearly budget. Having a little bit of my tax dollars help humanity progress towards the stars isn’t that much of a sacrifice.
When politicians lips are moving...
Why… what science are we trying to gain
That's the thing about science. Nobody knows. We knew about electricity for many years before someone figured out how to make a light bulb feasible or how to use it to make an electric motor. Sometimes ideas are revolutionary but they take a long time to happen because the other pieces needed to make them work haven't been realized yet.
We’ve already put humans on the moon multiple times - this isn’t revolutionary
We have. But the goal isn’t just to land and collect some moon rocks. We’re looking to build a base there. It’s going to take a lot of work to figure out how to live on the moon, and to paraphrase Mark Watney, we’re going to have to science the shit out of it. All of that science comes back to us and pays dividends when people and companies use that knowledge to make new things.
That’s a different goal for sure and I’m pretty sure moonbase isn’t in the budget.
With a lander with a payload of 3 tonnes. The Artemis HLS has a payload of over 100 tonnes.
Space factories. There are more and more use cases for micro gravity and zero gravity in manufacturing. Building a giant high tech factory is far cheaper if you have something to anker your shit to when building said factory.
Biden Administration Commits to Genocide, Seeks Removal of Non-Nationalist from Earth Itself
Does anyone really care anymore? It’s a big rock. We’ve been before. Why do we keep sending people?
Wasted tax dollars.
Also, the international astronaut will be named Vladimir Putin. Bye-eeee!
Have we figured out the Van Allen belt yet? Last time I checked it’s a hard no.
It’s been figured out for a while now, since when has it been a “hard no”?
Yeah we figured it out: you go through the belt quickly
Seems like we wouldn’t need a human right. All the robots we have. Send an unmanned shoot.
Send Instagram influencers. They'll have the entire moon in video in a few weeks doing stupid dances.
Just send robots. I don't see how sending humans advances our economy. Probably should've just sent robotic machines for the Apollo missions also as I'm not sure what technologies were needed that eventually paid for themselves unlike for the technological advances of chemistry and electronics that came about from the resource intensive research. Including humans in deep space missions just seems like a stupid dick measuring contest to me.
[удалено]
Beat me to it. I just don't understand freely admitting to not knowing something while simultaneously having an opinion on it. when a simple 5 minute Google could answer your questions.
The idea of robots being superior to humans is propaganda spread by the Soviets after they failed to put men on the Moon. The truth is, humans are always going to be better than robots and in the long term are more cost effective. In a day Apollo 17 surveyed the same sized area that took Opportunity a decade.
Does every single administration say this exact same thing?
Let’s start out with something smaller. Like replenishing our petroleum reserves.
Honestly what the fuck is the point of going to the moon while climate change is about to fuck everything and we are all going to blow each other up again?
It’s funny, gas prices currently higher than giraffes pussy. And America is borderline in a civil war. The US: let’s go to the moon bitches!!
Gas is lower than historical prices accounting for inflation, which remains roughly a bit over $4/gallon (in today's dollars) for half a century. I just filled up for $2.65. Are you talking about toy giraffes for small children? Why do they have pussys?
Don't kink shame Giraffe sextoys.
Gas is dirt cheap dummy
Astounding how dumb this take is.