2d ago

Goverment expenditure.

You're viewing a single thread.

35 comments

Ok look I'm all against the BS they're pulling but lets not forget the fact SpaceX has made anything space related significantly cheaper than NASA ever could in the same timeframe. The money lost on these experiments is peanuts compared to what they've saved already AND are needed to progress towards our space-age. I really hope with France putting more money towards competing with SpaceX we'll have an EU alternative that can actually compete on price.
- This is how spaceX made launches cheaper:
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5cZEZoa8rW0
  By not following regulations and ruining a town that homes more than 100 000 people.
  
  To be fair, the person you're responding to is probably talking about the falcon 9 which was developed in California. Brownsville on the other hand is being ruined by a space program that makes no fucking sense and will likely fail in the end.
  
  As much as it's fun to hate on Musk. The Spaceship program is already cheaper than any other option, even if the second stage never becomes reusable.
  If all they do is gut the starship so it's a little lighter and more reliable, and keep the reusable booster, it's going to cut the cost of putting large and heavy payloads into orbit.
  The James Webb telescope would have been significantly cheaper and easier to build and launch if Starship was available. There was an enormous amount of science that was cut at NASA due to the cost and time overruns from the overly complex build.
  It still may never be a real option for lunar missions without the reusability and refueling, but just the ability to send huge things to earth orbit is a giant success.
  
  The American way
- cheaper than nasa could
  no. they just got more funding and violated a bunch of environmental rules that NASA had to follow, because funding to efficient government programs is threadbare, and funding to military or subsidies of those deemed the beneficiaries of our society.
- SpaceX wouldn't exist without NASA. Not just because all of their tech is upon the foundational tech created by NASA, but because their employee knowledge base is formed from talent poached from NASA, directly stealing experience from the public space sector to hoard for their own profit.
  
  love your username.
  but yes, there is no wealth on this magnitude without pillaging the world others have built, tearing out the wiring, and selling it for scrap. they can only destroy. the creative urge is, as they say, also a destructive urge. more true for capitalists than most.
- Counterpoint: we don't need a space age (yet).
  
  Counterpoint: yes we do
  
  Innovation aside, why?
  
  Innovation, yes. Learning more about the universe
  
  You don't necessarily need a space age to learn more about the universe. We've been doing great with remote tools like the Webb telescope and the rovers. Besides, there are more pressing matters at home like the rise of fascism. I feel like we'd be better off without space nazis but that's just me.
  
  James Webb is literally space. It would never have existed without a strong rocket to push it there. And it cost billions more than it should have because it needed to be folded up in complex shapes in order to fit in a rocket. With bigger rockets and smaller costs, satellites like the James Webb could be numerous. James Web has a backlog of research that it will never get to because there is only so many things it can do. That's a glimpse of what space exploration can give us. It's ridiculous that you use the pinnacle of our space capabilities to say we don't need more capabilities
  
  I mean 'space age' to necessarily include human space travel. These are remote tools that aren't vivid in the public conscious every waking moment. What I mean is commercial space tourism and the mining industry and all of that. Why spend in space vacations when everything but the kitchen sink is catching fire, y'know? People are gearing up their armies because there's imminent conflict. Not to drag politics into this, but a good example is how the EU needs to figure out how to develop new weapons systems if they plan on supporting their allies. Now that the US has stopped funding the war, the EU needs to look at defending against Russian hypersonic missiles about to rain down on Ukraine. Then on the West side, the US's leading companies are both led by some shady folks. Do we really want all that? lol
  
  That's going to happen regardless. Humans are violent and aggressive throughout history. The only way to prevent armed conflict these days is to have nuclear weapons. Great combination, right? Europe has been sleep walking it's own defense for decades, and it's unfortunate that it takes an existential threat from Russia and Trump to finally wake up

35 comments