Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 248 posts

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#71

Post by inglor_cz »

7e wrote: post #31
mjamesaustin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is that the administration withdrew Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. He had bold plans for modernizing NASA and the experience to lead. But he didn't kiss the ring and instead made comments suggesting NASA's budget shouldn't be eviscerated, so his appointment was torpedoed.

A tragedy avoided given his close ties to SpaceX and Musk, which would have been inappropriate at best and corruption at worst.

The space industry is still pretty small, insiders naturally know one another and have professional contacts.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#72

Post by jajko »

gonzobonzo wrote: post #68
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you have to quantify "waste" to make that claim. There are many arguments that the space shuttle program's side effects helped win the cold war, foster modern communications, inspire generations to study science, ... Those are good things, without stating its known direct accomplishments.

People debate whether the Human Brain Project was a failure, despite the fact that it generated a lot of new research. In 2025 dollars, the cost for the Human Brain Project is just under $2 billion. In 2025 dollars, the Space Shuttle total cost is $311 billion. NASA spends about $3 billion every year on the ISS - more than the entire Human Brain Project. The problem is that people are able to look at the Human Brain…

Not sure whats your problem, why can't we have both?

Those are definitely not money wasted - for waste look at things in ballpark of trillions like meaningless wars for made up reasons that destabilized whole parts of world and killed millions of civilians, look at various ways ultra rich and their companies avoid paying even bare minimum taxes and contributing back to societies form which they siphoned those vast amounts of cash.

These are peanuts which keep giving back to whole mankind and our future, instead of destroying it.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#73

Post by blitzar »

fn-mote wrote: post #61
readthenotes1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Warren Buffett had this line that we would have no budget deficits if it we're required that every Congress person who voted for such would be ineligible for re-election. Pushing the cost burden on subsequent generations is a cowardly way to deal with our financial problems. When Reagan entered office, the debt was less than $1T (about $3.5T in today's dollars). The #4 cost currently is paying off interest (not princ…

It’s funny but economically wrong to ban deficits. I agree we are spending too much now, but the solution should not be to stop all spending. The problem is deeper than just a deficit.

We should bring back surpluses in the good times. If you are the head of a country and you are proclaiming that the economy is "the greatest ever" then you should be running a balanced / surplus budget.

If the economy is in the shitter you are perfectly entitled to run a deficit.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#74

Post by ACCount36 »

ginko wrote: post #64
fn-mote wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not happy with this argument because the Orion comes in two modules. It’s designed to go in SLS but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. In view of the launch economics, this argument still doesn’t make sense of SLS. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

>but each module separately can be launched by Falcon Heavy. How do you know that they can feasibly be launched separately? Do you think NASA would have asked for a launch vehicle the size of SLS if could have done a manned lunar mission with something less then half its size?

Oh, they know it.

Saturn V was less powerful than SLS - but it could send an entire mission in a single launch. Capsule, lander and all.

A lot of what NASA has been doing with SLS is just trying to... rationalize its existence. This is what gave us NRHO, Gateway and others.

Reportedly, some of the people at NASA just believe that having an inefficient, wasteful and corrupt space program is better than not having it.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#75

Post by ACCount36 »

Animats wrote: post #13

"The full text of the Senate bill hasn't been released, but the budget blueprint would postpone the Trump administration's plan to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.' The Senate Launch System strikes again.

If there was one good thing to come out of this administration, it was Jared Isaacman who would just axe Gateway, SLS and Orion.

Now, it seems like even that might end up not happening. What a shitshow.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#76

Post by blitzar »

notfish wrote: post #34
naysunjr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA going back to the moon and Musk to Mars is nothing but pipe dreams to sell the story mode types. The US government has pivoted to animal husbandry of the populace through techno police state, and handing sycophants to power their own title, land and serfs

My ex coworkers at spacex are pretty damn motivated to get to mars, many of them despite all the Musking happening. I wouldn’t bet against them.

We will be on Mars by the end of the year.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#77

Post by ACCount36 »

windows2020 wrote: post #14

Wait, so are humans actually going to the moon for the first time in my lifetime in 2027?

In your lifetime? Probably. In 2027? Fat fucking chance.

That deadline is never going to hold - too many things are just nowhere near ready. By now, I expect NET 2030.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#78

Post by adastra22 »

northlondoner wrote: post #65

Happy to hear about this. Actually, budget should be increased not reduced. From purely ROI terms, NASA has a stellar return on investment. Immense contribution to human civilisation beyond US. Just a reminder from 2012: [Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest In NASA, Invest In U.S. Economy]( https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2012/03/13/neil-degr... )

As someone who worked for NASA, I can tell you all those spin out numbers are bunk. NASA is indeed a good investment, but not for the reasons given. NASA public relations has cooked the books.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#79

Post by adastra22 »

somenameforme wrote: post #33
mjamesaustin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is that the administration withdrew Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. He had bold plans for modernizing NASA and the experience to lead. But he didn't kiss the ring and instead made comments suggesting NASA's budget shouldn't be eviscerated, so his appointment was torpedoed.

The administrator is definitely one of the weakest links in the system. Bridenstine was looking amazing for NASA then at one point he did a hard 180 and suddenly just became an unthinking Boeing cheerleader, and is largely responsible for the catastrophe that is Boeing's Starliner. And then as soon as he left office he suddenly is in a senior advisory role for some military industrial complex orgs, probably pulling 7…

Starliner was a catastrophe long before Bridenstine was ever involved.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#80

Post by adastra22 »

7e wrote: post #31
mjamesaustin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is that the administration withdrew Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. He had bold plans for modernizing NASA and the experience to lead. But he didn't kiss the ring and instead made comments suggesting NASA's budget shouldn't be eviscerated, so his appointment was torpedoed.

A tragedy avoided given his close ties to SpaceX and Musk, which would have been inappropriate at best and corruption at worst.

He is a paying customer of SpaceX. Where’s the corruption?
Post reply on HN