Earlier quoted context omitted.
just thinking epistemologically, if everything else Musk says is a lie, how do you know the epstein tweet is true?
We know it's true because he deleted the tweet. How about releasing the Epstein files so we can all find out for sure? Or do you have a problem with that, and want to protect pedos just like Mike Johnson and Trump do? Charlie Kirk certainly wanted the Epstein files to be released, and look what happened to him.
NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
971–980 of 1001 posts
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#972Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apollo was funded at a much higher fraction of the national budget, and I believe in inflation-adjusted dollars the cost is comparable but generally higher depending on how you measure it. Funding makes it happen. Fund it, it will happen. Don't fund it, it won't happen. American space exploration has been chronically underfunded relative to its ambitions, which is why all we have to show for our manned exploration pr…
> Apollo was funded at a much higher fraction of the national budget, and I believe in inflation-adjusted dollars the cost is comparable but generally higher depending on how you measure it. The Apollo mission had to invent technology from scratch that did not exist in the 60s. We have all of that knowledge today and then some, plus computers that are millions of times more powerful. There is no reason to believe tha…
Go ahead and land on the moon without spending any money on it, then.
I'll wait.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#973Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless we're willing to expend resources on the level we did in the 60s then it is absolutely unreasonable. Computers instead of slide rules doesn't matter at all.
I'll repeat what I said above because this is an oft-repeated fallacy: We don't expect each new nuclear warhead to cost as much as the Manhattan Project did relative to the national budget. Likewise, after 60 years of technological development beyond what we had in the 60s, there is no reason to expect a modern day lunar mission to cost the same relatively.
By some rough math, the cost of the Artemis program as a fraction of national budget is on the order of 1/10 that of Apollo in its day (comparing entire program costs to national budgets in representative years). So no, I'm not sure anyone would expect (or accept) that, and indeed it does not seem to be the case. It would be even cheaper if Congress had not mandated that SLS be built from repurposed STS parts (and later that Artemis fly on SLS), and if Congress and the executive branch had generally maintained a realistic and consistent vision for the program since work on it began (arguably with Constellation in the 2000s).
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#974Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society. People appreciate German cars just fine, and no one seems to be particularly bothered that they are produced by workers in private sector companies instead of 'by society'. Whatever that even means.
I'm not sure that I understand how a consumer product like a car is similar to something done for inherent value like space exploration. When I say "by society" I mean a non-private organization like NASA.
> When I say "by society" I mean a non-private organization like NASA.
Is there any non-government organisation that can do any good in your opinion? What about a charitable trust? What about mostly unorganised protesters like those that moved Germany towards unification?
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#975Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes, but why?" If humans had never ventured beyond perceived limits, like crossing oceans or building planes, where would we be today? "We’re light-years away from being interplanetary; it’s too costly and our energy is laughable." If people doubted the Wright brothers or mocked the idea of landing on the Moon, should we have stopped trying? "How far are we from affordable Moon travel that’s worth it?" Humanity thri…
We have no lack of spending opportunities for "progress"; there are dozens of promising research fields, and the ressources we can realistically invest are limited. Most historical progress was driven and motivated by incremental gains ; exploration as an end in itself was not even enough to get Columbus funded, and big space projects are much more ressource intensive than that. > Space is where the next wave of inno…
Reasonable cost is subjective, but NASA’s budget provides perspective. At 0.4 percent of the US federal budget, it amounts to just 27 billion dollars in 2023, while the defense budget is 842 billion dollars, or 13 percent of annual spending. Redirecting just 5 percent of defense funding, about 40 billion dollars, would more than double NASA's budget and allow for significant progress on Moon and Mars projects. This minor reallocation would not impact national security, making space exploration both affordable and worthwhile. When we consider the technological, scientific, and economic benefits, investing in space stands out as a smart, future-focused decision.
2. Are there any minerals on the Moon worth exploring?
The Moon holds valuable resources like helium-3 for clean fusion energy, water ice for fuel and life support, and rare earth metals for advanced technologies. Helium-3 could power nuclear fusion reactors and potentially yield trillions of dollars in energy benefits. Water ice can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen, creating rocket fuel that reduces reliance on costly Earth resupplies for space missions. Mining rare earth metals on the Moon could also lessen our dependency on Earth’s finite resources and help minimize ecological damage caused by terrestrial mining. The long-term financial value of these resources far outweighs the costs of extracting them.
3. Will Moon and Mars bases actually double NASA’s existing budget?
This claim is incorrect. The Artemis program, for example, is projected to cost 93 billion dollars over more than ten years, with yearly spending far below doubling NASA’s current 27 billion dollar budget. Additionally, technologies like reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s Starship, have lowered launch costs by 90 percent, making Moon and Mars exploration increasingly achievable. With international collaborations and private investment, developing these projects is far less expensive than critics often assume, and will not significantly burden taxpayers.
4. What about other technologies, like AI or synthetic biology?
While AI and synthetic biology can offer exciting short-term benefits, they focus on Earth-based solutions and neglect humanity's long-term survival. Space exploration addresses critical long-term challenges, such as resource scarcity, reducing dependence on Earth, and avoiding extinction-level threats. Unlike efforts in Earth’s hostile environments like Antarctica or the deep sea, Moon and Mars exploration unlock completely new resources and pathways for innovation. Delaying investment in space exploration risks stagnating progress, and waiting for the "perfect time" could mean missing transformative opportunities that secure humanity's future.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#976Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes, but why?" If humans had never ventured beyond perceived limits, like crossing oceans or building planes, where would we be today? "We’re light-years away from being interplanetary; it’s too costly and our energy is laughable." If people doubted the Wright brothers or mocked the idea of landing on the Moon, should we have stopped trying? "How far are we from affordable Moon travel that’s worth it?" Humanity thri…
Crossing oceans and building planes wasn't done for the sake of it, those goals were clearly useful. The biggest problem of the moon mission isn't SLS, it's that the moon is a big dry ball of rock with nothing of any value or use there. There's literally no reason to go.
For instance, the Moon has helium-3, a rare isotope that could one day power clean nuclear fusion energy, a trillion-dollar industry waiting to happen. Lunar water ice can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel and life support, making sustainable space exploration feasible and reducing the need for costly Earth-based resources. The Moon also has rare earth metals that are vital for technology and renewable energy systems, helping us address resource scarcity and reduce the environmental damage caused by terrestrial mining.
We do not explore the Moon for its own sake. The point of space exploration is to create a foundation for future industries and innovation while solving long-term challenges, such as resource depletion and planetary risks. Given the enormous technological, economic, and environmental benefits these resources could provide, the Moon is far more than just a barren rock; it holds the key to securing humanity's future.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#977Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m surprised he is vertical. He acts like how Biden looks.
I expect him to be walled off from external appearances within some amount of time so he can focus on truly important projects. Like redesigning the lawn. Or the amount of gold leaf on everything. My real question, if/when that happens, who is pulling the strings with the most sway?
I think it's evident that no one is in firm control. The Elon Musk fallout was that... Musk overreached or miscalculated, and one of the other contenders saw the opportunity to oust him. But I don't think that contender has consolidated his hold yet, Trump's too flighty. The answer could be changing day to day, depending on which asshat manages to ambush him first (or best) as they walk to the meeting room.
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#978Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government* Take away all of SpaceX‘s government contracts. You imagine SpaceX would still be in business? As you said, every launch provider is basically dependent on government contracts to stay in business because the government is the only entity that has a legitimate need for launch capability such that it’s willi…
Do you disagree that cultivating the launch provider industry in this way has strategic value?
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#979Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the 1970s as in Raegan when the space program stalled and became irrelevant and became mostly a way to funnel money to districts for certain congresspeople?
The space program stalled because pouring national wealth into gigantic single-use rockets was unsustainable. They tried with Shuttle but the material science wasn't there yet (heck it might not be even now, it doesn't seem that they've really nailed down the heat shield on Starship yet).
Re: NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission
#980Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * I'm not seeing what makes SpaceX government funded beyond just that it provides services to the government* Take away all of SpaceX‘s government contracts. You imagine SpaceX would still be in business? As you said, every launch provider is basically dependent on government contracts to stay in business because the government is the only entity that has a legitimate need for launch capability such that it’s willi…
Do you have any evidence for any of your claims beyond not liking the idiot that owns the company?