Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference being that sports are not exclusively paid by taxes, I guess?
In the USA tax payers pay for most stadiums/arenas.
But I'm guessing the people benefit from those, too.
Artemis II Launch Day Updates
771–780 of 1001 posts
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#772I do hope the doomers who think that the entire US government has been completely gutted will take note of this. The government workforce is in a bad spot for sure, SLS is far from a perfect program, but this still demonstrates that we are doing some real work still.
Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch? I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled… You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that…
Remember when DOGE tried to cut out the inefficiencies and failed miserably? The "inefficiencies" and "bloated budgets" are there for a reason.
If Elon ran this project "without bloat", there is probably a 70% chance that the vehicle would have exploded, much in the way of his Starship and early Falcon vehicles.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#773Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not science, it's engineering. I don't think it's advancing science in a way that wouldn't be possible with a fraction of the cost without sending humans there.
The distinction is kind of meaningless, advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science. And as I said, agreed on the concerns about cost and sending humans.
> The distinction is kind of meaningless
Only if it helps you to call this "science", I would say.
> advancing our engineering capabilities in space is advancing the science
In this case, we are advancing our engineering capabilities to make humans survive in space, which is arguably completely useless.
Not only that, but we keep focusing on the easier and fun part for engineers. A real problem for surviving in space is life support, see e.g. this: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/a-primer-on-long-duration-....
But it is a lot less fun than sending humans around the moon in a ship that doesn't need them at all, isn't it?
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#774Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
The space program has created some great technology we use every day now.
That we probably could have developed without the space program for a fraction of the cost, if we're being honest.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#775Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand why they want to fly. I don't understand why the people is fine paying taxes for that.
Bro, of all the stupid shit we spend taxes on ($50 billion on corn subsidies), you're mad about space exploration?
I will guess that farm subsidies go to... well, farming. Doesn't sound completely ridiculous at first sight.
> you're mad about space exploration?
Exploration? It's not exploration at all: it's sending 4 humans for a 10 days trip around the Moon. I wish they used the money for actual space exploration, though.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#776Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#777April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…
HLS isn't going anywhere.
> HLS isn't going anywhere
I've been hearing this about every SpaceX project for the last twenty years.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#778Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do government non-profit spacecraft not use aluminum? SpaceX rockets also are re-usable, which is environmentally better. They also cost about 10% of what non-profit rockets cost to launch. > they've indirectly led to the deaths of almost a million people. DOGE is a non-profit entity. Besides, why can't other non-profit governments pick up the aid?
The problem is the amount of aluminum. Government non-profit spacecraft do not use very much aluminum, because they don't launch thousands of LEO satellites per year. By building the first megaconstellation and kicking off competition, SpaceX is exposing humanity to different risks, namely ozone depletion and new mechanisms of climate change: [1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL10... [2] htt…
Government non-profits also have little to no ability to create a starlink system.
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#779April 6: flyby April 10: splashdown After that, the exciting work will be in Starship making LEO and testing propellant transfer (a humanity first) [1] and Blue Origin testing its rocket and lunar lander [2], both scheduled for 2026, to enable Artemis II (EDIT: III), currently scheduled—optimistically, in my opinion—for next year. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starship_launches#Futu... [2] https://en.wiki…
Starship is just obscene. The thing is never going to work for its designed purpose once you understand what the mission looks like (basically insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit)
> insane amount of refuel dockings while the thing is in orbit
What's wrong with this? Lots of launches is fine until we build the scale required to make a proper depot worthwhile. (Which, by the way, is part of Artemis's plans. Though currently it looks like a bunch of glued-together Starship tankers.)
Re: Artemis II Launch Day Updates
#780Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you prefer that we not even try to spread beyond our one planet, when an entire galaxy, or maybe even the neighboring ones, might be in reach if we try? What if someday at the very end of the lifetime of our sun and similar stars, we look back, and regret not trying?
Exactly what I mean. People who obsess over space are so egotistical they can’t imagine someone not thinking it’s “the best”. It’s interesting, but no more important than any other science or field of study. And no, I’d prefer we take care of our home planet and make it a sustainable place to live first. It’s ludicrous to think we have any chance of surviving elsewhere if we can’t stop ourselves from making our natur…
> People who obsess over space are so egotistical they can’t imagine someone not thinking it’s “the best”
What? No I don't. Some people want to spend money on sports or making our planet sustainable before doing anything else. I think that's fine. It doesn't interest me, however, so I'm looking at this other thing. We can coexist without having to insult each other.
> It’s putting the cart before the horse
How many times in history did necessity create efficiencies versus ambition?