141–150 of 420 posts
[flagged]
The problem is the budget cut combined with the order to axe certain things in favor of other things (like human spaceflight) that happens at the same time as the (even larger) budget cut.
[flagged]
The biggest driver of increasing debt has been tax cuts for the rich. If you really cared about the national debt you would be campaigning hard against the proposed budget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tariffs are a tax on the poor.
[flagged]
Hobbling the workforce is not a plan for success. It is robbery by the oligarch class.
The US is actively choosing to become completely reliant on private providers for access to space, which at this point boils down to SpaceX and Boeing. Both seem unreliable for different reasons. I just cannot see it as anything else than a blunder.
US rockets were always made by private providers like SpaceX or Boeing.
Single vendor commercial rockets are a recent (2000s) invention.
These kind of policies and that amortization tax law for software development will probably encourage quite some exodus of talent. Would it be to Europe or South East Asia, though?
[flagged]
NASA could probably deal with their budget being cut by 20% or so. The problem is the budget cut combined with the order to axe certain things in favor of other things (like human spaceflight) that happens at the same time as the (even larger) budget cut.
NASA is intentionally hamstrung by congress. It's earmarks on earmarks on earmarks on pork. If they's just lets NASA do its priorities without letting every goddamn junior congressman drag their dick all over the budget damn near at the line item level you'd see twice as much get done for half the money.
Or until you know… some future President restores the NASA budget?
Wherever budget cuts are proposed, you can rely upon detractors to present the issue in apocalyptic terms. If we believed all of these claims, then it would be impossible to cut the scope of government spending. Furthermore, if we accepted the premise promoted by some commenters here, then research, which is presented as incredibly valuable - would be unable to be funded or valued in the private market. For these rea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think you could fundraise billions of dollars for science from private sources? You're talking about a $100B (spread out over the next decade) bill on the sidewalk. I don't think there's anything less realistic than the idea that there would be that amount of money available for the asking but unclaimed...
Well, historically, we used to have a robust industrial R&D that even did basic research: Bell Labs (astrophysics, semiconductor physics), IBM, Xerox, RCA, Kodak and many other; even Ford had an R&D lab with physicists. Their record was quite impressive, as we all know. The weird trick that made that work was a tax policy that supported that. IIRC, R&D was expense as opposed to amortization, together with a laxer tru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think you could fundraise billions of dollars for science from private sources? You're talking about a $100B (spread out over the next decade) bill on the sidewalk. I don't think there's anything less realistic than the idea that there would be that amount of money available for the asking but unclaimed...
Well, historically, we used to have a robust industrial R&D that even did basic research: Bell Labs (astrophysics, semiconductor physics), IBM, Xerox, RCA, Kodak and many other; even Ford had an R&D lab with physicists. Their record was quite impressive, as we all know. The weird trick that made that work was a tax policy that supported that. IIRC, R&D was expense as opposed to amortization, together with a laxer tru…