Could We Make It To Mars Without NASA? (reason.com) 132
Reason.com notes NASA's successful completion of its Artemis I mission, calling it "part of NASA's ambitious program to bring American astronauts back to the moon for the first time in half a century. And then on to Mars."
But then they ask if the project is worth the money, with the transportation policy director at the libertarian "Reason Foundation" think tank, Robert W. Poole, arguing instead that NASA "isn't particularly interested in cost savings, and its decision making is overly driven by politics." NASA would have been better off replacing the costly and dated Space Launch System used in the Artemis program. But it didn't. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that it was largely constructed and engineered in Alabama, the home state of Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, who has a history of strong-arming NASA to preserve jobs for his constituents.
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shared the article, which ultimately asks whether it'd be faster and cheaper to just rely on private companies: In 2009, the private sector saw one of its biggest champions ascend to become the number two person at NASA. Lori Garver pushed to scrap the Constellation program as a way to entice the private sector to fill in the gaps. She also spearheaded the Commercial Crew Program, which continues to employ commercial contractors to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. Today, companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX are launching rockets at a faster pace and for a fraction of what NASA spends. In 2022, the company successfully launched 61 rockets, each with a price tag between $100 million and 150 million.
Private companies already design and lease NASA much of its hardware. Poole says there's no reason NASA can't take it a step further and just use the SpaceX starship to cover the entire journey from Earth to the moon and eventually to Mars. "If the current NASA plan goes ahead to have the SpaceX Starship actually deliver the astronauts from the lunar outpost orbit to the surface of the moon and bring them back, that would be an even more dramatic refutation of the idea that only NASA should be doing space transportation," he says.
Poole says that instead of flying its own missions, NASA should play a more limited and supportive role. "The future NASA role that makes the most sense is research and development to advance science," he says.
But for a contrary opinion, Slashdot reader youn counters that "You can bash NASA all you want but a big reason the private sector is where it is at is because it funded research 12 years ago." They share a CNET article noting the $6 billion NASA budgeted over five years "to kick-start development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability."
And Slashdot reader sg_oneill argues that "Its gonna be a century before we're really colonizing the moon and/or Mars... because we have a lot of science to do first. How do you do a civilization with zero energy inputs from the rest of humanity? How do we deal with radiation? How do bodies work in low G? (Mars is about 1/3 the gravbity of earth). This needs science, and to get science we need NASA, even if private enterprise is building the rockets."
But then they ask if the project is worth the money, with the transportation policy director at the libertarian "Reason Foundation" think tank, Robert W. Poole, arguing instead that NASA "isn't particularly interested in cost savings, and its decision making is overly driven by politics." NASA would have been better off replacing the costly and dated Space Launch System used in the Artemis program. But it didn't. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that it was largely constructed and engineered in Alabama, the home state of Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, who has a history of strong-arming NASA to preserve jobs for his constituents.
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shared the article, which ultimately asks whether it'd be faster and cheaper to just rely on private companies: In 2009, the private sector saw one of its biggest champions ascend to become the number two person at NASA. Lori Garver pushed to scrap the Constellation program as a way to entice the private sector to fill in the gaps. She also spearheaded the Commercial Crew Program, which continues to employ commercial contractors to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. Today, companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX are launching rockets at a faster pace and for a fraction of what NASA spends. In 2022, the company successfully launched 61 rockets, each with a price tag between $100 million and 150 million.
Private companies already design and lease NASA much of its hardware. Poole says there's no reason NASA can't take it a step further and just use the SpaceX starship to cover the entire journey from Earth to the moon and eventually to Mars. "If the current NASA plan goes ahead to have the SpaceX Starship actually deliver the astronauts from the lunar outpost orbit to the surface of the moon and bring them back, that would be an even more dramatic refutation of the idea that only NASA should be doing space transportation," he says.
Poole says that instead of flying its own missions, NASA should play a more limited and supportive role. "The future NASA role that makes the most sense is research and development to advance science," he says.
But for a contrary opinion, Slashdot reader youn counters that "You can bash NASA all you want but a big reason the private sector is where it is at is because it funded research 12 years ago." They share a CNET article noting the $6 billion NASA budgeted over five years "to kick-start development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability."
And Slashdot reader sg_oneill argues that "Its gonna be a century before we're really colonizing the moon and/or Mars... because we have a lot of science to do first. How do you do a civilization with zero energy inputs from the rest of humanity? How do we deal with radiation? How do bodies work in low G? (Mars is about 1/3 the gravbity of earth). This needs science, and to get science we need NASA, even if private enterprise is building the rockets."
Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
Eisenhower's Warning about the Military-Industrial Complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever heard of nepotism? A meritocracy provides more often than not the best outcome, on that we do agree.
Unfortunately, it is a romanticized image, as nepotism is a serious problem for any meritocracy. And that happens much more than you know.
Then there is also the saying: "It's not what you know, but who you know." If nepotism wasn't enough of a problem, this one is even more effective in killing the meritocracy.
I live in South-America, and society doesn't hide or make excuses about applying those two concept to almost every aspect of life. First world countries are just as plagued, but hide it better.
Conceptually you are correct, but in practice you'll get disappointed more often than you think in any kind of job you wish to partake.
To my regret I have learned that corporations are as bad or worse than government.
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:4, Interesting)
To my regret I have learned that corporations are as bad or worse than government.
Hmm...in my personal experience, nepotism was worse when I was in the public sector. Of all of the private sector jobs I've had, I've only seen that happen once. Basically the manager worked for CompUSA when they went under, then got hired where I worked to replace a manager that had just left, and she began finding any reason she could find to fire existing employees while replacing them with people who had worked for her previously, and was giving them higher paid positions rather than promoting existing employees. She was a total bitch and the job sucked anyways, so I was more than happy to leave, but I heard that she got fired soon after once it became obvious what she was doing.
When I got hired into my current job, there wasn't anybody on the inside that helped me get hired. I literally knew nobody in the company, nor did I know somebody who knew somebody, I was educated at schools nobody has ever heard of, I wasn't in any kind of union, fraternity, religion, etc, that could have possibly helped. No connections whatsoever, no possible way I'm a diversity hire, and I got hired directly into what is arguably a high place. Same with the job before that where a year before I left I was actually promoted despite thinking that my performance was nothing special, nor did I have any kind of personal relationship with any management outside of work.
If that isn't meritocracy, I don't know what is. That isn't to say that nepotism doesn't happen, just I've personally seen very little of it. I'm not sure what progressives have against meritocracy anyways because I've never heard any kind of compelling argument against it from them, other than they just say it's unfair for no particular reason. Even if nepotism WAS their argument against it, that's not an argument against meritocracy, that's an argument against nepotism.
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missile (Score:2)
The concept meritocracy is inherently always flawed in a world where resources are limited. I'll be a bit hyperbolic but who has a better chance at life; a kid born to upper middle class parents in the upper west side of NYC or any poor child born into any number of developing nations. Immediately through no action of their own are off to statistically wildly different outcomes. There's a chance either of them could end up better or worse than the other in the end but we both know that is unlikely.
Being
Re: (Score:2)
The concept meritocracy is inherently always flawed in a world where resources are limited. I'll be a bit hyperbolic but who has a better chance at life; a kid born to upper middle class parents in the upper west side of NYC or any poor child born into any number of developing nations. Immediately through no action of their own are off to statistically wildly different outcomes. There's a chance either of them could end up better or worse than the other in the end but we both know that is unlikely.
That mostly amounts to "people are born different and in different circumstances, therefore meritocracy is unfair." I once had a self-confessed social justice warrior (literally how he described himself) here on slashdot argue that because circumstances of my upbringing, whatever they may be, means that I'm at an unfair advantage, which is "unjust" because at least one other person doesn't have those advantages, whatever they may be.
If that's the case, then it's only fair that everybody else has to deal wit
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missile (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that was my bad, I had a bit of vodka in my system.
Re: (Score:2)
"people are born different and in different circumstances, therefore meritocracy is unfair."
Yes, that is my point, thank you. Although I would not use the term "fair", that's your way of emotionally loading the subject. It simply does not exist, fair has nothing to do with it.
The industry I left (health care) has very high job security attached to it, and the industry I went into has very little, especially given it's a small company that has a great deal of uncertainty ahead of it, and many argue that its very mission is a pipe dream. It also meant moving away from all family I've ever known, meaning I don't have that safety net nearby if I ever needed it, even if briefly, and furthermore going into a very expensive area that I've had little experience with prior, in addition to the fact that prior to this I've only ever lived in one place, and rarely traveled elsewhere. I was already dealing with anxiety, especially with a high level of uncertainty that I'd ever make it here given my own insecurities about how well I actually do on the job, (classic impostor syndrome) more so at a company with famously high expectations of its employees.
The fact you were in that position to have that choice to make amongst your well paying, very secure, existing job that probably required first world education and then on top of that having the opportunity for something possibly even better, even with risk attached furthers my point, not yours. I am not taking away from y
Re: (Score:2)
Although I would not use the term "fair", that's your way of emotionally loading the subject. It simply does not exist, fair has nothing to do with it.
Yeah my bad, I was a bit tired with a side of vodka. Usually when this topic comes up I'm arguing with a self-described social justice warrior. Justice in itself implying fairness, so the emotional loading was already done before the conversation started. In that case anyways, which isn't here.
The fact you were in that position to have that choice to make amongst your well paying, very secure, existing job that probably required first world education and then on top of that having the opportunity for something possibly even better, even with risk attached furthers my point, not yours. I am not taking away from your decisions in your life, you do whats best for you, but we can still acknowledge you are in a position inherently that a majority of the world simply does not have.
Depends who you ask on that one. Mexico is hardly what I would call first world, yet the Bernies of the world claim that they're better than the US because they provide free college. The college I went to is also noth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missile (Score:2)
Nepotism is quite alive and well (Score:2)
Hmm...in my personal experience, nepotism was worse when I was in the public sector.
Nepotism is very much alive and well in the private sector up and down the management pyramid. It may not be as blatant as the example you gave, but you'll see it if you know what to look for. In small businesses, oh look, the owner's son is in a high management slot. Larger companies, oh, funny how that junior individual got a high level internship has the same last name as a key senior customer. There is plenty of this to a lesser degree - oh, my friend's son is having trouble landing his first job out of
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't like your leaders then fire them and elect better ones. Maybe use better criteria to evaluate their fitness next time. That's the point of a democracy.
But anyway the point the OP was trying to make is, i believe, that the leader of a private enterprise, while maybe fit for leading the enterprise (not all of them are) certainly does not have to answer to your needs.
So having a single company having warheads it's going to be like, "nice city you have there, it would be too bad should someth
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you don't like your leaders then fire them and elect better ones. Maybe use better criteria to evaluate their fitness next time. That's the point of a democracy.
Problem: The two candidates presented to us in the elections are both unworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about them in particular, but people like John Legere and Satya Nadella really know what they're doing. Both of them were put there while their respective companies were struggling, and both turned it around big time by coming up with good market strategies and executing them well. John Legere especially, who Bernie bros were arguing was overpaid because of how much more he made than the lowest paid employee at the company. But when you look at the way he turned T-Mobile around, it's undeniable that he earned the company a LOT more than they paid him.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true of most employees. The income they generate for the company is many multiples of their salary, with their pay being determined by market conditions rather than the value created by their labour.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's easy to say that you don't need a strong military when you don't need one. But by the time you need the one that you didn't already have, it's already too late.
I know you Bernie bros haven't realized this, but over the last 70 years geopolitical borders have remained very stable, more stable than they've ever been in all of recorded history, and this is mainly due to big stick diplomacy. Literally the one and only thing keeping China from aggressively expanding into the pacific IS the United States mil
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A dictatorship can not be socialist.
That is a contradiction in terms.
All socialist states: are democracies. See Germany, Norway, Denmark etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh boy not you again...
A dictatorship can not be socialist.
That is a contradiction in terms.
Socialist does not mean what you think it means.
All socialist states: are democracies. See Germany, Norway, Denmark etc.
Those are not socialist. At all. Actually Denmark is even more capitalist than the US is. More than that, they get annoyed with people like you calling them socialist, because unlike you, they know what the word actually means.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31... [vox.com]
Also, Bernie IS socialist. That is to say, he desires a planned economy.
Really dude, you should pick up a dictionary and perhaps a programming book or two before you try to correct
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think socialism is incompatible to capitalism, or rather the free market which includes capitalists. Think CO-OP's, as socialist as you can get as they're owned by the people and run democratically.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think socialism is incompatible to capitalism, or rather the free market which includes capitalists.
Actually the definition of capitalism is having free markets, and the definition of free markets is that market prices are governed by the forces of supply and demand. A governing entity setting prices is therefore mutually exclusive. And when the governing entity exercises total or near total control of the entire economy, that is what's referred to a "command economy", or if you prefer, the doublespeak term for it is a "planned economy", so as to de-emphasize the fact that it is run by the government, but
Re: (Score:2)
You keep conflating government with people, and the definition of capitalism I learned was capitalists using their capital to control the means of production and generally the successful capitalist hates the free market and tries to circumvent it. They will also try to purchase the government which is far from the people running the government.
While government seems to be needed to keep the market free, it is not needed to control industry, besides some regulations, industry is usually free to go in whateve
Re: (Score:2)
You keep conflating government with people
No, I'm not conflating anything. What I'm doing is cutting through doublespeak. I've explained this multiple times already.
and the definition of capitalism I learned was capitalists using their capital to control the means of production and generally the successful capitalist hates the free market and tries to circumvent it
If you learned that from anything other than an economics textbook, then there's your problem.
While government seems to be needed to keep the market free, it is not needed to control industry, besides some regulations, industry is usually free to go in whatever direction they want as long as it is not harmful.
That's fine, though Bernie has, multiple times, advocated that the government take control of the private sector.
Co-ops come in all kinds of businesses, that Co-op gas station does not produce the oil they sell
In which their product would be the distribution of oil.
the Co-op that sells to farmers mostly buy fertilizer, tools, and other stuff like fencing on the open market and resell it. Usually profit is not the motivation either with the goal to break even plus a small surplus for a rainy day fund or if expansion is planned, a bigger surplus to pay for it.
Whether it makes a profit has no relevance here. Co-ops are in fact private corporations. And you may not fully understand wha
Re: (Score:3)
No, definitely not. The definition of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the government. Denmark is definitely NOT socialist.
However, Bernie Sanders IS socialist. He pretends to have done a 180 on the idea of a planned economy, but you can pretty well tell that he still romanticizes the idea of it. Every now and then, typically when he's ranting, he complains about the private sector doing this or that rather than the government. And to make things even worse, he doesn't like the idea tha
Re: (Score:2)
You posted an opinion piece as proof of something? Opinion pieces are inherently biased, that's why newspaper outlets label them as "opinion".
All you've done here is show that you don't understand how to properly debate a topic.
Re: (Score:2)
You posted an opinion piece as proof of something? Opinion pieces are inherently biased, that's why newspaper outlets label them as "opinion".
All you've done here is show that you don't understand how to properly debate a topic.
First, this whole thread is my opinion. At the end of the day, nobody knows what Bernie would do if he was the president. Nobody even can know that. That particular matter can be nothing other than opinion at this point.
Second, you know they took direct quotes from Bernie, right? The links are there. That is factual. Tell me exactly what other way you'd interpret what he's saying, and why.
Third, you've only made one argument thus far, and it was a pretty bad one. Thus from what we have here only, you've utt
Re: (Score:2)
First, this whole thread is my opinion. At the end of the day, nobody knows what Bernie would do if he was the president
Of course not but you can make reasonable estimates based on what they say and what they've done. You didnt do that though, you went with an opinion piece from some one who most certainly seems to have ideology issues with Bernie and who if I cared to spend the time I could easily take a part.
Second, you know they took direct quotes from Bernie, right? The links are there. That is factual. Tell me exactly what other way you'd interpret what he's saying, and why.
I checked out a few of the source links and every single one I looked at was in some way falsely characterized by the author. All your linked to article is is a political hit piece where the author clearly started with
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not but you can make reasonable estimates based on what they say and what they've done. You didnt do that though, you went with an opinion piece from some one who most certainly seems to have ideology issues with Bernie and who if I cared to spend the time I could easily take a part.
No, that is exactly what I did. Sure, it was by proxy, mainly to avoid spending more time than I have to. Because you obviously haven't noticed, I'll have to point out the obvious: This is slashdot, not an English 101 homework assignment.
I checked out a few of the source links and every single one I looked at was in some way falsely characterized by the author.
In your opinion. Rather than making vague assertions, why don't you call out the specific parts you have a problem with? When I argue against a source, that's exactly what I do. Instead you're just making vague assertions based on an already meritless argument.
In fact here,
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The definition of socialism is that the people own the means of production. Sometimes through government, sometimes through worker owned enterprises.
Re: (Score:3)
Well...what does worker owned mean? Part of the way I receive compensation is in the form of company shares, and the company is not publicly traded. As far as I know, every last employee of the company receives stock compensation. By that definition, it is worker owned. However, it is certainly not socialist in any way shape or form.
Also as I've stated elsewhere, "the people" is basically doublespeak for "government". The wording varies, like they'll say communally owned, or something like that. However, if
Re: (Score:2)
Generally worker owned involves running things in a democratic manner, including one person, one vote. I get an equal say and vote at my Credit Unions general meeting and likewise my CO-OP.
Another example was an acquaintance (actually 2) at a mill. When the owners announced they were shutting it down, the workers pooled their money and bought it and ran it on the same basis, each worker having equal say. They still had a general manager etc but everyone (well a plurality or majority, I don't know which) had
Re: (Score:2)
Generally worker owned involves running things in a democratic manner, including one person, one vote.
That still wouldn't be socialism. Such a business would still be a private corporation, and thus part of the private sector, regardless of how business decisions are made.
I get an equal say and vote at my Credit Unions general meeting and likewise my CO-OP.
Nonetheless, they remain private entities. That is to say, it is neither government owned, nor government run. Moreover, somebody who is not a member of either that credit union or that co-op does not get any kind of a say in how either is run. But if that WAS the case, then basically it is either government owned or government run, and TH
Re: (Score:2)
Government-owned is not a requirement for socialism.
It absolutely is.
Indeed, the end point for Marxism is supposed to be the workers owning the means of production but no government. So are you now saying that Marxism is mot a form of socialism?
In fact it is not. Socialism describes an economic system. Marxism is a philosophy. And in fact Marx advocated starting out with socialism. Basically his plan goes like this:
Eventually the world is going to be communist anyways, it is inevitable, I know for a fact it will because reasons. But we can't wait for that because I'm impatient, so we have to have a violent overthrow of capitalism and terrorize capitalists. We have to take all of the capital away from those who have it, including t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know much about Sanders, but prominent socialist politicians usually advocate for a social democracy, like Europe has.
Capitalist politicians are much more direct about wanting a corporate dictatorship, where your only access to power is through shareholdings. A lot of them are part of the corporate system, and have spent years making sure that in the democracy you do nominally have, it's the private businesses that have most of the power. See Citizens United, ownership of media etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The video linked was meant to be a Bernie advertisement using Eisenhower's words. Age doesn't really matter. Indeed, many politicians remain influential long after they've died.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, which only means a more just and equitable society.
Socialist dictators always say that, and the reason they get into power is because people like you believe them. And how does that turn out?
He doesn’t romanticize “socialist dictatorships.” That’s something you made up in your head, and not grounded in any reality.
He definitely does. First, let's look up "romanticize" in this context:
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
romanticize r-man-t-sz
r-
romanticized; romanticizing
transitive verb
: to make romantic : treat as idealized or heroic
Basically, this is what you're doing when you emphasize all of the good parts of something and either ignore or de-emphasize the bad parts. That said, let's quote Bernie:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
When Fidel Castro came to office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?
Considering it came with an ulterior motive, yeah, I'd say it w
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no scary old Bernie Sander and his platform of higher wages and better healthcare for people. How terrible. The fact that you lump him in with Castro shows what a crackpot you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no scary old Bernie Sander and his platform of higher wages and better healthcare for people. How terrible.
All things have a cost. Such is life. The difference between you and me is I want to understand and measure those costs, whereas you want them at ANY cost.
The fact that you lump him in with Castro shows what a crackpot you are.
Not exactly. I think that he genuinely believes that what he wants is what is best for everybody. It's literally impossible to say what exactly he would do if he got his way. What I do know is that literally every time somebody like him has gotten their way, which has happened many times, it has never ended well. From their own perspective, dictators are
Re: (Score:2)
Sanders is not a Marxist.
I didn't say he was a Marxist, though he does take cues from Marxism. Just as Mao isn't Marxist either; he's Maoist.
Socialism dates back to well before Marx and large swathes of Socialist thought and action have absolutely nothing to do with Marx
Are you the same AC that I replied to here?
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Because if so, you should really take the time to understand your ideology before you start advocating for it. Socialism doesn't mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Socialism is the Credit Union I bank at and the CO-OP I shop at. You've obviously been fed propaganda, probably you are from some country where you're raised having to declare allegiance to the flag or such and warped in your outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally cannot have the government own all of the industries and NOT have a command economy.
Of course you can have that. Why do you always put two things - which are not even really related - into the same basket?
And: in communism, the industries are not owned by the government: but by the people, aka the workers in said industries.
Re: (Score:2)
That claim is familiar. It's also not borne out by history. Communist regimes have almost inevitably become totalitarian, centrally governed regimes leading to economic collapse. Please do take a good look at Russian and Chinese history of the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
Has there actually been a Communist country? I'm only aware of communism on very small scales, often religious communities, or hippies and of course hunter gatherers.
There have been lots of countries that claimed they were working towards Communism, usually authoritarian hellholes with poor farmers (when the authoritarians came to power) making up most of the population so easy to sell the idea to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old claim that Russia, China, and their client states are not "true Communism". The same philosphical difficulty exists with "true Christianity" not being tried by Christian churches and governments. Can we work with the results of the actual followers and their policies, rather than the utopian claims so often and so quickly violated by their proponents? Can we base our conclusions on measured results, rather than utopian principles which have proven unworkable?
Re: (Score:2)
How quickly we forget history. Long before we had the notion of communism or democratic socialism, the concept of a communal society has been tried and failed. Never underestimate the power of human apathy.
An example of socialism that didn't devolve into totalitarianism. https://www.theunshackled.net/... [theunshackled.net]
Re: (Score:2)
100's of thousands of years of success while humanity was at the hunter gatherer stage. On a small scale when there isn't much wealth, communal living works well and even today there are the Amish, Mennonites and such living communally.
Totalitarianism didn't really happen until there was wealth in the form of grains to hoard.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the list of countries with the highest standards of living and the ones that are social democracies is pretty similar. They pretty much all out-rank the US on the democracy index too.
Re: Don't Want Any Single Company to Have Missiles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're about a century too late. Half a century for rockets.
Sure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are rich enough and have an ego inflated enough, they would. I mean we've got people paying up to $20 million for orbital space tourism. We know there is a need for a reusable heavy rocket like Starship due to the profits that launching a global 5G satellite constellation can bring. So, if the rocket R&D costs are covered by that, a Mars trip might not cost an insane amount. If someone becomes a trillionaire (Musk?), investing say a cool $10 billion on a Mars trip to get recorded as the first hu
Re: (Score:2)
As if there are any viable alternates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk's recent adventures with Twitter have generated a great deal of sometimes negative publicity for himself, but has this had an adverse effect on SpaceX?
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK the only adverse thing Musk's hijinks have caused for SpaceX, which as far as I know nobody blames him for, was the time he puffed that cigar thing on Joe Rogan's show. That made the federal government lose their shit, so they started aggressively drug testing the whole company, as well as Musk's other companies. Knowing what we know about cannabis now, and how the federal government's view on it is way different from the medical community's view, especially considering it was legally obtained, I'd sa
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully Musk will find someone else to run Twitter, it's a silly distraction. So long as his rockets remain cheaper than his rivals, NASA must be a guaranteed customer now.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the lack of effect on SpaceX is less a statement about Elon and more a statement of faith in Gwynne Shotwell.
Re: (Score:2)
All the US tech stocks have taken a beating in the last 12 months. People talked for a long time about how they were overvalued, now there has been a correction:
Tesla down 66%
Amazon down 50%
Facebook down 66%
Google down 40%
Numbers from Google > Market Capitalization > 1Y
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the entire economy is down. Not just the tech industry. But then that is what happens when you are in a recession... or is it a non-recession... What ever you want to call it now.
Who's "we"? (Score:2)
"We" == NASA, or as close as you get. No, I don't feel particularly represented by my government either. But a gazillionaire doing it would be even less representative, and even less for my benefit. And I'm damned sure not joining any space kickstarter.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, for purely ideological reasons, you think NASA spending $6 billion per launch involving numerous contractors is preferable to hiring a single contractor to do the same thing for $100 million per launch (and $100 million is on the very high end of what it might cost; SpaceX themselves estimate a single digit million number, and rather than its development being funded by taxes, it's being funded by Starlink.)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, for purely ideological reasons, you think NASA spending $6 billion per launch involving numerous contractors is preferable to hiring a single contractor to do the same thing for $100 million per launch
That's not how anything works. Artemis is a big pork playground, but it only has one job when it comes to space (obviously, job one is spreading money around, and space is job two.) But the total bill for SpaceX is much higher, over a billion dollars has come from NASA for example. You're not counting that even though that money is part of the R&D budget that is leading to Starship.
Re: Who's "we"? (Score:2)
Billion for what? You mean like SWOT and other similar projects where SpaceX provided a much lower launch cost than all of the competitors?
Babies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the figure of .75g come from?
Re: (Score:2)
0.75G seems a reasonable guestimate at what may be the low-end tolerance to allow gestation, and if so Mars (at ~0.38G) would be outside that tolerance range.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see any reason physiologically why that would be the case, unless we're concerned about fetal bone development. But I don't think anybody has any illusions about people being born on Mars ever really tolerating Earth's gravity. Perhaps we could solve that problem at a later date. Meanwhile, Mars could be an inviting place for people who are wheelchair bound on Earth because of bone problems they developed here due to aging, disease, etc. Assuming they can survive the flight, which might not be as ha
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. It is also one of the ones that can't be over come by simple technology. We evolved to breed in 1G and I dont' think it will be possible outside of that environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Trains aren't really that hard. And that's on the off chance that there's some weird reason a lump of cells growing in a neutrally buoyant water environment care about gravity.
All True (Score:4, Insightful)
Reason.com clearly follows an agenda (it's no secret) and will jump at any occasion to highlight any type of government spending that seem (and sometimes actually is) wasted. They do this so they can advocate for tax cuts.
And they are right this time.
The reason the SLS was built by NASA is clearly political, this is not even a controversial point. It does cost a lot of money, which is not controversial either.
Were the money wasted? Not sure, there's always some kind of silver lining. But i for sure would have liked them to use SpaceX, which would have costed perhaps 10% of those money, and use the remaining 90% to actually perform research on things like new propulsion systems, or the actual sustainability of human life on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
They asked a libertarian think tank their opinion on a government agency. What outcome did they expect?
Sci-fi dystopia... do not want (Score:2)
I don't want companies claiming entire PLANETS as some type of Manifest Destiny (especially since there can't be massive competition in this space; the first mover claims the prize).
Governments may not be much better, but corporations are eternal while governments can be overthrown.
False Assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Reason.com is working from a false assumption
Honestly, this describes the entire basis of their website quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've come up with a nice example of how private industry can't do something better than public enterprise. Unless you see greater demand for a Mars rocket than one to the moon?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The discussion is pretty meaningless if you use that definition. That's why nobody but Internet pedants do.
Private industry can't do it because private industry needs to make a profit. NASA contracts private companies to do things; that's not "private industry."
Re: (Score:2)
"the government-run healthcare systems get better overall health outcomes,"
Debatable. In Canada, if you are too old, you can be completely denied healthcare. Over 56 and need a hip replacement? Too bad, you are too old. Need treatment for cancer? Be prepared to wait until you're dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Debatable. In Canada, if you are too old, you can be completely denied healthcare. Over 56 and need a hip replacement? Too bad, you are too old. Need treatment for cancer? Be prepared to wait until you're dead.
Got any citations for those claims? Other than a post on Gab or Parler?
Why bother? (Score:2)
First one to a significant location gets to plant a virtual flag of themselves or their team.
And you could include Pokemon-style prizes, like Nazi moonbases and stuff.
As for Mars, the toxic
Re: (Score:2)
We choose to go to Mars in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too
--- Elon Musk, 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course (Score:2)
The real question is how much faster could they do it if NASA didn't exist. And before anyone chimes in with anecdotes about NASA going slow for safety, remember that they have killed more astronauts than the rest of the world combined...
Re: (Score:2)
The public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive. If some private company wants to send humans to Mars without working with NASA, they've always been free to do so.
Reason.com is liberatarian bullshit... (Score:3)
... the reality is as time goes forward, the benefits of hundreds of years of scientific advance builds as the decades goes by, aka new tools, new fabrication techniques, no methods to drive down costs. But the original research that enables private companies to exist is being funded by the enormous military budget, that has a huge number of spin offs.
Private industry has been sucking at the tit of public subsidy from the day it was founded. The idea we live in a free market economy is nonsense, for you "true believers", you should look at the last 100 years of state subsidies for energy companies.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/... [imf.org]
Tesla and Space X, the supposed "heroes" of private industry have actually been taking state subsidies.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/t... [motorbiscuit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When even "motorbiscuit.com" takes a position on an issue, people should listen.
"What should we call our website? All the good names have been taken already!" .... ? (rushes to Godaddy domains) ... nobody has registered motorbiscuit.com yet ... hahaha ... what an oversight"
"Well I like motors."
"I like biscuits"
"You don't think
"I can't believe it
No (Score:2)
Would we make it to the moon without NASA? What was the profit model for Boeing, Douglas, Grumman, etc to make money building Saturn Vs and going there?
SpaceX has certainly made NASA take thing more seriously and changed the dynamics at NASA and we should applaud them for that imo but any first Mars mission will be flying the NASA banner for sure. The HLS contract almost guarantees it, that's NASA basically saying if they pull off Starship that SLS goes in the distbin and a Mars Mission is on the books an
Show me the money (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
Spacex's Falcons are fine rockets, and as long as their limitations on the launch envelope can be observed, have a place.
But the idea that Starship is going to place that million people on MArs, living and loving by 2050 is just silly season stuff.
Putting people on MArs requires a stepwise program, and the StarShip concept is having the same birthing
How and Why? Because its hard? (Score:2)
Then there is the other argument, 99.9999999999999999999% of everything is not on earth.
As far as NASA vs private industry, its not a simple comparison. SpaceX has done a fant
To the moon first then Mars.... (Score:2)
Uncorrected nonsense (Score:2)
*Which is the farking point*
In 2022, the company successfully launched 61 rockets, each with a price tag between $100 million and 150 million.
Socialize the Costs... (Score:2)
Who are these people saying that "only NASA should be doing space transportation"? Private companies have always been free to develop and launch their own rockets. To me it sounds like what these people really wan
No (Score:2)
Reason is an extremist wrong-wing libertarian (aka "I've got mine, tough for you") site. No one who ain't rich should go to space, or, for that matter, fly in a plane, own a car, or live somewhere other than under a bridge with their belongings in a shopping cart.
rocket science is not science (Score:2)
"... to get science we need NASA, even if private enterprise is building the rockets." In other words, NASA should be doing the science, while private enterprise should be doing the engineering (although they're welcome to do science if they want to.
What is "science", you ask? I'm glad you asked that question! Many things, but at the top of the list, I would put alternatives to chemical rockets--things that would get us to other planets, asteroids etc. faster.
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretty well blame congress for that. Any one of them that represent districts that have a lot of employees for any of the companies involved in SLS will vote for SLS. And there are a LOT of these districts all throughout the US. SpaceX is one company with roughly 12,000 employees spread out in various places across the US, and everywhere they live, they only represent a tiny slice of the of the overall population of that district.
Re: (Score:2)
"drill to the core": The Hole Man.
Although seriously, heat is not the first impediment to deep drilling. Pressure is probably the ultimate impediment.