• traches@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The challenging thing here is that NASA does have deep, systemic problems and is in need of some overhaul. SLS is a breathtakingly expensive boondoggle, lunar gateway has no reason to exist, Orion is underpowered and overweight, Mars Sample Return’s entire mission is in question, JWST was a decade behind schedule and an order of magnitude over budget, and the list goes on. Extreme risk-aversion and congressional meddling have resulted in a bureaucratic quagmire of an organization. It’s hard to find nasa projects that are going well.

    Of course I don’t think a gorilla with a sledgehammer as we’re sadly going to see from Trump will make things any better, we need a surgeon with a scalpel.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      81
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Most of the things you listed are directly related to Congressionally mandated specifics for funding those programs. The money is only there if NASA does it the way Congress dictates, not necessarily the way it should be done.

      The entire SLS program is essentially a Congressional jobs and legacy aerospace grifting program post-Shuttle.

      If Congress would. Keep their hands off, and just allocate budget, most of the issues would likely disappear since the people that actually know what’s going on could make the decisions instead of a Congress critter that is an imbecile.

      • Red_October@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s the whole reason SLS is the train wreck it is. Congress wouldn’t let them not keep shoveling money to the same people who made Space Shuttle parts. So instead of the best design possible, we got the best design using old parts.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The way I’ve heard it described is a lot of the NASA funding is intentionally spread out across many states, funding many jobs in those states, to get the support of many representatives to vote for the funding. This also means that trying to optimize costs would get a lot of push back, since it will cause jobs to be lost in many states. And these are states which voted for Trump: Alabama, Texas, Florida, etc.

      • traches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You’re absolutely right, though the extreme risk aversion is harder to blame on congress.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          You kill a half dozen people in a space ship explosion that could have been avoided and you will reasonably get a cautious culture.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      This is such a common theme.

      There are huge systemic problems which the “establishment” will demonstratably not address and Trump appears to be the answer to many voters… but him effectively addressing them is a wild fantasy.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        We are about a decade plus into the current political theme of “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. It’s scary. These people have no plan. It’s the levellers and the diggers all over again.

      • traches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You’re absolutely right, which is why I don’t want the left get tricked into defending a status quo that doesn’t deserve it.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          They did not get tricked, they chose to defend the status quo.

          That being said much of the messaging about change did not get through because, well, they campaigned conventionally… keeping the status quo.

  • dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Remember when on Interstellar there’s this whole prologue about the collapse of the US, the dismantling of NASA and the family getting on an argument with the school because the official stance now is that the moon landing never happened and mankind never went to space (despite there being still people alive who went there)?

    So, anyway, life imitates art …

    • CEbbinghaus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Recently there was a rerun of interstellar in IMAX at our local IMAX theatre. Rewatched it and had some pretty shocking revelations that I did not think of when I watched it for the first time. The rewriting of history being prime amongst them

  • CM400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    7 hours ago

    NASA, like the post office, is such a public benefit that we should be funding it well.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Corporations cannot carry the risk involved. Because else it would be similar to the medicine industry, but there is no large market to sell to.

        We’re going to Mars is not something you can sell in a boardroom, because why? What is the ROI?

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 minutes ago

          What I’m saying is musk wants to divert all of the government funding from NASA to spacex. ROI is all the funding from the government, every year for decades. It’s not a sell a product and profit model in the regular sense. And this way musk can personally take a cut of all that funding.

    • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Not with that attitude…and probably will be able to change that with the upcoming administration deregulating everything. Or did you mean won’t instead of can’t?

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Deregulation means private businesses won’t research anything that doesn’t make their quarterly numbers look better. Accelerated capitalism, woohoo!

            • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I wasn’t being pedantic for its own sake, but because the Corp has the capability yet refuse to use it for people’s benefit as they value shareholder profit more. They absolutely could, but won’t. To me, this is worse than not having the ability (won’t).

              We get it Corp, you would if you could. Good effort. Wait, you actually can but won’t?

              That’s not worse to you?

              • slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                Not always. There is some research that they could not do without going broke because up-front costs are too high, and there’s no tangible return on investment. In these cases, it makes sense to fund publicly because there is still value to society at large. Accelerators, for example. It doesn’t always have to be some conspiracy.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 hours ago

    “Sure is a nice publicly funded and scientifically minded space program you got here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Step 1) hurt other manufacturers more than Tesla

    Step 2) benefit SpaceX by gutting NASA

    Step 3) no regulations for digging tunnels?

  • Gerudo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What sucks the most is NASA fights tooth and nail for funding as it is. Imagine gutting it, and then coming back 4 years later to ask just for their existing budgets back.

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Convenient? That was the whole plan with buying X all along, to get into politics, and this guy is still there keeping it relevant.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    President Musk is just there to be less inconvenienced and to revel in finding an easily manipulated orange loophole to being the president of the United States.

    I guess that makes us all Musks workers now. What could go wrong?

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      ESA is a pork barrel like NASA, Euro style. Airbus does great because it’s now a traded company. ESA is simply an agency designed to maintain Europe’s minor relevance in space. Ariane rockets are a decade behind Space X, 5 years behind china and ISRO.

      Rocket Lab is where I lay my hopes. SpaceX without the giant douchebag. Innovation, incremental, sensible growth, without Billions behind.