For some reason this depresses me the most. More than reading about Dr. Fucking Oz becoming part of the healthcare system administration in the USA. (source)
USA's healthcare system is a joke in terms of providing healthcare for people. It is a for-profit business, that's all. So making it worse is not something that depresses me that much especially since I live in Europe and I get great free healthcare. But to see NASA being run by those who want to exploit the space....when NASA is by far the leading agency in space, is quite depressing.
The Idiocracy is here, led by no other than the United States of America.
like this
reshared this
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •the LVs they are involved with developing - ie, SLS - are pretty terrible. sX is, _objectively_ (and i'm by no means a die-hard elon-fallating fanboy) revolutionary and the de-facto industry leader.
yes, their rovers and satellites and unparalled, but launch is _the_ most important part of the space economy, and the part most people mean when talking about a company's role in spaceflight.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •"economics" is a very detached from reality concept. NASA just needs a taxi to do the important work. SpaceX failed to deliver on their promises and contracts with NASA from what I know, but regardless their "achievements" are hyped to the extreme. NASA space shuttle was also reusable and other rockets before that.
So the "costs" of the launches are a human made up invention of course, based on imaginary money and wrong priorities. We could easily divert a lot of human potential and resources into making these space exploration missions cost nothing, if we were a smart society.
SpaceX, Musk, and the like (billionaires) are simply making space into yet another market and brag about how much "progress" they are doing. Disgusting indeed.
Georgi likes this.
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •"economics isn't real" is a bold leading claim, which i want you to contemplate a little more.
yes, sX is behind schedule on HLS. so is every other artemis contractor. HLS is *not* (expected to be) the limiting factor for artemis III (rather orion's underperforming heatshield).
this is plainly untrue. shuttle was a disastrous program. the peak turnaround was 54 days, average 190. F9's is 21 days, average 60. even the, which boosters were recovered had to be essentially re-manufactured.
0x5DA
in reply to 0x5DA • • •no, no other rocket, before or since, has been successfully re-used.
listen, if you want to argue for som pseudo-communist, gift-based society, _i won't stop you_. *but that's not the world we live in*, money isn't "imaginary", rockets can't "cost nothing".
if you don't follow spaceflight that's fine! i'm just passionate about it. but have the humility to accept you don't understand what "progress" looks like, and spare us your judgment.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •Your communism-word-salad may be a sign of you being too trapped into the fantasy world humans have invented, one that is very harmful. From climate change to slavery, useless products and waste. "money" is a human invention, of course. And if we are not to see this we have no chance to detach from its bad influence on us.
When humans put prices on a banana or a rocket launch, these prices rarely reflect the reality of resources, human costs, or even more so importance. We made a whole documentary about it tromsite.com/documentaries/tro…
If you follow the "spaceflight" flavor of the human activity on Earth, and you think we are making "progress", what does progress mean to you in that context?
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •if i'm being honest, i don't really care about your economic views. i just want you to understand the current spaceflight dynamic.
i understand money is a human invention, but it is a human invention nigh-every human obeys buy. like it or not, it _is_ a measure for efficiency, and if you can't see that the 3,000$/kg of a falcon 9 implies greater efficiency than the 35,714$/kg for SLS, i don't know what to tell you.
0x5DA
in reply to 0x5DA • • •re: Q
"progress" means more mass can be put into more orbits more often.
congrats on the documentary & books btw
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •I understand, but do you think we can still call it progress if that means we put more commercial satellites into space, more trips for rich people, or exploit other planets for materials?
Like cars are more efficient today in terms of fuel consumption but the entire "car industry" creates a terrible mess here on earth. We better make clean public transport.
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •there's a tendency to hand-wave commercialisation as "a big bad", but that's still just hand-waving.
regardless, i don't want to argue this back/forth so moralistically. i just want you to understand: sX, objectively, *is an industry leader*. that's all i disputed. they launch the most mass, at the lowest cost (not just price).
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •SpaceX being the "industry leader" means almost nothing if you disregard the fact that they may just be a taxi for the commercialization of space. And NASA is far more than just launching rockets into space. As @Michael Vogel also said.
And this is not a "moralistic" argument between you and me, it is a fact that commercialization (most of the times) equals to destruction, abuse, and exploitation. On Earth or above ;)
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •science is built on the shoulder's of giants. no advancements would be made without several thousand years of prior discovery and expirmentation. whether they a helped or funded by NASA is irrelevant - the point still stands: NASA has stagnated in LVs, and sX revolutionised that.
see that as positive or not, i don't mind. but it's an undeniable truth anyone with an interest in rocketry will confirm.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •We "obey" this human invention and this is a terrible thing as you can see around you. It is not at all a measure of efficiency. There is no efficiency that the USA imports 95% of the clothes from abroad or you eat tomatoes from across the continent just because is "cheaper" to grow them there and ship over to you. This system is a mess.
As for spaceflight sure you can measure the fuel consumption as a more relevant efficiency progress, but it is no progress if those rockets transport rich people into space, or more commercial satellites. That's where I fee many people fail to make sense of this system. They simply look at these measurements of fuel efficiency and so forth, but not the overall picture.
And "my economic views" are not "mine" or "views" the reality is that this global system of trade is a human made up game that is detrimental to the entire species and frankly obsolete. That's the truth.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •I do contemplate about "economics isn't real" - I wrote 2 books about it. tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… and tromsite.com/trombooks/#flipbo… - Economics is human imagination going bad. Letting the fantasy of money (trade) rule over important things. Instead of asking how much it costs to to do this or that, we should see how we can do it efficiently.
As for which space taxi is more efficient, I do not care in terms of "economics" but real importance like what is it done with that space-taxi? Put more commercial satellites into the orbit? Go exploit space? Put the rich into orbit?
Michael Vogel
in reply to 0x5DA • • •Don't assume that NASA is a rocket manufacturer or launch provider, they are not. NASA does aeronautical research (they're not just into space stuff). They operate Earth observation satellites, they operate space telescopes, rovers, ...
The JWST, for example, is by far the most advanced space telescope - and in developing it they had to create and research a lot of new things.
And as for SLS: The Space Launch System has to be built on existing shuttle hardware. That's what the Senate told them to do. Even if they tried, they're not allowed to deviate from that because the Senators want each of their states to participate. So SLS needed those solid fuel boosters, the rocket engine from the shuttle, etc.
Tio likes this.
Michael Vogel
in reply to 0x5DA • • •