Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Amata :verified_genderqueer:

I've been seeing hate on NASA lately, being bought into by leftists even, and I just want to point out something very important:

Musk has hated NASA for a *long* time. There is a reason it is being attacked, and a reason public opinion is being swayed against NASA: It *keeps SpaceX in line* more than anything else.

NASA is being seen as "competition" to SpaceX, as the obstacle in his way. It has been like this for quite some time, and now, with DOGE and other things, he can do something about it.

I would like to point out a few things:

1. SPACEX IS NOT CHEAPER
They boast they can "do what NASA does for 10% the cost!" Sure, it's easy when you did none of the R&D.
SpaceX saved on:
Landing tech: DC-X project in 1991-1996
Tank structure: Shuttle SLWT tank, 1998-2011
Merlin Engines: direct descendant of the Fastrac Engine, 1997-2001.

Those three things alone saved SpaceX over 90% of the R&D costs. It's easy to "appear" cheap when you're using off the shelf tech someone else (NASA!) developed.

2. NASA IS GREAT FOR THE ECONOMY!
For every $1 spent on NASA, $8 is put into economy. Its stupid to not invest in that kind of ROI! 800%! At times, its ROI Has been 1600%!

Simply put, if you defund NASA, the economy would shrink so much you would actually have to RAISE taxes to make up for the lost revenue, and without its existence we would be 30 years behind in technology and the quality of life for everyone would be much lower. Science and research is GOOD for society, it's the fuel for all progress.

3. WHAT HAS NASA DONE FOR ME?! (Surely you just mean NASA is good for tech & science folk....)

Nope! Good for all!
Ever have an MRI or CAT Scan? They wouldn't exist without the Apollo program! The software that made them possible was originally written to analyze lunar photography.

Low power digital x-Rays was planetary body research.

Heart pumps are modeled after space shuttle turbopumps.

The software that designed your car was originally written to design spacecraft!

Who do you think pioneered all the early research into alternative power like solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells, and durable batteries? NASA!

NASA developed tech and satellites is also what improves agricultural yields while reducing the needs for water, fertilizer, and pesticides.

Do you really think Musk gives two shits? No. He wants the money, he wants to let SpaceX run amok without any oversight for safety, without any "competition".

All fights are important, but do realise that this one is a huge thorn in his side, and one that is keeping a huge problem from ballooning and swallowing us all whole.

Do not be fooled or swayed by lies, of tactics meant to divide, of things being done to make you be angry at NASA. If he can make you hate NASA, he won.

Expect far more space junk to fall, the night sky to be ruined by satellites, and the loss of all things good that proper research and design does for humanity and gives back to the world. Not to mention: enjoy seeing the horrible things he can accomplish fully unchecked.

ETA: Now that you know, call / fax / email your senators and reps, and whatever else too! Boosting gets people thinking, but thinking is not action!

#SpaceX #nasa #space #earth #science #technology

The A1 test stand at Stennis, which on this day did a full burn test of the redesigned RS-25 engine. 

The A1 is a vertical firing single position stand, meaning it holds one rocket engine at a time in an upright position with thrust directed downward. You can see the RS-25 engine in the stand, there is a truck and a large van for some scale. 

The NASA logo (meatball) is proudly displayed on the upper right of the stand.
114 comments | Expand all CWs
Paul_IPv6

@sunguramy

when you ignore labor, safety, environmental, and legal restraints, you can always be cheaper. what he's doing to NASA is criminal.

vruz

@sunguramy

That's part of the truth, but it's not the whole truth. The whole truth is that Musk wants to *own* NASA.

Or better, to expropriate it for private purposes, without really paying for/owning it.

Ruth [☕️ 👩🏻‍💻📚✍🏻🧵🪡🍵]

@sunguramy having worked there (as a contractor), I think what gets me and what Musk and his allies are 🤝 on wanting to destroy is that there is so much that NASA does for studying earth and understanding climate change and things that aren’t the 1% of shiny projects people think of. And I mean that’s maybe only 20-25% of what they do but it’s such a big and important bit. And when people on any side talk about moon stuff or Mars even, it worries me.

Vyvyan Basterd

@sunguramy nasa wants to go to the moon, and wants SpaceX to help; which means he has to put up or shut up about his rocket tech (if you can’t hit our nearest neighbor, you can't hit Mars). Get rid of Nasa and you get rid of the one force holding you accountable, allowing you to flog the Mars lie forever

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@neurobashing Actually, NASA was going for Mars prior to 2016. The SLS is designed with Mars in mind. It was Trump back then who turned it to Moon instead, which is not what was desired. It is where we are now, and Mars by Musk is no happy matter. However, NASA could change trajectory again; this is the problem of being at whims of an administration. Trump had this idea that Moon is easier, and could be gone back to by 2020, making him a 'hero' of sorts...not realising that was an unfeasible task.

Vyvyan Basterd

@sunguramy right but hasn't the moon *always* been first on the list?

Vyvyan Basterd

@sunguramy (to be clear I thought it went, moon, mars, back to moon)

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@neurobashing Nope! This was lies pushed by Trump 1.0!
The moon is really not helpful for anything at this point, which is why people who actually know shit didn't want to go back there (aka, nasa)

1. Moon is an awful location for observatory or earth observation, much larger temp swings than ISS, can't easily use solar power due to 2 week long nights, and you cannot perform microgravity experiments, much higher radiation, and costs about 100x more per pound to get mass there to build anything.

2. The fuel required to change from lunar orbital inclination to solar inclination is (pun intended) astronomical.

THE ONLY PURPOSE for the whole Back to Moon thing was PR. There is no point in going there before Mars, never was.

And there is no point on making some lunar colony or observation post or anything like that either.

It was a PR stunt that changed the direction of the last 8 years, to one that is set now, and we should follow through don't get me wrong; but it was never originally about the moon at all.

Sorry you got duped by 2016 trump propaganda...

@neurobashing Nope! This was lies pushed by Trump 1.0!
The moon is really not helpful for anything at this point, which is why people who actually know shit didn't want to go back there (aka, nasa)

1. Moon is an awful location for observatory or earth observation, much larger temp swings than ISS, can't easily use solar power due to 2 week long nights, and you cannot perform microgravity experiments, much higher radiation, and costs about 100x more per pound to get mass there to build anything.

Vyvyan Basterd

@sunguramy ok, fair, but I think my point still stands: he can't ever put anything outside of the Van Allen belts, or his whole schtick collapses. Same reason he tossed the entire “budget/commuter Tesla” in favor of the low-volume, high impact Cybertruck. He'd have to commit to *cars and infra expansion* and not pie in the sky FSD.

Syulang

@sunguramy @neurobashing But what's the point in Mars? Pretty much all the same problems, and mostly even worse.

I can't see any reason for it that isn't Musk wanking about the light of conciousness.

Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸

@Syulang @sunguramy @neurobashing Human progress. Mars is the logical next step and would offer massive scientific opportunities IF DONE CORRECTLY.

This kind of fundamental science often is too disconnected from our daily lives to easily grasp its usefulness. Without it there wouldn't be any major progress at all though. The whole "innovation" corporations keep pushing isn't worth dogshit without it. True advancements always come from peeps like NASA, people like Musk are just grifters.

Syulang

@Natanox @sunguramy @neurobashing but hat can we do on Mars that can't be done better and easier here on Earth? Its a dead, frozen, irradiated ball of rock that is millions of Ks away through a vacuum punctured by ionising radiation.

We don't need an artificial challenge when we have so many real challenges that pose real, existential threats to us that we are refusing to address.

Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸

@Syulang @sunguramy @neurobashing We can do better science. Learn material properties, astrophysics, how to grow food extremely efficient… there's a myriad of things that benefit us!

enoch_exe_inc

@sunguramy @neurobashing However, the Moon is a lot closer. Mightn’t it make more sense to first build a lunar base first as a stepping stone towards merely landing on Mars? Also, solar power isn’t the only way to power stuff in space. Nuclear fission power is also a possibility, and it’s what would likely be required for any non-polar lunar base.

Lovolicious Jonnycakes

@sunguramy "Sorry you got super by Trump 2016 propaganda."

Sorry you resorted to selfish ad hominem attacks. So much for Mastodon being a safe place.

Jennifer

@sunguramy I think Musk wants to eliminate NASA space flight projects so SpaceX will get all the lucrative contracts. He doesn't care about science or knowledge, only money and power. We're getting to a true oligarchy where the rich can take what they want, even government contracts.

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@Jennifer He kinda already was doing that; but aye, I have a feeling this will turn into Bezos v Musk, and NASA will be lucky to still exist at all 😔

People don't realise NASA has often contracted out various things - but there has always been oversight, rules, regulations, safety (HUGE safety culture at NASA that really doesn't exist anywhere else). I'm worried it will get finagled to where there is no oversight, which will turn into no need for NASA.

Captain Jack Sparrow

@Jennifer @sunguramy

there used to be a thing called "conflict of interest"

Martin Schröder

@sunguramy
Don't forget that NASA oversees Planetary Protection, which of course Space Karen hates because it would make his plans for Mars impossible.
@sundogplanets

Sunshine and Wind

@sunguramy
From a capitalistic process all those side-effects /benefits should be privatised and the rewards go to the few with the foresight to build business plans.

It's easy to see why there is a push to get rid of basic research and, gulp, eventually the Public Domain and anything for the Common Good.

KnittingMittens (She/Her)

@sunguramy I need to rewatch Interstellar. Looks like our future 😕

Ian Smith

@sunguramy not to mention that the entire "vision" of SpaceX is just cribbing on the work of the Space Task Group in 1969.

nasa.gov/history/55-years-ago-

Jackie

@sunguramy I believe that NASA is one of the only redeeming qualities of the United States tbh.

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@burnoutqueen We have quite a few, and they are worth fighting for! :) I see .nl, and yes, I definitely see NASA as something worldwide people get excited about. I really hope that gets to continue to be the case.

Johnno

@sunguramy Private corporations hate any government agency that seems to be in "competition" with it.

François

@sunguramy @sundogplanets So you're saying NASA is what really enabled all those mega constellations and crazy number of rocket launches, so we should make sure it survives? For the good of the planet?

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@fmy @sundogplanets No? There are other regulatory agencies. NASA doesn't have anything to do with the megaconsellations. But there is a lot of other things Musk would like to get away with too.

François

@sunguramy @sundogplanets from your own argumentation reuse of NASA developed technologies is what enabled SpaceX to have such cheap launch and get so many satellites out there

Sammi

@fmy @sunguramy @sundogplanets This is true but NASA has nothing to do with communications satellites and to be honest SpaceX wouldn't put up starlink if people didn't want to buy it. So the large number of satellites are due to...we'll...humans.

Much of NASA is scientific research which people tend to forget.

François

@SamanthaJaneSmith thanks but it seems I over argued again, I got double blocked - I’m sad now

nullkitty

@sunguramy@flipping.rocks I think a lot of "against reason" accounts aren't actual people. Not to say we shouldn't work to counter the misinformation but a lot of the accounts are trolls and bots. Ask them how dingy their IRA office is.

Ψ*Ψ

@sunguramy NASA missions also help with weather forecasting, aviation, wildfire and drought tracking, climate modeling, and LITERALLY MONITORS FOR PLANET ENDING ASTEROIDS.

(Sorry for yelling. Might not have a job without them.)

honk honk I'm a truck *brrrrr*

@sunguramy All very fair, but I will never forgive them for abandoning the worm logo.

Daedalean

@sunguramy doubt anyone hates the scientists and engineers at nasa. But if you’ve seen what the administrators are going along with this isn’t unreasonable.

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@daedalean This is part of what I am talking about, people are mentioning emails being sent for this that and the other. For one, federal workers are getting those emails (not just NASA). For two, it is sus that they are even originating from within. I do not think people understand how much of the computer systems are being taken over by force.

Daedalean

@sunguramy yes, federal workers are, from musk, because he’s trying to make them so miserable they quit. Some are. Stay strong. Make them do the work before you leave.

Beachbum

@sunguramy We need to get rid of SpaceX. NASA would be doing fine if they got the grants and god knows what other government handouts that SpaceX is getting. #DefundSpaceX

Leather Cub Andrew Aû

@sunguramy as a leftist, my only gripe is pretty much in line with what Musk wants to do with SpaceX... the medical research great!!! Solar system events good. Space travel not so much... we need to take care of our own planet before considering colonizing planets. Pollution is one of those critical problems. One doesn't destroy their home and find a new one to not learn

SpaceX has to go: be liquidated, its engineering staff transferred to NASA or corresponding agencies across the globe.

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@LeatherCubAndrew Exploration & Science =/= Colonization, YES!
I am totally for space travel in that it aligns with exploration & science. Not for colonization though, and anyone with half a brain knows how stupid that is, especially with current tech.

Leather Cub Andrew Aû

@sunguramy what exactly would be the point of space travel if not for colonizing?

What I'm talking about is more stuff aligned with the tools (like probes) we launch to record data...

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@LeatherCubAndrew Having humans see something does things machines cannot. I recommend learning about Apollo 17 for why humans > robots for exploration. The series produced by Tom Hanks "From the Earth to the Moon" episode 10 covers it well. (A wonderful series, actually.)

To ask "why explore" is...well, a whole thing in and of itself. Why do I go into caves to learn about it's history, geology, the life that calls it home, instead of sending a robot to do it? One could ask that for anything, not just space. Why do you do your job, instead of having a machine or so-called-AI do it for you?

Humans are a part of nature, a part of the universe, and curious about it. :)

@LeatherCubAndrew Having humans see something does things machines cannot. I recommend learning about Apollo 17 for why humans > robots for exploration. The series produced by Tom Hanks "From the Earth to the Moon" episode 10 covers it well. (A wonderful series, actually.)

To ask "why explore" is...well, a whole thing in and of itself. Why do I go into caves to learn about it's history, geology, the life that calls it home, instead of sending a robot to do it? One could ask that for anything, not...

Sammi

@sunguramy @LeatherCubAndrew Well this is only kinda true. Robotic spacecraft offer much more bang for the buck than manned missions. Human exploration simply isn't worth the money at the moment and they can get to places and cover more ground than humans. Human exploration in space is mostly about sex appeal to the public. What really returns science are the unmanned missions yet they are often under most budget pressure.

ideogram

@sunguramy
I would love to see the evidence of "CAT" scanners software originally being for Apollo. It was developed by EMI in the UK with funding from the DHSS. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CT_scan?

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@ideogram spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1998/e

"Computed tomography, widely known as CT or CATScan, is a medical diagnostic technique for comprehensive body scanning. It incorporates digital image processing technology that traces its origin to NASA research and development performed as a prelude to the Apollo program. Millions of people around the world benefit each year from the medical applications of this technology."

This is a wonderful example of something many people do not know the original traces of, things that would not have been possible without the desire to visit the Moon. But part of NASA's charter allows for ALL to benefit from the advances made (very different from what happens under billionaire control!)

@ideogram spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff1998/e

"Computed tomography, widely known as CT or CATScan, is a medical diagnostic technique for comprehensive body scanning. It incorporates digital image processing technology that traces its origin to NASA research and development performed as a prelude to the Apollo program. Millions of people around the world benefit each year from the medical applications of this technology."

ideogram

@sunguramy
Fair enough. Thank you for teaching me something!

Sammi

@ideogram @sunguramy yeah this is not really true either. JPL developed software that went on to be used in MRIs and CT scans. Hence the NASA article. The scanning technology was invented by a guy in the states in 1963.... But the first useable CT scanner was developed in the UK by EMI.

ideogram

@SamanthaJaneSmith
Do explain? Did Allan MacLeod Cormack work at JPL?
@sunguramy

Sammi

@ideogram @sunguramy Sorry I wasn't clear I was trying not to write an essay. JPL developed digital topographic software for rock analysis, this was a first and used in scanners worldwide. Cormack developed the original theory and Hounsfield made the first practical scanner. As is usual in science one person built on another.

jsimarrog

@sunguramy bien dicho, tenéis un problema con Trump y su "troupe", mucha suerte y mucho ánimo

Amata :verified_genderqueer:

@jsimarrog Gracias! Tristamente, pronto será un problema mundial. 😔

(Lo siento, mi español es malo...)

jsimarrog

@sunguramy si, aquí en Europa el panorama político está tomando unos tintes nada agradables, pero! todavía hay mucha gente con buenas ideas. Quizá es a veces inevitable dar un paso para atrás antes de dar dos hacia adelante. Un abrazo desde España

Catherine Schmidt

@sunguramy primary differenceS between NASA and Space X. One is EXPLORATION the other EXPLOITATION. OBJECTIVE for one is UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE the OTHER the root of all evil ….MONEY.

Chris Real

@sunguramy

Musk hates anything that makes him look bad.

So exposing his motives is always a good move.

If you don't deviate, you will prevail. So, in these uncertain times, stick with the truth.

Lies will try to change you. The truth will let you be who you know you really are . . .

Subhendu Ghosh

@sunguramy i just think of Tang and microwaves. Freeze dried food and cooking with electricity

catraxx

@sunguramy 100% agree! More people need to realize that SpaceX is nothing but daylight robbery.

RussianChineseDeepStateSock

@sunguramy a public space program is always better than a private hijacked spaceflight system that is currently being used to build toys for wealthy Man-children.

And I doubt those were "leftists" bashing on NASA -- it is more likely that laissez-faire liberals, whom the media erroneously labels "leftists" in order to alienate actual leftists from the conversation, would complain about NASA or its expenses.

Drew

@sunguramy which leftists are anti NASA and why

Fly-paper-love-maker

@crmsnbleyd @sunguramy I am. I have a friend high up at NASA. For me leftism is equalizing power, education, control, and material reality. Those are not NASA’s goals. NASA is about pushing the boundaries of exploration. Get the smartest engineers together to push outward. I’m in construction and I’ve never heard a laborer “inspired” by any of it. There are so many bad arguments, I couldn’t talk them through in a toot, but I have counters.

This Account Kills Fascists

@sunguramy If your ass has ever been saved by a fire map, thank NASA!

seachanged

@sunguramy

Additionally, Aeronautics is NASA's middle name, before Space. The FAA works closely with NASA on research topics that eventually become industry practice. See Nextgen, UTM, AAM, ETM...

Sammi

@seachanged @sunguramy Yep centers like Dryden work exclusively on flying technology.

Toni Aittoniemi

@sunguramy I agree. It’s the usual private equity business, where they come in and rip out everything but the bare necessities and make as much money as possible with the corpse until it fails.

SpaceX might be good now, but just wait until there’s no competition. It’ll be as bad as Boeing or worse.

What worries me most though is people who outright believe that they can take out the government without them becoming the government.

CategoricalMeow

@sunguramy everything we "privatize," still costs taxpayer dollars that are then given to billionaires.
#PrivatizationGrift

solo

@sunguramy I mean, fuck, we literally would not have modern weather forecasts without nasa.

Alexander Goeres
@Amata :verified_genderqueer:
being bought into by leftists even
please show me one or more examples of this leftist hate against nasa ...
Sammi

@sunguramy As an ex NASA employee, NASA has always been the target of Republicans. The sheer stupidity of the way the US government is run... As a few examples:

1. Project cut, reinstated, cut etc... Costing billions of dollars
2. We ran out of paper one year, We weren't allowed to buy anymore ....
3. My chair broke, wasn't allowed to buy another one until the next FY....

Despite this NASA continues to develop brilliant technology only to be handed over to the private sector......

@sunguramy As an ex NASA employee, NASA has always been the target of Republicans. The sheer stupidity of the way the US government is run... As a few examples:

1. Project cut, reinstated, cut etc... Costing billions of dollars
2. We ran out of paper one year, We weren't allowed to buy anymore ....
3. My chair broke, wasn't allowed to buy another one until the next FY....

doomy 🦀

@sunguramy genuine q since you seem knowledgeable about this, not concern trolling. has NASA's focus changed towards defense instead of discovery as time goes on? is this something to be worried about, or is that not really how that works? its hard to trust any american institution these days (which i get is kind of the goal of republicans)

Oliver Schafeld

Plus a Starlink "giga-constellation" poses significant environmental risks.

perplexity.ai/search/how-serio

And SpaceX rockets with "airplane-like reusability" (and the resulting fictitious cargo costs to Mars) will likely remain a fantasy.

perplexity.ai/search/are-space

Noortje Van Leeuwen

@sunguramy spaceX is nasa from Temu...filled with stolen designs.

Dennis D

@sunguramy It seems that a lot of people need to be re-educated about what "public value" means.

A country is not a company. A president is not a CEO and we the people are not its slaves without rights.

It's horrible to see how so many people have been blinded in what public value actually means for them in daily life - and what it will mean once it is destroyed beyond repair.

"I am me and my circumstances; if I do not save them, I do not save myself."- José Ortega y Gasset (1883 - 1955)

Twoflower (he/him) ⏚

@sunguramy thanks, I'll have some arguments to oppose my boss when he praises El*n M*sk (thinks this piece of $hit is a genius... Ok he's alos a NFT fan, AI enthusiast, etc)

Raul Portales

@sunguramy another great example of short term vision. NASA is spending now, but the benefits come in the future, and so usual with innovation, you can't predict what they'll be used for.

RJ

@sunguramy Wow!! Fantastic and well written post - thank you.

JW Prince of CPH, Radicalized

@sunguramy Also, even with the head start of other people's R&D, Starship is embarrassingly slow compared to the Apollo program - which, at this point in its timeline, where Starship isn't even manned yet, had flown over a dozen missions, including five to the moon & putting a space station in orbit, and had retired gracefully.

"Developing at high speed" my lily-white ass.

wink

@sunguramy FWIW, I've seen more "hate" directed at them for preemptively complying than anything else, but maybe I've not looked at the (public/media) commentary enough from afar in Europe.

Jean-Francois Mezei

@sunguramy Melon Husk nay dislike NASA engineering stuff before flight versus his trial and error approach (iterative development), but in the end if Husk is to get to Mars it will be via a huge contract with NASA. (And am convinced his deal with trump is that for every dollar he cuts from govt spending 80% will go to SpaceX via NASA to fund his fantasy to mars. The first $4b needed fir Husk to buy Truth Social so Trump gets his $2b.

zl2tod

@sunguramy
And Musk will be perfectly happy to let Tesla fall into the fires of hell if he can achieve his goal of total control of space.

undead enby of the apocalypse

@sunguramy I feel like when it comes to stuff like this the part of me that wants to nerd out about space and is fascinated by the technology and the part of me that is concerned about the environmental impact of this and the ties to the military industrial complex tend to conflict a lot. But both are in agreement that spacex is far worse than nasa could ever be and that they and other space billionaire vanity projects shouldn’t exist. And I hate that fascist billionaire with a passion.

It would be kind of nice if we could have research in things like medical tech, renewable energy or meteorology without all of this bullshit and environmental devastation. Spaceflight might be fascinating but I’m kind of sceptical about if we can really afford all the environmental devastation it brings, especially considering the climate catastrophe. And I especially don’t think there is any reason to be sending people to the moon or mars. It’s just a vanity project and the environment will pay the price (and in turn people will, as people depend on the environment). I can kind of see arguments for unmanned probes, and perhaps even for continuing to send people to the ISS, and it’s reasonable to maintain satellite infrastructure like communication or weather satellites (not the absolutely disastrous starlink bullshit) I suppose. But beyond that it’s just pollution for no good reason, which is why I’m not too fond of nasa, even though I agree that it being defunded in favor of spacex would make things much, much worse

@sunguramy I feel like when it comes to stuff like this the part of me that wants to nerd out about space and is fascinated by the technology and the part of me that is concerned about the environmental impact of this and the ties to the military industrial complex tend to conflict a lot. But both are in agreement that spacex is far worse than nasa could ever be and that they and other space billionaire vanity projects shouldn’t exist. And I hate that fascist billionaire with a passion.

Marge吴静玫
@sunguramy My spouse works as a subcontractor with NASA. The impact NASA has on small businesses, like the engineering firm he works for, is massive.
John Meadows

@sunguramy Spending on science in general in the US is a rounding error compared to what is spent on the war machine.

Thomas Eisenbock

@sunguramy NASA takes a major role in research of and publications about climate change. That's why Trump will support Musk in taking over.

Jari Komppa 🇫🇮

@sunguramy My favorite NASA invention are those grooves on the side of the road that wake up drivers when they're drifting off road. Originally invented to make taxiing of space shuttles easier.

Noel Kelly

@sunguramy

So the parasite wants to kill the host.

Musk spend from the late 90s(97?) until 2005 lobbying Congress, especially the GOP, to force NASA massively increase outsourcing. The laws passed in 2005.

SpaceX was founded in 2002.

There are photos of him celebrating with a particular GOP Congressman. I haven't been able to google them recently. All I get is recent Musk w/ GOPers or generic 2000s Musk photos.

Yza

@sunguramy a private company could *never* be cheaper, because at least some amount of revenue would be siphoned off by the shareholders. that's the main difference

but even if space x (formerly space twitter) was able to match NASA in output and expenditure all those cool technologies they develop wouldn't do shit for the rest of society because space x would sit on the patents

Dark Photon Studio

@sunguramy I'm sure someone will do something about it, any day now.

Kevin Fjelsted

@sunguramy @alexhall NASA may be fine ad research but at some point commercialization needs to happen and that is never the governments business! Every project listed in the orrigional post talks about research but no application for commercialization. NASA has no structure nor should it for creating a profitable business. Finally, NASA will ask for unending funds like any research institution because there is no encentive to optimize or economize. If you don't like SpaceX having all the fun then create competition in the private sector that can use that research! Probably stay away from Boeing since they seem to have found a way to spend unfinite government money without any thought for safety or economy! How about SpaceX for safety and economy?

@sunguramy @alexhall NASA may be fine ad research but at some point commercialization needs to happen and that is never the governments business! Every project listed in the orrigional post talks about research but no application for commercialization. NASA has no structure nor should it for creating a profitable business. Finally, NASA will ask for unending funds like any research institution because there is no encentive to optimize or economize. If you don't like SpaceX having all the fun then...

vxo

@sunguramy ohhhh that explains this one old news file package I found while transferring tapes from the 1980s... wherein a prototype for an artificial heart was being developed and bench tested at Aerojet-Rocketdyne in Rancho Cordova, California.

Makes perfect sense now if they were adapting it from spacecraft turbopump designs.

unlofl [Promoted Toot]

@sunguramy I've seriously advocated returning to the moon for these reasons.

As long as we're locked in to the current system, the Apollo missions were the greatest economic stimulus and investment in research we've ever undertaken except probably WWII.

Janet Vertesi

@sunguramy
i study this stuff and am writing an academic book about it. And I would like to add that just because a contractor CHARGES LESS doesnt mean it COSTS LESS. It just means they have other sources of money. Shareholder pockets. R&D lines. VC money. Overhead padding on other stuff sold to private vendors. Or say, A DUDE SO RICH HE JUST WRITES BLANK CHECKS. Which both SpaceX and Blue Origin have.

If Nasa had blank checks there would be no limit to what they would or could do in the public interest. That characterized the Apollo era but starting with Nixon they have been subject to repeated slashes and cuts during development, constant moral crushing reviews.

They don't have blank checks. But what they DO have that others don't is amazing talent and civic minded people, PLUS public accountability. The people I have worked with at Nasa as a sociologist are talented, dedicated, ingenius, and brilliant (yes even efficient).

Space is hard. It is there to kill you. You can't bluff your way into space. There are no shortcuts, just deeper pockets. And the deeper the pockets the less democratic oversight, safety, or accountability. Consider that trade.

Finally I would add the only institutions on Earth who have yet landed on Mars are the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Chinese Commhnist Party. Do not de-institutionalize JPL or assume this is easy for SpaceX to do. Else we run the risk of losing that knowledge altogether, just like it's taken us 60 years to go back to the moon.

@sunguramy
i study this stuff and am writing an academic book about it. And I would like to add that just because a contractor CHARGES LESS doesnt mean it COSTS LESS. It just means they have other sources of money. Shareholder pockets. R&D lines. VC money. Overhead padding on other stuff sold to private vendors. Or say, A DUDE SO RICH HE JUST WRITES BLANK CHECKS. Which both SpaceX and Blue Origin have.

TreeVor

@sunguramy thank you for this. NASA does amazing things with a comparatively tiny budget and not enough people talk about the benefits of what they do.

Mandar Vaze (desipenguin)

@sunguramy I'm not American, so I can't directly affect this (But boosted this toot, doing my part)

Genuine Q from non-american :
Worst case scenario, lets say Musk "wins" - is it possible to undo his deeds after 4 years ? (Assuming he is able to do all this because he has backing of Trump, who can't return after these 4 years)

Go Up