3 ms·
Stripping NASA down to bare metal? The same NASA that’s spending over $2B a launch to build the SLS, when they could buy the same capacity from private launch c
by valuearb 9y ago
Stripping NASA down to bare metal? The same NASA that’s spending over $2B a launch to build the SLS, when they could buy the same capacity from private launch companies at less than 1/10th the cost?
And radiation is not a significant threat, we will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go.
- WillReplyfFood 9y agoThe same NASA who subsidized private contractors, so they could reach this price with equipment, science and funds?
- valuearb 9y agoNASA didn’t subsidize SpaceX, like commercial customers it signed contracts for specific services, and specifically because SpaceX was cheap. ULA got $1B a year for “readiness” and its launches cost at least double the cost of SpaceX. If you want to give credit to NASA for cheap private launch systems, then why isn’t it using them, and has it blown $20B in pork trying to replace them?
- QAPereo 9y agowe will have hundreds if not thousands of qualified astronauts fighting over being one of the first to take the relatively minor radiation risks to be the first to go Same with the age of sail, which claimed many lives, often for the dubious benefit of a few wealthy assholes who never touched a ship. Are you volunteering to be first to Mars?
- valuearb 9y agoNope, i’m not qualified. Anyone who dies will do it with their eyes open. Let’s put it this way. If we can land explorers on Mars for $100B at a 5% risk of death, or spent $1 trillion to reduce that risk to 1%, should we wait decades to find funding for the safer plan?