3 ms·

From the space people I talk to, many in the very recent past harbored this notion that SpaceX was irresponsible with their early move-fast methods. However, as

From the space people I talk to, many in the very recent past harbored this notion that SpaceX was irresponsible with their early move-fast methods. However, as predicted, that all slowed down to a similarly glacial pace once they became entrenched in the red tape machine. Parity in that reguard is rapidly approaching. And a nitpick, NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech, the failure rate then was more in line with the goals. As its just minor economic and exploration roles now, with less polarizing military applications, we see less frantic push. I.e. killing a few people to prevent ww3 > next internet sat/artists on mars/astroid mining. Its not a fair comparison.

kcorbitt 8y ago
> killing a few people to prevent ww3 > next internet sat/artists on mars/astroid mining. Individuals have very different risk tolerances, often based on their deepest values. But I don't think we should say it's wrong to want to e.g. go to Mars, even if there's an 90% chance of failure. It's a reasonable tradeoff to make. If you succeed, you'll be hailed as a new civilization's Pilgrims, and will continue in that culture's oral history for as long as it exists. Children will sing songs about your feats, and dress up in crude facsimiles of your space suits on Landing Day. Adults will proudly trace their genealogy to members of your party, and speak admiringly about the values you instilled. Many people would trade their lives for a 10% chance of such a fate. As a society we should let them.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
None of this is correct. NASA had the most deaths from the Space Shuttle, nothing to do with ICBMs. Nothing they did was to prevent WW3; their current goals are the same as the were four decades ago. SpaceX is still moving at a rapid and successful pace, as is evidenced by reading the news about them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
vonmoltke 8y ago
> NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech NASA did not develop ICBM technology; the USAF did. NASA used ICBMs in their early days, particularly Atlas missiles. There may well have been some cross-pollination of basic rocket design technology. But NASA was not in the business of making ICBMs and had nothing to do with MAD or the nuclear triad.

kcorbitt 8y ago

> killing a few people to prevent ww3 > next internet sat/artists on mars/astroid mining. Individuals have very different risk tolerances, often based on their deepest values. But I don't think we should say it's wrong to want to e.g. go to Mars, even if there's an 90% chance of failure. It's a reasonable tradeoff to make. If you succeed, you'll be hailed as a new civilization's Pilgrims, and will continue in that culture's oral history for as long as it exists. Children will sing songs about your feats, and dress up in crude facsimiles of your space suits on Landing Day. Adults will proudly trace their genealogy to members of your party, and speak admiringly about the values you instilled. Many people would trade their lives for a 10% chance of such a fate. As a society we should let them.

CapitalistCartr 8y ago

None of this is correct. NASA had the most deaths from the Space Shuttle, nothing to do with ICBMs. Nothing they did was to prevent WW3; their current goals are the same as the were four decades ago. SpaceX is still moving at a rapid and successful pace, as is evidenced by reading the news about them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

vonmoltke 8y ago

> NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech NASA did not develop ICBM technology; the USAF did. NASA used ICBMs in their early days, particularly Atlas missiles. There may well have been some cross-pollination of basic rocket design technology. But NASA was not in the business of making ICBMs and had nothing to do with MAD or the nuclear triad.