3 ms·

>that was pretty much the main reason for the budget going into NASA early on Sputnik inspired NACA to transition to NASA out of fear. >And, well, aside from

>that was pretty much the main reason for the budget going into NASA early on Sputnik inspired NACA to transition to NASA out of fear. >And, well, aside from the bias Elon would have where he's developing what will likely become the most successful for-profit space business in history - which I'm sure he's aware of that bias, it definitely is a good idea to be prepared to defend against bad actors who may use space as an attack vector; safety and security is clearly a concern of Elon's especially when it comes to the potential that AI has for devastating humanity. Elon thinks it's a good idea because he likes subsidies. A "Space Invasion" doesn't make sense. A "Space Army" doesn't make sense. "Coastal Defense" doesn't make sense. ICBM missiles changed the entire meaning of war and defense.

loceng 8y ago
Having the ability to quickly knockout a potential bad actor's communication satellites etc certainly makes sense. Having the ability to launch satellites into space 10x faster and a larger quantity could be an advantage, if it came to that - whether launching unknown space-to-surface weapons or for countering attack vectors a bad actor has or is launching into space. Re: Subsidies - As I said, Elon obviously has a bias, and the government isn't shy of subsidizing many industries and infrastructure. Likewise, if I or you want to use anecdotes as argument points, why not just saw war and fear doesn't make sense - so we shouldn't do anything proactively in the name of defense/protection?