3 ms·
Your argument seems self-refuting, tantamount to claiming that politicians know more about fusion physics than fusion physicists do, and through illegitimate me
by Veedrac 6y ago
Your argument seems self-refuting, tantamount to claiming that politicians know more about fusion physics than fusion physicists do, and through illegitimate means had convinced the body of scientists that ITER and FIRE were physically sound. (For sure, neither approach is directly an economically viable path to fusion, but that is not the intent.)
Saying that SLS will be too late to the market—certainly a reasonable stance, and I'd happily have it cancelled—is not the same as saying it is fake. Similarly, if James Webb is real because it is almost ready for launch, then it is possible for something to be real in spite of being years overdue and multiples over budget.
- ncmncm 6y agoNo detail of SLS was dictated by any plausible mission. It had to have strap-on multi-part solid boosters solely to keep Morton Thiokol busy. It had to have SSME-style engines to keep somebody else busy; but not use actual SSMEs, for the same reason. They had to be super-expensive engines designed for multiple uses even though they would have been scuttled after a single use. Things can be "late to market" without being fake, but being late to market is an operational requirement on fake things such as SLS. As noted, military-industrial concerns demand funding go exclusively to hot-neutron schemes. The politicians' interest is only that billions of dollars be disbursed to obscure entities over a long period that can generate sufficient regular, reliable, legitimate-appearing kickbacks.