5 ms·

>Identify all the astronomers talking about SpaceX ruining things. Eliminate them from funding. Add some new players. Right, because to Elon Musk fans, there i

>Identify all the astronomers talking about SpaceX ruining things. Eliminate them from funding. Add some new players. Right, because to Elon Musk fans, there is no legitimate criticism against these companies. If you don't agree with the world's richest man, you shouldn't get to participate. Absurd.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Existing players generally get to keep their funding for a while. Space Launch System is ticking along, going to be $20B to first launch and then $2B per launch after that - just imagine those costs. I have no doubt old Astro existing projects will continue hoovering up the $$. That's fine, some of these are major sunk costs. I'm pitching throwing some new funding streams at new ideas / providers. Lock out the folks who don't see opportunity (they can still do what they do, just don't have them hoover up the new money). Or set an observing objective (ie, planets around other starts) and only pay a fixed price on delivery, and put it out to bid. You need to understand, most of astro now is not delivery based, it's cost based. At UC berkeley, if you get a grant for your research work at your oncampus office, before you pay for any of your own overhead, berkeley will take probably 40%-60% for just straight "overhead". So a $100M grant, 40M of that will evaporate immediately. No delivery is actually required BTW - just incurring costs -> that's the billable metric. And note, that you are "on campus" when working from your house these days!
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  You're enthusiasm is inspirational! Just remember: if you are going to space with a profit incentive, you are technically not going to space, merely going far. You might clear the atmosphere, you might make it to Mars, but if you're worried about what the stakeholders think, the revenue streams, etc, than you will never actually leave earth, no matter how far you go. Call me when we are actually going to space.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

Existing players generally get to keep their funding for a while. Space Launch System is ticking along, going to be $20B to first launch and then $2B per launch after that - just imagine those costs. I have no doubt old Astro existing projects will continue hoovering up the $$. That's fine, some of these are major sunk costs. I'm pitching throwing some new funding streams at new ideas / providers. Lock out the folks who don't see opportunity (they can still do what they do, just don't have them hoover up the new money). Or set an observing objective (ie, planets around other starts) and only pay a fixed price on delivery, and put it out to bid. You need to understand, most of astro now is not delivery based, it's cost based. At UC berkeley, if you get a grant for your research work at your oncampus office, before you pay for any of your own overhead, berkeley will take probably 40%-60% for just straight "overhead". So a $100M grant, 40M of that will evaporate immediately. No delivery is actually required BTW - just incurring costs -> that's the billable metric. And note, that you are "on campus" when working from your house these days!

beepbooptheory 5y ago
You're enthusiasm is inspirational! Just remember: if you are going to space with a profit incentive, you are technically not going to space, merely going far. You might clear the atmosphere, you might make it to Mars, but if you're worried about what the stakeholders think, the revenue streams, etc, than you will never actually leave earth, no matter how far you go. Call me when we are actually going to space.