4 ms·

> the complete waste of taxpayer money that is the SLS. SLS is such if you see it as a space exploration program. If you see it as a qualified workforce preser

> the complete waste of taxpayer money that is the SLS. SLS is such if you see it as a space exploration program. If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. There's a chance it is exactly that. The US has built thousands, or maybe tens of thousands rockets capable of reaching space in the '60s, '70s, '80s and a bit in the '90s. The Trident II SLBM is an absolute marvel of technology, and it's probably unsurpassed even today, three decades after it was introduced. But what do you do with your workforce once you built all the rockets you need? Do you simply fire them all? What if there's some new development 20 years from now, some Chinese or Russian innovation (maybe hypersonic missiles? nuclear thermal rockets?) that destabilizes the balance of powers? You won't be able to flip a switch and bring all your engineers back to work to figure out some way to stay relevant. So what you do instead is you give them some pretend work. What you don't want is to turn that pretend work into real results, because those results is not what you are paying them for. You are just paying them to keep them around and a little busy, not to take you to the Moon.

aeternum 5y ago
This would be more convincing if there weren't a major labor shortage right now. There are plenty of companies including aerospace companies where the skills of that qualified workforce could help move things forward.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  It's a free country, those people are not slaves. Do you think they don't know how to write a resume, make a profile on LinkedIn, or get in touch with a recruiter?
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Change is hard, the status-quo can persist even if it leaves participants worse-off.
cameldrv 5y ago
One problem with this strategy is that the sort of workforce you will attract to a make work project is much different than with an exciting new technology. If you're essentially telling your workers that what they're doing isn't very important, why would they bust their butts and make major sacrifices in their lives to do it (as SpaceX employees do)?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mullingitover 5y ago
> If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. There's a chance it is exactly that. This is my take on why we have such a huge automobile industry - it's not that the automobile is the best mass transit option, it's wildly inefficient, but having the manufacturing capacity for automobiles on tap keeps what's essentially a hot standby for a wartime manufacturing of tanks, etc. I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order.
- zardo 5y ago
  > I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order. There's very little applicable to both manned rockets and ICBMs. There's no mystery about why SLS is what is. It's built out of STS parts in order to keep money flowing to the same companies that supported the space shuttle.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is easier to re task someone with 20 years experience building manned rockets to make icbms than someone with 20 years experience in banking
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      And its even 100x easier to say 'hey SpaceX build us 1000 rockets' or 'hey firefly' or 'hey relativity' or 'hey rocketlab' or 'hey blueorigin'. Or any other of other places aerospace engineers could work.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        You may say "hey blueorigin" and get nothing, except maybe a lawsuit.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
inetknght 5y ago
> So what you do instead is you give them some pretend work. Are you saying that the SLS is just pretend work? Because if it's not then it's very much a waste of taxpayer money at this point. And if it's not pretend work then I would further argue that pretend work doesn't keep the skills sharp for the goal of building rockets. That's particularly true since SLS has yet to deliver any successful rockets! > You are just paying them to keep them around and a little busy, not to take you to the Moon. So you're definitely arguing that people should get employed to pretend to build rockets so that when you have to build rockets you can. But I tell you: when you have to build rockets you still won't be able to because your people weren't actually building successful rockets.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  Indeed, they aren't building successful rockets. But the re-learning process for them would still be much faster than if you start with people with zero experience. It's like saying there's no point in keeping a National Guard around, because if a war comes, the guardsmen will have no actual war fighting experience. That might be true, but they'll still be able to man a 155mm howitzer, or dig a trench, or perform a patrol at night in a forest or 100 other things better than me.
  - boibombeiro 5y ago
    The main goal is to keep them (and their knowledge) in America.
panick21_ 5y ago
> If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. No it isn't. This workforce is not innovating can creating new things learning new things. They are working on technology from the past with tools from the pasts and methods from the past. > (maybe hypersonic missiles? nuclear thermal rockets?) How about you have your workforce try to build those instead of blowing 2 billion a year on a nothing. Or how about this crazy idea, this workforce could work at places like SpaceX, Firefly, RocketLab and so on. This crazy thing called private companies. Where is the billions of $ the government spends to keep a bunch of computer scientist and programmers to spin their wheels? It doesn't exist because it makes no sense. If they want something there is plenty of workforce there to get it. Giving people pretend work when you could just as well give them real work is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And its nothing but a galaxy brain rationalization of idioitic pork politics. And if that was even remotely the thinking, it would actually make far, far, far, far more sense to do it for nuclear technology not rocket technology. Yet there the knowledge is getting lost very fast and nobody cares. Your exploitation makes flat out no sense.

aeternum 5y ago

This would be more convincing if there weren't a major labor shortage right now. There are plenty of companies including aerospace companies where the skills of that qualified workforce could help move things forward.

credit_guy 5y ago
It's a free country, those people are not slaves. Do you think they don't know how to write a resume, make a profile on LinkedIn, or get in touch with a recruiter?
- aeternum 5y ago
  Change is hard, the status-quo can persist even if it leaves participants worse-off.

cameldrv 5y ago

One problem with this strategy is that the sort of workforce you will attract to a make work project is much different than with an exciting new technology. If you're essentially telling your workers that what they're doing isn't very important, why would they bust their butts and make major sacrifices in their lives to do it (as SpaceX employees do)?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mullingitover 5y ago

> If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. There's a chance it is exactly that. This is my take on why we have such a huge automobile industry - it's not that the automobile is the best mass transit option, it's wildly inefficient, but having the manufacturing capacity for automobiles on tap keeps what's essentially a hot standby for a wartime manufacturing of tanks, etc. I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order.

zardo 5y ago
> I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order. There's very little applicable to both manned rockets and ICBMs. There's no mystery about why SLS is what is. It's built out of STS parts in order to keep money flowing to the same companies that supported the space shuttle.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It is easier to re task someone with 20 years experience building manned rockets to make icbms than someone with 20 years experience in banking
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    And its even 100x easier to say 'hey SpaceX build us 1000 rockets' or 'hey firefly' or 'hey relativity' or 'hey rocketlab' or 'hey blueorigin'. Or any other of other places aerospace engineers could work.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      You may say "hey blueorigin" and get nothing, except maybe a lawsuit.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago

inetknght 5y ago

> So what you do instead is you give them some pretend work. Are you saying that the SLS is just pretend work? Because if it's not then it's very much a waste of taxpayer money at this point. And if it's not pretend work then I would further argue that pretend work doesn't keep the skills sharp for the goal of building rockets. That's particularly true since SLS has yet to deliver any successful rockets! > You are just paying them to keep them around and a little busy, not to take you to the Moon. So you're definitely arguing that people should get employed to pretend to build rockets so that when you have to build rockets you can. But I tell you: when you have to build rockets you still won't be able to because your people weren't actually building successful rockets.

credit_guy 5y ago
Indeed, they aren't building successful rockets. But the re-learning process for them would still be much faster than if you start with people with zero experience. It's like saying there's no point in keeping a National Guard around, because if a war comes, the guardsmen will have no actual war fighting experience. That might be true, but they'll still be able to man a 155mm howitzer, or dig a trench, or perform a patrol at night in a forest or 100 other things better than me.
- boibombeiro 5y ago
  The main goal is to keep them (and their knowledge) in America.

panick21_ 5y ago

> If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. No it isn't. This workforce is not innovating can creating new things learning new things. They are working on technology from the past with tools from the pasts and methods from the past. > (maybe hypersonic missiles? nuclear thermal rockets?) How about you have your workforce try to build those instead of blowing 2 billion a year on a nothing. Or how about this crazy idea, this workforce could work at places like SpaceX, Firefly, RocketLab and so on. This crazy thing called private companies. Where is the billions of $ the government spends to keep a bunch of computer scientist and programmers to spin their wheels? It doesn't exist because it makes no sense. If they want something there is plenty of workforce there to get it. Giving people pretend work when you could just as well give them real work is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. And its nothing but a galaxy brain rationalization of idioitic pork politics. And if that was even remotely the thinking, it would actually make far, far, far, far more sense to do it for nuclear technology not rocket technology. Yet there the knowledge is getting lost very fast and nobody cares. Your exploitation makes flat out no sense.