3 ms·

Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradesw

Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Lots of the money went into the pockets of tens of thousands of tradesmen and tradeswomen -- welders, fabricators, machinists, NDT technicians, etc -- who further developed their skills, passed it onto newer generations of workers, and ensured manufacturing skills don't become lost to time. The same manufacturing skills that will be used to make the technology and infrastructure we need to continue to live dignified, modern lives. It went into the pockets of engineers -- who continue on a tradition of engineering established since the first space race. Some of them would have taught and mentored the ones who would go on to make rockets at all the New Space startups, including SpaceX. Others will take their skills to other fields. It went into the pockets of hundreds of small businesses who contract with the makers of the SLS. Could we have been wiser with the money? Can we be more effective? Sure. But it is not all for naught and quite frankly if we are to continue as a modern first world society, making sure the skills and tech that go into making a rocket stay alive is just as important as funding healthcare, education and research. And tonight, there will be some kids inspired by the footage of the most powerful rocket ever made by humans to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering. This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. $23 billion is a small price to pay. Social media sites have been sold for much more.

silviot 4y ago
> This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance. To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: * share the available food fairly * work to get more food The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world. > In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival. Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie. I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich. I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance. (And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)
justin66 4y ago
> Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Is how to use seventies-era parts to build a new rocket really a field of research?
- quartesixte 4y ago
  Well, not directly SLS itself but some of the money probably allowed the NASA centers to keep their lights on and allow for their researchers to go off and do their own thing.

silviot 4y ago

> This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance. To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: * share the available food fairly * work to get more food The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world. > In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival. Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie. I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich. I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance. (And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)

justin66 4y ago

> Some of the money trickled down into fundamental rocket related research. Is how to use seventies-era parts to build a new rocket really a field of research?

quartesixte 4y ago
Well, not directly SLS itself but some of the money probably allowed the NASA centers to keep their lights on and allow for their researchers to go off and do their own thing.