3 ms·
> it's thoroughly dismissive of the political concerns which are the essence of the entire problem No, it is quite correctly pointing out that political concer
by pdonis 2y ago
> it's thoroughly dismissive of the political concerns which are the essence of the entire problem
No, it is quite correctly pointing out that political concerns are creating a lot of problems that shouldn't even exist.
> If we don't get there with a more sustainable approach, then there's no point going.
But the article's whole point is that this is not a "more sustainable approach". It's less capable than Apollo, for more money, without any compensating benefits. If that's what "political concerns...are the essence of the entire problem" looks like, then I agree that "there's no point in going"--meaning we shouldn't be doing Artemis at all if this is what it's going to look like. But of course the "political concerns" won't let that happen.
- nerdponx 2y agoThe compensating benefits are jobs for constituents of key members of Congress and big contracts for their friends. But those are compensating benefits for the legislators specifically, not for the American people (who are paying for all of this) or the global scientific community.
- pdonis 2y agoYes, I understand that there are "compensating benefits" for certain people. But they're not compensating benefits to the mission itself. They're just political pork.