3 ms·

There is nothing about going to mars that is consistent with governmental efficiency.

by dekhn 2y ago

verdverm 2y ago
An administration efficiently returning money to a specific vendor who gave $250M to their campaign, if one wants to be cheeky?
- reaperducer 2y ago
  An administration efficiently returning money to a specific vendor who gave $250M to their campaign, if one wants to be cheeky It's the most efficient way to find out how much it costs to rent a presidency. And it's super-efficient for the president to outsource his job to someone from overseas.
- hindsightbias 2y ago
  I support any amount needed as long as Elon is First Martian.
reaperducer 2y ago
There is nothing about going to mars that is consistent with governmental efficiency. But it sure is consistent with securing mineral rights for your company.
coldtea 2y ago
Yeah, but compared to some of the stuff the gov cummulatively spent trillions on, this is more efficient than Tim Ferris on speed...
fddfhj 2y ago
Well a worthy long term plan to save the planet is to ship all the celebs, podcasters, influencers and general attention craving specimens out of the solar system.
Dig1t 2y ago
Genuinely curious how you feel about the Apollo missions. Do you think they were bad or that it would have been better if we had not done them?
- dekhn 2y ago
  From the perspective of propaganda and establishing US dominance (responding to USSR's impressive gains), it certainly had value, and it's an epic thing that stands as one of humanity's greatest technical achievements. From a scientific perspective, I don't see it as tremendously better than having done a robotic exploration, except that at that time, we didn't really have the knowledge or technology to build complex semi-autonomous vehicles that could return samples. I know folks have argued that having a geologist physically on the moon made a difference but I don't see that as sufficiently impactful. Other folks will argue that in addition to the direct scientific achievements of apollo, running the project generated a wide range of side technologies that had much wider applicability, but IMHO, those things probably would have been invented (or other things invented) by non-space funding for materials science. While I generally think sending any human into space (LEO or elsewhere) is a waste of time and money, if I am speculating about a science fiction future, I think it's imperative that humanity become multi-homed (fully independent settlements) but as a species we don't have the political will or resources to achieve that.

There is nothing about going to mars that is consistent with governmental efficiency.

by dekhn 2y ago

There is nothing about going to mars that is consistent with governmental efficiency.

An administration efficiently returning money to a specific vendor who gave $250M to their campaign, if one wants to be cheeky?

reaperducer 2y ago
An administration efficiently returning money to a specific vendor who gave $250M to their campaign, if one wants to be cheeky It's the most efficient way to find out how much it costs to rent a presidency. And it's super-efficient for the president to outsource his job to someone from overseas.
hindsightbias 2y ago
I support any amount needed as long as Elon is First Martian.

reaperducer 2y ago

There is nothing about going to mars that is consistent with governmental efficiency. But it sure is consistent with securing mineral rights for your company.

coldtea 2y ago

Yeah, but compared to some of the stuff the gov cummulatively spent trillions on, this is more efficient than Tim Ferris on speed...

fddfhj 2y ago

Well a worthy long term plan to save the planet is to ship all the celebs, podcasters, influencers and general attention craving specimens out of the solar system.

Dig1t 2y ago

Genuinely curious how you feel about the Apollo missions. Do you think they were bad or that it would have been better if we had not done them?

dekhn 2y ago
From the perspective of propaganda and establishing US dominance (responding to USSR's impressive gains), it certainly had value, and it's an epic thing that stands as one of humanity's greatest technical achievements. From a scientific perspective, I don't see it as tremendously better than having done a robotic exploration, except that at that time, we didn't really have the knowledge or technology to build complex semi-autonomous vehicles that could return samples. I know folks have argued that having a geologist physically on the moon made a difference but I don't see that as sufficiently impactful. Other folks will argue that in addition to the direct scientific achievements of apollo, running the project generated a wide range of side technologies that had much wider applicability, but IMHO, those things probably would have been invented (or other things invented) by non-space funding for materials science. While I generally think sending any human into space (LEO or elsewhere) is a waste of time and money, if I am speculating about a science fiction future, I think it's imperative that humanity become multi-homed (fully independent settlements) but as a species we don't have the political will or resources to achieve that.