5 ms·
The article is concerned with the fact that NASA is incapable of fulfilling its missions. It says NASA has spent $100B on a moon rocket that cannot go to the mo
by jeremyjh 1y ago
The article is concerned with the fact that NASA is incapable of fulfilling its missions. It says NASA has spent $100B on a moon rocket that cannot go to the moon and will not go to the moon. NASA is worth saving not because someone is talking about cutting it, but because it has already been lost and needs to be recovered.
- dakr 1y agoA rocket it was told to spend money on by lawmakers. It's not NASA's own creation.
- jeremyjh 1y agoYeah I don't get to choose what I work on either. I still try to actually do what I have promised to do.
- dakr 1y agoAt your work you're hopefully not held responsible for the business decisions made above you, just your assigned piece.
- jeremyjh 1y agoThat's right. NASA's assigned piece was to build a rocket that could fly to the moon. They agreed to do it, and they spent the money. They have not built the rocket and never intended to.
- dakr 1y agoI don't think it's as simple as that. Many strings were attached, many changes were made to work that had already started. It's a mess to be sure, and NASA was not the only cook in the kitchen by a long shot. I'll just leave this here, people can make of it what they will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
- jeremyjh 1y agoIf NASA can't function in the face of meddling congress critters, it is not fit for purpose. Nothing I said above is incorrect or refuted in that article.