Профиль

Good point 😂

I don't care if I never see humans on Mars myself, we have to lay the foundation for our future. That is an opinion shared by many our smartest people, who are also prominent advocates of improving life in Earth. I had a similar discussion about this recently with more detail:

What is ridiculous ? We can do both, no reason to do only 1 thing at once. These issues are not mutually exclusive. Mars is not a pipe dream. See next comment. Healthcare = same as climate change, not a mutually exclusive problem. This already receives significantly more funding each year.

I get your point as well! The primary objectives for Flight 4 are (as far as I know right now) the first orbital flight of the ship and tower catch for the ship. Those heavily push it into the iterative development and testing side for me.

45% is significantly less than 99% Yes, government funds technologies. That's the job of the government. 22% of the BEADS program, where 63% went to fiber connectivity. So what? Had NASA do what? NASA does not manufactur rockets, spacecrafts or even spacesuits. They've always needed contractors.

You're moving the goalpost. And NASA's budget is limited, so the point of that argument is also wrong. What you're saying simply makes no sense when looking at the history of US spaceflight. "Eliminate the contractors" Won't help NASA. In fact, it would cause far more problems.

Uhuh. Hence the typical non-answer + ad hominem instead of a constructive reply.

What an ignorant statement. Equating crewed missions ending in tragedy with empty prototypes being tested - specifically to ensure safety and reliability before launching crew - is plain dumb. There is no logic behind anything you said.

It's not

You also didn't have rockets launching and landing every week. Or the most powerful rocket being developed to propulsively land and be fully reusable.

We weren't trying to land rockets during the space race or making them fully rusable. Your concern is misplaced.

Most likely a lot less than an alternative rocket, which could have the exact same thing happen with their second stage anyway. (Because it's standard practice and the most safe option)

Falcon9 is literally one of the most successful and reliable rockets ever made.

Almost every Apollo mission had issues. Apollo 13's second stage blew up mid-flight and nearly killed the crew. SaturnV was prone to pogo oscillations and it's a miracle no F-1 engine blew up during a mission. SaturnV being so unstable was one of the main reasons for its retirement.

"Just open your eyes" Here, open your eyes and carefully read the exact words of a NASA administrator: arstechnica.com/science/2022...

NASA chief says cost-plus contracts are a “plague” on the space agencyYou get it done with that competitive spirit. You get it done cheaper."arstechnica.com

Starship HLS was awarded in 2021. Are you saying Biden was bribed? Or Obama, who kickstarted the COTS and Commercial Crew programs?

The taxpayer got a much cheaper rocket than an alternative rocket, which could have the exact same thing happen with their 2nd stage. SpaceX is literally saving you money, look at the numbers before making these comments that historically make no sense at all.

That's not the case either. SpaceX has rockets. Organisations like NASA need companies who build rockets, and many other things.

Falcon9 - an operational SpaceX rocket - is literally one of the most flown and most reliable rockets ever.

1. That's not even true. Starlink has been generating revenue for some years, they've had private investors and they have commercial customers. 2. SpaceX is most often the cheapest option and lowest bidder.