Technology

59421 readers

2852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Former NASA administrator hates Artemis, wants to party like it’s 2008 (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

He (rightly) sees the commercial aspect of space technology to be a deadend, but nasa is spending a huge amount of time and effort working towards enabling it in favour of doing nasa things.

I take issue with commercial being a dead end in space. Not only has commercial spaceflight been VERY successful for NASA, it has saved huge amounts of money over what Griffin was proposing instead. Griffin was advocating for the Constellation program. Lets take just a piece of that where commercial spaceflight is there instead: flying crew to the ISS which we do two times per year.

The Constellation program would have used the Ares I rocket and the Orion Crew capsule. The estimated flight cost of this configuration was about $1.1 billion together for two flights. source

The commercial option used instead is the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with the Crew Dragon capsule. The actual flight cost is $176 for the same two flights per year. source

For the cost of ONE year of NASA Constellation flights to the ISS, the commercial solution pays for 6 1/4 years of flights instead.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Because obviously that's what we need, to be encouraging the expansion of capitalism into space.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Because obviously that’s what we need, to be encouraging the expansion of capitalism into space.

If you feel that strongly about the negative consequences of spaceflight, you should dispose of the computer or mobile device you're using to post this on. Those are products of the commercialization of miniaturization needed to be small and light enough for the Lunar Lander to take humans to the moon. source

You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now would you?

EDIT: I made a bad assumption about the poster, and apologized in a follow up post. I'm not going to remove my mistaken post so the context is not lost

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I love space exploration. It's absolutely something we as a species should be doing. We just shouldn't be doing it for the motives of profit.

But sure, put things in my mouth asshat

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

I love space exploration. It’s absolutely something we as a species should be doing. We just shouldn’t be doing it for the motives of profit.

I'll admit this is the first time I've seen someone be pro-spaceflight, but nuanced opposition with why we're going to space.