- cross-posted to:
- space@lemmy.ml
- space@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- space@lemmy.ml
- space@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Terrible headline.
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.
Instead of saying we should go to the moon because it is there, we’re saying go to the moon to try to generate new revenue streams for the private space industry that really can’t survive without our contracts because of there being no real market or industry to build from.
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.
Commercial spaceflight for NASA reminds me of when the Postal Service contracted out airmail. From 1918 to 1926, all air mail service was flown by US government pilots, in US government planes. Then they contracted it out to a little airplane company named Boeing.
I think NASA should absolutely be focused on deep space exploration, and LEO operations. But even if all they do is contract out their launches it would encourage people to reduce launch costs, which I think should be our number two goal after fighting climate change.
Because obviously that’s what we need, to be encouraging the expansion of capitalism into space.
Tim Curry’s gonna have an aneurysm.
deleted by creator
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
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
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.
But sure, put things in my mouth asshat
It was a wrong assumption on my part. I apologize.
how is the “commercial” avenue supposed to make profit if nasa isn’t funding it. and if it can’t, isn’t it just a government program?
the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it’s not a viable industry by itself.
you can see this tale play out time and time again in other industries that have had the same problem, it doesn’t end well, it ends badly.
also you don’t need to do the big text
how is the “commercial” avenue supposed to make profit if nasa isn’t funding it. and if it can’t, isn’t it just a government program?
NASA is not the only entity that send things into orbit.
the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it’s not a viable industry by itself.
SpaceX does not seems to only rely on government orders.
True, NASA helped (well, it is an understatment) SpaceX, but now it could capitalize on it if the costs are the one @partial_accumen@lemmy.world pointed out.
the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it’s not a viable industry by itself.
The alternative to this LEO space work is that taxpayers pay 6.25 times as much for the same service. Where is the logic in that?
you can see this tale play out time and time again in other industries that have had the same problem, it doesn’t end well, it ends badly.
I disagree with your assessment that it is an inevitability. However, lets assume for a moment you’re right and it ends in bankruptcy for SpaceX. In the time it will have operated it will have:
- launched over 300 times
- proven rocket reusability
- drastically lowered the cost of spaceflight around the globe from all providers
- created and deployed a global constellation of high speed and low latency internet access satellites giving affordable access to many corners of the globe previously unserved
- put an additional 42 human into orbit
If commercial space company SpaceX went out of business tomorrow, we’d still be better off than had NASA ever contracted with them.
also you don’t need to do the big text
Thank you for sharing your opinion on that.
goddamn this is the dumbest move NASA could possibly make. let’s jump 20 years of actual progress back AND stick with the most expensive and complicated solution.
He is not wrong
This is the guy who pitched the Constellation program so he really doesn’t have room to talk.
Discover? For the sake of knowing? But what about money? I’m about sick of Mammon’s dick being in everything.
Peak spaceflight and exploration in human history? Better roll it back, we wouldn’t want to make too much scientific progress
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Essentially, Griffin told the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, NASA could not afford to faff around with a complex, partly commercial plan to put humans back on the Moon, with an eye toward long-term settlement.
The House members in attendance never pressed Griffin for details about this plan, but they are outlined in his written testimony.
In Griffin’s case, he would return the country to the cozy confines of 2008, just before the era of commercial space took off and when he was at the height of his power before being removed as NASA administrator.
“The straightforward approach outlined here could put US-led expeditions on the Moon beginning in 2029, given bold action by Congress and expeditious decision-making and firm contractor direction by NASA,” he concluded.
And if it were built through the cost-plus acquisition strategy outlined by Griffin, it undoubtedly would cost $10 to $20 billion and take a decade based on past performance.
A reasonable estimate of Griffin’s plan, based on contractor performance with Orion (in development since 2005) and the SLS rocket, is that if NASA’s budget roughly doubled, humans might land on the Moon by the late 2030s.
The original article contains 641 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
