I saw this movie…

  • IWW4@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 days ago

    LMAO!

    Space X is pivoting from Mars to Lunar…

    you mean the same old back tracking bullshit that he has always done.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      Space X is pivoting from Mars to Lunar…

      by 2028… Nebraska.

      “We chose not to go to the moon because it is easy, but because we thought it would be easy”

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      While I don’t like Musk, it’s actually never made sense to even attempt to go to Mars without taking advantage of the helium-3 stores on the Moon.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        The huge potential of helium-3 is for nuclear fusion. Yet we don’t have fusion reactors that use helium-3 and fusion is “20 years away”. We could get to mars before needing this is any quantity

        • mr_anny@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          We have lots of fusion reactors.

          They just release years of energy in a split second.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yes, but wouldn’t it become that much easier to achieve with an effectively limitless quantity of the resource?

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            I don’t know whether that is currently a bottleneck or will be any time soon. I only know we’re “20 years away” from using it regularly, just like we have been my entire life

            I suppose it’s good science to figure out if we can do it, just like it’s good science to see if we can establish more access to space

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            NASA as a whole is a tiny fraction of the federal budget but has always generated outsized contributions to humanity. It’s an easy argument that money spent on nasa is money earned elsewhere. It’s a good investment

            SpaceX Falcon has revolutionized space launches and I don’t believe that is government supported at all. It does fill government launch contracts but more cheaply than they could have done so themselves, and reliably enough to capture most of the world’s market. This does not add to the deficit and the early investments have been handsomely rewarded

            Both SpaceX and blue origin, as well as other new generation space companies have been much much cheaper than old style projects. Just look at Artemis for example. Huge developments costs, continually More expensive, and $1B-$2B per launch. Yet I believe the total nasa funding for the entire starship program is around not like $2B. That is a very good use of our money. Heck, it’s probably cheaper than our little tantrum in Iran and certainly for a better purpose