Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Thanks for the link. Talk about an enormous and consequential topic: do you build a lunar orbiter like the ISS is for earth or do you use Falcon 9 to launch big payloads to establish a moonbase?

      With all due respect to Robert Zubrin, who does have a science background and was a staff engineer at Lockheed Martin, I couldn't help but ask myself what has he actually done. He wrote a book, he established a society, he develops very interesting proposals and he debates very well.

      What NASA has done is absolutely mind-blowing, and we saw it again last week. They actually put men on the moon and returned them to earth in 1969, before HP invented the calculator. The International Space Station is a treasure. We're orbiting Jupiter and taking incredible photos. We've landed multiple times on Mars with crazy technology.

      So I dunno. What do others think? I'd love to know what Elon thinks.

    • All due respect to NASA, but they are ultimately weighted down by the political process that secures their funding. Take Space Shuttle, for example. A towering success, right? Yes, in as much that it did launch a bunch of times, and carried out a lot of missions (Hubble repair, for example). But, in actuality, it was a boondoggle that missed all of its stated program goals. Money spent on it could have had much bigger impact if it was efficiently applied. And don't get me started on the crime against US space capabilities that is the SLS.

      Amount of bang for the buck SpaceX or Blue Origin get is unattainable for NASA because the politics around it make it impossible. Which was OK when NASA was a amply funded and a source of pride for the government (basically, Apollo era). But now, when NASA is basically an afterthought, they should be much more mindful of how they spend their money and how much use (scientifically speaking) they get out of it. Competing with SpaceX and the others is foolish.

    You've been invited!