Post

NASA isn't why the US doesn't have universal healthcare, or a social safety net. The US doesn't have those things because politicians with the power to provide them choose specifically not to (with varying levels of support from voters). Enthusiasm for human spaceflight doesn't drive that choice.

It's frequently pointed out that NASA activities (and basic/exploratory science in general) have a fantastic return on investment, contributing far more to the economy than they take. But even if they didn't, no one's actually taking from the "cure sick people" pot to put money in the "rockets" pot.

The problems with US government spending priorities are vast and extremely depressing/enraging much of the time. I desperately wish much more was spent on improving people's lives directly, and much less on war. Science spending just isn't really part of that particular equation.

Sending humans to the moon has very little science return for each $ and feels like a campaign stunt for the midterms. Important science disciplines like climate science and vaccines is cut to unsustainable levels. No need to cheer, I saw this already in 1969.

Haha yeah fuck the next generation getting excited about space, I mean what do we even need future scientists for anyway? You're so right, keep that jaundiced view sharp.

Someone gets it. I worked briefly on LRO. Actual science, not billions in pork. pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/lro...

Haha, yeah fuck getting a future generation invested in space science or exploration. You're so right.

Exploratory science isn’t actually competing with helping people in need. It only feels that way when politicians turn everything into a zero-sum game. We can (and should) have both: a strong social safety net and ambitious investments in science and space exploration. 🔭 🧪 ⚛️ 1/2