BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2025, 00:58

Username Protected wrote:

"If I was NASA head I would commission building two more JWST scopes"

Great; if we used your money instead of ours. ;)

it is a better use of your money than SLS, Orion, Starliner, etc.

It is a better use of your money than sending people to Mars. Guess what NASA'a priority will be given the Musk influence over the presidency?

Understanding the underlying laws of the universe will help humanity more than making footprints on Mars. The JWST does that unlike anything else in existence, basically observing physics experiments going on all around us.

Understanding how to split the atom ended WWII, for a practical example. JWST might help us understand what it takes to support clean fusion energy on Earth.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2025, 11:34

It should be noted that the next space telescope (Nancy Grace Roman) is scheduled to launch 2027, so the work to understand the universe is continuing.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Mar 2025, 19:11

There is already a followup to JWST in the works. There are other ideas out there for large scientific instruments as well, including an interesting very large X-ray telescope. There are also many other large science projects, from CERN to the Simon's telescope, to GMT, to ... ICECUBE, to gravity wave detectors.

The science stuff is great, but JWST is not going to help with fusion energy (something else I have some involvement with - we understand fusion science, its the engineering that is insanely difficult)

I'm all in favor of science (and worked on one of those projects) but there are multiple reasons to do things in space:

Commercial / direct benefit: GPS, starlink etc

Science: JWST, and the host of other research systems

Exploration: There isn't that much science benefit from learning what the surface of Pluto looks like but I still think New Horizons was money well spent.

Because its there: Manned space. Because building pyramids gets your civilization remembered for thousands of years. Because its a sort of "exercise" for civilization, we get better by solving difficult problems. Because its a vast universe, and I want mankind to eventually have it all .

Username Protected wrote:

"If I was NASA head I would commission building two more JWST scopes"

Great; if we used your money instead of ours.

it is a better use of your money than SLS, Orion, Starliner, etc.

It is a better use of your money than sending people to Mars. Guess what NASA'a priority will be given the Musk influence over the presidency?

Understanding the underlying laws of the universe will help humanity more than making footprints on Mars. The JWST does that unlike anything else in existence, basically observing physics experiments going on all around us.

Understanding how to split the atom ended WWII, for a practical example. JWST might help us understand what it takes to support clean fusion energy on Earth.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Mar 2025, 11:29

Username Protected wrote:

Exploration: There isn't that much science benefit from learning what the surface of Pluto looks like but I still think New Horizons was money well spent.

Because it’s there: Manned space. Because building pyramids gets your civilization remembered for thousands of years. Because it’s a sort of "exercise" for civilization, we get better by solving difficult problems. Because its a vast universe, and I want mankind to eventually have it all .

So, ego stroking and entertainment.

I love the adventure of human spaceflight, but not via NASA. If SpaceX or Blue Origin want to do it, on their unsubsidized dime, then great. If they can provide a product worth paying for, also great. Beyond that no.

As to expanding to conquer the universe, yeah, not physically possible, and given the species in question, especially if any other life exists out there, then containment might be a better goal.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Mar 2025, 16:49

Username Protected wrote:

If SpaceX or Blue Origin want to do it, on their unsubsidized dime, then great.

"Unsubsidized" - :lol:

I think SpaceX and to a much lesser degree Blue Origin have made tremendous strides making space launch significantly less expensive than the government programs. But "unsubsidized"?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 19 Mar 2025, 18:44

Username Protected wrote:

I think SpaceX and to a much lesser degree Blue Origin have made tremendous strides making space launch significantly less expensive than the government programs. But "unsubsidized"?

How do you define "subsidy"?

If it is payments for no deliverables, then I don't think SpaceX qualifies since they have deliverables in their government contracts.

If it is payments of any kind, then every government contractor is being subsidized by that definition and it seems the word loses its true meaning.

Be careful when media says things like "SpaceX gets $billions of Federal money". Well, that's true, but they have deliverables for that, it is a contract.

It is unarguably true that SpaceX has delivered enormous value for the money spent versus other space providers. For less than the cost of ONE launch of SLS, or Boeing's contract, SpaceX developed manned space flight capability.

I can't vouch this is accurate, but:

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.or ... ies-spacex

Looks like SpaceX has only some relatively small federal loans, and the dominant one ($98M) seems related to Israel for some reason and is from 12 years ago. SpaceX shows $0 for federal grants.

Mike C.