Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cosmic_Voya93r t1_j7ytnis wrote

Those that have the resources and can serve their own interests, rather than the interests of the masses, are how things are going to get done. Like it or not, the US government had gave up on space exploration before billionaires started showing interest.

8

dman2864 t1_j7z2m06 wrote

Then they should do it with their own money. I have as much achievement as blue origin. I built a rocket and launched it, the rocket didn't make it to orbit or space but that paper towel tube sure did go high. The government should give me a couple of billion dollars for a mission OR nasa should be doing things in house and not contracting with private for profit companies on the tax payers dime.

−9

wgp3 t1_j7zexw0 wrote

This take is laughably bad and shows a real lack of understanding or intelligence. New Shepard may not be an orbital rocket, but you're vastly under stating the amount of hard engineering that has to go into a vehicle like that. Developing rocket engines in and of itself is one of the hardest parts. And the rest isn't much less difficult. Last time nasa tried to get something similar developed, they failed.

This mission doesn't cost a billion dollars either. The class of mission it is in puts it at under 80 million. Blue origin is all but guaranteed to be taking a big loss in money to launch this payload. And despite your paper towel tube, they actually do have a track record of doing complex engineering and a plan to have a partially reusable heavy lift launch vehicle, unlike you.

Lastly, nasa has always, and I mean always, done things through contracting. Saturn v, space shuttle, SLS, all made by contractors. Nasa owned those designs but again, made by contractors. Not to mention even back decades ago they were launching satellites on rockets that they didn't own. This is no different. They also still do things in house.

Your terrible argument is like saying nasa shouldn't by cars from Ford. And instead should build them from scratch rather than giving tax payer money to Ford, a billion dollar company. It's completely ignorant of how things work for one. And for two, it shows a lack of understanding about why nasa would use services rather than doing every single thing in house. It would be a bigger waste of tax payer money to do it your way.

So instead it is more beneficial to nasa to use the rocket developed by blue origin which has near totally been funded by bezos and his money. So i reiterate that your complaints are just laughably unintelligent and, well, pointless.

15

Ukulele_Maestro t1_j7zdb4y wrote

Blue origin has as invested billions of dollars into the development of the Blue Glenn rocket.

It's going to become another player in the commercial launch industry and NASA wants that to happen.

I don't see any problem here

9

zardizzz t1_j7z4t6z wrote

The taxpayer dime NASA gets is a grain of sand in the US taxpayer budget, if you took it all out you wouldn't even notice. Sorry.

The irony is that NASA finding is net positive for the economy, at least has been, honestly not sure of current status but if this is the hill you want to fight on, we can have a look of any recent info on the topic.

7

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j80bxc4 wrote

>I have as much achievement as blue origin.

And you did it for cheaper :) People saying "just wait til New Glenn launch next year" are hilarious. Ive been reading this since 2015 at least, when half of today's redditors were in grade school.

−1