88
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
88 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19244 readers
3387 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yea, but he going to be really enthusiastic while he is shoveling money to both musk and perhaps himself. And he believes the moon landings are real.
It could have been a moon landing denier or even a flat earther.
There is a non zero chance he may actually be good for the space program in general? In the meantime the bar is lowered enough that this may be the best in a bad lot, even if this nomination redefines the term “industry capture”
I mean, the dude loves space so much he paid out of pocket to go there. He’s a real pilot and real astronaut. Not a bad sign at all.
On the other hand we should always be wary of putting the rich in charge of things.
Taking a tourist trip to space does not make you a real astronaut.
How about running scientific payloads and testing new EVA suits? The Polaris Dawn missions are absolutely not joyrides like we’ve seen other billionaires do.
The definition of an astronaut:
"The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) Sporting Code for astronautics recognizes only flights that exceed the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 mi). In the United States, professional, military, and commercial astronauts who travel above an altitude of 80 kilometres (50 mi) are awarded astronaut wings."
So yes, that does make him an astronaut.
He does nothing but criticize NASA long-term plans as they stand and is fine with the privatization of space?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that non-zero chance is something like 0.0000001% chance. Sure, it's not zero, but it still ain't a real fucking good chance.
I haven't seen Isaacman's specific criticisms you're talking about, but NASA does have some crappy long-term plans because they've been driving by politicians looking to land pork in their districts. NASA's SLS moon rocket (a Boeing product) is wildly expensive for what it does. Lockheed's moon crew capsule has been in development for over 20 years, currently has a deal-breaking problem they won't disclose (related to heat shield) and has cost us north of $26.6 billion without carrying a humans yet to space.
If Isaacman is it for NASA, at least he's a spaceflight advocate. He's also been to space, so he'll be a strong advocate for Astronaut safety (another area NASA has had historical difficulty).
He's not a scientist, he's not an engineer, he's a tourist.
Neither was Bridenstine.
I'm not saying is the best pick for the job. I'm saying that at least they put someone who has an interest in NASA succeeding instead of someone that doesn't give a shit about spaceflight and just wants political power.