DaniusJones123
49223
1463
37
Apr 5, 2026 2:47 PM
DaniusJones123
49223
1463
37
5v4297j9fj1
It feels that this is an arms race in space.
Isorikk
Iran war is costing an estimated $1 billion a day, and nobody died on the Artemis flight. Too bad the US can't afford anything except the trillions it costs to get rid of brown people
originalhuman
Was that post made by a billionaire who still wants more tax dollars?
Filanwizard
Id rather space exploration have a 1tn budget than war.
theduckening
Vs spending billions to open a straight that remains locked after "total victory"
raymm
A peaceful project with significant military usage.
Filanwizard
Humanity would be better off if America had a Space Industrial Complex than a Military Industrial Complex. Also would benefit because then space exploration instead of war would be too big to fail so we would have to just keep funneling money into space.
Starfox5
That's 90 days of war against Iran, not counting the 1.5+ billions lost in aircraft so far.
horsetuna
The person complaining about Artemis probably gets angry about their tax dollars going to hell feed children or house veterans
hfctom
If I'm going to be mad about wasteful spending I'm not going to be mad about NASA. $93 Billion barely covers what Trump blew this past month getting a worse deal than Obama did with Iran. And Obama didn't have to kill anyone.
mudgula
Also fuck the National Desk. More like the Nationalist Desk.
trinxter
The war is gonna cost more than that.
mandorsawalll
Same as giving Ukraime weapons, assigning a dollar value and averyone thinks its airdropped cash
wazeewa
And yet spending billions every day on a pointless war across the planet is perfectly fine? Give me a break.
Fiss
Space is one of the most steady returns on investment there is. The tech that goes into it and comes out of it is insane, and there's something like a 3 to 1, or 6 to 1 return on investment depending on the era.
You'll know America has recovered from it's MAGA bullshit the moment a president announces a 1% or more GDP spending for NASA / Space Science / Space Industry.
I hope Canada does the same. We need to get to Enceladus and create Hockey Night in Sol System ASAP.
DukePhelan
Just imagine what NASA could do for humanity as a whole with a 1.5 trillion dollar annual budget.
Skywatcher16
better trillions to nasa than even a single red cent to billionaires, mega corps, or our socopathic military ventures.
rrlyrae
the return on investment in NASA is 3x expenditures in a typical year.
jargonmon
Better than blowing up BILLIONS each day in the form of school children and hospitals. THAT money isnt coming back in any shape or form except as an additional cost 5, 10 years from now. Blown up dollars charge interest.
layinginbedfeelinglikeaquesarito
Remember, these are the same idiots that think we are/were sending pallets of cash to Ukraine
CaptainDudley
"Yea, it's not like we're sending actual money!" https://www.cfr.org/articles/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine Don't make Reddit your only news source, people. It's very easy to Google these things.
leroy666
and voted for the shitstain.
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
I believe in the importance of space exploration and as long as it's done for scientific rather than political reasons I absolutely support it. But as soon as it's done just to show off it's not much different to what Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk are doing.
mjperk
The same ones who think drinking bleach will cure you of COVID?
ThailandExpress
ZackWester
was going to ask isn´t the army like 20 bucks comparable speaking to NASAs 0.48 cent.
FBNMcCloud
You're kinda muddling numbers/bases here. The military budget is around 20x that of the general science, space, and technology chunk in the discretionary spend, but that equates to 12.5c out of each dollar in tax revenue. 20 bucks on each dollar would give you a military budget of around 170 trillion dollars!
ZackWester
ah thought the 20 bucks where how much the avarge american paid into the military on the average tax payment of 60-90K a year.
TheNoirAntagonist
More money goes back into the economy from NASA than any of the private space programs and way more money circulates in those fields than any of the circle jerk investment shit that buys up houses and holds them ransom for shareholder profit.
BrdCdn
The rocket is really stupid and never should have been built but that's not a reason to defund NASA. It reuses a bunch of space shuttle parts that they spent more on refurbishing than if they had built new and now they are stuck old designs for many of its components. It's truly the dumbest rocket America had ever built but still not worth cutting without a replacement.
DrKonrad
If you want cash to do nice things for society, how about we tax those billionaires
Afterwolf
Disingenuous bullshit aside, since when has the US given a fuck about sustainability? We pay billions specifically NOT to build renewables, and any money not allocated to the killing of foreign children is abducted by the looting Epstein class; their only regret being a lack of rape before a kill.
ATGoogles
"There are a lot of hungry people in the world, Mal, and none of them are hungry 'cause we went to the moon. None of them are colder and certainly none of them are dumber 'cause we went to the moon."
azazyel
bitemark
All of the "problems down here that we could fix" are not a financial choice, they're a policy choice. Putting money into science and research actually brings up new discoveries and innovations that generally benefit society as well
vwzzjxv6f9101
Except this clown destroyed most scientific funding.bothe the clown and Muskox fucked us for generations to come.
unluckyandbored
And then when we say "OK let's fix the problems down here" they scream "SOCIALISM!! MARXIST PIG! COMMIE PINKO FUCK YOU!!!!!"
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
I suppose the argument isn't that this money is going to space never to be seen again, but that it could have been spent on something more useful for people here on earth, maybe. Like feeding people for example.
ThisNameIsMaybeTaken
Are you talking about the moon money or the killing Middle East kids money?
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
Both
youcouldbedrinkingwholeifyouwantedto
Por que no los dos? We spend 100x more money building bombs that get used on both sides of the same war. We're literally paying Iran for oil while we're fighting a war with them. If you think NASA is the one spending money irresponsibly, we have different values and a different understanding of where money really gets wasted
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
I wasn't saying it's my argument necessarily, just that it wasn't about the money disappearing into space rather than criticising what it it's being spent on. US military spending is definitely in a whole different world of squander.
CelestialSea
Yeah... I call bullshit on that. If you spent 93 billion on hospitals, schools, or whatever, you STILL pay workers, engineers, etc. AND you have infrastructure that actually helps people at the end. I'm not saying the space program is wrong, just the logic here is extremely faulty.
RobertTheTraveler
4) Relative Magnitude: Trump is asking for $200 billion to cover the cost of Iran.
He is asking for a military budget increase from $960 Billion to $1.5 trillion.
knotwingknot
Yup. What % of nasa, its ancillary connections and even material suppliers are the most needful members of our society? Those without high levels of education, whose children have the least support, who are disenfranchised, disabled?
This industry is disproportionately highly educated and well connected. I respect them and this is certainly not any kind of "waste", but I have worked in rehab long enough to laugh my ass of at anyone who thinks this is in even the top 50 best places to put money.
RobertTheTraveler
Who is claiming it is the best place?
The original comments were that it was an unsustainable waste.
1/2% of the Federal budget (NASA's entire budget) is unsustainable.
knotwingknot
Um, no, OP posted someone responding to someone who held that belief. A liiiiittle bit different, there lol.
Because it's important to note that the money is not, in fact, jettisoned into space, and it's generally only moron conservatives who say NASA is a waste. They don't understand taxes OR research (which is most of NASA.)
But no, a major spending event shouldn't be anywhere near a priority when we had a SNAP crisis literally last year and are in the midst of an SSI crisis now.
Bystandr
Also, its been gone over many times since the 1960s, and varies a bit by project, but its estimated NASA returns on average 3.1x as much to
Bystandr
the economy as spent. It is most certainly bullshit of the highest order.
RobertTheTraveler
There are multiple issues here.
1) Slander: It isn't a freaking joy ride.
2) Impact: Even if you totally eliminate NASA, that money still isn't going to be spent on social programs.
3) Time span: That $93 billion was spent over a decade or so.
NASA's total budget is $24 billion
Onetonmanwithaspoon
My bet is that if you really and I mean deep dive into the users posting this type of shit that you will find a Muskrat fanboy.
johnxbear
Probably a slew of AI programs built to argue
Bojovnik84
Or Musk himself, behind another alias. Fucken loser.
Rogahar
The same 'arguments' have been made by grumpy fuckers since I was a kid, and I'm sure long before that as well. Whether it's someone intentionally trying to spread misinformation or just a poorly informed idiot trying to sound smart, they always crop up.
FrancsTireur
NASA has been very controversial since the Bush Snr admin. The republicans didnt want to be the ones to kill it because it created jobs and also was a matter of national prestige; since the Russians weren't stopping theirs anytime soon.
So they let what passes for liberals in America kill it, safe in the knowledge that whilst that money might go to schools or social programs for one presidential cycle, they would be able to redirect it to their chosen sectors in the long run.
youcouldbedrinkingwholeifyouwantedto
So why was/is NASA controversial?
FrancsTireur
Because the right wanted to dispose of it after the cold war so they could give more tax cuts to billionaires and other right wing hobbies, and the left wanted to dispose of if because schools and hospitals beat moon rocks.
And because neither party has the balls to touch the sacred defence budget; otherwise known as welfare for Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, BAE, Thales and all the rest.
bippityboppitybuttsex
I would rather spend $200B on NASA than $1 on killing Iranian kids
Imademyselfsquirtle
Meh I would split 50/50 and take care of the poor at the same time.
Sensiblyinteresting
Fascist literally be like "I choose the $1 200billion times"
senyu
I remember doing a college paper and at the times sources said for every $1 invested into NASA brings $1.75 back into the economy. The innovations NASA develop brings about many world impacting technologies.
DocNitro
I think spending the 200B on killing Trump voters and MAGAts would be an even better investment.
chefsoda
I will always vote for the spending not applied to killing people, especially civilians for actions of an insulated government.
barstr7
This. BUT… it would be nice if we focused on food, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. first and explored space after we'd covered all the basic life essentials. Otherwise it's just building a golden dome atop your tar paper shack.
chefsoda
I remember a time when I thought about that. These days I’m just trying not to catch on fire
Ivalicenyan
You'll never be a billionaire with money managing skills like that.
iamthemurray
Truth.
SarcasticComment
which unfortunately is also done through NASA tech...
CoalhouseWalker
I'd rather we even increase NASA budget to $1T before we spend another cent on this illegal war that this US president unilaterally decided to start
plastikb0y
Too bad it's gonna be 1.5 trillion now. My brain can't get around those numbers
bippityboppitybuttsex
The DoD budget should be slashed to $100B for coastal defense a small UN Peacekeeping force (with armor/IFVs, infantry, some artillery systems and a freedom of navigation Navy)
MyProfileIsIrrelevant
Agreed. These folks severely misunderstand the amount of technological advancements that have benefited society as a byproduct of research into space travel.
bolobass
Yes, the bomb drones can now pilot and select schools and hospitals without human interference
MyProfileIsIrrelevant
Your thinking is painfully limited.
astronomygeek7
That’s not NASA. And if you’re referring to the little helicopter robot Ingenuity, it still had to seek FAA approval to fly everyday even though it was on Mars. Humans were involved with it at all times.
petety
The way you phrase that implies those are the only two choices. There are other things this money could be spent on.
dontrike
The idea is that the money could be spent on not killing people, which would include thousands of things.
youcouldbedrinkingwholeifyouwantedto
We are currently spending $1,000,000,000 every day in Iran. The way it was phrased was to compare what we actually value versus literally anything else we could invest in. We spend the most money on murdering and hurting people. I think thats incredibly fucked up
bippityboppitybuttsex
OK, I would rather spend $1T on NASA than $0.01 on the Military-Police-Surveillence-State... it provides no security and turns kids into dead kids and Americans into dead Americans.
GeeBrainWhatDoYouWantToDoTonight
No, you’re very much misconstruing the point they’re trying to make. It’s such a common phrase that people have used for ages. “I would rather spend x amount of money on this certain thing than a single dollar on that other thing.” They are not really implying those are the only two options. They are saying one is better than the other, not better than all the others. Yeesh. Learn to find the context. Also, sorry for blowing up because now that I’m reading this back I don’t like myself for this.
chefsoda
This level of misunderstanding fascinates me. It is the same as common understandding of foreign aid.
I was in a restaurant several years ago, and a couple were talking, with the man explaining that the flights to Ukraine from the US were top secret, and couldn’t be tracked. This was apparently necessary, because they were stuffed with cash that the US was sending for war aid.
My wife’s eyes got big, as if to say, ‘please, please don’t say anything.’ I turned my head to think about it, but
chefsoda
before I made a sound, the man at the table on his other side said something like, ‘there is no way you can be that confused,’ and I got to listen to the show!
Afterwolf
How long until Iran says they won't give Russia any more drones to fight Ukraine until Russia pressures the US to fuck off lol, what a world
chefsoda
The flow has allegedly reversed, and Russia is believed to be sending drones to Iran right now. I’m actually fairly trained in the geopolitics of the region, and trying to assess the readiness & production capabilities right now is basically impossible.
Amusingly, the Shahed costs about $25-25K to produce, while the US interceptors that block them are $3.9M!
Afterwolf
Jeezus, I thought they were "only" 2m! It's definitely amusing for my propagandized ass growing up, all the pie charts and yapping about our global military might just for us to get clapped by the cost equivalent of RC paper airplanes.
Sure would be nice to have an ally adept in drone warfare like Ukraine or something, but alas XD
chefsoda
As a fan of military history, though not actual war, drones are very much like crossbows. For 500 years, mounted knights were the most powerful weapon on the battlefield. Long bows could defeat them, but archers also required long training. Once metal crossbows arrived, everything changed. Now this fabulously armored & trained knight could be defeated by a peasant with a few days training!
LicensedAdHominem
Fascists apply the same infancy-level fallacies to batteries (be it for EVs or power plants) and the sad part is it works. People fall for it just fine.
Meanwhile $1.5 trillion on things to literally explode once and spawn a future "terrorist" is perfectly fine
AtmaDarkwolf
Ever wonder how ugly the above statement really is? Look at how much they SPENT false-debunking renewable energy, or outright squelching/burying research done both on the damage caused by oil/coal (and natural gas) and the short and long term cost effectiveness and return of investment toward renewables(Not just batteries, but solar, wind, water, geothermal, etc) and the cost to health (And economy) of said systems (or lack of cost) --- it will make you shit yourself.
dohcohv
Yeah, I see this a lot with renewables and it makes no sense. I buy a car with a battery and that is a "waste" because the battery weighs 1000lbs. Meanwhile a gas car getting 30mpg average(optimistic) will burn 3,333gal over 100k miles, or 20,000lbs of fuel that you buy just to set on fire. After 100k miles, the battery is still there, even if it's bad(modern EV batteries last several hundred thousand miles) it's the best source for battery material.
Astramancer
and it 's not like worn out car batteries are even that bad, it's just the weight-to-power ratio isn't great anymore. You know what doesn't care about weight-to-power? Home battery backups.
UsernameAlreadyTaken058
When they say "preventing climate change is too expensive" they never, ever, mention the cost of just letting it happen. And yet somehow they never receive the glaringly obvious pushback.
blaghart
what fallacy is that, the fallacy that an EV battery is ever a superior solution to overhead electrification?
trasneoir
I'm new to this idea. In this hypothetical world of ubiquitous overhead electification, what % of the world's roads would be covered? What does that look like for maintenance & safety?
LicensedAdHominem
That the materials going into building a battery are somehow lost. Single use, like gas or a bomb.
blaghart
They are lost. Because they're not recycled. Note I didn't say "NON recycleable" I said Not Recycled. Partly because lithium batteries are extremely dangerous, so the first world prefers exporting them to the third world to let all the toxic cobalt and shit pollute their water, and partly because the infrastructure to recycle them doesn't exist in sufficient quantities in the first world (in contrast to, for example, a steel foundry)
RAJrios
For the 70th time, Blaghart, there's too much infrastructure required for you to take a bumper-car from Florida to Los Angeles! Just buy an EV.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1cGViNjRwZWp5ZzhyYzRwamxtd3BsNHh0dnFxbTM5M3FvNnVqZmxldSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3orif6KvRsp1fa5dTy/200w.webp
CannonFolder
Okay, the mental image of a bunch if people on a freeway bumping each other brings a new meaning to traffic jam 😄
blaghart
Ah yes how completely unreasonable to demand the construction of a network of infrastructure from Florida to LA
. Apologies if you're just making a joke, but in all seriousness EV delusionals have legitimately tried to claim that building overhead electrified trains everywhere is "too much infrastructure"
RAJrios
Train =! Car?
blaghart
And a red (car) vs blue (non-car) space comparison, Two:
blaghart
Allow me to demonstrate why train good and car bad in two images. One: