What "weed need" is a space mission!

[jyb]

Originally Posted by jyb

Can you substantiate this? What form do these subsidies take?

Originally Posted by diep

Some years ago a guy on quora posted a few he managed to find by google.

https://www.quora.com/Is-SpaceX-fund...rnment?share=1

So far your posted links amount to:

1) Government contracts that SpaceX has won.

2) Government support for launching satellite broadband services, amounting to 900 million USD.

3) Government subsidies for Musk's ventures: 2+ billion USD for Tesla, 2+ billion USD for Solar City, and a whopping 20 million USD for SpaceX that was from local government, *not the US government*.

I don't count #1. IMO, calling a government contract a subsidy is very misleading. I.e. I agree with Dr. Sardonicus on this.

#2 is a bit more of a gray area. The way I would put it is that the government is subsidizing broadband, and by using SpaceX they are getting both the broadband service and launch services. A substantial portion of that 900 million should be looked at as money paid for the launch services rendered; i.e. more like a contract.

#3 basically amounts to no money at all for SpaceX from the US government.

And BTW, the quora article you linked pretty much consists of people agreeing that money for launch services should not be considered a subsidy.

So far, I would say that you haven't yet provided evidence to back up your claim that SpaceX gets billions of dollars in subsidies from the US government.

[Uncwilly]

And the 2 B's (Branson and Bezos) might be billionaires, but they haven't gotten billions in handouts/subsidies for launches. Yes, NASA is paying for suborbital flight time (basically at the commercial rate). But, that is not a subsidy. Having a reliable customer in the government is helpful for development. Governments have done this before for other industries. Airmail helped develop the air transport industry. Telegraph and telephones also had governments as early major customers.

SpaceX pays for the use of the launch sites at the government owned facilities (just like airlines pay rent on terminals at government owned/run airports). SpaceX pays for the range for flights [range safety staff, etc.] (just like airlines pay fees at government run/owned airports for each flight, which get passed on to the ticket paying customer). For every booster that is sent overland from California to Texas for testing and then to Florida or California for launch, or from Florida to California, SpaceX pays (either directly or through their trucking contractor) fees to each state for the oversized load that the boosters are. So, for an initial use of a booster California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas collect fees for the move to the test facility, then Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida each collect fees. So places may require a police escort, which adds more fees. Every road closure in Texas to move things on the road requires the local Sheriff to close the road. Those also entail fees paid to local government. And to dock the drone ships they have to use a port, most ports are local government operations, so rental fees there. And there are fees to the FAA and FCC (for Starlink these are likely quite large for use of spectrum). And there was the recent filing for environmental revue, more fees there. There are many, many small bites at the apple. Not exactly a death by a thousand cuts, but still there is quite a bit of flow out from SpaceX to the government. Remember SpaceX has many commercial customers that pay them for their service and for each of those, the government should net money coming in.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

And the 2 B's (Branson and Bezos) might be billionaires, but they haven't gotten billions in handouts/subsidies for launches. Yes, NASA is paying for suborbital flight time (basically at the commercial rate). But, that is not a subsidy. Having a reliable customer in the government is helpful for development. Governments have done this before for other industries. Airmail helped develop the air transport industry. Telegraph and telephones also had governments as early major customers.
<snip>

And if you want subsidies, we got subsidies. A protective tariff for US industry aborning, and "immediate and efficient aid" to build a transcontinental railroad.

From the 1860 National Republican Platform adopted by the National Republican Convention held in Chicago, Illinois, May 17, 1860:

<snip>
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
<snip>
16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be promptly established.
<snip>

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by diep

Actually - i received some source code from a NASA guy some years ago on calculating a missile trajectory.

Very cool. What was the fidelity on that?

I don't really like linking off to YouTube videos, but

... is relevant.

Was the source code shared with you as good as this?

[Lariliss]

"There are two branches for space exploration: far missions and near-earth ones.
I believe, the technology, engineering tests, time and effort that is spent for both are intertwined.

The Moon, Mars, Venus and Mercury missions are set. James Webb Telescope is to be launched.

The are many countries and companies are participating in all processes, having main questions in front them:
- Harnessing AI more effectively for the satellites control, thus possibly reducing their number;
- Debris removal technologies for new launches;
- Making launches clean, using ecofuel;
- Making facilities more reliable and effective with 3D printing;
- Making ‘traffic rules’ on the orbit.

The global economy, society, safety and everyday life are unthinkable without all the space missions planned and on-going.
Hopefully, it will go on in a controlled way and the positive effects, making the leaps of today."

[Uncwilly]

NASA wants help from the public to train their mapping AI.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/you-ca...r-explore-mars

[Lariliss]

Great and meaningful.
The technology rate of today is so powerful that it penetrates a person's ability to exploit it to the same levels that space missions do.
My position came recently, that for any targeted mission, all the collected data should be shared to several parallel undergoing ones. And there are so many people who are keen to participate in space missions not only through gaming platforms.

AI recognition is powerful for sure. But in order to be effective, data processing needs dedicated supercomputers, money and power consumption, hence environment pollution.
Any AI needs babysitting, not exactly for tasks like this, but the human eye can be more sharp.

It is really great to have this public opportunity and great news for astronomers.

I have encountered a similar call for exoplanets search.
But this one from NASA. Mainstream - the fact:)

[firejuggler]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

NASA wants help from the public to train their mapping AI.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/you-ca...r-explore-mars

I love citizen science. I participated in this project a bit last year. I prefer the hunt for exoplanet, but I will help again.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Russian anti-satellite missile test endangers space station crew - NASA

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - An anti-satellite missile test Russia conducted on Monday generated a debris field in low-Earth orbit that endangered the International Space Station and will pose a hazard to space activities for years, U.S. officials said.

The seven-member space station crew - four U.S. astronauts, a German astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts - were directed to take shelter in their docked spaceship capsules for two hours after the test as a precaution to allow for a quick getaway had it been necessary, NASA said.
<snip>
The direct-ascent anti-satellite missile fired by Russia into one of its own satellites generated more than 1,500 pieces of "trackable orbital debris" and would likely spawn hundreds of thousands of smaller fragments, the U.S. Space Command said in a statement.

"Russia has demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety, stability and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations," space command chief U.S. Army General James Dickinson said.

[diep]

You might want to click 'reject' on the turkish website. But here it is:

https://interestingengineering.com/s...r-solar-system

And:

https://interestingengineering.com/p...n-solar-system

Now i have no idea whether it's either of those 2 or just a calculation error caused by using wrong rules to calculate with.

I'd ask the question then if it's possible to ship a single rocket up with a fleet of drones, with bunch of sensors, do not make the mistake again to just rely upon 1 vague sensor to confirm data, to launch them and have answer within a year or so - that's a very cheap price for a mission i'd argue. If it's realistic this mission can work.

Why didn't they send such rocket yet to increase human knowledge, or did i miss something?

Price of 1 rocket is total peanuts compared to the importance of confirming or disproving theories and laws we calculate with.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by diep

URL

Follow up observations will occur. However this is not the Planet None that Mike Brown has been talking about of late.

Now i have no idea whether it's either of those 2 or just a calculation error caused by using wrong rules to calculate with.

Then why suggest it? No, the IRAS one is not a calculation issue.

Why didn't they send such rocket yet to increase human knowledge, or did i miss something?

Price of 1 rocket is total peanuts compared to the importance of confirming or disproving theories and laws we calculate with.

They who? This will not change "laws we calculate with."
Who is paying for the rocket? What sensors are you wanting to deploy? Which costs more the rocket/launch or the spacecraft? Why a bunch of small sensor drones? Have you heard of James Webb ST? Or the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope? Or the Vera Rubin survey?