SpaceX
4 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - March 18, 2025, 10:16 p.m.

‘What a ride’: Stranded Nasa astronauts land back on Earth in SpaceX capsule

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stranded-nasa-astronauts-land-back-005310735.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

Comments
Re: SpaceX
0 likes
By metmike - March 19, 2025, 11:36 a.m.
Like Reply
Re: Re: SpaceX
0 likes
By metmike - March 19, 2025, 11:58 a.m.
Like Reply

As Musk works to slash federal spending, his own firms have received billions in government contracts

NASA is the single largest customer of Musk's company SpaceX.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/musk-works-slash-federal-spending-firms-received-billions/story?id=118589121

NASA is the single largest customer of Musk's company SpaceX.

BySoo Rin Kim

February 10, 2025, 6:22 PMDemocrats call on AG to probe Elon Musk's alleged conflictsHouse Judiciary Democrats sent a terse letter Friday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, expressing concerns that Elon Musk’s role at DOGE creates "conflicts of interest."

As billionaire businessman Elon Musk has been leading an unprecedented effort to slash government spending, his own companies have, over the last several years, received an increasing amount of funding through government contracts, according to federal spending data.

Over the last decade, Musk's companies SpaceX and Tesla were awarded at least $18 billion in federal contracts, according to spending data -- with SpaceX winning more than $17 billion worth of contracts since 2015.

Federal contracts to SpaceX doubled at the beginning of the Biden administration, going from $1.1 billion in the 2020 fiscal year to $2.2 billion in the 2021 fiscal year. The contracts continued to grow under Biden, reaching $3.7 billion during the 2024 fiscal year.


By metmike - March 19, 2025, 12:02 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - March 19, 2025, 12:09 p.m.
Like Reply

Space exploration pros and cons: Are space programs a waste of money?

https://netivist.org/debate/space-exploration-pros-and-cons

These space programs and agencies are very costly. It is estimated that the total annual budget of space agencies is $41.8 billion. Among them the highest budgets correspond to:

  • NASA (USA, $19.3 billion)
  • Roscosmos (Russia, $5.6 billion)
  • ESA (Europe, $5.5 billion)
  • CNES (France, $2.5 billion)
  • JAXA (Japan, $2.5 billion)
  • DLR (Germany, $2 billion)
  • ASI (Italy, $1.8 billion)
  • CNSA (China, $1.8 billion)
  • ISRO (India, $1.2 billion)

Are all these costs justfified? Are there better ways to spend public funding? Should we mainly rely on private investors such as Elton Musk to promote space expliration? Will capitalistic incentives lead the way towards space exploration? In order to help make up your mind we outline next the most important benefits and problems of space exploration.

++++++++++++++++

Elon Musk's private company is sucking billions from tax payers too. I say, CUT THEM OFF before cutting off other more important government spending that has a DIRECT POSITIVE IMPACT ON HUMAN LIVES HERE ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET!

++++++++++++++++++++


I couldn't resist pointing out  this item that they consider a positive to space exploration.

Space race may save humanity. Life on Earth may be threatened by climate change, pollution, depletion of resources, infectious diseases or nuclear war. Further, space exploration is necessary to find another planet on which humans could pursue their lives. Space programs help also find solutions to adapt human lives to the space or other planets.

+++++++++++++++++++

Seriously???

We are supposedly killing our planet with a fake climate crisis because we can't control a trace beneficial gas, CO2 that is currently less than 430 parts PER MILLION with temperatures in the life very friendly zone. But somehow, we will be able to transport the human race to a planet with no oxygen, almost no atmosphere(Mars is, ironically mostly CO2 in the atmosphere) no way to grow food, with extraordinarily hostile, life killing temperatures as well as ZERO anything except for a barren wasteland with no development. 

+++++++++++++

Atmosphere of Mars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

The atmosphere of Mars is the layer of gases surrounding Mars. It is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (95%), molecular nitrogen (2.85%), and argon (2%).[3] It also contains trace levels of water vapor, oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and noble gases.[3][5][2] The atmosphere of Mars is much thinner and colder than Earth's having a max density 20g/m3  (about 2% of Earth’s value) with a temperature generally below zero down to -60 Celsius. The average surface pressure is about 610 pascals (0.088 psi) which is 0.6% of the Earth's value.[2]

The currently thin Martian atmosphere prohibits the existence of liquid water on the surface of Mars, but many studies suggest that the Martian atmosphere was much thicker in the past.[4] The higher density during spring and fall is reduced by 25% during the winter when carbon dioxide partly freezes at the pole caps.[6] The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to the density found 35 km (22 mi) above the Earth's surface and is ≈0.020 kg/m3.[7] The atmosphere of Mars has been losing mass to space since the planet's core slowed down, and the leakage of gases still continues today.[4][8][9]

The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth’s owing to the larger distance from the Sun, receiving less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth due to the much lower density of carbon dioxide, leading to less greenhouse warming.[2][4] The daily range of temperature in the lower atmosphere presents ample variation due to the low thermal inertia; it can range from −75 °C (−103 °F) to near 0 °C (32 °F) near the surface in some regions.[2][4][10] The temperature of the upper part of the Martian atmosphere is also significantly lower than Earth's because of the absence of stratospheric ozone and the radiative cooling effect of carbon dioxide at higher altitudes.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Get real people! It took us almost a year to rescue a handful of people in a spaceship above the earth but we keep projecting the ability to transport millions of people, using that same transportation to a planet tens of millions of miles away that has an environment that has no hope of supporting life as in 0.0000000%! Other than inside of a tightly sealed, environmentally controlled space that comes with all the food/water and other needed requirements to survive which was brought there from earth.

Why not just save all that and stay on the greening up planet earth?

This is a wonderful reason for us to CONSERVE natural resources and protect our planet by applying rational environmentalism. 

                The Beauty of Earth                   

                Started by metmike - Feb. 25, 2025, 10:20 a.m.  

          https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/110136/



            Therealenvironmental crisis's            

                            31 responses |          

                Started by metmike - April 10, 2019, 7:11 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27498/


  Death by GREENING!            

                            Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.   

        https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/