Is this a semantics argument? Like you're arguing over the proper use of "scam"? or do you not see how the word scam could be implied in this context?
I ask because I was about to present a big thing with links and timelines showing how this has all played out since the early 2000's, but I'm not gonna go to all the trouble if you're just upset that a better word should be used besides "scam" since there is some sort of measurable output being performed.
(I still think scam is apt when you start breaking down the terminology though, it's still fraudulent practices which have been performed for the companies benefit, i.e. funding away from NASA)
You see gene stealer cultist goal is to weaken a planet for the star gods. Also they don't want anyone to see them come. Cause if you see nids coming everyone is going to arm up.
Man, I just wanted to see humans on the moon in my life. NASA seemed like the best bet because they’re the only agency from the space race, with the recorded experience of doing long terms Spaceflight, still doing innovative things. Roscosmos hasn’t done much new since the soviets fell apart, even though we now know they had some wacky plans for things like Tri-propellant shuttles, and Energia was an amazing heavy lift vehicle that is basically just scrap metal at this point.
I thought Elon would be the reason we didn’t go to the moon because of starship being vaporware. Turns out Elon is the reason we’re not going to moon because he wants to cover up that starship is vaporware.
Shuttering NASA is a net loss not just for the USA but for the entire species. Everything from battery powered power tools, Velcro, the glass on our phones, the little safety grooves on highway off ramps, and a thousand other advancements not even including going to fucking space, can be traced back to NASA pushing human Spaceflight to its limit. Every dollar spent on Apollo generated something like 3 dollars in growth for the US economy because of all of the R&D that companies had to throw at the problem.
I only hope that either the ESA or CNSA can actually put humans on the moon. It was insane 50 years ago and it’s insane even today, but I still think that Armstrong’s first step onto the moon should go down as one of the most important moments in human history, the first time a human left earth and put his foot down on a different celestial body is just as important as the harnessing of fire or electricity. It should be the first step of many, not just a brief footnote that marks we were there.
The extra stupid thing is that they'll probably won't save anything in the next 4 years anyways with how long timelines are for space planning. They'll just waste an incredible amount of investment. This is just such petty and cruel retaliation against anything related to climate science.
They just enjoy smashing stuff others value for no reason.
Oh right... Elon gets rid of all the competition and space startups that rely on NASA outsourcing their rockets, while he maintains his contracts they go bankrupt. Holy shit.
Now we lost the space information and science race. Now, there won’t be sharing globally about scientific space breakthroughs. Now, those countries that do make those breakthroughs will sell us the information once it’s no longer relevant.
Please note that applications are only considered from nationals of one of the following States: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Canada, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.
In my career I've learned there is a difference between what they ask for, and what they'll accept. If a NASA engineer with some crazy specific knowledge and skills offers their services, these rules might suddenly not apply.
I've absolutely been following some of the eurospace startups a lot more closely lately. The next time I switch jobs might be the first time I switch continents.
JWST, being an Infrared telescope, is the successor to Spitzer.
Nancy Grace Roman, being an optical telescope, is the successor to Hubble.
Infrared telescopes have fundamentally worse resolution than their optical counterparts. The difference in image quality is so great that most people haven't even heard of Spitzer compared to Hubble. Now imagine the step up from Webb to Roman.