this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
NASA
1184 readers
1 users here now
Anything related to the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); the latest news, events, current and future missions, and more.
Note: This community is an unofficial forum and is unaffiliated with NASA or the U.S. government.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My read on this is that it’s a “please don’t let eel-on-musk kill NASA” because that’s what eel-on-musk is trying to do, because he thinks he can just drop in SpaceX as a replacement and make shitloads of money.
Is the risk that if Isaacman is not confirmed by the senate, that the administration would appoint someone else?
...which is a ludicrous idea. SpaceX may provide a great ride to orbit, but they are ill-equipped to design and manage NASA's plethora of science programs.
Haven’t you heard? The new strategic direction of the government is YOLO. Move fast break things.
You are assuming rational actors. These are not rational actors. I cannot emphasize that enough. I do not understand why so many people have so much difficulty understanding that point. Stop being surprised by it, for fucks sake. Stop bending over backwards looking for a strategic 4d+i chess reason why this makes sense. It’s far simpler than that. It doesn’t make sense. They don’t care, because it’s not relevant to their target parameters.