We could get to mars
why.
We need to add more to that $38T debt?
Comment on As Moon interest heats up, two companies unveil plans for a lunar "harvester"
AA5B@lemmy.world 4 hours agoThe huge potential of helium-3 is for nuclear fusion. Yet we don’t have fusion reactors that use helium-3 and fusion is “20 years away”. We could get to mars before needing this is any quantity
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
AA5B@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
NASA as a whole is a tiny fraction of the federal budget but has always generated outsized contributions to humanity. It’s an easy argument that money spent on nasa is money earned elsewhere. It’s a good investment
SpaceX has revolutionized space launches and I don’t believe that is government supported at all. It does fill government launch contracts but more cheaply than they could have done so themselves, and reliably enough to capture most of the world’s market. This does not add to the deficit and the early investments have been handsomely rewarded
Both SpaceX and blue origin, as well as other new generation space companies have been much much cheaper than old style projects. Just look at Artemis for example. Huge developments costs, continually More expensive, and $1B-$2B per launch. Yet I believe the total nasa funding for the entire starship program is around not like $2B. That is a very good use of our money
Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
Yes, but wouldn’t it become that much easier to achieve with an effectively limitless quantity of the resource?
AA5B@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
I don’t know whether that is currently a bottleneck or will be any time soon. I only know we’re “20 years away” from using it regularly, just like we have been my entire life
mr_anny@sopuli.xyz 1 hour ago
We have lots of fusion reactors.
They just release years of energy in a split second.