NASA Is Worth Saving

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Crewed vs Robotic Spaceflight

  • Many see robotic missions (telescopes, probes, landers) as NASA’s clear high-value work; crewed programs are questioned as “low value” or political theater.
  • Defenders argue crewed flight drives hard engineering problems (life support, medicine, heavy lift) and sustains long‑term capability that probes alone would not.
  • Others say human presence is essential for public engagement and “heroes,” noting people care more about astronauts than anonymous probes.

Arguments for Space Expansion

  • Pro‑expansion commenters frame crewed spaceflight as a long‑horizon civilizational project: enabling off‑world habitation, massive future science output, new resources, and a “frontier” for restless people.
  • They argue failing to develop the capability now risks losing it permanently if it never becomes politically attractive later.

Skepticism About Colonization and “Frontier” Claims

  • Critics demand specific, credible benefits: what resources justify the enormous energy cost, which Earth-harming industries truly make more sense off‑planet, and why this must be manned.
  • They note we are nowhere near Earth’s physical or population limits, and that building self‑sufficient cities in harsh terrestrial environments (e.g., Antarctica) has barely been achieved.
  • Claims that a new frontier stabilizes society are challenged as unproven “sci‑fi vignettes” lacking historical or empirical support.

NASA Funding, Cuts, and Politics

  • Some insist “no one is getting rid of NASA,” only cutting budgets and re‑prioritizing toward human spaceflight while de‑emphasizing climate/”green” research.
  • Others counter that proposed cuts are existential in practice: ~25% overall, ~47–50% to science, 19 active missions canceled, educational work zeroed, and staffing slashed by roughly a third—comparable to pre‑Apollo funding levels.
  • These are seen as destroying institutional capability and particularly targeting Earth/climate science for political reasons.

SLS, SpaceX, and Pork

  • SLS is widely portrayed as a congressionally driven jobs program built from expensive Shuttle hardware, not a cost‑optimized launcher; per‑launch costs (~$2B) are viewed as indefensible compared with commercial options.
  • Some argue SLS still provides near‑term heavy‑lift redundancy until Starship is proven, avoiding total reliance on a single private company.
  • Others say the SLS saga shows how congressional pork and multi‑state contracting hollow out NASA’s effectiveness, and that “saving NASA” requires killing SLS‑style programs.

NASA’s Role and Vision

  • Several commenters emphasize NASA’s non-military mission—exploration, innovation for humanity, and inspiration—over framing it as “defending US interests.”
  • There is nostalgia for the Apollo era as a high point of optimism and scientific culture, and speculation that competition with China might recreate a unifying “Sputnik moment.”
  • Some call for clearer, concrete goals beyond vague “explore and innovate,” while others stress that each new mission (e.g., telescopes) opens qualitatively new scientific territory, not just “better pictures.”