Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

pork26 t1_j6nwtwi wrote

It's not the party that makes the difference if the politician has any space industry or space related operations in their district.

53

UmbralRaptor t1_j6nxdm0 wrote

It's a weird back and forth as to which party is better. (Usually as a side effect of other things)

2

Anonymous_Asker0813 OP t1_j6nygx8 wrote

Oh yeah Elon is carrying the space industry rn. When I was at Nasa for an internship one of the senior engineers said that “Elon is the best thing to happen to the space industry since the Apollo Program”.

−1

Superbroccomole t1_j6nyh2u wrote

Republicans! They want to gain control of the space lasers that start California fires.

2

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j6nyk39 wrote

None of them do, sadly. Bill Nelson was an awful nomination from the current administration, for example. Neither side has a sensible vision for space and they all use NASA to score political points.

16

Large_Cube_Unaligned t1_j6nyvd2 wrote

Neither, really. But the Republicans would be the first to slash NASA's budget, so there's that.

−1

thedrakeequator t1_j6nz3rs wrote

It depends on what decade you're talking about.

During the cold war it was probably Republicans.

But recently they've been responsible for cutting budget.

6

Better-Win-4113 t1_j6nzdcv wrote

lol fuck, I gotta mute Space now? I follow the pokemon TCG page and I swear if I see, "do republicans or Democrats like Pikachu more?" I'm going to throw myself off a 3 story building in a rural area so I break my legs and either die of dehydration or animals find me before then.

25

Max-gy t1_j6nznxf wrote

I think we would advance more quickly with the private sector as soon as space gives opportunities for new startups. Whatever they may be: from telecommunication to grow food on zero gravity,…

1

5jkm3d7gk t1_j6o0m77 wrote

Neither, Elon Musk is the main driver for space. Bill Nelson needed to retire before he left the Senate!

−2

Spooky2000 t1_j6o1ylo wrote

>So the reason it went down under Obama was because the "Big Spending" republicans forced him to cut it.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/322918-how-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration/

Obama canceled the Constelation project without going through congress at all.

https://phys.org/news/2011-02-obama-five-year-nasa.html

https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/index.html

But you're right, must have been all those pesky Republicans..

7

Salvia_McLovin t1_j6o241d wrote

Kennedy spearheaded the biggest investment into NASA. He got the ball really moving.

3

lmmsoon t1_j6o25hu wrote

Obama cut spendings at NASA and stopped space shuttle program

−1

Inter-418 t1_j6o3pkc wrote

Obama cut NASA funding while president if I’m not mistaken. That’s why we had to send our astronauts up in Russian crafts for a few years

−2

-November15th- t1_j6o3zbv wrote

Republicans are against anything everything. They don’t better or advance anything in this society.

Democrats lay down and let the republicans do what they want.

Neither side actually cares about anything other than their money.

−2

Psycho_bob0_o t1_j6o54br wrote

While Elon certainly contributed let's not forget most of what he spends is aimed at cornering the launch market.. the lunar lander is a good example of how this could come back to bite us later on.

His contribution is comparable to that of Bezons and the virgin orbit guy.

2

frog_jesus_ t1_j6o5md5 wrote

Daughter of a lifelong NASA employee. Democrats consistently fund NASA better. Republicans also like to contrive a debt ceiling crisis (like they're about to again), which has historically damaged the local economy in Houston. It's not just government employees who are affected - it's every vendor, every business those employees utilize. The entire city shuts down.

2

3_14-r8 t1_j6o66id wrote

More to do with the publics desire than anything. Funding for nasa goes up with people's interest in it.

1

3_14-r8 t1_j6o6twx wrote

Sounds to me they are just trying to figure out who they should support in order to get more funding for space exploration. It's an innocent question quickly answered by saying "neither, funding depends on the publics interest in it".

6

Spacecadet222 t1_j6o7jgn wrote

Read it, it's an Obama administration smear. The part about Obama's "antipathy towards American exceptionalism" should have told you this was some editorializing bullshit.

If you don't recall, the Obama administration was at the time trying to pass a lil measure called the Affordable Care Act and receiving withering criticism over it's propensity to swell federal deficits. It's not surprising he made trade-offs for a program his own White House commission deemed infeasible with current funding.

−1

Classic-Committee728 t1_j6ob46g wrote

Neither do. The bureaucracy only cares if the public does. Then, it uses that opportunity to embezzle taxpayers' dollars. Just as it did with covid funding. 4 trillion taxpayer dollars unaccounted for.

1

Icutthemetal t1_j6ob76o wrote

Sure he did because he thought they should be focusing on new propulsion and heavy lift rockets to make space exploration cheaper and easier. The constellation project was to return to the moon. Which when you think about it the return on the dollar isn't there. NASAs budget actually increased almost every year under Obama.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel

1