And that included the cost of INVENTING FROM SCRATCH all new space technology that had never been developed or tested before in human history
We’re talking rocket engines, command modules, lunar landers, computer equipment, all the incredible component parts
Within each broad category (eg, rocket engines) you have the incredible volume of subcategories (eg, multiple rockets for different stages of launch, plus ascent engines versus descent engines)
SLS (short for “Space Launch System”), has already cost $22 BILLION DOLLARS, after TEN YEARS in development, AND IT STILL HAS NOT GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND
This is just one small fraction of the mission. No lunar lander, no spacesuits, no moon buggies, none of the incredible volume of other separate mission aspects, and it is single-handedly cost more than 10% of the entire Apollo budget with inflation adjustment.
And that’s just costs TO DATE! It hasn’t even had a single successful test yet! It could cost $50 billion, or $100 billion, and never even launch.
It gets worse!
We already spent billions trying to get to the moon in the failed Constellation program launched by Bush, before Obama canceled it
Bush said we’d be on the moon last year (2020)
None of the parts of the Artemis Program are done, or even remotely close to being done
We have no rocketship. We have no rocket engine. We have no lunar lander. We have no spacesuits. Nothing.
Apollo’s peak spending year was 1966, 3 years before the first moon launch, ostensibly because “the research and development” was done by then
(reality is Congress and Prez Johnson lost faith in NASA, and threatened its budget)
We've done it before, and presumably have “the hard part” in the rear view mirror
If it cost $200 billion in the 1960s, it should cost a tiny fraction to replicate in 2021
The cost efficiencies of more advanced technology should offset the cost of inflation
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Americans hoping to understand the new superpower have one excellent asset: a hitherto unknown power behind Xi’s throne has written an entire book revealing exactly what he thinks of USA.
Revolver News analyzes "America contra America" by Wang Huning
To simply fall back on “American exceptionalism” without the greatness and achievement to back it up is to embrace a crass and stubborn parochialism, a smug belief in one’s invincibility even as America’s buildings crumble and its society implodes.
You have to go to like outer space media to see not only was it a Uyghur, but because it's a Uyghur it's impacting China's investment calculus in Afghanistan:
Newsguard, which "vets" online news content and slaps "nutrition labels" for accuracy, employs none other than disgraced former NSA chief Michael Hayden on its board of advisers. Even lefties think he's a liar and war criminal.
And then you have Richard Stengel, who described his state department role under obama as "propagandist in chief." He's also called for abolishing 1st amendment in its present form to allow hate speech laws
Here I discus Revolver News' first bombshell article exploring the question of federal involvement in 1/6
Here I address the problem of mediocrity and IQ deficiencies among Regime approved journalists in context of a common (simpleton) objection to Revolver's piece
I almost feel sorry for the feds that they have such weak defenders
Low-ranked law school "debunker" guy literally saying the Proud Boy informing the Feds of what was going on Jan 6 isn't an "informant" because the FBI now uses a different official term for informants
The spirit of this joke critique similar to the army of fact-checkers who descended upon Revolver's original piece's use of the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator"
Of course all of this (flawed) legal nit-picking about specific term "unindicted co-conspirators" is completely beside the point
The real Q is whether any of the individuals referred to in the charging documents of 1/6 are unindicted as a result of prior relationship with feds
The problem with Caesarism is the "trust the plan" larpiness that it often cultivates, to the neglect of a more sober account of all of the elements necessary to actually accomplish something real---which might be slower, more boring and more circuitous
Also I think there's a tendency to reduce Caesarism to mere populism which, if taken too literally, dangerously neglects the importance of getting the highest quality human capital to defect from regime
The tendency to conflate Caesarism with a Trumpist populism breaks down upon consideration of Caesar himself
First off, Caesar was a first rate and accomplished general in a society in which military was an elite institution (not the case in USA)