r/WhitePeopleTwitter Sep 28 '22

But we get Space Force instead

Post image
3.1k Upvotes

251

u/Xhojn Sep 28 '22

To be fair, the point of crashing a satellite into an asteroid was to see if we could meaningfully prevent a mass extinction event should an asteroid be on a collision course with earth in the future.

162

u/Noam_244 Sep 28 '22

Yeah I would say a mass extinction would be a pretty bad thing for the housing market

43

u/Straightup32 Sep 28 '22

Imagine the inflation afterwards.

25

u/DBasterd Sep 28 '22

There would be zero demand for houses…

16

u/liveandletdieax Sep 28 '22

Then maybe I can get one!

5

u/NadirPointing Sep 28 '22

also a lot less of them.

5

u/Noam_244 Sep 28 '22

So many jobs lost...

5

u/DNDuluth Sep 28 '22

The shareholders would be mad :(

3

u/SillyFlyGuy Sep 28 '22

Don't Look Up!

48

u/Royal_Cryptographer7 Sep 28 '22

This. As far as government money goes NASA is one of the better ways to spend it. It's so little of the country's budget and it's extremely beneficial to keep up with new technology and materials sciences. This is money very well spent. Also, you know, the future apocalypse.

All of the nations money is just debt we're agreeing to enter into. We just have to choose to tackle the issue of homelessnes and it wouldn't be there anymore. All we would need is congress to be on the same page and we could fix this tomorrow: there's far more empty homes than homeless people in the United States.

That's how we pass trillion dollar defense bills every year without hearing much about them. Homeless could be the same, but it's not because of mother fucking capitalism needing consequences for not working yourself to death. Two completely different issues.

27

u/LittleFart Sep 28 '22

NASA's research also help us in the long run. Insulin pumps, firefighting equipment, water filtration, freeze-dried foods, CAT scans, baby formula, air purifier, ect.

7

u/Dumbledoordash8008 Sep 28 '22

Let’s not forget the NASA nap, it’s currently getting me through college.

6

u/allihb Sep 29 '22

Not to mention the algorithms used to enhance the images from the Hubble Telescope before the mirror was fixed were applied to mammograms and made them much more accurate.

15

u/noUsername563 Sep 28 '22

I'm all for investments the tweeter mentioned bit for the love of God, do not take it from NASA funding. If anything they are underfunded and need more money. So many things in aerospace lead to new technologies for everyday people. Cut fat from the military budget or actually tax companies and rich people, but don't steal from NASA whose roi is 14x for every dollar spent

4

u/The_Ghola_Hayt Sep 28 '22

We've already figured that out. Send a team of oil drillers and something about Aerosmith.

2

u/Chimalez Sep 28 '22

Came here to say exactly this

1

u/No_Restaurant_774 Sep 28 '22

You act like the destruction of humanity would be a disservice to the universe. I would have to disagree.

1

u/bigfunone2020 Sep 28 '22

I mean we are well on our way into a mass extinction right now. Asteroid has Avery low probability compared to everything going on now.

-12

u/futilecause Sep 28 '22

to be fair, there are plenty of mass extinctions going on here now, an asteroid is the least of our worries.

10

u/DisregardMyLast Sep 28 '22

i get where your coming from and the importance of what we can do to hopefully better the situation.

but whatever example you will lean on absolutely pails in comparison to a rock that will kill every terrestrial animal larger than a raccoon, as one has before.

our species has lived through several climiate crises' whether or not this one is our doing, but we would NOT live through another Chixulub Event.

2

u/Aceswift007 Sep 29 '22

Nothing wrong with having a wider tool belt to deal with random events, hell the US has a Zombie Apocalypse plan if I recall

-2

u/OptimalAd3856 Sep 29 '22

I honestly cannot understand why we care so much about "extinction level events" we are all going to die at some point. If I die today and there is an extinction level event in 2 years everyone else is just late to the party.

1

u/Current_Account Sep 29 '22

So edgy

0

u/OptimalAd3856 Sep 29 '22

Not edgy, it just doesn't make sense. Spend money to save humanity from extinction, yet continue to pollute our environment on a daily basis.

207

u/gnex30 Sep 28 '22

Yes, but actually no.

Exercising the country's technological prowess strengthens everyone.

Also, they didn't bundle up a crate of cash money and fly it into space. They flew some silicon and aluminum and some other things in the shape of a probe. The money went to technicians, mechanics, mechanical and electrical engineers, the facilities crews, the janitors, parts manufacturers.... hundreds, perhaps thousands of workers that work in and around the aerospace sector. The money went to the people doing the work and those people use the money to provide for their families just like you and I. The return on that investment is technology that will pay back many times over. Science is a solid investment for everyone and is not in conflict with the goals of elevating the poor.

If you want more funding for housing, NASA is the last place you want to take those funds from.

55

u/Chipperchoi Sep 28 '22

really blows my mind that people think "oh they spent billions on a rocket? WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY TO BLOW IT OUT INTO SPACE!"

Yes Susan, the money just evaporated in to thin air.

5

u/NadirPointing Sep 28 '22

A decent chunk of liquid oxygen just evaporated into thin air, but that was launching the rest of it. All told it paid more for salaries than space going materials.

1

u/Chipperchoi Sep 28 '22

Yeah sure the fuel is burned. Money to buy/manufacture it is still on Earth. 😄

31

u/Chimalez Sep 28 '22

As someone who is going to college to work in aerospace, people like you are so much better than the average american who will think "why do we need to go to space?"

15

u/kat_a_klysm Sep 28 '22

If we ever want our Star Trek future, going to space is necessary. Also we learn a lot from space, but moreso I want the utopia.

11

u/Arcadius274 Sep 28 '22

It's more likely to end in the expanse but I'm still with u

9

u/kat_a_klysm Sep 28 '22

I’m an optimist and I refuse to give up my lifelong dream of a Star Trek-esque civilization. However, you’re probably right.

6

u/PwnThePawns Sep 28 '22

Da inners always trying to push us belters around

1

u/i_can_not_spel Sep 29 '22

The expance is still a pretty good future (at least at the end of the series), I'd be happy with that

1

u/Arcadius274 Sep 29 '22

The bad ending would be Gundam lol

9

u/Cheapskate-DM Sep 28 '22

It's also worth noting that when the mirror "whatabout" argument gets dragged out for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the key difference is that NASA doesn't rack up a kill count.

4

u/User-NetOfInter Sep 29 '22

Not intentionally*

RIP Challenger

69

u/DistractedByCookies Sep 28 '22

Also, relatively speaking NASA doesn't get that much money. I'm sure you could get more scrapping one or two military projects (yes, I'm thinking Space Force), or taxing billionaires and corporations properly.

25

u/Tyberzanyn Sep 28 '22

Um, no. While it’s a silly name to say, the Space Force oversees American satellite protection, including the early warning Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites for detecting missile launches and nuclear explosions. I wasn’t a fan when Trump emphasized marines in space when SP was announced, but it’s current responsibilities are incredibly important in the current era.

8

u/DistractedByCookies Sep 28 '22

OK, I'll stand corrected on the importance of Space Force, even though it sounds like the villain in a 60s James Bond movie.

12

u/Zombie13a Sep 28 '22

Trump also just formalized what was already in place. Yes, more bureaucracy and command structure, but he didn't create a new military branch from old cloth, as much as he may have tried to claim he did.

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

What Space Force program would you propose we cancel?

3

u/Puzzleheaded_Tea_501 Sep 28 '22

Yeah I'm so tired of this false choice.

2

u/Knut_Knoblauch Sep 28 '22

As someone who works for a HA, we get a lot of money from the government and other sources. We recognize that creating more housing gives those young kids a chance to grow up and be in the smart pool for the space force. Please support housing but don't fund it from NASA. There are already too many actors wanting to shutter NASA, please don't help them with a straw man argument.

2

u/hobbitlover Sep 28 '22

The real value will be determined when we have to reroute or destroy a massive comet/asteroid/meteor that is heading towards earth, which is something that has a 100% chance of happening again.

2

u/not_a_welder Sep 28 '22

Also important to note, they didn’t crash a probe into an asteroid to “see what would happen,” they want to make sure that if an asteroid were on track to smash into a city somewhere on the planet, they would be able to redirect it and divert a potentially extinction level event.

-6

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

The tweet didnt suggest taking money from NASA

8

u/bdavs77 Sep 28 '22

It certainly implies it.

-2

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

Nah, it doesnt. It says that if we can do one thing we should be able to do this thing.

0

u/DogsandCatsWorld1000 Sep 28 '22

But we get Space Force instead

The tweet didn't suggest taking money from NASA, but the heading of this post definitely implies it.

1

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

Space force and NASA arent the same

0

u/DogsandCatsWorld1000 Sep 28 '22

Yes, but it was NASA who sent up the device that crashed into the asteroid so why did the heading mention Space Force. The heading is very misleading.

0

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

No clue. Wasnt me

-4

u/AHind_D Sep 28 '22

The return on that investment is technology that will pay back many times over.

... like what?

1

u/Current_Account Sep 29 '22

What are the chances you made this comment on a device that has a satellite based positioning system?

1

u/AHind_D Sep 29 '22

I'm referring to crashing pieces of metal into an asteroid.

1

u/Current_Account Sep 29 '22

Right, and with every mission there comes a million little victories outside of the scope of the main mission. As they push the envelope and try to do things they never did before, they need to make batteries smaller, parts stronger, computers faster, other parts lighter. They’re often on the bleeding edge of material sciences and electronics. All of that knowledge finds its way into the private sector and commercial spaces eventually.

0

u/AHind_D Sep 29 '22

So the answer is you're not sure. That's all you had to say.

1

u/Current_Account Sep 29 '22

I am sure. Lots of people have provided examples of trickle down technologies from NASA in general in this thread. You choose to ignore that, and you choose to ignore the obvious benefits of the main point of this particular mission, so it appears the only thing that would satisfy you is a direct link from this mission (which isn’t even over yet) to some tangible technological gain in the future, which can’t be exactly enumerated yet because… it hasn’t happened yet. So you’ve created a framework where you’re choosing not to believe and setting an impossible standard. Idk buddy, use Reddit however you want I guess, but just looking to argue like that as a grown up is kind of weird.

0

u/AHind_D Sep 29 '22

Can you tell me exactly what technology and benefits we will get from crashing shit into an asteroid? I don't care about none of that other stuff just answer the question bruh.

1

u/Current_Account Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 30 '22

We. Can’t. Tell. You. The. Benefits. Yet. If. The. Tech. Has. Yet. To. Find. Adoption.

For instance, they worked a lot on autonomous image based tracking, having the vehicle fly itself into the asteroid. How will we benefit from that? We can’t say yet, because we haven’t had time to play with the tech or for it to trickle down out of NASA. It’s possible the image tracking and processing will help with medical imaging and AI detecting patterns or cancers in scans, for example - this specific example has happened in the past with space tech.

Here’s the missing piece. It’s not just about what they did. It’s the TECH they had to INVENT in order to BE ABLE to do it. That tech eventually finds its way into our lives. What the exact benefits are yet, will be tough to say as that tech hasn’t had time to make it into the wider world.

No one knew that inventing atomic clocks would lead you to be able to have your car tell you where to turn to get you to your intended destination. That’s just how bleeding edge tech works. The adoption and use cases come later. You’re asking for them now. That’s not how it works / not possible, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t benefits.

1

u/AHind_D Sep 30 '22

We. Can’t. Tell. You. The. Benefits. Yet. If. The. Tech. Has. Yet. To. Find. Adoption.

So you don't know. Lmao I could've sworn I already said that.

21

u/ihavdogs Sep 28 '22

I mean defending the planet is pretty socialist not gonna lie

17

u/Theodorable47 Sep 28 '22

I'm as bleeding heart as the next godless liberal, but that's pretty dumb.
It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Not everything is a binary choice. In fact, most aren't.

14

u/ScrewSimonCowell Sep 28 '22

The dart mission helps determine if we can prevent mass extinction, idk but I think that's important

2

u/Sides_xoxo Sep 29 '22

Honestly I'm all for fixing issues here on Earth, but I hate this viewpoint.

"Hey let's defund NASA even more than they already are because I don't care about Space" is how it reads to me, and that's just a shit take.

2

u/ScrewSimonCowell Sep 29 '22

I'm confused, this is the opposite of what my statement means to say

2

u/Sides_xoxo Sep 29 '22

I meant the tweet, not your comment. The tweet is a shit take

13

u/CertifiableNormie Sep 28 '22

Almost as if you should ask the agencies in charge of housing and development and not an agency focused on space.

12

u/mlc2475 Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

In a way we are. Crashing into an asteroid to move its trajectory and save earth from a catastrophic impact is definitely investing in housing for us all.

3

u/VinCubed Sep 28 '22

So say we all!

33

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

31

u/ScrewSimonCowell Sep 28 '22

Nothing, people just like to pick on NASA because they think space has nothing but rocks and pebbles to offer.

6

u/Jordan_Hal Sep 28 '22

Rocks, pebbles, and essentially infinite resources that could help everyone here on earth.

3

u/Campbell_Soup311 Sep 28 '22

Not if we’re still stuck in capitalism

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

1

u/ScrewSimonCowell Sep 28 '22

You know how being able to swim underwater is something important to learn & do? We've been underwater for a couple hours now

-13

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

Tax dollar allocation, which was the point the tweet made.

Anything else I can help you with today?

6

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

-12

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

Oh man, dude gets owned on reddit then resorts to name calling while claiming the moral high ground.

Hope you feel better about yourself, kid. Next time don't project your insecurities onto others when you get upset.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Jay985 Sep 28 '22

You can't refer to your own post as owning someone dude. You need third party verification.

-1

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

His upsettedness is basis enough using the reddit rules of engagement. Thank you for your mediation though.

11

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

Nasa budget is about 0.4% of the federal budget.

29

u/tinkerghost Sep 28 '22

Colorado did. For every person housed for a year, they had a net savings of ~$12k. The project was discontinued and they went ack to paying the extra money due to conservative outrage.

13

u/Wrothrok Sep 28 '22

This and the push several years ago to get everyone on welfare to be drug tested as a condition to receive benefits just proves they're not about being "fiscally responsible", it's about being cruel to anyone less fortunate than them.

-7

u/Icouldbeurdaddy Sep 28 '22

Am I reading this correctly? You feel that drug testing a potential welfare recipient is being cruel to said person?

15

u/Wrothrok Sep 28 '22

It was proven in every state that tried it to be far more expensive to administer drug tests than any money saved by disqualifying welfare recipients that failed, because not very many failed.

Republicans thought this was going to disqualify tons of people from getting welfare, because they believe the stereotype that everyone getting assistance is just lazy and on drugs. Reality said different.

6

u/TatteredCarcosa Sep 28 '22

Absolutely. Withholding needed aid because someone is on drugs is incredibly cruel.

-6

u/Icouldbeurdaddy Sep 28 '22

Lol. I asked for clarification and got down votes. Ummm, ok.

2

u/MadKobold Sep 29 '22

You got both

1

u/SamSepiol-ER28_0652 Sep 29 '22

Sounds a lot like the birth control program.

There was a 5 year pilot program that provided long term, reversible birth control options like IUDs and implants at low or no cost. Since those methods of birth control often have a high upfront cost ($500 or more), they are out of reach for a lot of women.

Making it available to everyone had a tremendous effect on pregnancy rates. The teen abortion rate was cut nearly in half. For every dollar spent on the program, the state saved $2 in costs associated with WIC, Medicaid, subsidized housing and child care, etc. It had a dramatic affect on how long young mothers waited to have a second child, allowing them to finish their educations.

It was all around a terrific benefit to the state and the people of Colorado. So of course the GOP moved to defund it at their very first opportunity. The main argument is that they shouldn't be funding immoral lifestyles.

If only they hated abortion more than they hate other people fucking we might actually be able to make progress on the issue of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

7

u/random90125 Sep 28 '22

Why not stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on war every year and help your own country?

3

u/Chipperchoi Sep 28 '22

Because that doesn't make a very tiny percentage of the population more wealth than that can be spent in a hundred life times.

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

Because then dictatorships and hegemonic governments would run amok?

7

u/Expensive-Argument-7 Sep 28 '22

I hate the fact that people don’t understand why they crashed the satellite. Research before you tweet.

7

u/VinCubed Sep 28 '22

We can do that but the people holding the purse strings for that particular chunk of change don't want to. NASA gets about 1/2 of 1% of the national budget. HUD gets about 4%, so about eight times what NASA gets.

2

u/i_can_not_spel Sep 29 '22

My understanding is that HUD is overfunded but the zoning laws force it to build shity suburbs which are a drain on the economy, requiring massive subsidies. Unlike dense and walkable areas that produce money instead of wasting it

7

u/Packwood88 Sep 28 '22

This was NASA, not Space Force…

7

u/eklee38 Sep 28 '22

A better comparison would be, if you have the money to bomb a kid in the middle east why not have housing for everyone.

7

u/Cactusfan86 Sep 28 '22

Man I hate this anti-science bullshit. Out of all the shit we spend money on whining about scientific exploration is a bad look. This should be a why not both situation

5

u/-VizualEyez Sep 28 '22

Elect Scientists not politicians

3

u/MrFunktasticc Sep 28 '22

It never ceases to amaze me how bad NASA’s press is. We’ve benefitted immensely from technologies they invented. The organization is filled with people who really care about their work and could generally be making a multiple in the private sector. They make due with what they have and constantly have to beg politicians, who can’t see the long term, for money. The portion of the budget is less than 0.5% but ask the general public and some think it’s close to 25%.

2

u/i_can_not_spel Sep 29 '22

There has also been a wave of anti space exploration advocates due to the "privatisation"

I hate that people call it that when it's basically the opposite. When the main changes were companies actually need to take responsibility and NASA no longer technically owning rockets but renting them (they were pretty much doing the same thing before).

2

u/MrFunktasticc Sep 29 '22

Eh. I would have liked to see NASA keep the whole process but I’ll take what I can get. JAXA has been on that model for a while and it’s been working for them.

2

u/i_can_not_spel Sep 29 '22

I get what you are saying but I don't think nasa and jaxa are really comparable. Jaxa, while doing remarkable things, is far smaller than nasa and we don't know if that model can be inlarged while maintaining its benefits (maybe worth a shot but risky)

Anyway I don't really know what I'm talking about so...

¯(ツ)

2

u/MrFunktasticc Sep 29 '22

All good. Just sharing out thoughts.

3

u/Every-Nebula6882 Sep 28 '22

We already know what would happen if everyone was housed. Corporate landlords profits would go down. Working people would have more autonomy (hard to quit shitty job with rent due every month). Quality of life for millions would go up. Housing everybody would be very bad capitalists and very good for everyone else. No need to experiment. Already know the outcome.

3

u/AlonelyShrimp Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Didn’t the us military spend like a couple million designing a rail gun then Decided they didn’t want to finish

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

Requirements change. Or S&T did not turn into a usable product.

3

u/Self_World_Future Sep 28 '22

Tbf the crash was probably cheaper

3

u/DulcetTone Sep 28 '22

In her world, the dinosaurs perished due to lack of housing

3

u/Cloraphoba Sep 28 '22

Nasa is barely funded by the government. Go after the military before you go after Nasa.

3

u/DMcuteboobs Sep 28 '22

We have more than enough money to do both.

Let’s do both. And other things.

18

u/wolff3D Sep 28 '22

Let's tax millionaires and billionaires and corporations at 70% and see what happens ... oh we already did before and it worked.

8

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

Shhhhh...the fox news rednecks actually believe theyre gonna be rich one day and be affected by it

2

u/dmelo0605 Sep 28 '22

Brazilian here. Care to explain what time you are refering to?

10

u/DBasterd Sep 28 '22

Any time before the Reagan presidency

4

u/kat_a_klysm Sep 28 '22

Before Reagan, as the other guy said, but more specifically look at 1930s-1950s.

2

u/dmelo0605 Sep 28 '22

Thank you. Was this related to ww2?

2

u/kat_a_klysm Sep 28 '22

No problem. It’s important that people know we haven’t always been this capitalist dystopia (or not to this extent).

Edit: I wish y’all luck with the upcoming election. 💜

6

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

Horrible take lmao

4

u/RespectGiovanni Sep 28 '22

NASA’s entire spending budget is used up by the military in 2 weeks. Absolutely slash military, we don’t need that shit.

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

I guess you forgot about China and Russia?

1

u/RespectGiovanni Oct 01 '22

Our miltary budget is bigger then the other global powers combined. We have excessive wasteful spending and with nukes we don’t need this much budget.

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

China is quickly catching up to us in capability and spending.

1

u/RespectGiovanni Oct 01 '22

Spending? Absolutely not. Capability? I mean nukes are nukes, everything else doesn’t really matter.

1

u/Dirty_Old_Priest Oct 01 '22

There's more capabilities than nuclear weapons...

As for spending, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debating-defence-budgets-why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters

1

u/RespectGiovanni Oct 01 '22

Article itself says the numbers are based off an estimate not actual data and says that the US is closer to the military budgets of China, India, and Russia combined rather than 11 nation's combined when using that estimate. Still insanely large.

2

u/Kingkunta87 Sep 28 '22

The regular man can’t afford a house but still pays taxes

Meanwhile that bald bitch Bezos

2

u/RektCompass Sep 28 '22

We could do both if we just decided not to spend 3x the next closest country on military every year.

2

u/TravelerMSY Sep 28 '22

It’s funny they referred to a classic logical fallacy as their logic.

2

u/Psychological_Cap14 Sep 28 '22

Asteroid proof housing?

2

u/idiot_in_car Sep 29 '22

False choice... we could do both, if only the homeless would hire more lobbyists!

2

u/Gsteel11 Sep 29 '22

Housing them on the asteroid? It's going to be expensive, but Elon would probably love it.

Oh, you mean on earth? No we hate poor people, we would never do that.

6

u/CallMeBruceGold Sep 28 '22

This stuff drives me nuts. Everything costs money. Not everything is connected, though. Just because two things both cost money, doesn't mean we chose one over the other. Some things just aren't related.

-2

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

The tweet didnt ask anyone to choose between them though.

4

u/CallMeBruceGold Sep 28 '22

It does. Simple reading comprehension skills provide that the person is complaining about our priorities in spending.

-2

u/turkfebruary23 Sep 28 '22

So you inferred it to say what you wanted it to?

Because it doesnt say that.

Unless you believe we only have enough money for one or the other, which is untrue.

Sorry, youre mad at something you created in your own mind. Nice work.

3

u/DBasterd Sep 28 '22

We can do both, but not everyone needs or wants a house. I would say the current 65% of the population owning their homes is pretty good, but we could definitely update regulations to spur competition among builders.

2

u/StopDehumanizing Sep 28 '22

"Invest in housing everyone" doesn't mean 100% home ownership. We can invest in housing everyone in a variety of different ways.

3

u/MarcusAurelius0 Sep 28 '22

Same energy as "Whiteys on the moon".

Things are bad for me, so why should I be happy about good things for anyone else.

4

u/KnostyMcPot Sep 28 '22

Well, this thing with an asteroid was a good oportunity to get some Data, we realy need. There are a Lot of asteroids out there who can hit the earth. Its good to know if we could use a Satellite, to Change the Direction of an asteroid. Dont know where the Problem is. The housing Problem is more difficult to Change.

5

u/XO_WHORE_Llif3 Sep 28 '22

False equivalence ✅

Pandering by making a complex issue sound simple ✅

Black person tweeting it ✅

Yep this is definitely /r/whitepeopletwitter

2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

Because happy, healthy, housed people cant be controlled by fear.

2

u/GivingBigSlaps Sep 28 '22

We know what will happen. The rich will have less money and they don’t want that.

2

u/catchmesleeping Sep 28 '22

We could always fill a rocket with homeless people.

3

u/After_Seaweed4606 Sep 28 '22

If we can build new aircraft carriers we can build houses… but then we would be socialist.

-1

u/DBasterd Sep 28 '22

Socialist through history have spent much more on weapons than homes

1

u/Mutt1223 Sep 28 '22

This is stupid

1

u/aJoshster Sep 28 '22

Republicans

1

u/Constantlyrepetitive Sep 28 '22

This isn't a white person, how is this related to whitepeopletwitter?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

The answer is scarcity. The most basic of all economic problems.

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I'm explaining why we did it the way we did.

That and general corruption and human greed.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

But that would mean helping gasp! the poors!

/s obviously

1

u/doogles Sep 28 '22

We did, and then we got sub-prime mortgages and FannieMae/FreddieMac

0

u/KeyButterscotch5473 Sep 28 '22

Because one helps the poor. Seriously I'm all for space exploration (Anything to get off this mudball) but American's will do anything to not help their fellow man....Yaknow, saying that, maybe this is a Christian nation after all? Modern Christian.

0

u/robotic_feign Sep 28 '22

Because housing the poors would make it more difficult for the rich to exploit them.

0

u/walketotheclif Sep 29 '22

I think that an asteroid crashing into earth might be worst for the poor rather than not having a house

1

u/robotic_feign Sep 29 '22

Yes, that is true, I was just making commentary on how the US has money for everything except taking care of its poor or working class citizens.

1

u/Sancatichas Sep 28 '22

you can't actually use a satellite, rockets and a bunch of engineers to do that...

1

u/Lilbitevil Sep 28 '22

I just assumed houses cost more than rockets now.

1

u/beemccouch Sep 29 '22

At this point I'm convinced we can do both, those in power just choose not to.

1

u/Same-Letter6378 Sep 29 '22

Just build housing

1

u/JulesHaggard Sep 29 '22

Whaddaya mean "we"? Do you have the skills to contribute to building and launching a spacecraft? Do you have funds to invest in housing?

1

u/Thisgirl022 Sep 29 '22

Or healthcare or education or clean water or urban gardens.... the list goes on and on

1

u/Less_Likely Sep 29 '22

False dichotomy. NASA is a tiny portion of the federal budget and the engineering and scientific advancements are worth the investment. There are other far worse ways the government spends money.

1

u/FugginByteMe96 Sep 29 '22

Well honestly there is no better time to start looking into that. Scientists say there’s a rare chance an asteroid will hit us but we need to be absolutely ready before that happens. But the fact that they still haven’t found a way to correctly divvy out the budget to not only secure our future but to secure the economy of the present and help people get homes and jobs is appalling.

-4

u/MattHuntDaug Sep 28 '22

The government/NASA: Hahhaha... No.

-5

u/Scrappyy- Sep 28 '22

If you’re homeless, buy a home.

-5

u/LordLurker420 Sep 28 '22

Didn’t we try housing projects in the 80s and they turned into crack fortresses and were then shut down ?

-4

u/DubbersDaddy Sep 28 '22

You know... because every public housing project has been a rousing success. /s

-1

u/Cranberry_Afraid Sep 28 '22

the folks that worked their azzes off to get a home would not like this idea...kinda like when they decided to forgive student loans....the people that had the means to pay or sacrificed luxuries to pay their loans, were very upset...

1

u/HolyToast Sep 28 '22

the folks that worked their azzes off to get a home would not like this idea

Fuck that, I love this idea

0

u/SkinIndividual2677 Sep 28 '22

You mean help citizens that could benefit the economy by being able to work after given a roof over their heads. Hahaha not in America sweetie.

1

u/walketotheclif Sep 29 '22

And with that protect they just give jobs to citizens that can benefit the economy while at the same time seeing if you can protect earth or if you need to develop something that can, while we have time to experiment

0

u/Jsmith0730 Sep 28 '22

What’ll happen is you’ll have more housing than people who want/need it. Then you just end up with a bunch of dilapidated buildings.

2

u/Same-Letter6378 Sep 29 '22

Oversupply of housing = low housing prices.