Discussion

cl0ckt0wer: It's liability laundering. If an openclaw blackmails a politician while hosted in space, what's the legal recourse?

mikkupikku: Nobody can even come up with a coherent reason for any of these proposals to exist. Even the ISS is more of a political instrument than a real science thing. NASA likes to say its about studying how to help humans live in space, but those results were in decades ago: more than a few months in zero-g wrecks people. So why are we still trying to build old modular Soyuz/Mir derivatives instead of trying to figure out the minimum spin humans need to stay healthy? Because the whole point is to do familiar safe things while providing full time jobs for ground control.

ACCount37: I agree that a "long term fractional g spin test" is one of the most valuable things a LEO station can do. But there are others too.For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay can be tested in any microgravity, spin or no spin. Development of in-space manufacturing and assembly can happen on any sufficiently capable space station.All of that, however, requires a good amount of ambition. And I'm not sure if NASA under the current political system can deliver ambition.

ceejayoz: International law says you spank whoever launched it. There’s treaties on this.Barring that, we have anti-satellite missiles.

Muromec: What law?

metalman: Right! And because China has a good chance of pulling of a moon and then mars landing first, they are lurching into, hmmmm,ok,they are lurching flat out trying to bluster up a program without disturbing the space grift industry, ie: SLS , Shuttle Leftover Systems and the whole thing disolves into cringe

Muromec: Disbanding NASA would be one of those symbolic things thay people will associate the dusk of American empire.

Havoc: At risk of crassness - human lives are pretty cheap and there are plenty of people willing to take the hit for a chance to be in space for an extended timeframe. Meanwhile building something with enough spin and shielding is a huge ask

maxerickson: If manned stations aren't doing any particularly unique research, especially research that couldn't be done with automation, why spend huge resources on them?

idiotsecant: Nobody cares about ground control. They care about aerospace industry in their states. Public space programs aren't about science and engineering, no they are primarily about jobs. We burn enormous capital in strange ways in order to divert a small amount of capital into useful places. Its the only way to get it done, so I can live with it.

__patchbit__: Horses for courses micromanagement business administration and lobbying gravy train.

patmorgan23: The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/int...

readthenotes1: Nah. It will probably be either the Space Shuttle or Artemis. That is to say, programs that showed NASA lost control of its mission to graft

Loughla: Why would the chatbot be liable instead of the person who instigated that process?

mikkupikku: Senators care about ground control. Jobs is the whole reason any of them agree to fund NASA at all.

pfdietz: Avoiding something for such symbolic reasons is negative cargo cult thinking.

vaadu: Not enough opportunity to grift off the taxpayers. Private enterprise will focus on faster, cheaper, better while the government and its contractors focus on keeping the gravy training running.

codexb: NASA hasn't had a proper goal or mission for decades. That's their problem. And the spaceflight goal that everyone wants -- making things cheaper -- is not something that government agencies are particularly good at producing.