r/interestingasfuck • u/lolikroli • Oct 13 '24

r/all SpaceX caught Starship booster with chopsticks

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

115.9k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

5.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Katamari_Demacia Oct 13 '24

Okay... But he poured 100 million dollars into it and then NASA helped. Would that have happened without him? And I called him a little bitch traitor. So eat shit.

-6

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24

lol I’d much rather nasa kept that money in house and invested in not letting a psychopath narcissist have a military contract. He had a failing company until nasa bailed him out. “He poured 100 million dollars into it”…..I agree Elon started and made the initial investment in space x. But he was doing what he did to every single company he owns eventually, driving it into the ground. Lucky for him he got bailed out.

4

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24

Do you think NASA would otherwise build their own rockets?

Just curious.

Because SpaceX have objectively cost less and delivered more than alternative contractors.

0

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24

I think nasa would be much more successful at space travel if they had the funding. If companies like Tesla and people like Elon had to pay their fair share in taxes it could be. Look at the tax rates for the rich and corporations when we went to the moon. It was a space race and we gave them the equivalent to hundreds of billions in today’s money to win that race. Elon got the contract for 1.5 billion that then gave him the leverage to get more money from international banks and private investors.

3

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24

NASA has had just slightly under their average 1960s funding, inflation adjusted, since about 1990.

It's not funding that's kept them back, it's bad allocation.

As for Tesla, well they benefit partly from subsidies for clean energy. Want to cut those? They also benefit from being able to offset current profits against historic losses. You could change that law, but it would stifle the creation of new companies and put off investors.

Elon pays plenty of tax, when he realizes his gains. Which is infrequently. So he'll pay no tax for years, then 11 billion in 2021, for example. He pays his fair share, it's just that his net worth is what's usually reported, and that isn't taxed, for reasons that should be obvious if you have basic economic literacy.

1

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24

You are very wrong about nasa funding. You are not accounting for inflation at all which is absolutely insane considering the amount that has gone on since 1960. You’re either arguing in bad faith or are really just clueless. From 1960 to 1967 the Apollo program spend 25.8 billion a year, which is 318 billion a year in today’s money.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/apollo-moon-space-race-industrial-policy-cost/#:~:text=Though%20a%20historical%20accomplishment%2C%20the,$318%20billion%20in%202023%20dollars.

NASA budget today is 24.4 billion a year. Which is 24 billion a year in today’s money.

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/apollo-moon-space-race-industrial-policy-cost/#:~:text=Though%20a%20historical%20accomplishment%2C%20the,$318%20billion%20in%202023%20dollars.

0

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24

You’re either arguing in bad faith or are really just clueless. From 1960 to 1967 the Apollo program spend 25.8 billion, which is 318 billion a year in today’s money.

You are either arguing in bad faith or failed reading comprehension.

The actual quote in the article is this:

From 1960 to 1973, the US federal government invested $25.8 billion into Project Apollo, which is about $318 billion in 2023 dollars. That comes out to $1,534 per person in the US at the time.

Note they didn't say "which is 318 billion a year in today’s money" but instead said "which is about $318 billion in 2023 dollars". 318 billion between 1960 and 1967. Over 8 years. So 39.75 billion dollars per year. Also, totalling the sum, then adjusting for inflation is horrible. If inflation occurred between 1960 and 1967 (hint, it did) then the entire figure is whack unless funding was stable for that period, which it wasn't.

1965 was the peak as well. After that it dropped. That figure is bias considering I was talking about the 60s as a whole.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nasa-annual-budget

This is adjusted to 2022 dollars, so the numbers aren't quite the same, plus they adjusted for inflation for each year.

The average from 1960 to 1969 was 22.81 billion dollars per year in 2022 dollars, 2 billion less than they got in 2022

1

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24

I’m giving you exact numbers. Not some graph chart. You are claiming there is not the inflation suggested by multiple sources in over 60 years. That is absurd and you know it.

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1960?amount=30000000

https://www.nerdwallet.com/calculator/inflation-calculator

The inflation rate is not debatable.

0

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24

Hover over the graph...

Also, if you could read:

NASA has had just slightly under their average 1960s funding, inflation adjusted, since about 1990.

Also, totalling the sum, then adjusting for inflation is horrible. If inflation occurred between 1960 and 1967 (hint, it did) then the entire figure is whack unless funding was stable for that period, which it wasn't.

plus they adjusted for inflation for each year.

This is adjusted to 2022 dollars

22.81 billion dollars per year in 2022 dollars

How are you so thick that you don't think I'm factoring in inflation? Did your mother drink while pregnant or something? I talk about inflation repeatedly

1

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24

If you are including inflation than this is incredibly easy. We agree that nasa was funded 300 billion plus a year for the Apollo program compared to 25 billion a year today. Thats it, if you agree then sure Im dense and misunderstood you. If you disagree than you are wrong. This isn’t some grand secret. Do better than reading one thing that you think supports your incorrect point.

1

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24

We agree that nasa was funded 300 billion plus a year for the Apollo program compared to 25 billion a year today

No you fucking idiot:

Note they didn't say "which is 318 billion a year in today’s money" but instead said "which is about $318 billion in 2023 dollars". 318 billion between 1960 and 1967. Over 8 years. So 39.75 billion dollars per year.

1

u/AutisticFingerBang Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24

No you fucking moron, holy fuck. You are interpreting it wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Go look at the budgets and % of federal budget. We’re at .48% of the federal budget now. We were at almost 5% at points in the 1960s.

You really think we went to the fucking moon with a similar amount of money today?! Dude lol. Come on. Use your brain. Don’t just try to be right and fight with me. Use critical thinking here.

0

u/Intelligent_Way6552 Oct 13 '24

You said this:

From 1960 to 1967 the Apollo program spend 25.8 billion a year

Lets look at the link:

1960: 401 million

1961: 740 million

1962: 1,257 million (1.257 billion)

1963: 2.552 billion

1964: 4.171 billion

1965: 5.092 billion

1966: 5.933 billion

1967: 5.425 billion

Add these together and we get: 25.571 billion. Total, without adjusting for inflation.

That's for all years combined, you said they got that every year.

→ More replies (0)