What Does Trump's Return Mean For NASA, Artemis and US Spaceflight? Deep Space Update Special....

[@_mosscat]

They can't cancel SLS now they already made a lego set. That's it that's the whole reason

[@theussmirage]

LEGO secretly controls 45% of the deep state

[@ch4.hayabusa]

Buy all the LEGO sets, melt them into Tesla interiors. Sell Vulcan to ESA in exchange for their half of Orion. Adapt Orion to launch on an expendable starship. Turn SLS into an 18m wide nuclear ship launcher... or privatize it. ALL NASA Engineering should be privatized, unless it's scientific equipment. --- Alternatively, Ask Blue Origin to start launching Orion. Then give ULA (who acquired SLS) a contract for an 18m Starship competitor. Along with a similar deal for SpaceX. Standardize the payload to an 18m megaton nuclear Mars transporters, built by Boeing and SpaceX.

[@bilbo_gamers6417]

​@@ch4.hayabusa expendable starship is crazy

[@davefram4653]

@@ch4.hayabusa You speak true, brother

[@epj0211]

@@ch4.hayabusa I think you’re playing too much KSP.

[@RustyorBroken]

Abraham Lincoln famously once said, "Don't believe everything that you see on the Internet." His words were never more true than today.

[@epj0211]

Strange, I thought it was Ghandi who said that.

[@RustyorBroken]

@epj0211 he said, "The comments section holds the truths you seek." People commonly confuse the two.

[@epj0211]

@@RustyorBroken Oh, right.

[@URnickel_MY2cents]

😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Lincoln, the internet ! Time traveler extraordinaire !!!

[@Maverick966]

AMEN

[@matthewfurlani8647]

Scott walking a tightrope trying to not offend Kamala supports and not inflate Trump supporters a DAY after the election is my new favorite vibe

[@onlyme112]

Well said. Best comment here.

[@industrialvectors]

That's the saddest part about modern politics. You can't have moderate opinions. You don't like illegal immigration, nazi. You want to have a resilient healthcare, communist. How about a bit of both? Traitor!

[@matthewfurlani8647]

thank you

[@AlexApol]

and he did it masteerfully.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Kammy supporters get offended at everything😂

[@Alex-gc2vo]

Replacing nasa with spacex is like saying we should replace the FAA with Boeing. They aren't competitors. They're just different parts of the overall system

[@shakalpb1164]

Very good point

[@paperburn]

somebody want to tell him? OK I will. FAA uses boeing employees' as inspectors because of an inspector shortage. The FAA established the ODA program in 2009 to standardize oversight of aircraft manufacturers and reduce its workload. The program allows Boeing employees to perform tasks delegated by the FAA.

[@astro-boffin]

hahahaha Haven't been paying attention, have we.

[@Zennitube]

Not when Elon is de facto space minister. A new form of government is gestating

[@ClimateDude]

​@@paperburnYes and we, or rather the poor people on Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines 302, had to witness where that leads.

[@industrialvectors]

The way Trump talked about SpaceX Starship and Starlink was interesting. He was talking like a grandpa happy about his grandson projects but not understanding a lot about it. Fair to think NASA will not lose too much funding.

[@jastrapper190]

More than that… he said when Elon’s rocket was grabbed by those giant arms… it was like a father plucks his baby out of the air… in a beautiful yuuuge fire’ey ballot… lol. Gotta love trump. As America does. We elected him in a landslide… YUUUUUUUGE

[@MrWolfstar8]

NASA has plenty of funding but tons of waste. Just cut the fat and focus on space flight.

[@olorin1710]

Nasa will lose tremendous funding. Musk will further leach off the government and get us no where fast.

[@jastrapper190]

Trump said he asked the experts around him… can China do that? No sir. Can NASA do that? No sir. That’s when I knew America had a true genius in Elon… we have to protect and allow our geniuses to do what they do best for America. 🤣

[@herdsire90210]

Trump visited the first human launch of Falcon 9.

[@esbrasill]

I vote Scott Manley for Nasa admin!

[@richdurbin6146]

Draft Scott!

[@lyledal]

Seconded!

[@HansWaldenmaier]

Elon is already the DOGE, but after NASA is cleaned up, who will be the head of NASA? Forget about actually running the internals who will be the face of NASA.... It's gotta be Scott or maybe Tim?

[@atomicsmith]

Definitely head of communication! He’d be the first Scot to ever be the head of communication anywhere😂😂😂

[@antiussentiment]

No way. that would be the end of this video channel..

[@techienate]

SpaceX is cheap because it's not a giant, nationwide spending program, lol. That's what's really going on with SLS. Not the worst job creation tool, imo... NASA is a research organization, Space X is a launch company. Trying to privatize NASA's research is a hilariously terrible idea.

[@stur5170]

Thank you so muchfor saying this so clearly! I wish more people understood this!

[@wally7856]

That's why NASA should stick to building telescopes, probes, rovers and such and let the private sector provide the launch vehicle. Telescopes, probes, rovers and such require long term funding as those missions can last decades and is best suited by government funding. They don't need to waste precious resources developing rockets.

[@LTVoyager]

NASA isn’t a research organization. NASA is a public money distribution organization just as is all other government agencies. The military is about the only part of government that actually does anything anymore, and even then most military spending is simply distributing public money across the US.

[@julz_swag]

@@wally7856yeah it’s what NASA does best.

[@Member00101]

NASA is science and exploration based, SpaceX is for profit.

[@JanBruunAndersen]

"Nobody can be that stupid" said Scott while talking about politicians 😂

[@ahoannon5711]

Not just politicians, but Donald Trump in particular.

[@ltrodd]

@@ahoannon5711 If you still think that Trump is stupid at this point then I don't know what to say to you.. projection perhaps?

[@hotrodandrube9119]

If you can't tell that he's a moron after listening to him talk for 90 seconds, you might be the uneducated that he grifts off of. ​@ltrodd

[@jamessolomon3467]

@@ltrodd Trump couldn't even answer simple questions like how tariffs work. He thinks we took airports during the civil war, he couldn't name a single bible verse he liked (cause he never read it), he looked directly at a solar eclipse, rambles on for hours and can't stay on topic, bragged about beating a 5 word memory test designed for an 8 year old, he thinks injecting cleaner into your lungs was a solution for Covid...yes, he's stupid.

[@urgay1992]

​@@ltroddHave you actually listened to him speak? Dude is even further gone than Biden...

[@Papershields001]

“Nobody’s THAT stupid…” I’m gonna come back to that quote in a few years and see how well it’s aged.

[@nipperdawg1865]

I was going to say he must be new here

[@epj0211]

So am I, with your comment.

[@HhddGufif]

Hold my covfefe

[@aone9050]

Lets see.

[@c6q3a24]

@@HhddGufif That was a bad tweet. The Democrats do nice tweets... and they also did the Afghanistan withdrawal. They are unfit for governance.

[@AndrewNorman-x7h]

If Elon says to Trump "If you send us to Mars I will build a tower with your name on it", we are 100% going to Mars

[@TheNitroG1]

Do you understand what the power of a brand is? Yes trump has an ego, but he doesn't put his name on things exclusively to satiate his ego. Trump is a brand, a label that when businesses see it they change their behavior. why is it important for prototypes to still have a NASA emblem? even if the prototype is intended to be destroyed at the end of the test? Branding.

[@thomgizziz]

Dude NASA is going to sell naming rights for their moon missions and are talking about other endorsement opportunities. So if you aren't a complete hypocrite lets hear why NASA is wrong... im going to be waiting for eternity, huh?

[@AndrewNorman-x7h]

Why do you assume I have a problem with this?

[@HicSvntDracones]

@@TheNitroG1 Like, they run away?

[@laytoncordray7509]

@@HicSvntDracones You really sound uneducated saying that about an incredibly successful businessman. You are very disassociated from reality

[@JayVal90]

5:48 Honestly the idea of repurposing the SLS into a space station module factory would be VERY poetic

[@MTG_Music]

lets just hope if it does happen they don't reenter uncontrolled lol

[@patricklewis7636]

I got some side eye about that idea. I don't think those two things have much in common aside from the shape. Pressure hulls have a very different job than fuel tanks.

[@pixynowwithevenmorebelkanb6965]

Well it is a Space Launching System

[@JohnDoe-420]

@@patricklewis7636 Not at all. Google Skylab.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

that or he's just being objective

[@michaelmorley7719]

That was a very fair discussion of the politics of space policy. Well done.

[@otakujhp]

Congress are professionals at conflict of interest.

[@ciro_costa]

congress answers to the businessmen that put them in their seats. the people's interests are never in their mind...

[@nillavice]

One minor correction... US Space Command (a Unified Combatant Command under the Department of Defense) is not part of the US Space Force (a US military branch under the Department of the Air Force). US Space Command is the organization that may or may not have its headquarters moved from Colorado to Alabama. The US Space Force's headquarters is located at the Pentagon near Washington DC just like all other US military branches (e.g., Army, Navy, Air Force, USMC), and there are no plans to relocate the Headquarters for US Space Force.

[@Gunni1972]

Damn, an i hoped they'd move to Mar a lago, to Guard "the Alien".

[@frosty848]

@@Gunni1972 Salty from that loss eh?

[@ontheruntonowhere]

@@frosty848 Nope, just trolling to find the self-styled free-speech bimbos who can't take a joke 😝

[@martianbuilder5945]

With how fast China's space program has been advancing, I'm surprised that moon and space policy wasn't a greater issue this election. No one ever talked about it. Maybe China can just beat the US to the moon and society will finally care!

[@parkershaw8529]

Very possible, just like the Spunik.

[@jesperwall839]

Nah. China is way behind SpaceX. They are at the point SpaceX were like 5 years ago. But anything’s up. They might catch up 🤷‍♂️

[@duckvs.chipanddale585]

we already beat them to the moon

[@oberonpanopticon]

@@duckvs.chipanddale585I’d be willing to bet that more than a tenth of your population doesn’t believe that

[@nicosmind3]

Well Trump did start (or rather separated from the military into its own thing) the Space Agency, so I dare say he's aware of space for both it's economic and military value. And China 100% if there for the power it grants them

[@wavion2]

What Elon and SpaceX are doing for space is great. But they are a company with the goal of profit. You still need NASA to make sure things that are purely scientific (and unprofitable) still happen. You need both. Especially since what SpaceX is doing makes it a lot cheaper for NASA to do its thing.

[@thomgizziz]

The business side of things is going to end up doing far more than NASA to the point that anything that NASA is looking to do in the inner solar system is probably a waste of time at this point or very soon because business will do it bigger, faster, cheaper and more reliably. NASA is needed for other things like telescopes and for the time being the outer planets. They aren't magic.

[@JarrodBaniqued]

Very true, especially since a monopolist billionaire or small set of shareholders could cut off test data, radio spectrum or launch slots at any time. (See SpaceNews’ Dec. 5 article on HLS, or the WSJ’s Oct. 9 article on Starlink, or the NYT’s May 28 article on SpaceX possibly violating antitrust laws.) One could make the case that including more competition is good, as the DoD are doing with NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1, and NASA did with HLS, but that still wouldn’t solve the problem I’m describing, the way an in-house public option like SLS would.

[@CristiNeagu]

Yes. The goal is profit. Which is precisely why they are the better choice for making it to the Moon. They actually need to deliver. NASA gets paid no matter what. This is why NASA is currently relying on SpaceX so much, because SpaceX delivers. Furthermore, the whole goal behind SpaceX is purely scientific: landing on Mars. Elon isn't making money for the sake of making money. He's making money because he's a little kid that likes to send huge rockets to other planets.

[@justmengracie]

SpaceX/Musk primarily uses the profit from SpaceX and Tesla to further his dream of human habitation of Mars... Not profit for his own wealth.

[@ihdieselman]

I think there's probably not many people with a better understanding of the significance of the research nasa does and the ways that it could be more efficient than Musk. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea to make him the administrator.

[@ViggaTron]

Thank you for being very neutral and reasonable in you analysis here today.

[@Phazon_Corrupted]

Agreed!

[@newsgetsold]

His face had a certain look of tension and disappointment at the start of this video. But yes, very reasonable and neutral indeed. Thankfully unlike some of the shrieking and wailing that people publicly share.

[@saarbarshalev811]

yes. and where did we go as a society, where neutral and reasonable are rare these days 🤦‍♂

[@jamskinner]

It wasn’t neutral.

[@johannesgutsmiedl366]

@@newsgetsold Scott is clearly a person with a functional brain, so I very much doubt he's a Trump supporter. Still, great job indeed at trying to keep it neutral... Many in America's aerospace industry will have to walk that tightrope for the next four years.

[@shadowlordalpha]

I think the massively overblown contracts that SLS and others have may be in trouble simply because of how bad those contracts are for NASA. Overall I do hope we get much better space news from NASA and the companies it works with. I also hope more smaller ones get more contracts

[@Andreas-gh6is]

You seem to have the misconception that politics is not a thing. Maybe it won't be considering the US just decided it wants to be ruled by an autocracy. But as long as there is a congress that decides budgetary issues, you can't just assume representatives writing NASA any checks with no strings attached and no benefits to their constituents. There's only a tiny sliver of citizens who are passionate enough to fund idiotic pursuits like Artemis, and Apollo was even more idiotic, given the technology of the time.

[@SAVarXX]

Gonna be tough once Trump's Administration shuts down the National Weather Service for being Woke

[@Amoth_oth_ras_shash]

oooor , you have a baffon thats a easy puppet eagerly start burn down the entire budget and even destroy decades long painstaking archives of data as ''mha coal industry buddies say this just is waste of cash , unlike if they get that cash instead to help 'my' government hashtag monarchy'' :/ either could be the case

[@tau4333]

If I am not mistaken, Spacex has overblown their contract, too? Wonder if the DOGE is doing something about that. 🤣

[@wilms2328]

Many of those contracts are in solidly red states though

[@prometheus1672]

Regarding the boosters and ICBMs, Northrop Grumman, who manufacture those boosters is also the prime contractor for the new Sentinel ICBM. So that deal has already been made

[@Sentinel_ICBM]

As an engineer for the program, things are not going well. Baby boomers retiring and too much reliance on young folks without experience working through a full launch vehicle cycle have slowed design, schedule pushbacks, and cost overruns. Not to mention huge poaching of NG employees by Blue Origin. Major layoffs hit earlier in the year after the budget overrun. (All public information).

[@williamruss8157]

You did a fine job of keeping all the passions of politics out of this discussion. Thanks for taking the time to do that and for providing the information.

[@kenfrancis117]

I hope for the following: Continue to provide contracts to other Spacecraft Companies for better competition, and more investment in commercial/private space flight for LEO operations. Get Artemis program back on track with plans for permanent human presence on the Moon, and begin plans for a Mars human landing, which I believe can be done sometime in 2030s

[@itsd0nk]

Trump is very anti-competitive. He will most likely be funneling as much to spacex as possible for the quid pro quo of Elon’s election interfer- help.

[@ultrastoat3298]

@@itsd0nkmakes sense. It’s crazy how much crony capitalism has been going on with ULA and they are a fraction as effecient as SpaceX. Give that wasted budget to SpaceX instead.

[@ItsSweetShot]

The artemis animation "how we are going to the moon" by nasa was such a cool video

[@thirteenthandy]

I appreciate the non-partisan and hopeful video. I've seen your posts on X so I can imagine the careful thought that must have gone into this, and it reminds me why I like your videos. Well done.

[@olorin1710]

@@thirteenthandy especially when one side doesn't even believe in science and leans towards flat earth 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@thirteenthandy]

@@olorin1710 Clearly his viewers can't manage the same feat.

[@Deachuu603]

@@olorin1710 Compulsive lying is why you lost the popular vote.

[@Psycorde]

I'm glad to see a reasonable take and objective analysis on concrete matters, rather that rhetoric. Really appreciate it

[@sheldoniusRex]

Space is popular. Politicians are in the business of being popular. Space is safe. Specific programs may or may not be cut. Promises probably will be unfulfilled. Deadlines will be pushed back. Cans will be kicked down the road. But politicians would *never* entirely cut a popular program. NASA will be there in the end. Poorly funded as usual.

[@Member00101]

NASA is science and exploration, SpaceX is for profit. They have different missions.

[@sheldoniusRex]

@Member00101 we know

[@Member00101]

@@sheldoniusRex most people don’t.

[@donhoverson6348]

Space is not popular. Football is popular.

[@Member00101]

@ people just like cool things. They like watching rocket launches but that’s about it. Most people can’t even tell you what all the planets are.

[@gregengelmann804]

Come on people, redundancy is one of the most important thing about spaceflight..

[@ronschlorff7089]

right, and most space contractors do have a Department of Redundancy Department too! LOL ;D

[@jamessmith4229]

"NASA is the customer", absolutely correct.

[@grassgrow030]

i just accidentally stumbled onto your account. I watched your KSP videos like a decade ago, wow! Your voice is such a pleasure to listen to, im glad youre still making videos!

[@markoconnell804]

The idea of getting rid of NASA is dumb.

[@markevan1]

No. It's time. NASA is obsolete.

[@ronschlorff7089]

right, "nobody is that stupid"!! LOL ;D

[@adarret]

16:23 When viewed from the perspective that Colorado is both a Blue State and home to the Air Force Academy while Alabama is a Red State with lots of NASA facilities, the tug of war makes more sense…

[@dalel3608]

Yep, keeping it tied to the Airforce hip in Colorado, or have it more independent and near the space equipment providers. Frankly, I think they should have their HQ in orbit. 😆

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@dalel3608 yup, agreed, in something like a Star Wars Death Star!! LOL ;D

[@StewartEvans-e3z]

I know that there are many rules that would make it problematic, but if SpaceX is getting close to Australia with the upper stage then a quiet reminder that the Woomera Test Range is a rather large area to play with ( 122,188 km2 ). Plus we have a lot of tracking equipment to watch it arrive.

[@simongeard4824]

Yep, I've been suggesting since the last flight that they might try for a soft(ish) landing at Woomera for maybe flight 7 or 8. They're not going to be re-entering ships anywhere near Boca Chica for a while - too many people living nearby for that to be acceptable without a lot more demonstrations of safe control - but Woomera is a big empty target to hit (you can miss the landing site by ~30km and still not hit anything) and it's not a major change to the flight profiles used to date.

[@StewartEvans-e3z]

@@simongeard4824 Indeed, after all they have already handled the Hayabusa2 sample return capsule and are expecting more return work later.

[@simongeard4824]

@@StewartEvans-e3z Right. I'm not expecting them to build catch-towers or anything that sophisticated, but if they have any desire to bring a Ship down on land in the near future, the only good options I can see are Woomera or White Sands... there's nothing else really suitable along the flight path.

[@BobDeWitt-pl9qp]

You are a brave man Mr. Manley. Very pragmatic observations, hitting all the right questions and showing experience and even wisdom. Superior video here.

[@marcwolf60]

I feel that the FAA needs to be split into Aero and Space. Aero concerns are different from the fast development of space.

[@marcwolf60]

@@EbenBransome One can split hairs on the matter. But planes stay in the athmosphere where rockets only use it as a temporary medium of transit. But the FAA has shown itself not to be capable of handling the fast changes that advanced rocketry requires.

[@gavinregier6177]

Considering how much he takes about Elon/SpaceX in his victory speech, I think things will, at worst, remain the status quo. Looking back on his first term, I don’t see any reason to expect any drastic budget cuts (except maybe NOAA)

[@JRTFMSmithson]

@@gavinregier6177 his first term there were adults in the room to provide guardrails. Those people are gone. There was no expectation he would win last time and he was totally unprepared. This time they have a blueprint of exactly what they are going to do already in place. The next four years are likely to be hell. If people don't start paying attention the rest will as well.

[@gavinregier6177]

@@JRTFMSmithson maybe... but I am just trying to be unbiased and comment specifically on space policy. A continued reality is that elections, and change of office, rarely have as much impact as people expect, so I see little reason to be concerned about space policy in particular.

[@iamaduckquack]

You've never had a convicted criminal at the helm either. I think the impact will be substantial.

[@nipperdawg1865]

He'll sell noaa to the weather channel

[@JRTFMSmithson]

@ and a valiant effort I salute you for. It remains to be seen how much of their agenda they will implement but their stated goals are extremely concerning.

[@adamtschupp9825]

"nobodys that stupid" Famous last words

[@jamesmskipper]

As I remember, some friends of mine were working on the Orion spacecraft in 1998 when I retired from NASA. Its funding was coming from one program after another as the political winds shifted.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Half the commenters here weren't even BORN then. For a freaking capsule. This thing is going to get the DOGE axe big time, Elon won't be engaging in no sunk cost fallacy garbage.

[@richardanderson1988]

I nominate Lori Garver for NASA Administrator. Yes she was a Deputy Administrator under Obama, but she pushed for the commercial crew program which was not popular with the Dems. She is a true space advocate.

[@FerociousPancake888]

With how violently divided the country is now, I’d be extremely surprised if they appoint anyone who has even muttered the word “democrat” once in their lifetime. That’s just how it is. We really need to work on coming back together as a country. Lori would be great.

[@zimriel]

@@FerociousPancake888 Lina Khan at the FTC could also be offered to stay.

[@thomgizziz]

@@FerociousPancake888 Trump left people on the left in their positions when he could have replaced them last time. Get a grip.

[@honkhonk8009]

Damn she sounds like a W. Hopefuly drumpf sees past the democrat shit then.

[@User-lg6dr]

Pretty sure you don’t want anything associated with Obama anywhere close to NASA. He practically killed it.

[@happydeux2254]

Thanks Scott, for all your nerdery and keeping me informed.

[@ronschlorff7089]

Yes, Scott is wonderful, just like a mother seagull, getting the fish and pre-digesting it and throwing it up into our immature baby gapping beaks, just as a metaphor you understand, with the "fish" being replaced by good scientific and space information, pre-digested and regurgitated, and our "gapping beaks" being our empty little skulls, regarding all this cool stuff!! "Food for thought" so to speak!! LOL ;D

[@mikerichards6065]

Given the rhetoric during the election, it’ll be interesting to see if any allocations for funding Earth sensing and climate monitoring missions get approved under the new Trump administration.

[@nathanmays7926]

Congress decides funding for those things.

[@iamaduckquack]

Doesn't tRump think climate change is a hoax?

[@JRTFMSmithson]

@@mikerichards6065 they have clearly stated they will dismantle all of that due to climate change being a myth. They don't care about the planet or the people on it, only wealth and power. We are talking about a group of people who believe hurricanes are alternatively God’s punishment or government weather control are not real keen on science or reality.

[@gavinregier6177]

​@@iamaduckquack good thing congress + Elon don't. Hopefully some whispering in the ear will steer things in the right direction

[@iamaduckquack]

@@nathanmays7926 and guess who has Congress on his side?

[@Grigorii-j7z]

During his first term Trump was very favorable to NASA and space explorations in general. Both parties share similar views. My guess nothing will significantly change.

[@Chance_Rice]

I mean if we go to mars in the next few years, which is unlikely he would be remembered forever which anyone would like

[@AlexSchendel]

8:14 I like that the blooper was left in haha

[@doug3691]

Thanks, Scott, we appreciate you.

[@jieli4589]

Space companies love nasa, like young people love their elderly but loving parents. NASA may be bloated and inefficient, but it still serves vital and irreplaceable functions

[@rh906]

Name 10 that couldn't be replaced by a private company?

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@rh906 all their facilities and infrastructures were built by "private companies" under contracts, going back to the time of Apollo. ;D

[@kevinakling]

4:21 appreciate the honesty and dispassionate attitude towards the Artemis program and the credit due. We need more of this! 9:04 I would love to see him come back. Was a great pick.

[@Deltarious]

About Space Force: a lot of the consensus I've read said that it did actually need to happen eventually, and USAF had started to request it happen, though it did seem like it was rushed through too quickly, at least to me and from what I've heard. I'm not at all an expert on this though

[@thomgizziz]

Naw it is fine. We never needed the Navy either. People started fighting on land and that is all we need to worry about... What? The air? Are you a joke? People aren't birds, there is no war in air. The only reason good ol' scotty is taking shots at the space force is because Trump implemented it and Scott is a partisan because he thinks being on the "right" team makes you better than other people...

[@salty_berserker_channel]

You are partially correct. NASA and the USAF had been wanting a space force. But it wasn't rushed at all. The idea was sent to Congress in 2010. It had been batted around until Trump's presidency, and under NASAs great administrator Jim Bridenstein (I miss Jim!) trump signed off on it. Space is the next frontier. America needs to get ahead of it if we want to stay competitive as a country. if we don't we will be asking the Chinese and Russians for access to space.

[@Rocketsong]

It's about funding, and more importantly funding stability. By spiting it off from Big Air Force, it becomes it's own budget item. Otherwise it has to compete with bombers, and fighters, and refueling aircraft.

[@JohnSmith-yp2nt]

Bringing Jim back would be amazing. He was probably the best admin NASA ever had. Gwynn would be great, but she's busy shaping the future. I don't see Elon taking an office, but i bet he would answer phone calls. I'm happy with how things are going, though, overall.

[@wpatrickw2012]

I just wish Scott had not drunk the SpaceX Kool-Aid.

[@TWeaK819]

If anyone deserves to go to space, it's Scott Manley.

[@lhpl]

I haven't watched the video yet. Does he deserve a return ticket, or one-way only?

[@hervigdewilde3599]

It's going to be a good time for science & history channels... 🤪

[@leoncarcosa5299]

Jim was great, he really was genuinely excited about Space and NASA.

[@MonsterSound.Bradley]

He also was acutely aware that in his position with TrumpKing he needed to kiss the ring to stay relevant to get things done, and he did it.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@MonsterSound.Bradley maybe true, and it did not hurt that he did not have a "ring" of his own..., in his nose!! LOL ;D

[@bipolarbear9917]

SLS should be repurposed to fast track a manned scouting mission to the Lunar South Pole before the Chinese get there. This simpler mission profile is to complete the short term goal while Spacex Starship and the Lunar Gateway has enough long term development time.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

SLS has not the required delta V. This is the sole reason for the strange orbit of Gateway. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@rogerphelps9939]

And how do you propose acttually landing and taking off? SLS does not and cannot have that capability.

[@solannedmundo.harina9908]

@@rogerphelps9939 js use a kraken drive

[@mervstash3692]

😂😂

[@rogerphelps9939]

@@solannedmundo.harina9908 So what is that? Is it a figment of someone's imagination that defies physics?

[@diackone]

Sober review Manley. I too liked Jim Brin... id welcome his return. Cheers heres to a bright future.🎉 🚀 🇺🇸

[@mikeehrmantraut2607]

Mr. Manley, please never change :-)

[@alfonsopayra]

Also... Elon Trump is now Donald Musk new boyfriend.. so

[@Toodyslexicforyou]

My hope for America is one day two male billionaire can marry and fly safe

[@jesseozmen9835]

TRUMP 2024!!!!

[@Toodyslexicforyou]

@@jesseozmen9835 buddy go worship a politician else where. We’re here to celebrate love between 2male billionaires, not politics here bud. Go run along or come to the wedding!

[@GrimSower]

@@Toodyslexicforyou funny watching the "enlightened" try to use being gay as a joke, just shows how out of touch your shrinking bubble is.

[@Toodyslexicforyou]

@ it ain’t a joke and m8 I ain’t in a bubble as bubbles contain limited oxygen that would mean I would die, I haven’t died as I am writing this.

[@bobthecannibal1]

You can expect less red tape for private launch licenses, leading to a larger number of them.

[@smsandel]

Great commentary Scott and as a private SpaceX investor there’s no way any of us would agree to give up Gwynn for anything. She’s too vital an asset to the company.

[@James-hb8qu]

Anyone commenting that NASA does anything efficient has never worked on a NASA project. Private industry would do 10x what NASA does and administers for 1/10 the price.

[@flarapediati]

13:21 "I don't think that's going to happen, nobody's that stupid." Scott, I really hope you're right.

[@Dethmeister]

0:50 Melania was the one taking the photo. She was there. She was always there.

[@thomgizziz]

But he can't help but show his partisan nonsense. There has been half a dozen comments about how he was so impartial and how, these clear democrats, couldn't tell who he voted for.

[@SireBab]

​@@thomgizzizman you need to chill out. I've seen you post inflammatory stuff over like 5 comments already. Take a break, stop looking at politicial stuff, and evaluate if this is a good use of your time and mental energy.

[@Dethmeister]

I was just joking. I seem to remember a line, (maybe in the movie Deep Impact ?) about the mother missing because she was the one taking the photos. I doubt Melania is taking the photo but why even mention her? But yeah, it's pretty obvious Scott isn't a Trump fan. That twitter post where Trump is dumping on Scott's hero Musk. Asking where Melania is. "Having" to give Trump credit. "Nobody's that dumb". "Trump likes loyalty" (who doesn't). Living in California😄. But whatever. ✌

[@eliotandal]

I come for Scott's level-headed, insightful, and witty commentary on space and I stay for his level-headed, insightful, and witty commentary on politics

[@lymancopps5957]

I cringe when I think about all the exploration missions cancelled to fill the trough for the SLS pig.

[@spooders8424]

6:36 hmm I’d love to see Orion on top of new shepherd, it’ll look even more like that

[@mamulcahy]

Thank you for your objective analysis!

[@spacemonkey2727]

A full independent investigation into the space program would save a lot of money

[@sreastronaut9765]

I don’t think SLS or Artemis are in danger. There is already so much infrastructure in place. It’ll probably be best to speed through the whole thing, land people on the moon, then depend on private companies to have a more permanent presence on the moon. Once Starship and New Glenn become operational and human rated we will be in a much better place. Hopefully other heavy lift rockets will pop up.

[@awebuser5914]

_"Once *New Glenn* becomes operational we will be in a much better place_" Yep, that's the fix you were looking for... In any case, New Glenn will be the "tug" for the lander, Artemis is the humans-to-space-and-back side.

[@sreastronaut9765]

@@awebuser5914 As long as we have more than one heavy lift vehicle that is competitive I am happy. In order for Starship or New Glenn to be cheap they both need to work to some extent. If only one or the other works then sure the price will be lower because of reusability, but not competitively low. I think both vehicles are in a very similar place at the moment as far as time line is concerned. Starship might take some time to fly payloads other than Starlink, but New Glenn has been known for being very slow and cautious. One mishap in its progress and it might be grounded for several months. At the end of the day we need both, and more wouldn’t hurt.

[@plainText384]

​@awebuser5914 that's not really true. Artemis is the entire program (including HLS, CLPS and Gateway). Orion (launched on SLS) is the vehicle used to get from the surface of earth to lunar orbit and back. For the HLS architecture of the BlueOrigin-lead team, New Glenn would also not really act as a space tug for BlueOrigin's Mk2 Blue Moon HLS lander. Rather the architecture calls for New Glenn to insert the lander into an initial earth orbit, from where the lander would then use its own engines and fuel to transfer to NRHO. New Glenn would also launch the "Cislunar transporter" built and designed by Lockheed Martin and would refuel it in earth orbit with liquid hydrogen and oxygen. The Cislunar transporter would then act as a space tug to deliver the propellant to the lander in NRHO, refueling it there.

[@TheNitroG1]

SLS is on the chopping block make no mistake about it. Elon has repeatedly commented on how wasteful that program is. I'm 100% for it's cancelation. Boeing has been an absolute joke lately. It's just throwing away money. Just look at the stats around the launch platform alone, it's staggering. 1.8 to 2.7 billion dollars and it needs hundreds of millions in refurbishment after every launch... compared to starships launch tower only costing 100 million to build from scratch. So, if you think about it, for just the cost of the launch platform that SLS sits on... SpaceX can build a dozen launch towers and have millions left over. Now lets look at the cargo capacity of each system. SLS 190,000lbs Starship 300,000lbs... SLS isn't progress. It's a slush fund. How many times has it even flown...once. They have 4 more flights planned...but the cost of all of that comes to like 30 billion dollars...Space X could probably build a colony on the moon with that kind of money.

[@thomgizziz]

@@awebuser5914 Starship beats them both out... why are you all so bigoted against Elon?

[@kolbyking2315]

6:35 TLI payload of different rockets: Falcon 9 expended = 5.4t Ariane 6-4 = 8.6t Vulcan 6S = 12.1t New Glenn = 7t Falcon Heavy expended = 20t SLS Block 1 = 27.5t SLS Block 1B = 38t SLS Block 2 = 46t No rocket besides SLS can launch Orion+ESM (26.5t) to the moon. A Falcon Heavy Centaur could technically do it (28t), but I don't think Falcon Heavy isn't designed to handle heavy LEO payloads.

[@thomgizziz]

Hey little buddy... I see you conveniently forgot to put starship in there and it will do 150T vs Block 2s 130T to LEO. Starship should be able to do over 50T to the moon and with refueling way way way more than that. Why did you leave it out?

[@kolbyking2315]

@thomgizziz OK. Let's be generous and assumed that starships v1, v2, and v3 have dry masses of 100, 105, and 115 tons. Let's also assume no 2nd stage recovery since we won't have non-ablative lunar reentries for a long time. This gives usable fuel capacities of 60t, 115t, and 215t. With a specific impulse of 380s, here are the available delta-vs for the different starship variants: V1 = 1752 m/s V2 = 2757 m/s V3 = 3930 m/s Here, we find that Starship V1 and V2 can't reach TLI without in-orbit refueling. We also find that expended Starship V3 has a TLI payload capacity of 47t.

[@simongeard4824]

@@kolbyking2315 Yeah, but here's the thing... SLS costs more than *two billion dollars* per launch. Even if you're expending every single one of them, that buys a *lot* of Starship flights. If they need to expend 20 ships as a pessimistic $100m each to refuel 1 ship bound for the moon... they're still saving money. SLS really is that expensive... if not more so, given that the auditor-general wasn't sure he'd found all of the costs when he came up with that $2b figure.

[@christiannorf1680]

@@simongeard4824 The SLS really is the sunken cost fallacy manifested into a physical object.

[@kolbyking2315]

@@simongeard4824 I agree that SLS is way too expensive. It's just the only option we'll have for launching Orion. Starship HLS can't dock with space stations or return humans from the moon, so there are other issues.

[@wyattnoise]

I thought the only good thing Trump ever did was appoint Jim Bridenstine... How many other administrators could land the lunar lander simulator? Kinda hope he makes a return.

[@mshepard2264]

Totally agree

[@ronschlorff7089]

sounds like an excellent "interview question". "Please get in this thing, and land it, ...then we'll talk further!" LOL

[@SebastianWellsTL]

I respect your analysis! Really appreciate the factual look at things!

[@bersig]

The politics of space flight are not complicated, at least if we're talking about NASA. Congresscritters vote to give money to NASA as long as NASA agrees to spend it in said 'critters' districts. Nothing complicated about it.

[@thomgizziz]

There is a lot of pork.

[@PaulShanley]

13:26 That is not how tax cuts have to work. We could even see increased revenue. Tax cuts do not inherently have to be “paid for” or “cost” us. It really just depends. No matter what, spending cuts HAVE to occur or nothing will change for the good.

[@jasonwalker9471]

The tax cuts that occurred in the W Bush and first Trump administration had no significant positive effect on the economy. This was consistent with what we're seen in other countries as well, over the past 1000 years of well documented taxation. While some tax cuts provide significant economic boosts, these weren't those kids of cuts. When you prioritize cutting taxes on the upper classes (who pay much of the taxes), you get very little bang for your buck. The reason for this is obvious: if you give extra money to a poor person, they spend it, because they need to. This boosts the economy. If you give extra money to a rich person... nothing changes. The stock market will likely jump, but it is a strictly inflationary jump caused by people dumping a bunch of extra money into the market, not a change in real world valuations of companies (which is what we should all care about). Since we know from his own words that Trump isn't going to come in and eliminate taxes on people making under 50k a year (which would be a MASSIVE boon to the economy), but instead is planning on lowering taxes on the rich and on various layers of the upper middle classes, we already know how his tax cuts will turn out: increase in stock prices, increase in deficit. This is a guaranteed outcome of this type of tax cut. Tariffs on the other hand... it's impossible to know how they'll work out. You can have a good tariff and you can have a bad tariff. A great deal of how the US (and world) economy turns out for the next 20 years is going to be decided by exactly what tariffs are implemented, and exactly how they are implemented. The devil is in the details. Could be good, could be bad. We'll see.

[@PaulShanley]

Hmm. You covered a lot of ground. The idea that tax cuts leaving people with more money has no positive effect, seems suspect. I’ll read the rest when I’ve got a minute. And agreed, the details matter.

[@PaulShanley]

And disagree, we should be taxing every income bracket, and all at the same rate. If I make $10,000 I pay $1000. If I make $100,000, then I pay 10 times the person that I make 10 times more than, $10,000. If I make $1 million, I pay 10 times more than the person making $100,000, meaning I pay $100,000. Everybody needs skin in the game.

[@jasonwalker9471]

@@PaulShanley You are quite wrong that that is a fair system. Think about it this way. You have a person who makes 1 million a year in taxable income. If you tax them at 10% then they have 900k left. You have another person who makes 20k a year. If you tax them at 10% then they have 18k left. Seems fair, right? No, because you're not looking at discretionary income, but rather gross income, which is an unfair comparison. Both people will have expenses. Work, clothes, transportation, shelter, food, etc. Let's say that the 20k person lives a minimal existence (as they'd need to, of course), spending a mere 18k per year on food, shelter, etc. The million dollar person will spend more on the same stuff and live a better life, but in my mind (and yours, I suspect) I see nothing wrong with that. Let's say they live a crazy life compared to most Americans and spend half a million a year on housing, cars, food, etc. Good for them. With me so far? The million dollar person has 500k left after spending on "basic" necessities. The 20k person has 2k left after doing the same. This is their "discretionary income". Now tax their gross at a flat 10%, as some have suggested. What percentage of each of their discretionary incomes are you taxing? You're taxing 100k of 500k for a 20% discretionary tax rate. And you're taxing 2k of 2k... for a 100% tax rate. Because of this, flat taxes are incredibly, unbelievably unfair. They massively favor the rich, and punish the poor. That's why "progressive tax systems" exist. The idea is to equally tax the discretionary income, in order to achieve a fairer after-tax outcome.

[@PaulShanley]

Progressive tax systems are regressive. Their aim, through the rationalization that you (and others) ineffectively use, is to leave those with more money, less. That is regressive. That is punitive. That is counterproductive. I would still want hardship funding, social services, and a workfare/welfare safety net for those who make less than a no perfect answer, always nuanced, let’s try to strike a balance, amount. Leaving all people with more of their money after taxes is my goal. 10% was an easy to work with number for ease of explanation. I don’t know what the reasonable or “fair” of “flat” amount would most effectively be. None of it will matter if budgets continuing to be continuing and no substantive cuts are made.

[@FerociousPancake888]

I wish we would finish up Artemis, and then tell nasa they no longer can make launch vehicles and can’t contract with Boeing, raise their budget, and unleash a massive swarm of telescopes, probes, and rovers.

[@thomgizziz]

I wish you weren't so stuck in the past and narrow-sighted.

[@Coconut-219]

@@thomgizziz You choose a bad decade to be a regressive. Where is the falsehood? Do you just really love Boeing or something?

[@wrightmf]

Regarding increase for NASA funding, that money will only go to programs (more money to contractors) while 80% of NASA facilities (yes, those places companies do testing e.g. arc jets) are really old and ill maintained. While MOCR is nice and clean, much of the other is getting that Baikoner feeling.

[@Pelicanzzz]

Canceling SLS, but not cancelling the SLS funding would be so depressing.

[@SierraSierraFoxtrot]

It would still save money, and you might get something else less ueseless.

[@michiganengineer8621]

I Musk sticks around as an "unofficial" advisor, he'll be telling Trump to keep funding NASA as much as possible. That way HE doesn't have to pay for the test/research facilities you mentioned!

[@pointmanzero]

oh really NASA tested and devloped the spaceX engines?

[@somelokyguy6466]

@@pointmanzero NASA funded a good chunk of Starship, which is SpaceX's latest adventure.

[@allangraham970]

SpaceX dies not seem to need NASA test facilities. If they did , they could hire them

[@michiganengineer8621]

@@pointmanzero NASA did a lot of the research that LED to the Raptor engines. They also own/operate little things like the super and hyper sonic wind tunnels at Ames and a few other locations.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@michiganengineer8621 Right, there is so much space infrastructure built by NASA since the Apollo days that no company could ever hope to replace. And other "little things" like the worldwide deep space communications network, involving many foreign governments, scientists, engineers, and their cooperation. Recently turned on the back up link with Voyager 1, now 15 billions out, as one "little NASA accomplishment". And many other "little" items like you mention! : )

[@Totttty55]

6:35 I'd love to see them try to put Orion on a New Shephard lol

[@wikpil]

I went steight to comment when i hard that ;)

[@Scanner9631]

They would need to put New Shepherd aboard Starship to get it to orbit. Maybe it would go on a New Shepherd Heavy for a suborbital flight?

[@whitslack]

Neither of you spelled it correctly. It's New Shepard. Let's show Alan Shepard a little respect.

[@Totttty55]

@@whitslack His name was spelled a bit odd, and I have to always spell check it. But thanks for being a spelling corrector lol

[@Scanner9631]

@@whitslack Tell that to BO who named a flying dildo after him instead of a serious spacecraft.

[@anthonymaddison9588]

I nominate myself, There's enough space between my ears for dozens of missions.

[@ronschlorff7089]

great comment: some of these folks probably need a good laugh today!! LOL ;D

[@anthonymaddison9588]

@ronschlorff7089 Thanks, i do work hard.

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@anthonymaddison9588 Yes, obliviously LOL ;D

[@MarijnRoorda]

@(13:20) "Nobody is that stupid"...

[@ronschlorff7089]

Yes, that may be The quote of the vid, and it's shocking how "universally" it can be applied, day to day, beyond just politicians!! For example, read a sample of these comments!! ;D LOL

[@adarret]

However SpaceX could take over and fix the Tower/Crawler boondoggle for Artemis…

[@tonyug113]

nah spacex needs not to be pulled away from its core functions. SLS is doomed, once New glen, Vulcan, peter beckks roocket, dreamchaser, starship there , it has no meaning -- its a way too expensive white elephant boondoggle as it is and cant see its purpose beyond 2030 ... before that gives the hugely expensive (but basically paid for) moon trip part --- just stop boeing etc from building and charging for any more of that over-expensive crap (cause like appollo it would be too expensive to achieve its mission)

[@scottmanley]

The crawler is fine, it was built in the 60's. The problem is the new platform that can get carried by it.

[@adarret]

@ under a different NASA contract than that for the Tower, I was under the assumption someone was building a new crawler as well to go along with the new Tower for later Blocks of SLS, which is also behind schedule…

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

@@scottmanley I was built in the 60's

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

Its important NASA/government funding go to startup companies to increase competition and encourage innovation. SpaceX benefited from this before becoming one of the giant, established corporations. Watch to see if Musk "advises" continued funding of competing startups, or recommends giving it all to him.

[@JRTFMSmithson]

@@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958 The latter, obviously. Musk is no more about the free market than he is about free speech. Which is to say, not at all, except for him, which isn't anything other than common hypocrisy.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

​@@JRTFMSmithsonthat's not fair I think Elon since a member of the mars society in the 1990s would support competitive players Remember without Elon Rocketlab wouldn't even a right to bid for contracts. His 2011 lawsuits changed the space industry Go watch his senate hearing in 2011 with the lawsuit related to ULA

[@mshepard2264]

@@TheMagicJIZZI agree Elon was super interested in mars however he does things to benefit himself and his companies. If it helps another company that is just coincidence.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

@@mshepard2264 yeah as he should but I don't think he actually wants a monopoly He doesn't even want to be richer because he refuses the IPO which is a sign of his commitment to mars

[@JRTFMSmithson]

@ I grant you all that. I think Elon is self serving enough he would argue for competition on the downside and against it once on top. It’s pretty common for any corporation. It would certainly be on brand for Musk. The other thing to keep in mind is he has changed quite a bit in the past 10 years and a lot of people are still locked in to those initial perceptions.

[@donkoltz1]

Scott finally learned how to not meltdown when he mentions something Trump-adjacent. Nice. We could pull some great things out of this whole situation if we stay objective.

[@imaginary_friend7300]

"Scott finally learned how to not meltdown when he mentions something Trump-adjacent." Did he melt down before? When? Which video?

[@riogrande5761]

Considering how we were able to launch a mission to the moon almost every 6 months around 1970/71, why now does it take so long to get back to the moon?

[@JoshuaTootell]

Money We were spending A LOT more money on NASA than we do now.

[@mafumofu986]

Money and different goals. There's only so much you can do in a tin can on the moon.

[@teebob21]

First, money. We aren't giving NASA as much as we were between 1964-1972. Second, risk tolerance: the American public have zero risk tolerance anymore, and manned spaceflight is inherently risky. Third: we have to re-invent everything from scratch. Not only do we no longer have the assembly specifications for a Saturn V/Apollo launch stack, we no longer have the *machines* used to manufacture the parts. When the moon program was shut down, everything was mothballed thinking we would someday return to the moon, and then scrapped once it became clear that wasn't gonna happen.

[@Ulfcytel]

They'd spent the best part of a decade developing and building a stash of the Saturn V rockets needed to get to the moon. They no longer exist, that process has needed to happen again. Plus for several decades from the 1970s to the 2010s, nobody *wanted* to send manned missions there because there was no point (robots can do research much better and safer) and it's eyewateringly expensive for what is really little more than a prestige stunt.

[@undercoverspy123]

Because they are constantly doing 100's of other things in space, you know James Web, Clipper, ect.

[@AWENGERR]

You should make video about KSA - Kitten Space Agency - that project maybe give us KSP fans really deserves - game engine from scratch, focus on solid foundations. Even oryginal creator of KSP 1 is involved in this.

[@aprettychillchair]

I would love this too! Looking at their Discord, it seems pretty promising.

[@thomgizziz]

KSP didn't fail because of the engine. It failed because of the company and how things were managed along with the scope of the initial team. If you don't plan things early and correctly it doesn't matter what engine you have you will always end up with things going wrong in the end and nobody is going to want to do the work to fix it especially when a bunch of people just keep giving them money.

[@tippyc2]

19:14 Nice bald head you got there, Scott. Certainly not reminiscent of something...

[@ZachBillings]

I LOVE that it’s not readily apparent who you voted for and I learned things. Hope Jim comes back to NASA, he was fantastic.

[@thomgizziz]

Really? He votes left. It was apparent. How did you miss that? Oh that's right, people in here aren't the quickest eggs in the lot.

[@techandtrains101]

06:40 Orion on New Sheppard would be interesting 😂

[@ninehundreddollarluxuryyac5958]

I got that too, probably meant New Glenn. Wasn't there supposed to be a "New Armstrong" that would be amazing?

[@edthompson9569]

There's this thing called the procurement regulations that ensures a transparent contracting process - with openers for law suits, etc by those who lost the bid. Elon is likely to benefit by a throttling back of the vindictive use of the bureaucracy.

[@SireBab]

As someone who worked in procurement, it's definitely not fair in a lot of places. I like the idea, but color me skeptical.

[@Kevin_Knox]

It means that SpaceX will REALLY be able to get things done at an even more impressive pace, now that the white house won't be actively trying to knee cap them.

[@slome815]

And how did the white house try to kneecap spaceX? By giving them goverment and nasa contracts maybe?

[@imaginary_friend7300]

@@slome815 So far not ONE that I have asked has been able to answer. It's a belief not a fact. They want it to be true to the point they're willing to lie and pretend it is. It's delusion in active action and the victim likely has no idea.

[@NicoSuaveee]

Thank you Scott for not letting your personal politics get in the way of your amazing programming. Many others with much larger networks have been unable to do the same. Whichever color is in charge, let’s those big, long, hard rockets flying safe

[@bluntly8760]

17:53 imagine not "feeling hot" about space because you dont like your president getting credit 😂

[@adamspitz4281]

I've always said spaceflight is the one thing both sides can get behind. You get the scientific stuff for the liberals, and the patriotic/nationalistic stuff for conservatives - Plus all the technology that comes with it

[@sdrc92126]

Even Apollo had very little public support, barely breaking 50% after 11 and falling rapidly after

[@jeromethiel4323]

I object to the characterization that the liberals are about the science and the conservatives are all nationalistic. That's a very simplistic view, and like all simplistic views is incorrect. A lot of conservatives, myself included, feel that being at the forefront of scientific advancement and maintaining a strong presence in space is essential for the country. Not only for self defense, but for economic reasons.

[@ZrB1638]

Yeah, no. Communists actually despise success and achievement if they catch even a whiff of private ownership. Just look at these comments. Absolute worst people on the planet.

[@vbscript2]

@@jeromethiel4323 Indeed. I think you'll find that the aerospace industry has quite a lot of conservatives, especially among the engineers (and even more so among the engineers in the Southeast... which is where most of NASA is.)

[@WulfgarOpenthroat]

And the pork and -bribes- _campaign contributions and other considerations_ for Congress.

[@peterlyall2848]

Bill Kerman to be next NASA administrator. Look if you can have the Orange man as your US President why not a green man like Bill Kerman for top NASA post?

[@karlpron]

Jebediah...

[@doctorknow]

Only good things! Good things all around! 🎉

[@alanmacdonald88]

NASA should do the science, SpaceX does the engineering.

[@7733n]

Astute analysis. More space business = More tax money.

[@marricktryathia3464]

I hope Trump brings back Jim Bridenstine!

[@Deachuu603]

Unfortunately; I haven't kept up with NASA internal politics due to certain other... uh "incidents" in the past 4 years, but yeah if he still seems like the guy for the job after all these years then sure lets see how things go if he comes back.

[@Ben-wl3el]

Your Analysis is great. I love watching your Videos they are brillant.

[@druspork7737]

Take a guess at Elon's assessment of FAA and Environment Protection.

[@thomgizziz]

If you had governmental organizations F'ing around with you because they don't like your politics then I'm sure you'd have no problem with them, huh? GTFO of here with your BS.

[@Coconut-219]

2020 is proving to be a bad decade to be a large government agency. Step 1: Gain control of a a previously respected agency. Step 2: Become super corrupt and biased in your enforcement. Step 3: Wonder why all of a sudden citizens don't respect it's authority anymore.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Karma

[@bramborovyastronaut]

Just why? Tell me why would anyone cancel NASA. It has to be 12 year olds to think that NASA and Space X are enemies.

[@nipperdawg1865]

They won't too much money in Florida and Texas

[@Shaft0]

MAGA

[@JoshuaTootell]

Working at a factory, most of the people I work with are 12 years old.

[@guyprovost]

I think USA off boarding democracy as a concept will have major downside on NASA and science as a whole.

[@kevinoboyle8939]

I don’t know where you’re getting your economic models but Lowering taxes virtually NEVER lowers revenues - just the opposite: The money goes out into the economy, does work, creates economic growth that raises revenue. Think of it like corn; and imagine the government as a giant corn eating monster. If you give the monster most of your corn, you have less corn to plant, and you harvest less corn, and have less corn to feed the monster. If you can hold on to more corn, you can grow even more corn and have more corn to feed the monster.

[@newtonchambo]

This comment seems to neglect the important economic fact that governments then spend the money in the economy through infrastructure investment, government contracts, and paying all the millions of public servants from bureaucrats to teachers who then put that money back into the economy therefore pushing forward the money cycle.