/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16180522
>nasa doesn't have bottomless budgets
then how were they able to spend $88 billion on a $500million telescope?
name a single nasa project that has ever been canceled due to cost overrun

>>16159380
all of the soience money was wasted on jwst.

>>16108032
>NASA in 1995: JWST will be an 8 meter telescope, it will cost no more than $500 million and we'll be launching it by 2007

>>16098532
>nobody is making a profit on the theory of dark matter explaining the rotation curve of galaxies

oy vey we need to build a trillion dollar telescope to look for dark matter!!!

>>15984212

>>15967708
don't make a difference how much money is wasted on soiyence these days, nothing of any meaningful value or use is ever discovered

>>15911118
They always lie about their budget projections.
When JWST originally got greenlighted in 1995 it was based on the promise of spending "only" $500 million on the project. They ended up spending over $88 billion so far and the project isn't even completed yet

>>15853001
$88 billion completely wasted for no material benefit to humanity whatsoever

>>15851014
>NASA had their budget annihilated?
NASA gets infinite money, they don't earn a penny or produce anything of any value and they still get awarded literal billions of dollars. Every single one of their projects has massive budget overruns and yet none of the projects are ever canceled or run out of money, instead they just run the money printer to pay for it. Regardless literal unlimited funds, NASA is unable to produce anything of noteworthy or meaningful value.
Picrel telescope was orignally promised as a $500 million dollar project and it was supposed to be an 8 meter telescope launched in 2007. Instead a 6.5 meter telescope was deployed in 2022 and shortly thereafter it was almost immediately upstaged by a sausage.

>>15826335
>you goys have to pay for a fancy space telescope for nasa so that hollywood can use it for free

>>15803488
Yep, its retarded, but NASA and FAA are both notoriously stupid, so retardation is to be expected of them.
NASA spent $88 billion dollars to get a telescope thats 2/3 the size of what they were sure was going to cost "only" $500 million when the project got started back in 1995

>>15776014
this is the kind of stupid worthless garbage we get in return for funding every aspect of the astronomer's completely unproductive careers.

>>15733123
>Why don't we send a probe there?
>we
If you're the only one who cares, why should "we" all have to chip in on the massive fortunes NASA will inevitably waste on such a project?
You can't even tell the difference between a picture of sausage and a picture of space dirt anyway, just look at some sausage pictures an imagine its worthless dead space rocks
People who spend their lives daydreaming about space are people who are avoiding thinking about their failure and inability to provide a satisfactory life for themselves here on Earth with the rest of the humans. its a massive escapist cope for cringey losers with personality disorders that they're unwilling to correct.
NASA announced earlier this week that they don't have enough money to sent lesbian negro cripples to the moon and are now demanding more. If you ever get your lame fake multi billion dollar pictures of space gravel, you'll look at them for 3 seconds, get bored and start demanding even more ostentatiously wasteful fodder for your stupid soience fiction fantasy life.

If there really is a genuine possibility that asteroid impacts could wipe out humanity then why does NASA waste all it's budget on stupid telescopes to search for fictitious "dark matter" and rockets to put the first black lesbian on the moon?
Clearly the asteroid risk is either wildly exaggerated or completely nonexistent, otherwise NASA would have made it their top priority.

>>15703358
they'd rather waste fortunes on total bs like jwst, all to amuse the low iq bread and circuses crowd, who can't even tell the difference between a picture of sausage and a picture of space

>>15692231
Giving money to university layabouts isn't productive, they don't spend the money wisely, they waste it on inflating their egos instead of using it responsibly. "Look at how much money my project wasted" seems to be the biggest bragging point for scientists, they presume they're important because of how much they waste rather than because of how much they produce.
JWST is a great example of this, billions wasted and nothing of any meaningful value whatsoever achieved.

>>15690446
JWST was originally planned as a $500 million project, NASA ended up spending $88 billion on it. They didn't get an telescope worth $88 billion, they got the something slightly less valuable than originally planned $500 million, 8m telescope. They got a 6.5m telescope instead. So they got something like a $300 million telescope which they payed $88 billion for. The $87.7 billion that was wasted was divided between welfare jobs paychecks for incompetent diversity hires and profits for the people who own the subcontractors.
Thats how SpaceX is able to put payload into space for only 2% of what it costs NASA to do it, the scale of waste and inefficiency at NASA is so enormous that most people will presume you're lying when you tell them the straight truth about it.

>oy vey the world is going to come to an end because of asteroids if you goys don't give all your money to NASA

>NASA: we spent all your money on a fake telescope to look for dark matter and sausages

If asteroids were really an issue then NASA wouldn't be bothering with spending all its money on space telescopes to look for premordial space salami and on landing black lesbian trannys on the moon, they'd be too concerned about asteroids to do that. Its not only NASA either, the entire worldwide astronomical community is devoted almost completely to worrying about issues other than asteroids. So the idea that a space rock is going to come a long and wipe out humanity or even harm it slightly is clearly a false notion

use the billions wasted on physics research to make something that justifies the expense

>>15605211
>like everything getting cheaper
lol, thats never happened and it never will, soience fags are always demanding more and more gibes for their grandiose soience fantasy toys and never delivering anything of any use for the funds that are lavished on them. minimum wage 50 years ago was the equivalent of a six figure salary these days, soience only makes people get poorer and poorer because of the wealth thats stupidly squandered on it

if the big bang is real and physics has already solved the entire universe then why are we still spending money on their research?
its over, they solved the biggest and most important puzzles and its time for them to retire or move on to something else. maybe they can figure out why human lifespans have started to decline now that physics research is no longer needed

>>15580402
both were worthless boondoggles. cern's total lack of meaningful or useful results proves that.
spending money on soience is a total waste unless it has some useful goal in mind. jwst will also produce nothing of any benefit, just more replication crisis garbage.
imagine if all that money had been spend on something decent instead of stupidly squandered

>>15547444
>they don't get absurd fortunes though.