NASA's funding in the 20th cwntury has been fairly stable prior to this most recent budget proposal, which is a serious issue.

However, it wasn't so we could fund the private launch program, that came about after most of the funding reductions.  And it was started so NASA can focus its resources on research and scientific activities and leave launch vehicle development and construction to others.  And it has worked, the development of private launch companies has been an enormous boon to all space efforts.  SpaceX's Falcon 9 has become the most reliable workhorse on earth, and Falcon Heavy has dramatically lowered the cost of heavy lift launch capability.  And despite being brand new, Blue Origin's New Glenn has already performed more flights and just as many successful missions as NASA's internally developed SLS.

And the SLS is entirely unsustainable, it costs 2.5 *billion* per launch.  New Glenn is between 50 and 100 million.  Falcon Heavy, ~100 million.  The development and deployment of these reusable heavy lift rockets is critical to the Artemis program's long term viability and the vitality of the nascent space industry.  SLS cannot be NASA's workhorse no matter their budget.

This explosion is a real bummer frankly.  New Glenn got off to a fantastic start and is the most powerful and capable reusable rocket in the US fleet (and by extension, in the world) and it's personally one of my favorite rockets currently in service.  And this explosion destroyed what is currently the only launch site for it.  This will take several months bare minimum to repair.  And its other launch sites under development will take equally as long.  

I get it, hating on rich people is all the rage today, but outside of charitable activity, investing in the establishment and growth of the emerging space industry is far and away one of the least offensive things they could use their wealth for.  And companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Relativity Space are contributing in a serious and rapid fashion to humanity's space efforts.

And the SLS is entirely unsustainable, it costs 2.5 *billion* per launch.  New Glenn is between 50 and 100 million.  Falcon Heavy, ~100 million.  The development and deployment of these reusable heavy lift rockets is critical to the Artemis program's long term viability and the vitality of the nascent space industry.  SLS cannot be NASA's workhorse no matter their budget.

At that price the Falcon 9 would go out of business. A Falcon 9 already cost 74 Millions.

Starting price for the New Glenn was 70 Million, and that figure is 4 years old. I consider 75-80 Million more realistic right now, which would be right at the Falcon launch price. An expended New Glenn, which hasn't launched yet and isn't planned to happen anytime soon, apparently would cost 110 Millions, which is also the expected price of the 9x4 New Glenn (which, frankly, would need a new name imo).

I don't actually have a problem with investment in space travel, but rich people would get a lot less "hating on" if they weren't actively enshittifying society for the other 98% of us to feed their bottomless greed.

NASA's funding in the 21st century has been fairly stable prior to this most recent budget proposal, which is a serious issue.

However, it wasn't so we could fund the private launch program, that came about after most of the funding reductions.  And it was started so NASA can focus its resources on research and scientific activities and leave launch vehicle development and construction to others.  And it has worked, the development of private launch companies has been an enormous boon to all space efforts.  SpaceX's Falcon 9 has become the most reliable workhorse on earth, and Falcon Heavy has dramatically lowered the cost of heavy lift launch capability.  And despite being brand new, Blue Origin's New Glenn has already performed more flights and just as many successful missions as NASA's internally developed SLS.

And the SLS is entirely unsustainable, it costs 2.5 *billion* per launch.  New Glenn is between 50 and 100 million.  Falcon Heavy, ~100 million.  The development and deployment of these reusable heavy lift rockets is critical to the Artemis program's long term viability and the vitality of the nascent space industry.  SLS cannot be NASA's workhorse no matter their budget.

This explosion is a real bummer frankly.  New Glenn got off to a fantastic start and is the most powerful and capable reusable rocket in the US fleet (and by extension, in the world) and it's personally one of my favorite rockets currently in service.  And this explosion destroyed what is currently the only launch site for it.  This will take several months bare minimum to repair.  And its other launch sites under development will take equally as long.  

I get it, hating on rich people is all the rage today, but outside of charitable activity, investing in the establishment and growth of the emerging space industry is far and away one of the least offensive things they could use their wealth for.  And companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Relativity Space are contributing in a serious and rapid fashion to humanity's space efforts.

Oh I get why people don't like rich people, when they do something stupid or greedy the impacts ripple out a lot and plenty are dicks or politically...problematic.

But I don't actually regard Jeff in that light.  His wealth is mostly just his one company that he started and grew, a company that provides plenty of benefits to customers and a huge number of jobs from working class to middle class and higher.  And the infrastructure and marketplace it built opened numerous doors previously unheard of for literally millions of entrepreneurs.

I'm not saying it's a perfect company, far from it.  Nor am I saying we should build statues to the guy.  But I sometimes get the very unsettling feeling that people regard "the wealthy" as bordering on subhuman, which is quite disturbing.

I would just say, criticize or hate on them for when they screw up, but don't cheer when they're trying to do something positive and it fails.  That's just dumb.

The thing, people like Jeff get rich off the back of other people's hard work.

How many Amazon packages does he personally deliver? What percent of the wealth generated by the company does he keep for himself for sitting behind a desk all day, versus paying a fair share to the workers who actually bust their arses to keep the company running?

People don't hate the rich just because they're rich, but because they get that way by screwing over the rest of society. I recommend you look into how Amazon workers are treated, all that profit comes at a steep cost to those who work there.

Hoarding more wealth than you could ever need in ten lifetimes while the people who work for you to make that money struggle to survive does seem to "border on subhuman" to a lot of folks.

1) He wasn't born rich.  He put a lot of effort into building his wealth.  It wasn't handed to him.  

2) While I tend to agree that people don't need billions, the fact is your view is way too simplistic.  Most billionaires are not sitting on cash; they have loads of stocks.  Typically, SEC approval and board approval is required to sells massive amounts of stock, given a huge sell off would drive the company into ruin.  So, someone like Bezos isn't exactly hoarding, that isn't how stock works.  I agree there is a problem that should be fixed, but we should be fair on how the system works.   

I know he wasn't born rich, and I'm not wishing any harm on the guy myself.

I was simply highlighting why so many people really hate the ultra-wealthy and tend to view them as "subhuman". Personally, I try not to see any human being as sub-human as that tends to lead to atrocities, but many people do, simply cos the imbalance between the very rich and the rest of society is just getting more and more extreme.