Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

76% Positive

Analyzed from 1791 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#spending#military#defense#https#nasa#war#israel#spend#mass#www

Discussion (60 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

mysteriaabout 3 hours ago
They published an official press release on this on the 22nd.

https://rocketlabcorp.com/updates/victus-haze/

senthil_rajasekabout 2 hours ago
Also,the mission to rescue the Swift telescope made news this week.

Soon I'll be seeing a sign for a "Joe's Satellite Repair Service" shop right next to the local autobody shop.

https://www.mos.org/article/space-news-deep-dive-saving-swif...

somat19 minutes ago
Here is a good video on the swift rescue mission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up0LNTMPnjI Pegasus to the Rescue: 'The Edge of Feasibility' (Alexander the ok)

AyyEyeabout 1 hour ago
khursabout 4 hours ago
Good spot by whoever noticed it!
ck2about 3 hours ago
Can we swap the US Military and NASA budgets for just one year please?

Just one year

It would be AMAZING

Or even what we fund Israel's 2/3 of all their weapons are bought by US

We'd have 10% speed of light probes going outside of solar system already

Well at least Nancy Grace Roman L2 Telescope is launching, hope it goes perfectly

WarmWashabout 2 hours ago
The military budget is a jobs program that also keeps a (near bare minimum) level of industrial capacity afloat.

Its why no politician left or right is really interested in cutting it. If you browse open contracts, you'll see they that they overwhelmingly buy rather banal things and spend comparatively little on the "killing people" parts.

malfistabout 2 hours ago
What do you think NASA is? NASA is so expensive because it's a jobs program. There's no other reason for Boeing to have factories in so many states for building satellites.
WarmWashabout 2 hours ago
You're not wrong, and no one is turning down NASA contracts, but the scale isn't comparable.

NASA buys mostly highly specialized parts that can be pretty narrow in scope and utility.

OTOH the DoD will buy 150,000 aluminum water canteens, which is probably the only thing keeping the one decent job in Wagatah, Maine from closing. Which happens to be of only a handful of shops in the country with the tooling for this. Wagatah, of course, is not known for it's aerospace engineering. But thankfully water is pretty important for soldiers, and the new design is x% more efficient, so Wagatah gets another 5 years of work, the DoD gets to keep a domestic source of water canteens, and if NASA needs 5 space grade aluminum storage boxes, a company in Wagatah can make them.

pc86about 2 hours ago
OK so maybe they're both jobs programs, but .mil is bigger and employs more people (almost certainly at a lower per capita cost).
tclancyabout 2 hours ago
Great. Can we change it to just be the non killing part for a few years until the bad project ideas fully die off?
Schiendelman5 minutes ago
If anything, we've been letting the killing parts languish dangerously for decades - to the point where we may not be able to defend our allies in a serious conflict.
alberto467about 2 hours ago
No it would obviously lose its purpose then.
manoDevabout 2 hours ago
The military budget is how the US enforces Bretton Woods. The jobs part is just a nice side-effect of any govt. spending.
laughing_manabout 1 hour ago
Bretton Woods was formally terminated in 1973.
cg5280about 3 hours ago
In 2024, the average American spent about $17,000 on taxes. Nearly $4000 of that went to the DoD, about $3500 went to interest on federal debt.

I think it’s fun to think about it in this way. I personally spend hundreds of dollars a month on war.

tshaddoxabout 2 hours ago
Those numbers look way off. Are you making the common mistake of ignoring mandatory spending? In 2024 defense spending and net interest were each about 13% of federal spending.
rayinerabout 1 hour ago
Total government spending in 2024 (at all levels) was about $9.5 trillion. So the military spending of about $950 billion was 10% of that, or $1,700. Interest on federal debt was also about 10%.

It’s worth also looking at what other countries spend on defense. Now that the U.S. is cutting off NATO, France plans to raise military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Applying that same figure to the U.S. would bring us down to $700 billion in 2024. So you’d pay $1,250 if the U.S. military budget was similar to what France thinks is a good number.

Germany is currently at 2.3% and plans to hit 3.5% by 2029. That’s the same percent as the U.S.

jocaalabout 2 hours ago
Funny how people complain about federal debt, when the people complaining benefitted the most from the system. It is your children who will be paying the interest, while the older folk enjoyed a heated economy with high government spending. Economics is just as fundemental as physics. There are conservation laws that cannot be violated. However you can make other people hold the bag.
PaulDavisThe1stabout 1 hour ago
> There are conservation laws that cannot be violated.

Modern Monetary Theory on line 2 for you!

There is no possible sense in which "economics is just as fundamental as physics": the latter concerns the behavior of the physical world with or without humans in it; the former describes the dynamics of a human created system featuring humans interacting with each other and the physical world.

wat1000026 minutes ago
What are those conservation laws?
victorbjorklund43 minutes ago
Doesn’t sound like those numbers are correct? I doubt out of the total taxes (all taxes, on all levels) 44% went to only pay federal debt (excluding state, city etc debt) and DoD.
germinalphraseabout 2 hours ago
You have a source to share for that framing of the tax spend?
blobcodeabout 2 hours ago
Although not quite exact, here's spending data for 2024 (https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/static-data/published-report...) - about 14% of tax dollars went to defence, 0.14*17000=2380.
luckylionabout 1 hour ago
> I personally spend hundreds of dollars a month on war.

Or, put another way, you spend hundreds of dollars a month on not having to learn russian and live as putin's peasant.

Seems like a good deal to me.

wat1000025 minutes ago
The oceans exist for free.
BurningFrogabout 1 hour ago
You spend that money on defense, not war!
ck2about 2 hours ago
Defense spending in the USA is double what is publicly published

There are all kinds of dark budgets and stuff spun off into "civilian" programs that actually aren't

The published cost of Iran War is like $30 Billion when it is obviously over $100 Billion by experts and that doesn't including replacing all the missiles

TWENTY-ONE TRILLION DOLLARS since 9/11 spent on defense 2001-2021

* https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militariz...

imagine how much food clothing shelter for the US and WORLD that would buy

we'd have humans on Mars already with that budget not even knowing now how to stop space-blindness and bone-loss

kccqzyabout 2 hours ago
> imagine how much food clothing shelter for the US and WORLD that would buy

President LBJ proposed his Great Society agenda, which he defined as “a society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.” It was a war on poverty, touching food, shelter, and education. At that same time, the country also increased its defense spending due to the heightened tension in the Cold War and escalation in the Vietnam War. The country could really do both.

laughing_manabout 1 hour ago
>Defense spending in the USA is double what is publicly published

Show your work.

>There are all kinds of dark budgets and stuff spun off into "civilian" programs that actually aren't

How much, though, as a percentage of the federal budget? Also, DoD does a lot of stuff that doesn't involved national defense, like breast cancer research or canal and levee maintenance.

>The published cost of Iran War is like $30 Billion when it is obviously over $100 Billion by experts and that doesn't including replacing all the missiles

Those missiles will be replaced in future defense budgets.

rendx25 minutes ago
Can we swap the US Military and child care budgets for just one year please?

Just one year

It would be AMAZING

chris_money202about 2 hours ago
Or hear me out, we improve life here on Earth...
avmichabout 3 hours ago
Can we really accelerate any probe to faster than 1% c? Or 2% c?
kimixaabout 2 hours ago
No, not even close. The issue is simply exhaust velocity and reaction mass, that leads us into the tyranny of the rocket equation - in that you have to carry that reaction mass with you and accelerate that mass too. Even if you had magic infinite energy - e.g. it's supplied externally by a laser or similar.

Using the theorized maximum of 31km/s exhaust velocity of project orion (much higher than any current high impulse propulsion technologies) you'd need to have thrown out something similar to 10^42 times the probe's mass out the back at that 31km/s velocity.

That means to accelerate a 1kg probe to 1%c you'd need to start with a spacecraft holding a reaction mass equivalent to a few trillion suns worth of mass.

Hardly seems worth it.

It's all about exhaust velocity - increase that and it scales down quickly. Using the theoretical max of 500km/s of VASIMIR for example means it's only 400x the mass of the probe of reaction mass - but that's still theory and max thrust limits means it'll take the order of millions of years to reach that sort of speed.

blauditoreabout 2 hours ago
And why not accelerate using swing-bys on moons and planets? Of course this gets harder the faster you're already moving, but IIUC Voyager 1 has roughly 0.01% c, and this was launched 50 years ago.
zer00eyzabout 2 hours ago
> No, not even close.

10% of C is theoretically possible with a space sail, and lasers.

Will it work? Well we don't know cause we haven't tried.

altruiosabout 2 hours ago
One idea that stuck out to me was an array of giant thin solar powered spinning metal Crookes radiometers magnets in a line to make a railgun-like launcher. Materially cheap to do.

Related, but not exactly what I was thinking of: https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2025/08/05/a-rotating-probe-... The original source I'm thinking of may be lost to time :( I'll keep hunting.

edit:found!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDM1COWJ2Hc

patagurbonabout 3 hours ago
We have the physics but not the engineering. See the Breakthrough Starshot project for instance
r2_pilotabout 3 hours ago
Yes, with lasers or nuclear energy
ck2about 2 hours ago
I think the idea is tic-tac sized probes with nano circuitry (that doesn't exist yet)

accelerated by lasers so they don't have to carry the power source

Obviously stopping is the problem, they can never stop but at some point no need

IAmBroom5 minutes ago
Before someone mentions IBM's (completely BS) "sub-nanometer circuitry": it isn't nearly sub-nm, except if you look at it from one particular way. The real estate is still many nanometers in dimension. The gates aren't even sub-nano; gate-to-gate interactions are, kind of.
tclancyabout 2 hours ago
Per new Space Force regulations, we are using F for an adjusted speed of light. We are currently able to achieve 1.48F.
zer00eyzabout 2 hours ago
> Can we swap the US Military and NASA budgets for just one year please?

It would be nice.

There is a pretty well known interview of Admiral Grace Hopper by David Letterman, where she talks about her famous "nanosecond" and explaining (to Generals) why it takes so long to get a message to a satellite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE2uls6iIEU (As an aside, Grace was a name she lived up to in a way few others could, if you have never seen that interview it is well worth a watch!)

The valuable and well understood lesson is that latency is tyrannical, and unavoidable. The only real customer for "data centers in space" is spacex for war fighting. You don't want that data, and it's analysis going back around the world. You don't want to put compute close to the front lines, and you certainly cant deploy it for the kinds of "special operations" that the US has been doing for the last two decades.

Is there a civilian use? Maybe. Ships, oil platforms, and remote locations could all see a use for this, but it isnt going to be that impactful.

Realistically, getting military spend back to more "dual use" applications would be great. We have a LONG history of this in the USA. Tons of Army core of engineers projects. The interstate highway system was born out of a need for better logistics. NASA was about missiles, space was incidental. The US computing industry's foundations fell out of the navy code breaking efforts of WWII. The internet (ARPANET) was a DARPA project to start with. Spread Spectrum and its roots in Torpedos (navy again). GPS, the auto injector (epi pens).

Most of these are far in the past, recently the biggest thing we have gotten out military investments is TOR (and one could argue its in decline).

I think we don't see as much coming out of the modern military because it is grossly mismanaged. It's become reliant on private industry to "innovate" and that has a relentless focus on the bottom line.

Yes it would be nice if we did that spending swap, but it will never happen realistically. I think a change of leadership, of intent could result in far less waste and much more benefit for the American public. We have proof we can, we just need to figure out how and make it happen.

lstoddabout 1 hour ago
Durum-burum latency. In fact, internets slowed down compared to 2010s, and CDNs helped only to delay that.

LEO orbit latency is nothing compared to what you lose to stuffing your link with useless web crap.

mschuster91about 2 hours ago
> Or even what we fund Israel's 2/3 of all their weapons are bought by US

And all of the money the US gives to Israel is earmarked for American products.

amanaplanacanalabout 2 hours ago
Just more American tax dollars going to American defense contractors.
throw48842975about 2 hours ago
The US gives Israel $3.8B a year (and 2/3 of their weapons are _sold_ by the US not bought). The budget of Nasa is $25B.

But by antisemite math and logic says we’ll get 10% light speed.

amanaplanacanalabout 2 hours ago
Being against military aid to Israel isn't necessarily antisemitic.
SubmarineClub44 minutes ago
Not ‘necessarily’ but in actuality the overlap is basically 100%.
ck2about 2 hours ago
anti-israel-warmongering != antisemite but nice try

US has given Israel over $20 Billion directly since 2023 alone

Since 2023 NINETY THOUSAND TONS OF WEAPONS

Enough already

Israel has universal health care, let them buy build their own weaspons

US must only sell Iron-Dome ONLY, defense only, they are warmongers