• ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    NASA does not need SpaceX. Never will. What NASA needs is for the rich white assholes in DC to stop fucking them over with predatory contractors for five goddamn minutes.

      • 3abas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        It’s why they need SpaceX…

        They don’t have funding, their rocket program has been discontinued, the amazing reusable shuttle has been retired, and it’s all been done on purpose to make them dependent on the “private industry”.

        Obviously if they have the right budget, they won’t need anyone. That’s the point.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          we should nationalize spacex. it’s footprint to launch represents a real national security risk. it was literally built on federal contracts. it’s tech was pioneered by nasa and shittons of former nasa folk work there. it’s executive is erratic and unhinged and that’s a clear issue for national security. it’s utility in war - from ukraine to the middle east - needs to be controlled by the national security interests. Finally, spacex’s remit should be launch, not folding in x, grok, tesla and a bunch of other junk to inflate garbage stocks.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          the amazing reusable shuttle has been retired

          In all fairness, the shuttle was more “refurbishable” than reusable. It needed to be almost completely rebuilt after every flight. Over its service life it proved to be both the most expensive and most dangerous way to get to space. It killed over 4 times more astronauts than any other spacecraft.

          The shuttle was awesome, it was truly a great achievement! It made building the ISS possible. But… I’m glad it’s retired, we’re better off with more traditional rockets for many reasons.

  • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    NASA helped keep SpaceX alive when it couldn’t make payroll, then spent decades making it indispensable. Now Musk has discovered that launching AI servers pays better than launching astronauts. Outsourcing your space program to one billionaire was a bold leap for mankind, straight into a monopoly with rocket engines.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I don’t think it was intentional on NASA, Boeing couldn’t really deliver with starliner and SLS isn’t as good as they hoped either.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 days ago

        SLS is a congressionally mandated jobs program.

        NASA was forced to use existing shuttle infrastructure instead of developing new hardware with partners. If they had been given freedom, I’m sure we wouldn’t even need SpaceX for anything.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Both are failed companies, but Musk has more money on hand and can keep the lights on for longer.

    • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I need a comic of a man struggling to raise a child, then the child grows big and strong (roided up and addicted to debt) then punts the aging man off a cliff.

    • Nurgus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 days ago

      Imagine if we’d funded NASA amd taxed billionaires propely to pay for it all along.

    • UnpoppedCorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      We had and have a national space agency. A private company has surpassed them and is now offering launches 90% cheaper than NASA. It’s cost overruns are also 97% less. If NASA were “funded properly,” we would be paying a lot more for a lot fewer launches.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Who would have guessed that spacex would squeeze nasa the very first chance they got. No one saw that coming.

    • UnpoppedCorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      They don’t have the ability to squeeze them. They are offering more launches, with fewer costs overruns, at a better cost.

    • KullumDaue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      nationalize as in purchase? or steal?

      when countries nationalize a company they actually purchase it.

      so you want the government to pay Elon literal trillions, for what exactly?

      prioritize health care, housing and reducing inflation, ignore shitty people in orbit for now.

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Pay him? Fucking imprison him for his DOGE crimes alone, then seize his assets and utilize them for the national good.

    • Kaligalis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      That sounds very communist. US doesn’t nationalize companies. US wages war against countries known for doing that (right now it’s Iran).

  • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 days ago

    SpaceX and Starlink should have to be broken up. xAI’s purchase by SpaceX never should have been allowed. The contracts for NASA should have always required ownership of the investments made and the amount of rented tech never should have been allowed critical mass. Starlink should have been allowed a monopolistic ownership of its spots in space and should have been for forced to create an open interoperability standard from the jump.

    The fact that “SI” is how SpaceX is talking about those AI projects shows they are very much still a government contractor even in this phase, just looking at different pots of money. Contracts that Musk’s massive ties to corruption should be viewed as last resort, at least until they cut him out of the company (while he is charged and tried for his corruption).

    • UnpoppedCorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      In the long run that makes sense. In the short term, they’re linked. SpaceX doesn’t have contracts to fill every launch, so they fill in the extra space with Starlilnk launches. Starlink doesn’t exist without SpaceX.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Starlink needing a subsidy for launches is only because they are operating as a monopoly. Competitors get flights just fine without it

  • nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    SpaceX needs NASA contacts now now than ever. The jerk’s AI business has been shoved into SpaceX, and that’s a money burning machine. Should NASA take one too many contracts away from SpaceX, the huge red numbers will come out.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think this is the right take.

      SpaceX may believe they’ve discovered a business model without NASA, but when the bubble pops they’ll be singing a different tune.

      This is also a good reason to not nationalize spaceX as so many in this thread are calling for. I don’t want to be financially responsible for the AI mess they’re investing in now. Let them eat those losses.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    And Elon is more like an Edison than a Tesla so there will be no inter-agency co-operation for sure.

  • Jiral@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    All the tech bros were constantly looking down on ESA, Arianespace and Ariane 6. Demanding that this perfectly good but slightly more costly platform should be thrown away and that Europe should make itself completely dependent on SpaceX+Russia instead. ESA and EU did not. Surely SpaceX would have gladly launched Iris2, the sovereign strategic alternative to Starlink. Right? Right?!

  • Scott@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    The only reason I’ve been critical of NASA is because of their over reliance on that shit heel musk

  • zoloftt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Before SpaceX it was the ULA doing ALL launches. This is nothing new. Launch is expensive, and no one wants to pay the barrier to entry.