How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now struggling to rein him in.

  • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    We would’ve never gotten propulsive landing so quickly purely through NASA. See how far behind the SLS was. And SpaceX’s funding comes mostly from private equity.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit.

      The reason is NASA’s budget kept getting slashed despite NASA making a profit since it’s inception.

      We gave them less money so progress would be slow and salaries wouldn’t be competitive and then it could be privatized like so many sectors before it.

      Because the wealthy can’t buy stock in NASA.

      • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        NASA’s budget isn’t the only reason SpaceX has been able to innovate faster. NASA is incredibly risk averse, as their failures reflect onto the US government and by extension their budget. Even when safety isn’t important such as with unmanned rockets, NASA doesn’t want news headlines blasting them for their rocket’s tendencies to blow up. SpaceX, by being a private company, is free to take risks and have rockets explode (if they’re unmanned that is) without much repercussions as they’re a private company, not the US government. They’ve had 7 unmanned rockets explode and several more reusable lander’s fail in their course to develop cheaper, reusable rockets, which had NASA done themselves would have been a national embarrassment, but because it was a private company they were free to take those risks to learn from their mistakes

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The whole point is that there shouldn’t be an absence. The absence is there because of the private corporations. This is another insidious tendril of capitalism.

          • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree wholeheartedly. Public money is being funneled into the MIC, of which SpaceX is now an integral part. If that same money or even a significant fraction had been instead alotted to NASA since the moon landings, we’d have bases on Titan already.

            However, I want to see us touch the stars. And right now, it’s pretty much only SpaceX that has the drive and capital to get there.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s an odd question because government programs aren’t and shouldn’t be in areas to make a profit, aka act like a private company. They need to act where private sector can’t, won’t, or can’t do it well and when there is an important stake. Eg roads, schools, healthcare, police, firefighters, etc. This is why people are telling you it’s unlikely SpaceX would be around without government contracts and funding.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Privatizing a new space race is maybe the best idea the government has had in decades. NASA isn’t mothballed, quite the opposite. They’re doing more, faster, and with fewer costs.