• Reality Suit@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Musk is a fucking anti American liability. How the fuck does he have access to military contracts

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, despite its owner, SpaceX is actually doing cool and useful stuff. Nobody else bothered with the reusable rocket thing until they made it happen. Starship is on the way to becoming the world’s first 100% reusable orbital transport system, propulsively landing the second stage as well as the first. Soon as they get those toasty melty flaps figured out.

      It just sucks that he’s in control of it.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Maybe NASA would have bothered if its funding hadn’t been cut again and again and again…

        • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          NASA farms these out to outside companies to build anyway, as seen with the latest Boeing space fiasco, so I don’t necessarily believe this to be true. These defense contractors seem to be interested in little more than milking the US government for all they’re worth.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              They have a $25B yearly budget.

              What is SpaceX spending on R&D? From what I’ve read, Starship is estimated to cost $10B for development and their R&D budget for 2023 was $1.5B. If NASA was going to build something similar themselves, they’ve had nearly 70 years and hundreds of billions to accomplish it.

              In reality their budget goes toward companies like Boeing, Northrop Grummon, and Lockheed Martin, who then pocket it and build substandard equipment. This is all public information so I can’t imagine why people are downvoting other than being extremely emotional for some inexplicable reason.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                NASA doesn’t have effective control of their budget anymore. Congress holds the purse strings and uses them like a harness

                NASA gets funding to do something - like go to the moon, or track CO2 emissions. But it comes with strings - sometimes you have to build a certain component in a certain congressional district, sometimes Congress chooses the design you have to use

                It’s a problem of politics and corruption. When the public supports NASA, they have more autonomy. When NASA gets a blank check, they do more with it - reusable rockets aren’t a new idea, and when they cancelled the shuttle program NASA had brain drain. Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla

              • slumberlust@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You are omitting the lede. Public appetite for failure on tax payer funds is near zero. That increases time, complexity, and cost for launches (with or without humans aboard).

                • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Which can be a failure in itself when you spend 10 years and tens of billions building something “perfectly” only for it to break on its maiden voyage. That makes you wonder what was the point of doing everything so methodically when they could have taken a more efficient and iterative approach.

                  • slumberlust@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I’m not saying it’s a good system, but one that exists due to the nature of the funding. Those external pressures (especially when it gets political) just don’t allow for the same amount of mistakes.

                    Remember, SpaceX was one failed launch away from bankruptcy.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              What spacecraft do you think they built themselves, without big contractors doing mos5 of the work…?

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          I actually prefer NASA to focus on science engineering. There’s a need for private launch capabilities anyway and this way NASA can focus on what they do best.

          • TheFriar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            What’s the need for private launch capabilities? Private = capitalist. I don’t see much good in capitalist ventures.

            • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Because there’s a need for private satellites? Should NASA use limited resources for that?

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        People forget Musk isn’t actually technically smart, he’s just good at buying into and investing in already good ideas using money he got by playing the capital machine (and his parents south africa money).
        He didn’t found PayPal; he merged another company with them and capitalized on their already good idea.
        He didn’t found Tesla, he invested in them and then drove the original founders out.
        He did admittedly create SpaceX, but only by bringing on good engineers from the start after failing to buy ICBM’s from Russia. Yes, he tried that… spaceX has been successful only because he gave them the runway to let engineers work right.

        The cult of personality is insane, he’s just another average investor bro who got lucky in the crazy growth of the 90’s/00s.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m hoping reusables becomes so standard Musks company isn’t needed anymore.

        But that’ll be a long ways off. I agree SpaceX basically revitalized the industry.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh yes. Surely the federal government could manage it better than Musk. Think of the progress we could have if NASA were running SpaceX instead.