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

  • uphillbothways@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    And SpaceX as a whole. It’s entirely government funded anyway. Should have kept that money in NASA where it belonged. Fortunately, there’s an easy way to put it all right back.

    (Also, archive link of top article here: https://archive.is/H6rzo )

    • city cat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      not entirely government funded, but enough that, if they withdraw funding, it would totally collapse.

      the entire argument that “private companies do it cheaper” is mostly because they cut corners, skirt regulations, and screw over employees to do business on the cheap. then, we find out there may be massive security breaches like, oh, chatting with Putin and god knows who else…

      • keeb420@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Part of the problem is nasa seems to be very risk adverse now. Letting private companies take the risk is one way to get around that. I’m just glad we don’t have to depend on russia to get to space or the iss.

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

        Don’t forget potentially underpay people. I don’t believe that’s happening for SpaceX specifically, but it does for many other competitors to government jobs. Government jobs aren’t necessarily super high pay, but they usually have solid pay with excellent benefits, pension, and work/life balance.

        So when jobs move from the public to private sector, it often comes at the cost of employees. And in some extreme cases, employees are paid so little that they have to rely on government benefits to get by, which is extremely dumb. That’s subsidizing the private sector.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          From what I’ve heard it’s true. If you have a job offer from NASA and one from SpaceX, the NASA one is better.

    • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months 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.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Pretty sure they did ages ago, that was kinda the point of the space shuttel program. And thats just the most notable attempt, the DC-X is another example. Reusable rockets are just kinda inefficient for a lot of shit.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          The DC-X/Delta Clipper was really cool, but the Space Shuttle was a design-by-committee safety and maintenance disaster. VentureStar didn’t go much better either, though that was mostly Lockheed.

          NASA’s had the tech, the expertise, and the will for a while, but the political process was never going to give them permission to do anything more than slow-moving rehashes and incremental evolutions of old technology.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Reread what I typed, reusablle rockets have their place but they can become rather inefficient or even outright wasteful depending on the circumstances. Remember it takes about a lot of energy to land something coming down from orbit, that means more fuel, more fuel means more weight. And sometimes it better to put that fuel and weight into putting more shit into orbit.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Von Braun came up with the concept for a reusable rocket in the 50s. Not being able to figure it out was not the issue.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            And a horrible Nazi. Let’s not forget that. The U.S. tried to make everyone forget that.

            But yes, he was a genius.

            • srgtDodo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              oh I know! It’s just that some humans throughout history had this insane amount of intelligence and creativity and they jumped our level of technology, and our understanding of the universe by decades, or arguably even more! It always blows my mind that there are people like that

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You strike me as an academic that struggles to appreciate the value of applied physics and engineering.

            • Comment105@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Because Von Braun’s contribution was small in comparison to what SpaceX R&D contributed.

              But that seems lost on you, it was certainly not obvious to you.