• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

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

    • MaggiWuerze
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 month 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
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

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

        • MaggiWuerze
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

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

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            The airspace is a public asset though. Letting capitalists exploit it for profit isn’t going to end well, if the rest of the environment is anything to go by.

    • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 month 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
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month 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
            12
            ·
            1 month 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

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

              From wikipedia:

              In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17] Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.

              So your claim that

              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

              conflicts with wikipedia’s history of the company.

          • slumberlust@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month 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
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month 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
                ·
                1 month 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
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

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

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

        SpaceX broke the decades-long practice of costs-plus contracts for lump sum contracts from DOD. DOD wanted to offer them the same costs-plus contract style they give to other defense contractors and SpaceX turned that down and demanded lump sum on delivery.