How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaireā€”and is now struggling to rein him in.

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

    Bullshit.

    The reason is NASAā€™s budget kept getting slashed despite NASA making a profit since itā€™s inception.

    We gave them less money so progress would be slow and salaries wouldnā€™t be competitive and then it could be privatized like so many sectors before it.

    Because the wealthy canā€™t buy stock in NASA.

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

      NASAā€™s budget isnā€™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 isnā€™t important such as with unmanned rockets, NASA doesnā€™t want news headlines blasting them for their rocketā€™s tendencies to blow up. SpaceX, by being a private company, is free to take risks and have rockets explode (if theyā€™re unmanned that is) without much repercussions as theyā€™re a private company, not the US government. Theyā€™ve had 7 unmanned rockets explode and several more reusable landerā€™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
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The whole point is that there shouldnā€™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
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          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, weā€™d have bases on Titan already.

          However, I want to see us touch the stars. And right now, itā€™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
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thatā€™s an odd question because government programs arenā€™t and shouldnā€™t be in areas to make a profit, aka act like a private company. They need to act where private sector canā€™t, wonā€™t, or canā€™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 itā€™s unlikely SpaceX would be around without government contracts and funding.

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

      Privatizing a new space race is maybe the best idea the government has had in decades. NASA isnā€™t mothballed, quite the opposite. Theyā€™re doing more, faster, and with fewer costs.