802
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 163 points 8 months ago

I've said for a long time now that the U.S. government needs to stop relying on SpaceX and I've got a ton of pushback. "He's not in charge of the company! He just owns it!" Yeah, well I am guessing he wasn't talking to Putin about electric cars or Twitter.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 62 points 8 months ago

I mean, he absolutely was talking to Putin about Xitter as well, I'm guessing! This "champion of free speech" has pretty much silenced any opinions about Trump and his companies that he doesn't like. Nice little preview of the world we're careening toward where billionaires get all the money, all the power, and they can even direct the speech of media outlets...

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago

Hard to stop relying on the best rockets in the world. Maybe Blue Origin or RocketLab will step up but it’s hard to see that happening.

Better to just force him to divest than to drop one of the very few good launch providers.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 55 points 8 months ago

They only are the best rockets in the world because the U.S. government has been giving them piles of money to develop them.

That should not have happened in the first place, but I would like to at least see the government seize their patents since they were paid for by our taxes.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 30 points 8 months ago

Take the company, keep the good people and make it a part of nasa.

[-] LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

If the US can force a sale with Tiktok then the US can force Elon to sell SpaceX for national security reasons.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the space program works. NASA pays SpaceX for launch services. For other initiatives, NASA funds research initiatives through multiple companies for redundancy.

If we want to talk about pissing away money for rockets, how much money went to SLS development? Or maybe compare Boeing’s Starliner costs versus Crew Dragon.

Do the research and show me with numbers who the more cost efficient rocket development program is. I’ll wait.

[-] johker216@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

The neat thing about government science programs, or any government program really, is that cost efficiency is not what drives results. If the best way to accomplish a goal is going to cost more money, then it costs more money. Thinking of the government as a business is as helpful as thinking about government budgets like a household budget. Governments maximize outcomes for their citizens, not shareholder value or profits.

And because you ended your post so unnecessarily rudely, so will I: stand up for your fellow man and encourage the de-privatization of space... and stop licking Elon's boots. We'll wait. ✌️

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Nah Elon can fuck right off. He’s easily the world’s most colossal asshole.

How would you measure success? I’d measure it by number of objectives completed. Let’s take the commercial crew program as an example - how many successful crew launches has SpaceX completed vs. Boeing? How about vs. NASA? No American launch system compares to SpaceX in safety and capability yet. (Russia and China might be competitors, but there are political reasons why they can’t be chosen.)

I would absolutely LOVE to see more competition that obsoletes SpaceX. Maybe Blue Origin or RocketLab will step up? I don’t think SLS is really viable though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

NASA pays SpaceX for launch services.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

I think you're confusing NASA as a client of SpaceX with direct government subsidies and contacts. SpaceX has received billions and billions of dollars via contracts since 2015 (date of the article I linked). They've used that government money for their R&D to advance their tech and get to where they are today.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I'm not sure what part you think I'm not understanding since I didn't suggest the opposite of anything you said.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

They’ve been giving Boeing lots of money too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

The US should honestly just nationalize SpaceX and merge it into NASA. Add its operating costs into NASA's budget, cut some redundancies, and I'm sure we'd see a lot of progress happen pretty quickly.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 14 points 8 months ago

I'd rather see it run like the USPS. Let it be a quasi-independent company owned by the government. Even though Congress fucks with the USPS, they don't fuck with it like they do NASA.

[-] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Nationalizing SpaceX would probably be financially disasteous (seeing as how Musk has to keep pulling money from his businesses to fund twitter, and to buy out Gwynne Shotwell, who was approached by Boeing to be their new CEO in late 2022)

Most people assume Musk's businesses are all on incredibly shaky ground financially and are propped up entirely though hype and speculative credit.

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Thats like saying Bezos doesn't run WAPO and didn't kill the endorsement, its a nonsensical notion

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I agree, but I heard it many times right here on Lemmy. By people also saying things like "I know Elon is terrible, but..." in the post.

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Starlink + Twitter = propaganda mills deliver him Ukraine

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

His starlink --> SpaceForce --> Alphabet agencies pipeline is what scares me

https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/10/24/live-coverage-spacex-to-launch-multiple-satellites-for-the-national-reconnaissance-office-on-falcon-9-rocket-from-vandenberg-sfb/

More of this shit's going up next year..... Just in time for for the DPRK/PRC/Russian/Iranian escalations

Lets privatize top-secret comms and AO mission orchestration. That's not gonna bite us in the ass....

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

CIA needs to start doing its job and um... you know, protect American interests. The African scammer needs to go.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 8 months ago

Security clearances are nominally the domain of the FBI, rather than the CIA. They tend to see themselves as a right-wing organization though.

[-] Moah 4 points 8 months ago

I don't think they were talking about revoking the security clearance here. At least not directly.

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 34 points 8 months ago

One part of having a security clearance is also willingly signing away certain protections that you as a private citizen otherwise have.

So fwiw him having a clearance does open the door for additional scrutiny were anyone willing to look.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Yes, plus, he owns contracts with the government that likely contain classified information. It is just much easier to have him under a contract that allows them to just spy on him, in this situation.

[-] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

Because money.

That's it. That's all. He's rich enough to do literally anything he wants. He could use the FBI as his own personal dead hooker disposal company if he wants. Welcome to America.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago

Can we stop declaring things "Too big to fail!"

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Look at that asshat, skipping on stage with a shirt thats a size too small and a head filled with government secrets. Clown world.

[-] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Doesn't he already smoke weed. Openly? On YouTube videos? The exceptions made for him are truly staggering.

[-] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

He claimed it was only on Rogan and that he normally does not smoke anyway. Depending on if you wanna believe that or not.

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago

He broke federal law in a public setting. If one murder would be enough...why not this?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Merrick Garland is a eunuch

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Because cowardice runs rampant in Washington

[-] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I mean... He makes rockets for them. Wouldn't he have to have some clearance of some kind?

[-] stringere@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

Security clearances have dependent requirements. His admitted and open drug use should have been the first thing to get his clearance revoked but as others have stated: in America you are only liable for the crimes you cannot afford to commit; as long as you have the money for it you can do anything here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

The bastard should be stripped of his US citizenship for illegally working in the USA.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
802 points (100.0% liked)

News

30971 readers
2877 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS