• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Elon Musk is an apartheid nepobaby fascist, but Gwynne Shotwell, and to a much greater extent the engineers actually doing the damn thing, seem to have their heads on straight

    Mechazilla is objectively rad as fuck

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I think that most hate for SpaceX is people actually hating on Elon Musk. While hating Elon Musk is fully understandable, from a technological perspective, SpaceX brings humanity forwards.

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      These same advances could be owned by all of us if we hadn’t spent every year since Kennedy whittling away at NASAs budget to do stuff. The space shuttle was only ever supposed to be temporary but Congress never funded the much better replacements.

      SpaceX only brings its shareholders forward, with our tax money. The problem isn’t about the technology but who owns the tech.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I do think there’s a significant difference in approach. NASA has a focus on doing it once and doing it right, SpaceX has a focus on doing it as many times as physically possible and learning a tremendous amount from the many, many failures. Be honest, did anyone genuinely believe that rocket would be successfully captured on the first attempt?

        If it had blown up, oh well. That’s SpaceX’s whole thing. If a NASA rocket blows up, it’s a big fucking deal, and suddenly we don’t show shuttle launches in schools anymore

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I still think starlink should have been a publicly funded endeavor by NASA. We could have led the world by offering free connection to places that truly need it abroad.

      Also, of less immediate concern but once asteroid mining takes off, I’d rather these rockets not be in the hands of private equity. Disparity will break this world, sooner or later.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        that would be nice but if it was led by NASA (aka contractors like jpl, lockmart and boeing) there’s no way the sats could’ve been produced as cheaply and quickly imo, because NASA’s strengths lie in experimental/science focused things, not operational things

        also they wouldn’t get the in house pricing for Falcon 9 launches that spacex gets, and spacex wouldn’t be able to use starlink launches to test out new boosters for crew launches

        i mean there’s nothing stopping NASA from doing it (aka Congress funding it and telling NASA to do it), it’s not like spacex is going to turn down customers for their rockets

      • Morphit @feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I think that’s a pretty wild take given the state of NASA right now. The only way I could see anything like that happening would be the GPS model, where the DoD build out StarShield for military purposes, then realise it’d be a net good for civilians to have ubiquitus global internet services. Even then, that would compete with existing non-SpaceX services which is antithetical to NASAs principles and would be considered ‘socialism’ by half of America.

        Asteroid mining is really in the hands of governments. While space is basically a free-for-all on an international level, each nation can levy whatever conditions and taxes they like on their own enterprise. If companies tried to ‘flag’ themselves with low-tax nations, then I think other nations could levy tariffs and prevent access to technology to make that unattractive. Either way, a significant portion should end up in government budgets.

        I’d rather private equity invest in more forward looking technology than LLMs or finance. There just needs to be a balance where it’s still attractive for them to invest, but as much of the value as reasonable gets distributed in lifting up the quality of life here on earth.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          “needs to be a balance” this is exactly the problem right. There is zero balance, to the extent that even projects that set out to be operated for the benefit of humanity (open AI, looking at you) get converted to just enrich the already ludicrously wealthy. The corporation is a lever to concentrate wealth. Really important projects being closely controlled by billionaires is the natural consequence of this. Their unfettered power puts us all at risk from their capriciousness.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It wasn’t meant to be realistic… my preference would have been for NASA to have been better and more reliably funded for the last several decades. Having private equity and the military industrial complex reap the rewards instead is the worst possible acceptable alternative with space imo. It is too noble an endeavor for the free market, to my old fashioned thinking.