• AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        47 minutes ago

        SpaceX has been a huge success for NASA. For much less funding than NASA doing it themselves or a fraction of the cost of ULA, NASA has a very reliable and much cheaper medium launch vehicle launching much more frequently, and a heavy launcher pretty far in development.

        This is great, turning “routine” space operations over to cheaper private companies, while focussing on research and stretching the envelope

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          41 minutes ago

          Easy to do when you pay people shit and don’t care about things blowing up. And when you get to build on the already established knowledge and use their facilities. Government on the other hand could never allow anything to fail and had to forge the path.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Corporations cannot carry the risk involved. Because else it would be similar to the medicine industry, but there is no large market to sell to.

        We’re going to Mars is not something you can sell in a boardroom, because why? What is the ROI?

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          What I’m saying is musk wants to divert all of the government funding from NASA to spacex. ROI is all the funding from the government, every year for decades. It’s not a sell a product and profit model in the regular sense. And this way musk can personally take a cut of all that funding.

    • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Not with that attitude…and probably will be able to change that with the upcoming administration deregulating everything. Or did you mean won’t instead of can’t?

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Deregulation means private businesses won’t research anything that doesn’t make their quarterly numbers look better. Accelerated capitalism, woohoo!

            • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I wasn’t being pedantic for its own sake, but because the Corp has the capability yet refuse to use it for people’s benefit as they value shareholder profit more. They absolutely could, but won’t. To me, this is worse than not having the ability (won’t).

              We get it Corp, you would if you could. Good effort. Wait, you actually can but won’t?

              That’s not worse to you?

              • slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                Not always. There is some research that they could not do without going broke because up-front costs are too high, and there’s no tangible return on investment. In these cases, it makes sense to fund publicly because there is still value to society at large. Accelerators, for example. It doesn’t always have to be some conspiracy.