• CybranM@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      “Who needs NASA anyway”, “who needs to go to space anyway” Very narrow-minded viewpoint. Like it or not spacex is cutting edge

      • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Right? Like I’m assuming a lot of these people are self labeled progressives but they sure sound conservative to me. If any risk or collateral damage is unacceptable to make progress then we might as well just fucking go back to living in caves and be done with this civilization thing. I understand the disillusion with tech, and specifically the owners of said tech but you don’t have to swing to the other side and become a fucking Luddite or something. The problems are solvable through other mechanisms rather than just stopping tech innovation or this terrible terrible idea of nationalizing corporations.

        These are the same people who complain about Trump having too much unfettered power btw. And here they are discussing giving him even more power. Ain’t that something?

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          It’s also frustrating that people keep saying SpaceX “relies on taxpayer money” as if we’re just giving them money for no reason. It’s all contracts! SpaceX only gets money for providing some kind of service. They’re not being bailed out or anything. The Musk hate is justified but so misdirected.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            This really is just the dumbest thread on Lemmy right now. A bunch of reactionary mob think. “Grab your torches and pitchforks, let’s burn it all down!”

              • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 hours ago

                The article is not far off from the mob mentality in this thread. It makes one good point, that one oligarch should not be in control of a global communications network, but it fails to notice that this move would take the power from one wealthy individual and hand it over to another, who now holds all the power.

                And let’s be clear, if we nationalized, Trump would ruin SpaceX, run it right into the ground like every company he’s ever touched. Starship would never be finished, despite being within sight of the rocketry holy grail, reusable rockets. Washington would take control of starlink, which would probably be good, except it gives trump control over a communication system, which is a terrible idea. But it wouldn’t last long, because when we mismanage and underfund SpaceX and it crumbles, we’ll have no way to replace starlink sats and the whole network will disappear.

                Nationalisation is SpaceX is a dumb idea because people aren’t really thinking it all through. The outcome would be a lot worse for everyone, especially with a vindictive president that would like nothing more than to seize the assets of his opponents and liquidate them into his own coffers.

                • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Donald Trump does not have “all the power”. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be acquiescing to the courts at all. It’s wild to me that you think that the US government would do a worse job of running SpaceX and Starlink than Elon Musk.

                  You’re treating it like simply replacing one CEO with another, but that isn’t what it would be. I know that Trump wants to be king, but he still isn’t.

                  • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 hours ago

                    It’s wild to me that you think that the US government would do a worse job of running SpaceX and Starlink than Elon Musk.

                    Two things. First, I’m not suggesting the US couldn’t run SpaceX given the appropriate funding. I’m suggesting the US won’t run spaceX. Trump will figure out how to deprive it of all funding, or appoint some lackey as a director to totally disassemble it. Do you honestly have any doubt that’s exactly how it would go down?

                    Second, It’s wild to me that you think that the SpaceX is run by Elon Musk. Go look up who the CEO is.

    • Legisign@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The humanity does. Well, maybe not “need” it but deserve it. Finding out about the world around us is what we exist for.

      • N3Cr0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Then, how do we benefit from SpaceX? I’m not bashing the NASA, but I see no point in all the waste SpaceX is producing, down on earth and its orbit. These satelites are likely to crash one day in a chain reaction.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          I mean you have to realize how important it will be to have fully reusable rockets and a significantly reduced price to get to space. The goal with starship is to reduce the cost of getting to orbit by at least an order of magnitude (but possibly much more than that). When that starts to happen it’ll allow for new and exciting things to happen in space.

          First, we can go back to the moon and to Mars, we can explore again. But more than that, it will make some new things possible. It will eventually become feasible for resource extraction and manufacturing to move to space. That would mean processes that produce harmful waste don’t have to happen on our planet. Mining asteroids would mean again, minimal ecological impact compared to mining a mountain on Earth. And of course creating industry in space is the first step towards a future where people actually live in space, the first step towards humanity getting a real foothold off of earth.

          But you literally can’t get to any of those possibilities without reusable rockets first, it’s just not feasible.

        • Balex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          How are there so many people in this thread talking with such confidence and yet know absolutely nothing? SpaceX is the reason NASA doesn’t need to rely on Russia to get astronauts to and from the ISS, so that’s one huge benefit. And Starlink is in such a low orbit that their orbits are constantly decaying and will burn up in the atmosphere without any orbit corrections. So there will never be a chain reaction crash.