Technology

You're conflating Musk with his companies. He might be the one who founded them, but these companies run themselves. This goes for Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink. The leadership, research, production, and management are all handled by company employees.

But that's besides the point, regardless of how you feel about Musk himself, there's clearly a place for private companies in this area. NASA and other space agencies are not businesses, they're research agencies. Their job is to expand scientific knowledge and innovate new technology. They can't run a service like SpaceX, which btw doesn't only serve the government by also other governments and the private sector. It's better for them to just outsource shuttle launches entirely to the private sector which is why they've been doing it for decades. It just so happens that SpaceX provides this service at really good price reliably and safely, which makes them the best choice. It's symbiotic relationship. It's an ecosystem where one sector compliments the other.

Have a government run space agency, government constantly cuts funding. Awards contracts to incompetent military company to build over priced rocket. Crony capitalism and money disappears.

That government guy sure seems incompetent, I hope no one puts it in charge of a space company.

Private guy steals all NASA talent from budget cuts builds talented team, innovates new technologies for rockets

That private guy sure seems like he knows what he's doing, I bet he'd be great at running a space company.

and then goes full blown Nazi and you love him even more.

IDK where that's coming from, I never said that, you're just making stuff up now.

This is a poor understanding of how the system works. SpaceX is company that provides a service. This service is open to anyone who wants to use it, but this happens to mostly be the government. The reason is because it's services are cheap, safe, and reliable. SpaceX does what it does very well, and the government chooses their services because it's economical.

NASA and other agencies provide a service, they're not companies. They're research agencies who's job is to advance scientific knowledge and developed new technology. Their goal isn't to create a sustainable business, but to conduct research that's beyond the capacity of the private sector or individual researchers.

The public and private sector compliment each other. They do things that the other isn't good at. It's an ecosystem. Getting rid of one will cause the whole system to collapse... and that's not a good thing.

No matter how much you cut from NASA it always had more funding than SpaceX did and innovation in space exploration was dead until SpaceX came around.

Nationalization will make SpaceX yet another bureaucratic, money waster for the government to maintain. By being private if SpaceX becomes shit the government can just drop them at any moment.

Giving things to the state is a dumbass idea. Exhibit A: the entire current administration.

Government agency starts multiple, multi-year, billion dollar projects, delays ensue, costs overrun, results are unimpressive. It has to rely on private contractors or other countries for the most basic things, spends $211 billion for a space shuttle program that goes nowhere and ends up costing $0.5 billion per launch.

Private company goes from nothing to a successful rocket launch in 10 years for less than $1 billion, half of which is private funding. In the next 10 years makes rockets reusable, lowers the cost to orbit by 30x, launches a viable commercial service people are willing to pay for.

Communists on lemmy:

Capitalists on Lemmy: private company is better just because it's private

This is such a childish take. The private and public sectors are not opposites and they don't contradict each other. They serve different purposes in the economy, and they compliment each other quite well. It's an ecosystem where one covers the gaps of the other. We need both.

Also, you’re focusing on the space agency of the most corrupt developed country in the world: the USA. Maybe compare the costs with those of the Chinese Space Agency?

NASA as well as the other American space agencies absolutely floor the global competition and it's not even close. When it comes to China, they will always have cheaper prices because they are poorer country with a weaker currency, which means they'll have a stronger purchasing power. In real terms, Chinese labor is much cheaper than American labor, Chinese materials are cheaper than American materials, Chinese manufacturing is cheaper than American manufacturing. China's space expenditure is actually around as the US as percentage of GDP (both are around 0.5%), but China's economy is smaller per capita and therefore they have a smaller budget to work with. This is why the US has the biggest, the most advanced, and the most flashy projects while China seems to be able to do a lot with less.

Governments: spend 80 years developing space tech with public funding, allowing humanity to walk on the moon, have global positioning satellites, and essentially kickstart the computing industry from a necessity to build computers for orbital calculations

Yes, government funded endeavors are sometimes the only way to do things that don't have a clear ROI but they are also incredibly inefficient and as such should be kept only until it becomes viable for the private sector to take over.

Private companies: *mostly disappear and waste shareholder money, like Virgin or like Bezos' attempts at space

That's the beauty of the private sector, pure meritocracy, if you suck - you die. If those were public initiatives they would have been kept regardless of the costs or the results, wasting the taxpayer's money instead of the shareholders'.

one company with public funding raking in those 80 years of publicly-funded research to itself

If it was that easy NASA or all the failed companies you mentioned would have done it themselves. SpaceX has done an absolutely incredible job at innovating in the industry that has been in stagnation since the 80s, designing rapidly reusable rockets, lowering the cost per kg to LEO from $72k in today's money, from the space shuttle days to $2500 and planing to reduce it to $10 with starship.

The public funding part doesn't mean free money from the government, the government pays SpaceX for fulfilling contracts because NASA can't do it themselves, at least not as efficiently as SpaceX. Right now majority of SpaceX's revenue comes from starlink which mainly serves private consumers so it's reliance on the government contracts is being overstated.

underpaying and exploiting its engineers

SpaceX $155K-$247K/yr ($117K - $175K/yr base pay + $39K - $72K/yr stock)

NASA $113K - $158K/yr

lowering the costs at the expense of safety due to cutting in safety measures thay will never be tolerated when humans ride those rockets

As of 2025, SpaceX is the only U.S. company with a human-rated rocket system certified by NASA for regular flights to the International Space Station. NASA completed the certification of SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket in 2023, marking the first time a commercial system was certified for human spaceflight.

Dumbass liberal lemmitor: pRiVaTe Is ClEaRlY sUpErIoR

Yes.