this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
95 points (89.9% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
2896 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
95
Former NASA administrator hates Artemis, wants to party like it’s 2008 (arstechnica.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

how is the "commercial" avenue supposed to make profit if nasa isn't funding it. and if it can't, isn't it just a government program?

the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it's not a viable industry by itself.

you can see this tale play out time and time again in other industries that have had the same problem, it doesn't end well, it ends badly.

also you don't need to do the big text

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

how is the “commercial” avenue supposed to make profit if nasa isn’t funding it. and if it can’t, isn’t it just a government program?

NASA is not the only entity that send things into orbit.

the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it’s not a viable industry by itself.

SpaceX does not seems to only rely on government orders.

True, NASA helped (well, it is an understatment) SpaceX, but now it could capitalize on it if the costs are the one @[email protected] pointed out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

the dead end of commercial space is that it can only function as a factor of government work. it’s not a viable industry by itself.

The alternative to this LEO space work is that taxpayers pay 6.25 times as much for the same service. Where is the logic in that?

you can see this tale play out time and time again in other industries that have had the same problem, it doesn’t end well, it ends badly.

I disagree with your assessment that it is an inevitability. However, lets assume for a moment you're right and it ends in bankruptcy for SpaceX. In the time it will have operated it will have:

  • launched over 300 times
  • proven rocket reusability
  • drastically lowered the cost of spaceflight around the globe from all providers
  • created and deployed a global constellation of high speed and low latency internet access satellites giving affordable access to many corners of the globe previously unserved
  • put an additional 42 human into orbit

If commercial space company SpaceX went out of business tomorrow, we'd still be better off than had NASA ever contracted with them.

also you don’t need to do the big text

Thank you for sharing your opinion on that.