Submitted by cnbc_official t3_11b3eko in space
OudeStok t1_j9xti8m wrote
Sounds very much like support for SpaceX wannabee competitors. Currently there are no US companies with a viable alternative to SpaceX Falcon, Falcon Super Heavy and Starship.
youknowithadtobedone t1_j9yzzcx wrote
Not every launch needs a F9. Rocket Lab is mentioned in the article for example
Dead_Or_Alive t1_j9zhoc6 wrote
And Astra… (looks at my stocks in ASTR and RKLB) please buy some launches from Rocket Lab and Astra.
Glittering_Leading93 t1_j9ytr2f wrote
There is no rocket company or government in the world that has what spacex can offer. They’re just built different 😂
GhettoFinger t1_j9z2e3v wrote
Yeah, because relying on a single company for everything is super smart 🙄. You fund SpaceX competitors so that they can build competitive capabilities.
Xaxxon t1_j9zfjm9 wrote
That works in a lot of other businesses, but Elon's companies don't play by the usual rules of just trying to be slightly better than the competition.
There is no sane business reason to build Starship. Yet they're going all in on it.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zoki4 wrote
Yes there is, the business reason to create startship is to win even more lucrative NASA contracts. SpaceX is not a business, it’s a quasi government agency. SpaceX literally can not exist without NASA, they don’t release financials because it’s not public, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t get over 90% of their profits through NASA contracts.
SpaceX needs NASA far more than NASA needs them. The problem is that NASA is constrained through bureaucracy which makes going to space very expensive for them, so for them to do what SpaceX does would eat most of their budget. So they delegate that to SpaceX so they can allocate that budget to something more productive.
The best thing for NASA and the Space Force is to use SpaceX for the missions that need to be done that only they can do for now, while funding their competitors to help them grow, so they can also have the capabilities to do the same missions in the future. This will put massive downward pressure on SpaceX’s ability to use their position for leverage in the future and keep these corporate parasites in check.
Xaxxon t1_j9zp0hm wrote
Spacex doesn’t need nasa to fly astronauts to space.
Nasa needs spacex (or Russia) to fly astronauts to space. (More than once every couple years at least and for less than a billion dollars per person)
Spacex NEEDED nasa for sure at one point but that point has come and gone. Nasa is a great partner but is no longer required.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zquj7 wrote
NASA needed the Russians and now SpaceX to keep costs down, but they don’t need them because they’re incapable of doing it themselves. They just wouldn’t have the bandwidth to do anything else which is not sustainable or ideal for scientific research.
However, SpaceX needs NASA to exist, which is a much more desperate need. SpaceX has no other cash flows besides NASA contracts that can sustain them, except maybe starlink, but that is still operating at a loss from analysis that I’ve seen. How would SpaceX survive without NASA? I would love to see you explain this.
Xaxxon t1_j9zqxo3 wrote
TSLA and starlink is profitable this year and that will only grow.
Also outside investors. Those investors have been lining up with no short term goal for profit.
Plus they launch for other companies.
See. That wasn’t so hard.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zr94z wrote
Except Elon himself said starlink is losing money
Xaxxon t1_j9zrerj wrote
Yes in the past that was true. In the future it’s not. Gwynne said it’s profitable this year.
You also ignored all the other parts.
GhettoFinger t1_j9zsi0r wrote
Well go ahead and link where she says that, but nonetheless I won’t believe shit until there are concrete numbers and that won’t happen until he releases an IPO. They can say whatever they want, but until it’s backed up more than with a “trust me bro” I’ll take it with a pinch of salt. Also, it needs to be more than just profitable to sustain not only the costs to operate starlink, but also fund their development and non-starlink space flights. That is several years away. Until that point, they are NASA’s servant.
And even when they are fully self sustainable, the government should heavily regulate what they can do. We need to make sure these parasites don’t cover low earth orbit with their trash for profit. If they want to do space flight, they need to be kept on a very tight leash
Xaxxon t1_j9zsr06 wrote
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwynne+starlink+profitable
And I listed a bunch of other things that also fund spacex. Starlink is only one part.
In addition to all the things I listed previously, they also sell spaceflights to civilians.
You're really rabbit holeing on one thing -- you're wrong about that but even if you're right the original statement STILL holds. SpaceX doesn't need nasa to get humans on mars, it just makes it easier.
Of course they aren't actually going to go to mars without nasa - nasa will get on board the SpaceX plan at some point - too embarrassing to get left behind. But SpaceX COULD
However, NASA cannot keep astronauts on the ISS full time without either SpaceX or Russia.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments