GhettoFinger

GhettoFinger t1_jawlxdd wrote

That’s not what the AI’s role would be. The human will make the decision to fire at something or someone, but they wouldn’t need you to operate its movement. So you tell the AI robot dog to kill that thing, then it moves, aims and fires on its own. So the human is making the determination what is a school bus and and enemy combatant, not the AI.

1

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

1

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.

−1

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.

−1

GhettoFinger t1_j851rar wrote

Keep in mind that this isn't yet a playground for billionaires. None of these companies would exist without NASA, they are glorified apparatuses of NASA. This is actually in NASA's best interest. Without these companies, they would have to do the space launch themselves and bureaucracy would balloon the costs to most of their budget. By delegating this to outside organizations, they can keep the cost of space flight down, while allocating their budget more wisely.

If these companies do anything NASA doesn't like, they would be dropped and disappear over time. If they further get too uppity, the federal government can regulate them out of existence. These companies should be used for what their worth, then when we get what we need, we crush them.

1