this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
1078 points (91.2% liked)

Technology

71223 readers
3473 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 74 points 3 days ago (3 children)

We should just fund NASA and let SpaceX and Starlink go bankrupt to competitors.

[–] RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

SpaceX has loads of capable engineers. If NASA gets a massive budget increase, they need to draw from that pool of talent.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

SpaceX and Starlink basically have no competition, and if they did, said competitor would also need to be heavily subsidized.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

These last few years they've had very little successes, but the point is it should stay competitive and not be automatically handed to these doofuses. Even the USSR maintained a competitive rocketry sector.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How has spacex had very few successes? Their Falcon 9 rocket is basically operating like clockwork. They launch more rockets than the rest of the world combined.

The starship failures are higher profile but even those failures are typical when testing new vehicles, especially one as experimental and complex.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They weren't as typical with previous SpaceX models, Starship is easily their least successful project.

Since SpaceX is launching large quantities of commercial satellites, big whoop, do you also celebrate when companies buy back stocks?

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

Why would I celebrate stock buybacks?

Also spacex lost like 20 or so Falcons before their first successful mission. Maybe they will explode as many Starships, but they have hit that number yet.

It’s ok to hate Elon, and there are many valid criticisms to make regarding spacex, but they’re the best in the world right now and it isn’t even close.

The biggest issue with Spacex is that Elon needs to be removed before he ruins it like he ruined Tesla.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

SpaceX and starlink have had very little success the last few years? What have you been smoking?!

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Compared to previously SpaceX has been seeing more and more failed launches, Starlink is banned in a number of countries and there are already other low orbit internet satellite providers popping up.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You say "failed", engineers say "ok what have we learned and what can we improve/fix from this?". These launches are tests. Every single launch is testing every single part of the hardware and software. Tests failing isn't a bad thing, as it helps you fix problems and make things better.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They are years behind schedule and obscenely over budget on this testing. They're not even making new technology here, they are just cheaping out on the builds to funnel money into their own pockets.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 2 days ago

You have any links to support that it’s just cheap materials causing the failures?