this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
130 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3175 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] decerian@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

ULA is already a private company. I don't think the US government has done any of their own work to get to space since the shuttle.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] Bimfred@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The SLS is arguable, I'd say. The design requirements were set by the government, but it's not built by NASA. It's built by Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and ULA, all of which are private companies. I don't think NASA has ever built a rocket, actual construction has always been contracted out to private companies. Even the first Atlas was repurposed from an ICBM built by Convair and General Dynamics.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 points 6 months ago

And even if SLS is an example of non-private rocketry, it's hardly something that should be touted as a positive example. Especially not when launch pace is your criterion.

load more comments (1 replies)