this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
207 points (91.2% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
3041 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
[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I know they market mars hard, but the more relevant thing this is enabling is the starships that will be used for the NASA Artemis missions and upcoming moon base efforts. Those missions are going to need a few heavy flights each for the lander and a re-fueling ship, in addition to the SLS + Orion capsule for the actual astronauts.

Still wish the money was being invested in NASA to do themselves, and that it was being done without all the waste and environment destruction SpaceX so enjoys, but this is still a big deal to ensure Artemis happens.

[–] anti_antidote@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Curious, how is SpaceX being wasteful? Aren't they operating significantly more efficiently than NASA has in the last like half century? Even if you're counting material waste, they're hardly the worst offenders; have you seen the plastics industry? Let alone consumer packaging

[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

NASA does a hell of a lot more work than just build rockets lol. SpaceX and all the other private space companies focus on a few of the wide array of programs and services NASA does. They certinally have some poor decisions in their history (as does every space program of the 20th century) but comparing SpaceX's spending with an appropriate context of NASA's spending is ludicrous. Its not something you can just put into numbers and any comparisons I've seen thus far have been wildly skewed in SpaceX's favor for marketing reasons.

NASA (and ESA, RosCosmos, others) funding provided decades of R&D SpaceX uses to build its products with and the university curriculums all the engineers at SpaceX learned at.

Also, we dont know how a NASA that wasnt so de-funded since the 80s would have operated, but it's well established that the budget cuts and uncertainty those created have been a major factor in its ability to build new programs like Artemis, Orion, SLS, etc. in a manner that would be efficient. SLS was bogged down for years waiting for congressional approval that was repeatedly blocked or maliciously modified last minute by congressional and senate republicans, a form of efficiency knee-capping that the agency never faced in the Apollo or Space Shuttle days.

have you seen the plastics industry? Let alone consumer packaging

Not an apples to apples comparison. Check out the many lawsuits and reported criticism of the more careless Starship test flights

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

SLS was bogged down for years waiting for congressional approval that was repeatedly blocked or maliciously modified last minute by congressional and senate republicans, a form of efficiency knee-capping that the agency never faced in the Apollo or Space Shuttle days.

You can complain about that, but it's not a factor that's going away any time soon. It's built into how NASA works and our system of government.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Space X would not exist without NASA. It only appears remotely “efficient,” because they get to use decades of taxpayer funded research

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem with NASA isn't money. It's having to play pork barrel politics where every state gets to do a little something in order for it all to work. In theory, deriving SLS from old shuttle hardware should have been quick and easy. In practice, its budget is ridiculous compared to what's been put into Starship.

The real problem is that SpaceX is quickly becoming the only game in town. The ULA can't match the Falcon 9 on cost, and they have the stench of Boeing around them. Blue Origin is standing in a corner and appears to be wanking itself. Virgin Galactic is only interested in space tourisim. There are some smaller up and coming companies, but few that are beyond basic R&D. NASA is giving ULA money just so SpaceX doesn't become a de facto monopoly, but it's not looking good.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

A lot of rockets will probably be needed for the new space station being planned by Vast. That starts launching modules in 2028.

Edit: Vera -> Vast

[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For a company with plans so ambitious, they only have a marketing site, a YouTube channel, and some news articles from 2+ years ago, much less a partnership with SpaceX.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Vast" would be a different company from the one marketing the Vera station, no?

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My bad, I got Vast mixed up with Vera.

I edited my original comment.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Why is the moon more relevant than mars?

How is SpaceX destructive compared to other rocket companies? Also, do you know who built the Saturn V?

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Because there are actual plans to go back to the moon?

They didn't say spacex was more destructive than other rocket companies. It's been widely reported that SpaceX has been bad for the local environment.

[–] d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also, do you know who built the Saturn V?

I'm not even going to get into a discussion of NASA competence. There are more than enough records available through widely accepted reporting and media to disprove any of the nonsense Elon cultists spew. Whether you subscribe to the Elon cult mindset or not is your prerogative and not an accusation I'm making..

Additionally, a significant amount of the funding for starship is coming from NASA, specifically from the Artemis program, to the tune of nearly $4 billion.

Elon can scream "mars" all he wants but he has virtually zero progress to report other than some wild plans to just throw people in tubes in the general direction. Last I checked, unless I've missed something, SpaceX has not put any amount of work into what is required to keep people alive on mars, much less alive on the trip to mars, and seeing as Elon's track record on delivering promises by self-imposed deadlines is basically 0%... We'll see if it ever even happens. Especially since he changes the goal post upon "delivery" (see: full self-driving basically never happening on top of killing more people per car than any other self-driving technology, cybertruck having a fraction of the features and capabilities that were promised on top of being extremely unsafe, semi being a massive failure, that ridiculous re-invention of the subway but for cars that makes 0 financial sense, and probably many more items I'm not thinking of at this moment)

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

idk about the Tesla Semi being a failure, PepsiCo seems to like them