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

Technology

59589 readers
2936 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 (14 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.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)