Reddit Posts
FIRMS shows new fire along the E/W pipeline
NASA released the final RFP for commercial stations to succeed the ISS
I Personally Believe Data Centers in Space Aren't That Crazy of an Idea, and Could Become Financially Viable in the Near Future
NASA.CN at ~10¢: The Market May Be Pricing Power Leaves on Today's Capacity, Not What Happens When the Bottleneck Comes Off
is this a good growth focused Roth IRA asset allocation?
What are your Top ETFs Picks so far this year? Beyond VOO, VT, VXUS?
I'm deciding to sell NASA (tema) etf for tax loss harvesting, since I made around $300 in profit so far in 6 months. Should I do it or no? Needed thoughts.
SpaceX revenue jumps 92% in first earnings report since IPO
SpaceX revenue jumps 92% in first earnings report since IPO
I wish I never invested into LUNR and NASA. been waiting for a few weeks to sell, but ofcouse dip keeps dipping....
Best Way to Diversify Brokerage vs Roth IRA?
Selling $DRAM (up 13% today), evaluating alternatives.
Top ways to invest in innovative companies through ETFs? High risk appetite
Mentions
Opinion: Discovery of one useful key drug by a microbiologist or chemist vs a lifetime of various achievement by Musk make it clear to me that Musk has done so much more. It was stated that the VW teams that took apart Musk’s Tesla were astonished by the innovations. If Musk’s AI drives the cars thousands of accidents will be prevented as it already has a top safety record. His reusable rockets and retrieval of the sick astronaut on a ride so smooth and automated that it outdid NASA. What Musk has already done at Neurolink is astonishing. Optimus robots are being trained to handle more than a few tasks. Side note: I like to put opinion in front of all my statements because my beliefs are are not scientific verified by others facts
I agree with you about Elon Musk, but private industry must take over going into space, government was doing it too inefficiently. And I'm a liberal really, democratic socialist, so but there's certain thing individuals can do better. Private industry. You're totally wrong about AI. I use Claude code and Codex every day, and China has nothing comparable. Anthropic is a really good company with a really good product, very advanced AI, I don't even need developers anymore, I have AI agents that operate as my developers. They get things done in 15 minutes that would normally take three months and an entire team of developers. Sounds like you're LARPING for China and you're just butt hurt about SpaceX being so successful. Listen, I hate Elon Musk just as much as you, but SpaceX is a very successful company with the world's brightest engineers. They've accomplished things NASA could only dream of.
yes, I agree, and overall bullish (position: 1.4k stocks at 4.6 entry + 8 call options for next Jan. relaized losses of this year calls of about 2k i believe). my extra inputs: 1. they have this phase 3 status which recently FBI used in the contract they signed. I am not an expert but this status should remove limits of contract sizes and remove the need to make auctions - so it should be easier signing contracts. 2. this year they integrated ask sage right? and it seems like it impacted - increasing revenues and margins. we don't yet know how easly it will be saturated, but if there integrated system is good and more contracts are gained this looks positive 3. my reserach lists 2 reported adoptions (DoE and NAVAIR) 4 Funded orders (FBI, VA, NASA, US-CG) and 2 renewals (CBP and Children's Minnesota) in 2026H2 so far, so to me it seems fair to keep my position to 2027
not sure if this is true or not but reading this made me picture all of the people responsible for the early NASA stuff
The part that disproves “government money is key” is the part where Starlink alone is 60% of SpaceX revenue (AI counted separate). Their biggest business is launching Starlink satellites and providing internet service. I said this in my first reply. Anyhow, the issue is less of “the government handling it poorly” and more of “natural progression of government handling this in a democracy”. If you had such a misconception that you thought the “high” NASA spendings back during Apollo had any public, time to dispel that. In general, more than half of the public opposed this “high” spending, and I say “high” because even that was only 1% of GDP. There is a song called “Whiteys on the moon” from back then. I suggest you check it! Apollo still had a big political goal that made it untouchable, that is, **beat the Russians.** But once that happened, there was nothing holding it together. The only way for NASA to even survive in the democracy environment was to make itself relevant by being a jobs program. Nothing “made room for venture capital to surpass it”, in a sense, NASA and even Obama encouraged said venture capital to actually get shit done and break out of this cycle I mentioned above. And, it worked!
i don't think any of this disproves that government money is pretty key, you even stated it yourself. Yes, NASA has been mismanaged which was a fact i neglected to discuss in my comment. I don't think that changes the fact that the governments poor handling of our space program made room for venture capital to surpass it.
\>NASA has existed for almost 80 years, over half of which it has been starved of funding. There wasn’t a single point in time where NASA had any less funding than SpaceX now, and when I say now I mean including private sources. There wasn’t a single point in time where NASA could not afford to spend as much money on a rocket as SpaceX did on Falcon 9, in a single year, multiple times over. Yet they didn’t. The issue isn’t funding and it has never been funding. It is the direction of funding. NASA isn’t mainly a space program, it is mainly a jobs program. After Apollo, NASA had to find something to keep itself and its workers and its contractors relevant. NASA’s budget is determined by senators. So the following structure emerged: NASA funnels billions of taxpayer dollars to corpo giants like Boeing, Lockheed etc. with specific requirements to spread as many jobs across the country as possible, thus creating more jobs in every state, winning the senators votes, the senators who in turn determine NASA’s budget… This wasn’t ever meant to do much actual work, it was meant to cycle taxpayer dollars in order to win votes for senators. Guess what, Bush and later Obama specifically tries to get out of this situation by creating the CRS and CCDev programs, which helped SpaceX develop, and NASA would get cheap space access. And guess what, it worked.
if you think the relevant history for this is "as long as Elon has been important" then I think you need to look a bit further back. NASA has existed for almost 80 years, over half of which it has been starved of funding. the writing was on the wall before elons balls even dropped. look at what happened during the lost decade of the 80s and Reagan's approach to nasa research.
Aaand this has become the NASA administrator's top priority....
It’s a very funny and unexpected story.. After losing control of OpenAI a company that went on to achieve colossal success Musk became desperate to join the artificial intelligence "arms race." Consequently, he poured vast resources into building data centers and developing the Grok system. It turned out, however, that he was far better at constructing data centers than at marketing Grok. Left with a surplus of idle computing power, he decided to lease it out. It then became clear that while selling AI itself might not be particularly profitable, providing the server infrastructure to run it is an incredibly lucrative business. And because Musk possesses an exceptional, almost superhuman talent for rapidly building data centers Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has even described him as a "superhuman" in this regard the industry’s biggest players have lined up, willing to pay fortunes for access to his servers. We are talking about truly astronomical sums: for instance, Anthropic recently struck a **$120.5 billion deal** to lease server capacity from SpaceX. Google has also signed a major contract, and another unnamed client has entered into an agreement for a comparable amount not to mention a host of smaller customers. The scale of this is so vast that it dwarfs all of SpaceX’s government contracts; even the Starlink project seems insignificant by comparison. Furthermore, SpaceX has opted out of recent tenders for military space launches they simply aren't interested anymore. There is panic at NASA: it seems that the fate of the Dragon spacecraft or the Falcon 9 rocket is no longer a priority for SpaceX. These data centers are, quite literally, "printing" money for Musk in incredible amounts and, according to forecasts, these figures are set to grow to truly staggering levels. Musk is currently channeling all his energy and resources into the construction of data centers, focusing his efforts entirely on this endeavor.
Because of capitalism, the US government would have to hire the smartest minds, for them to do that they will need to pay the software engineers more or similarly to what Google or Open AI is paying them. We’ve done the same thing to space programs, look at NASA now, they pay SpaceX to deliver for them now. The last great invention by the US government-led program was the GPS 40 years ago. That said, the issue is there should be a department responsible for regulating and overseeing these companies much like the EPA does to the environment or FDA for food ect..
Interesting! My dad likes quantum stuff since he works at NASA, and told me to invest in it. I don't think I put any money into that, but I will seriously look into it.
SpaceX has a lower budget than NASA.
About 12% of NASA missions have been Soyuz. So, no not really.
You knuckleheads continuously vote for politicians that starve NASA funding, then when someone else steps in you claim it’s yours.
Didn’t NASA get most of their launch capacity from Russia before spacex came along?
I literally cant believe it. The idea the state could manage AND GROW starlink and starship operations is so fucking stupid. If you want to indict Musk for treason thats one thing but governments are notorious for over spending ie NASA before space x came along. I mean holy shit most of the launch chairs that were produced by NASA before SpaceX was done by Russia for America.
I mean we had Russia flying NASA astronauts to space for the last 20 years.... You don't think space X has done any R&D and just copied what NASA learned over the past 40 years? If so I got a bridge to sell ya
I think a few things should be a government only enterprise headed by the smartest among us like people in NASA, JPL, and military branches as this specific type of facility needed, technology needed, logistics needed to do can alter a physical landscape quickly. Its why we dont like Lockheed just bomb a bunch of random country's on their own. The government decides what they can and cannot sell and the government most of the times ships it too.
If NASA was efficient, SpaceX would not exist. They have lowered the cost to ship satellites into space by 90%
NASA is pretty much a public corporation and look at the waste there. Elon built SpaceX for a tiny fraction of what NASA has done, in a far smaller time period.
love how you ignored my budget comment completely and decide to try and insult me. You resize budget is directly corelated to efficiency. As I said, it's not even close if you look at budget over the last 10 years even. It costs NASA multiple billions per space fight and they've been doing this 5x longer than space x. Space x does it for a couple hundred million or less per launch because they are way more EFFICIENT
Really? Look at NASA over the last 40 years versus space X in the last 10. If you look at budgets it's a no brainer NASA is way less efficient than space x. It's not even a comparison
What do you think NASA's budget is? What makes you think it's an inefficient program? You're coming off as ignorant as the people you're trying to dunk on in your comment. You literally are saying "everything government bad" while making fun of people saying "everything Elon bad". To use your extremist generalizations against you, you're a reddit techno-anarchist drooling at the idea of privatizing everything
Calling NASA inefficient is one of the dumbest statements that I have ever read
Why couldn't government run programs do them? Hint: because they didn't have the funding. Instead, stuff like DARPA and NASA funded stuff like SPCX to do the same shit but in the private sector. Most tech innovation originates from federal funding.
You have idiots here actually thinking that nationalisation of companies is a good idea, noting that this is supposed to be an investing forum. The people here are supposed to be financially literate. Nationalising SpaceX would not only make it incredibly inefficient like NASA, but more significantly would destroy America. The stock market would crash like nothing before, there would be no confidence in the government. It would be a fucking nightmare of unimaginable proportions. The Reddit commies drool at this though I’m sure.
How could someone not realize that the reason why SpaceX has been so successful is because it's not a government entity like NASA?
So a private company makes better rockets/launch vehicles than the government (NASA), so the government is going to nationalize the private company so we can go back to the more expensive and less modern (not reusing boosters) way of doing it. Reich is a dolt and had Napolean's complex as a dwarf.
I don't like how the right calls progressives 'communists,' but what Reich is calling for IS what the communist parties did to business owners in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, and so on. This is what happened to my grandparents and why our family (anybody educated or who owned businesses) fled to the US. Notice how in all those countries, they shifted from State-Owned Enterprise to market-driven, and a lot of those entities began to thrive (using China and Vietnam as examples). I've always been for NASA having a bigger budget, but it's undeniable what Space X did in terms of cost per launch never did or never would have under NASA by itself. It's fine to call Musk out on weirdo asshole behavior and his product timelines. But there is a lot of things his companies are doing in terms of tech and science that are amazing, there are lot of business decisions that turned out incredibly smart or lucky. Denying that is just ideological bias and dillusional. \*ps fuck Robert Reich. He's been the biggest NIMBY in Berkley all the while saying all the things Berkley types like hear.
I'm just gonna copy and paste what I wrote to someone else: it’s not fair to treat SpaceX as a subsidized entity. Only someone who hasn’t bothered to look at the actual numbers would keep repeating that. SpaceX got critical NASA contracts in its near-death early years that helped it survive, but those were competitive fixed-price deals for real work, not free money, and for a long time now the company has been overwhelmingly sustained by commercial Starlink revenue and private launches, with government work a shrinking minority. Although its valuation is questionable.
Yes because it’s not fair to treat SpaceX as a subsidized entity. Only someone who hasn’t bothered to look at the actual numbers would keep repeating that. SpaceX got critical NASA contracts in its near-death early years that helped it survive, but those were competitive fixed-price deals for real work, not free money, and for a long time now the company has been overwhelmingly sustained by commercial Starlink revenue and private launches, with government work a shrinking minority. Although its valuation is questionable.
That article is nonsense and Jared Isaacman confirmed it was nonsense. The reality is that NASA needs SpaceX more than any other company in the world by far. You can’t just google whatever words you did “Musk SpaceX Bad Replacement” is my guess and pretend it is fact. You guys are so dumb
So what happens in theory, if the government says to SpaceX, “sorry space is closed for you if you don’t do NASA’s bidding, & any attempts to leave the planet will be shot down”. Seems like a risky business model with the seemingly schizophrenic administration that’s in charge lol
Yea, the compay with 30 billy of reve is worth 2 trillion. The company NASA relies on that made a rocket which by current estimates [requires 22 starship launches to land on the moon](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/s/1zlejkHUU6). And the company pondering merger with a failing car manufacturer which just unveiled a car that is so fucking useless and stupid it defies belief.
Yeah except for the part that NASA is desperately looking for a [replacement to](https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/09/nasa-has-a-dragon-dilemma-and-there-appear-to-be-no-good-answers/) SpaceX.
Yea, the largest rocket company in the world that NASA relies on to get to space is a ponzi. The amount of upvotes you get for this comment shows me how many bots, or worse, idiots there are on here.
wtf? Spacex is not too big to fail. Google/Apple would be too big to fail, because they make tons of money on ads and software which costs extremely little. Have you not seen NASA's expenditure? While Spacex is backed by the government, it's not a moat. Look at Intel. It was the hardware for the government but it's stock tanked so bad for so long. Only because of AI was it revived and spiked.
Dude, there is literally no indication even from your source that anything is happening of any note. Of course the shit post you glommed onto is pretending there is--and you are believing it and sharing it as if it is something. What you found that is "freely available" shows nothing--literally. I sent you the link but maybe somehow your own eyes don't work. Or you just are long and want to believe so badly that something good is happening for you. Weekend oil is not the best, but just an additional point that nobody but you thinks something is happening. The Saudis have not disclosed and none of the news wires whose job it is to sniff out this exact stuff think your garbage post is correct. They are well aware of the NASA maps... As if that is not enough: CRUDE OIL FUTURES ARE DOWN https://preview.redd.it/713t4whqroxh1.png?width=1320&format=png&auto=webp&s=ac90efd0ae4a237d4038c5029b0b24479c8f6ea3
“Once we have real flying cars, these rocket companies are going to expand pretty dramatically outside of NASA!”
bruhs what if we made NASA into a university NASA University: Florida Branch
Its 2026, NASA is ran by a South African, the sitting president is a WWE wrestler and you hot baby sitter used to be a dude. What a time to be alive.
SpaceX maintains a monopoly on human lift capability to the ISS and is stringing us along with promises that Starship will one day do anything useful for NASA. They've become inexorably tied to national security, I dont see them being dislodge any time soon.
Yes unlike Boeing or Lockheed they have never fleeced their customers (NASA) or Ford, Chevy, or any of the other car manufacturers. His competitors are downright Jesus-like in comparison.
You mean like spacex replacing NASA?
I suspect that NASA funds to SpaceX are helping their growth.
\>You’re an idiot but whatever Says the man who unironically claimed NASA didn’t use to rely on private contractors btw
Stocks I knew were risky buys but bought them anyways and now I'm suffering immensely: WQTM, URA, ASTS, OKLO, NASA, NBIS
NASA's efforts appear to have bipartisan support. America needs the moon. We don't want to have to trade Canada for it.
I remember feeling like the good work NASA was doing was something all America could share in.
How many people has spacex safely sent to lunar orbit? The shuttle was not because of NASA as much as it was cost and capability limits at the time. Plus we had more ideas of the space station and low orbit science research which benefited us ten fold
Bruh we can go round and round all day...who invented/discovered the novel idea to RELAND rockets as being more cost effective? I'll give you a hint his name was Von Braun and he was the first director of NASA. Elon literally just put money behind that idea and had about 70+ years of semiconductor and gyro research and development to make it look easy. Everything you want to credit SpaceX for you should thank NASA for paving the way and building the road...quite literally in some situations
NASA will lose the ISS, the military will lose its communications and access to orbit and that’s it. SpaceX and Tesla won’t be affected in any way.
Doesn't most of this come from NASA?
Look up the cost savings SpaceX has provided to NASA per launch. How is it a subsidy if the govt controlled launch group can't do it cheaper? That's called a tax savings.
Starshield is only a small fraction of what SpaceX makes from Starlink, I’m not splitting hairs, you are cherrypicking. Now go and reply to that comment of mine where I methodically picked apart your stupid claim that NASA never contracted shit before. Damn that feels good.
Yeah, looking at the Shuttle, NASA handled safety SOOOOOO well LMAOOO Btw NASA’s planned replacement for Shuttle was an even deadlier design The actual difference is cost, SpaceX saved NASA and USSF 40 billion dollars
Tell me what the difference is between dumping public money on a private company is vs dumping public money on a publicly controlled and owned (NASA) administration? I'll tell you one difference...safety
SpaceX quite literally built their own launch tower on LC-39A (no input from NASA whatsoever). Now they are building a second launch tower and pad next to the existing one for Starship (again, funded *entirely* by SpaceX) which will be far more capable than the old LC-39A pad. They also did the same for SLC-40, new crew access tower etc. you get the idea.
That is bullshit. NASA was the one that gave said funding to SpaceX BECAUSE SpaceX did it cheaper than how NASA did it before. And mind you, NASA’s last human launch system was the Shuttle. The one that killed 14 astronauts. SpaceX currently makes more money from Starlink than any government contract. In fact, they even make money from non government launches, but Starlink is the real money maker. Its fine if you don’t know anything, but don’t speak so confidently then.
Firstly, I never disputed that SpaceX didn’t “benefit from public investment” either, going back to my first comment actually. Turned out to be the best public investment NASA did in its history. I am saying they don’t rely on that *now.* Secondly, but when you actually look at their regulatory violations, they are very minor things. The best example is when they got a fine from EPA because they “dumped industrial wastewater without a permit”. What actually happened was their deluge system. Thing is, their deluge water is just… water. Its as clean as it gets. It was even tested, and one journalist made an article about how it was “way above regulations in pollution”, whereas in reality that journalist misread units and thus overreported the pollution by a factor of 1000. Moreover, the actual recorded value was the lowest the test unit was rated for. Anyhow. Some regulations can be outdated (like FAA before ETOPS), SpaceX had thought because their water is clean it doesn’t fall into that EPA permit territory, but EPA still said that they needed it. Which is… fine. They paid the fine (150k USD) and got the permit, since then no issues.
They already did. NASA exclusively used Soyuz rockets to go the ISS for like a decade from 2010-2020.
I am actually quoting **Bill Nelson**, Biden’s NASA administrator. He said that SpaceX saved the government that much money, not Elon. \>NASA’s own inspector general estimated… Yes, from “cargo development” ALONE. Which I think you even quoted wrong, the 1.4 to 4 billion number is for CCP, Commercial Crew Program. Not cargo, bu crew. Anyhow, set that aside. That is just one singular example, and you have to sum it all. SpaceX launched Europa Clipper in 2024, initially meant to be launched on SLS. That launch would have costed NAS something like 2 billion dollars. SpaceX contract cost them 180 million. One singular launch. Dragonfly will launch in 2028, similarly, would have needed the SLS, but can launch on FH now for 255 million. Nancy Grace Roman telescope too. In fact, SpaceX led to an overall reduction in launch prices for all contracts. Not only did they cut their own prices, they forced everyone else to cut their prices. The sum of which is what that 40 billion eventually refers to. \>Starlink isn’t even its largest revenue source anymore Still is the largest profit source. Not revenue only because of AI. Government contracts belong in launch category, which generates far less revenue and profit than Starlink. \>Got evidence that every other launch loses money, Yes, its called “do the maths bozo”. For every other launch, they can only price it at a fraction of what the satellite operator will profit from the satellite (if the launch revenue is higher than that, operator won’t launch ar all.) With Starlink, they vertically integrate it. Whatever profits the satellite operator makes, well, now they make. Case on point, SpaceX is retiring Dragon and Falcon 9 to focus on Starlink. Now, Starlink is really optimized for megaconstellation launches, but even more so for Starlink because of its narrow payload door being designed for Starlink. They even stopped new commercial bookings of Falcon 9 beyond 2028. Not that they literally lose money, if thats what you initially understood. No, they’re the only operator to make profit from launches, but Starlink generates so much more profit, they are relatively losing money by launching others stuff instead of Starlink. \>Damn simping so hard I am an aerospace engineer. That’s perhaps why.
So we've moved from grammar lessons to making up financial figures? Brilliant. You should read how correcting grammar is one of the best social signs of someone who doesn't understand society. But hell asking you to read and learn is a lot. NASA's own inspector general estimated $1.4–4 billion in savings from SpaceX's cargo development. You're claiming all this money saved Sourced or is that a lesson Elons ballsack teaches you? NASA also directly funded spacecraft development, so pretending government contracts can't constitute financial support is laughable. And SpaceX's latest earnings show Starlink isn't even its largest revenue source anymore. Got evidence that every other launch loses money, or did you pull that figure out of orbit too? Damn simping this hard and not being American that's sad bro get off social media
Congratulations, you've explained what a contract is. Now try understanding the actual argument. SpaceX built its empire on billions in taxpayer-funded business, benefited from government development funding, and has faced repeated regulatory enforcement actions. Nobody said NASA was buying rockets as charity. But pretending SpaceX is some shining example of free-market capitalism independent of government support is fucking hilarious. You're defending a billionaire's dependence on public money while lecturing everyone else about economics. The irony is spectacular. But bet America used to be the land of the free, now your the land of bend the knee you tragic bunch of private equity serf loving vultures
This is not an accurate take. The government buys launch services from SpaceX. That launch service is cheaper than what it would cost for the NASA to launch itself and it's genuinely more robust. The explicit goal of NASA was to help standup a marketplace of launches so that NASA would get cheaper launch service that it doesn't have to run. If SpaceX did not exist NASA would spend much more money to have less launch capability. Elon Musk is a complete douche but SpaceX has been an incredible game changer for launch capabilities.
So we basically just invented NASA using the private market
No, all the programs were private from the very beginning. Obama simply wanted a new company to compete with ULA, because antitrust regulators had somehow overlooked the "elephant in the room" when the only two players in the market merged into a single entity. NASA tried to create such a company using its own staff it was called Rocketplane but it failed completely. Musk entered the program by filing lawsuits, pointing out that awarding a contract to Rocketplane without a competitive bidding process was a violation of the law. As a result, he also received some funding and a spot in the program.
Less than 5%. SpaceX has become so minimally dependent on the government that NASA is panicking, fearing that SpaceX might decide to walk away from government contracts altogether.
lol half the engineers WERE at NASA. And the funding was way higher there than what spacex charged.
SpaceX's valuation is riding on more than just Starlink revenue, the launch business alone prints money because nobody else can land and reuse rockets at their cadence. NASA couldn't undercut them on price even if Congress handed them a blank check, the agency moves too slow and cost-plus contracting would eat any savings alive.
> To be fair space x did something no one else did…and still doesn’t. What did they do that Boeing and ULA weren’t doing in 2002? Because they had commercial launch products. And NASA was reusing boosters and the spacecraft from the shuttle program in the 80s. There’s also been satellite internet for a long time. I guess they tricked a bunch of gullible fanboys into thinking they invented all that??
NASA send people to the moon with tech 1/10000 as power as we have today. US gov can print as much money as it wants. You are not serious if you don’t think they could build a competitor if they were tasked to do so.
>doesn’t this inevitably put Starlink in a vulnerable position? Did you not see earnings? The profits speak for themselves. >If, and I know it’s a big if, a different party takes control and decides to launch a low cost alternative to Starlink created and managed by NASA They can't. California couldn't build rail, and the feds can't build Starlink. The money would just go to client networks and other various corruption before it ever reaches NASA. Whatever little money is left, NASA will waste, as they had been doing all these years before SpaceX. >for say a static 20-50% savings ...paid for by the US taxpayer? With 40T debt? You aren't serious >wouldn’t that all but wipe out the main selling point? A government using taxpayer money to undercut a private company? Where have I seen this? ah... yes, EVs in China, for example. This is the US. Go back to the CCP, bot.
Did you actually read the post? NASA backed by the U.S. Federal Government can absolutely build, maintain, and scale a Starlink competitor
SpaceX is successful because they get an insane amount of money from the government, just like Tesla. That money could have gone to NASA or anyone else to attract the talent and you’d still end up with the same results. Only difference is the ketamine freak is running the show this way
literally no one thing in this is right how does SpaceX have blank check from trump? most of the government contracts are signed under Biden (for Artemis) and Obama (for NASA crew). how the fuck are us tax payer and treasury (???) involved?
Stealing funding from NASA to destroy rockets for testing, denying our allies military support, privatizing space travel for the wealthiest elite? Yeah that one The brilliant engineers and scientists working there would be better off working toward the spacefaring goals of humankind, not the worlds richest man
NASA also didnt participate in the ai race
I don’t think NASA wants profit
You SPCX bulls do realize NASA never once turned a profit right
If you’re referring to the COTS flight, it wasn’t exactly coincidental. On 18 August 2006, NASA announced that SpaceX had won a [NASA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) [Commercial Orbital Transportation Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services)(COTS) contract to demonstrate cargo delivery to the [International Space Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station) with a possible option for crew transport.[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_COTS_Demo_Flight_1#cite_note-SpaceX_August_18,_2006-4) This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" for development of new boosters, paid SpaceX $278 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, with incentive payments paid at milestones culminating in three demonstration launches.
39A was paid for and built by NASA....just cuz it was refurbished or something doesn't negate the original builder but whatever dude go suck elons dick
39A was leased to SpaceX. The entire pad had to be redone for Falcon, so I really don't understand what your argument is here. And the entire Starship pad at 39A has been built by SpaceX. 37 was owned by ULA until SpaceX bought it. And 40 SpaceX also built up and is on the Space Force side, the same with SLC 4 at Vandenderg. You SpaceX haters act like SpaceX is the only space company that exists. Yet I never heard a word about the literal $800 million a year subsidy ULA had gotten for years to just stay alive. And I wasn't even referring to the pads in my comment. Do you actually think the LEM, Saturn V, the suits, the LTV, etc. were built by NASA? They weren't. They were built by contractors. This is how the space industry has always worked. Even now with SLS, it's ALL built by contractors.
Your own link shows space x receiving 4.9b " bringing the total contract value at that point to $4.9 billion" NASA has spent more than that on boeings starliner
What the hell are you even talking about? Ever been to cape Canaveral? Even the launchpads used by SpaceX were once built and managed by NASA.... Clueless moron
How many deaths have occurred under NASA launches and how many under SpaceX launches
You know that NASA didn't build the things that got us to the moon right? Everything has always been contracted out yet you people seem convinced that's not true because you hate SpaceX
Elon called for removing federal EV credits and then backed Trump, who then removed those EV credits. Also, EV credits don't just apply to Teslas. They apply to all EVs. SpaceX gets government contracts because they are the cheapest due to their reusable rocket tech. The government isn't doing them a favor. SpaceX is the one doing the government a favor by saving them a ton of money. It would cost NASA a lot more to do the shit by themselves.
from NASA? according to what? https://abcnews.com/Technology/space-race-nasa-announce-company-wins-space-taxi/story https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-nasa-contracts/ seems like they are pretty even, not that 2 piece of shit companies really makes for much of a competitive market anyway.
Why did we ever go away from NASA? Is probably the question you need to answer before you let yourself convince yourself that one bs company for profit that cuts corners regarding safety (Boeing) for another one that does the same (Tesla/SpaceX)? How about you go back to what got us on the moon? Not this phony modern day Elizabeth Holmes of a talentless hack.
NASA is slow because they test. When you’re fast you get challenger blowing up. Additionally, they are slow because of money. Total NASA annual budget 24 billion, split among many projects that actually need to have results. SpaceX gets about 3 to 4 billion a year from the government, out of a total of like 18 billion in revenue. Capex is like 20 billion a year. It’s been a loss leader for Elon where he gets to direct aerospace guys and play buzz lightyear, and do whatever the fuck. So for years he could be faster at blowing up rockets. We still haven’t sent men to mars. Now it’s a pyramid scheme for retail investors in Wallstreetbets. Anyone that really thinks private sector gets shit done faster by virtue of capitalism or whatever, I mean that’s just retarded. Things get done faster sometimes, sometimes it’s a fraudulent endeavor or full of incompetence and fails. The whole Reagan era idea of privatizing it all is just a blatant way for rich folks to get richer off of tax dollars. It’s a scam. In the past, we still got stuff out of it, but now the pretenses are falling. It’s just a bunch of middle men that don’t even need to justify their existence anymore.
why was this the case though? oh right, because we've systematically dismantled all research and funding that used to be NASA and all programs that flowed out of that except for SpaceX. No company, ever, has made money off of space. its just not possible without government funding. Either the state owns it or PE profits off of government contracts. there's never been a different model in any developed nation in the world.
Wasn't that the whole point of SpaceX? Government entities like NASA are slow, so private companies were going to do it instead.
Tesla technology was created before Elon became CEO, and the plan to make it affordable too. All the money for SpaceX gets you rockets, but we lose on what NASA could give us from the research for free.
No. It is not impossible. As NASA said, “ambient temperature of a spacecraft drops from 279K (near Earth) to 90K near Saturn, and a freezing 44K near Pluto. Current electronics cannot function at these cryogenic temperatures” and. “Satellites use **localized electric patch heaters** or Radioisotope Heater Units alongside insulating Multi-Layer Insulation blankets.”