this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
613 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
65819 readers
7007 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
They both shoot rockets up in the sky. Our government could pay NASA to do it, or pay Space X.
NASA does not build it's own rockets (anymore) they make the payloads. NASA will never make rockets as good/cheap as a companies like ULA and SpaceX.
Take a look at the cluster fuck that is the SLS if you want an example
Can Space X make the payloads?
Uh, basically no.
NASA has experiments to run, spaceX has no idea what science NASA is interested in doing. So having SpaceX make the payload doesn't really make a lot of sense.
So it sounds like they are codependent at this point. The bigger the nasa budget the better for space X.
I mean, that's always been the case. That's literally spaceX's primary job, putting things in space for NASA. It's the same for every launch provider in the US.
SpaceX can make the payloads, and they already do in the form of starlink.
NASA carries out research/experiments something that spaceX probably doesn't want to compete in since for the most part it does not pay