4 ms·
>Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant. Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is
by tw04 1y ago
>Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant.
Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers.
I don't know by what measure you'd say that the US isn's still far, far ahead but I don't know of any other country currently re-using rockets dozens of times. What did I miss?
- harimau777 1y agoPersonally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society. That's especially the case when the private company is so closely tied to someone who hates and alienates so much of society. I don't think that I could view a win for Musk as a win for anything that looks like my chunk of the US. There's also the fact that part of NASA's mission is to share their knowledge with the public.
- tw04 1y ago>Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society. How exactly are you making the distinction? Space-X wouldn't exist without governemnt funding. CATL sells launches to commercial entities as well as servicing the government. Official ownership? Because China seems to think a lot of what Space-X is doing can only be accomplished by the commercial sector and is funding startups in China to do the same thing. https://spacenews.com/chinas-landspace-secures-state-backed-funding-for-reusable-rockets/ https://spacenews.com/chinas-landspace-secures-state-backed-...
- tclancy 1y agoWho any profits go to would be an easy first measure.
- vkou 1y ago> China seems to think a lot of what Space-X is doing can only be accomplished by the commercial sector and is funding startups in China to do the same thing. That's how China's been running their economy for decades. Every few years, the government sets a direction everyone should row in, and generally lets private firms figure out which one of them will get there fastest.
- nxor 1y ago> so much of society Much of society agrees with his points on crime
- harimau777 1y agoI don't think that matters. There's still roughly half of society that doesn't. Meanwhile NASA has something like a 90% approval rating.
- nxor 1y agoIt's just wrong to say he hates and alienates society. As far as crime is concerned (which I brought up), he stands for those of us that live in violent areas and can't just scream what the other side does.
- harimau777 1y agoI don't know what to say. He clearly hates trans people, routinely shares anti-semetic content, and sure seems to hate anyone on the left.
- nxor 1y agoHe is critical of the trans movement. He is not antisemitic. He supports pro Israel parties. If the right is hateful, why has there been an increase of liberal killers? This is a genuine question - I am neither liberal nor conservative
- harimau777 1y agoThe vast majority of political killers are right wing. Saying that his daughter is dead to him because she transitioned and working to remove trans rights is a bit more than just being "critical of the trans movement". Again I don't know what to say. If sharing neo-Nazi material and doing a Hitler salute isn't anti-semitic then I don't know what is.
- eru 1y ago> Personally, I think it matters whether its achieved by a private company versus by society. People appreciate German cars just fine, and no one seems to be particularly bothered that they are produced by workers in private sector companies instead of 'by society'. Whatever that even means.
- harimau777 1y agoI'm not sure that I understand how a consumer product like a car is similar to something done for inherent value like space exploration. When I say "by society" I mean a non-private organization like NASA.
- eru 1y agoThe space exploration is done by NASA using inputs from the private sector, like hammers or rockets. > When I say "by society" I mean a non-private organization like NASA. Is there any non-government organisation that can do any good in your opinion? What about a charitable trust? What about mostly unorganised protesters like those that moved Germany towards unification?
- harimau777 1y agoCharities can do a lot of good. When it comes to stuff like this, my only concern is whether they are able to discriminate against people. It's mainly profit oriented organizations that I don't trust.
- nxor 1y agoBy h1b engineers
- parineum 1y agoA policy of the US to attract talented people. Immigration of talent is historically an American asset. Look bo further than the moon landing itself for an example.
- travoc 1y agoWhat does that have to do with H1B engineers, who typically end up writing crud apps for banks?.
- Descon 1y agoI believe space is actually a protected industry, and your run of the mill h1b isn't good enough, you need citizenship too - see the ITAR reqs on SpaceX job openings: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/8101417002 https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/8101417002
- wkat4242 1y agoThat's because SpaceX has military and national security contracts, not because it's space as such.
- testing22321 1y ago> Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers The whole point of this article, and the NASA admin steps to open up the contract and all of Berger’s recent reporting is that it’s almost a certainty China will beat the US back to the moon.
- georgeecollins 1y agoIt is already too bad that the US's plan to get to the moon was so flawed that it has been delayed again and again and money was wasted. Let's imagine that China puts people on the moon next year in a method similar to the way the US did it in 1969 (but probably better in some ways). They still are mostly doing something that has been done before by the USA. In that same year, the USA will probably continue to launch 80% of the rockets to space. Maybe we don't do our next trip to the moon for another five years. But there's good chance by then we will be using much more advanced and reusable rockets. Does that really make the US behind? I want to see us invest more into space exploration. I think its sad that NASA's plan has been dumb. But getting two or three people to the moon is more about showing that China is capable (which is a very reasonable goal for them) then showing they have some long term advantage.
- testing22321 1y agoChina’s plan looks nothing like what was done in 69. They’re going to build a base there, just like the US wants to.
- cryptonector 1y agoWhat a tremendous waste of resources.
- tonyhart7 1y agowhat do you mean waste of resources????
- dotnet00 1y agoAn American company, that the American government tried very hard to exclude and kill, built by the very immigrants it's attacking, the one that has twice now been threatened with contract cancelations just because the leader doesn't kiss the president's behind on a handful of issues. It's rich seeing all this unearned bluster about having the lead due to SpaceX, when SpaceX had to drag America kicking and screaming into that position.