3 ms·

Strange that SpaceX doesn’t seem to be suffering from that limitation. Could it be that the real problem is pork barrel spending and government wastefulness?

• Larrikin 7mo ago
  Which mission went to the moon?
  • p-e-w 7mo ago
    Why would they go to the moon? They’re far too busy doing things that actually matter, such as slashing launch costs by 80% or more, while achieving the highest reliability of any launch system ever.
    • Larrikin 7mo ago
      So a bunch of things every other space program does.
• mulmen 7mo ago
  What are you talking about? SLS is on the way to the Moon now. Starship is still in development. SpaceX only exists because of massive NASA subsidy. Any success from SpaceX is thanks to NASA.
  • NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    NASA provided SpaceX some money as a startup to bet they could just start commercial space, and they won to the tune of saving millions of dollars. There was never massive subsidies and there isn’t any subsidies at all today.
    • mulmen 7mo ago
      This is a lie. SpaceX has received at least 3.5 billion dollars from NASA for contracts. You can claim these aren’t subsidies but they are direct funding that allowed SpaceX to build up revenue streams like Starlink using the launch vehicles paid for by NASA. It’s the exact same funding model that Boeing takes advantage of. SpaceX would not exist without NASA. They’re collaborators, not competitors.