6
Trump Admin to Slice NASA in Half and Cancel New Telescopes
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
6 points (100.0% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz
10605 readers
1 users here now
This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz
You can find the original sidebar contents below:
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SpaceX was always a space scam. Now it's the only scam.
How is SpaceX a scam? Falcon 9 is the best rocket in the world at this time.
They sure know how to blow up rockets real good.
Falcon 9 is one of the most reliable rockets of all time. Yeah, their prototypes blow up way too often, but those never had cargo aboard because they’re in testing anyway.
Starship is a 100% categorical failure though. It'll never carry a payload.
I also tend to think Starship is a terrible architecture. They should just put a traditional second stage on top of Superheavy and get on with it already. It may not even be possible to re-enter such the ship from orbital speeds safely.
Tell me Falcon Heavy couldn't push a Crew Dragon to the moon.
It could but the Crew Dragon likely wouldn’t have the delta-v to land and return. That being said, I don’t think it’s crazy to do an “assemble in orbit” architecture consisting of multiple preparatory launches.
Hell, Starship is supposed to require like 10 refueling launches to go to the Moon. Couldn’t we just launch 10 Falcon 9s and assemble a badass landing system in orbit?
two launches, put lander in lunar orbit with one rocket, put the command module and crew up in another. Almost all of the hardware is man rated and ready to fly, just need a LM.
Is this a semantics argument? Like you're arguing over the proper use of "scam"? or do you not see how the word scam could be implied in this context?
I ask because I was about to present a big thing with links and timelines showing how this has all played out since the early 2000's, but I'm not gonna go to all the trouble if you're just upset that a better word should be used besides "scam" since there is some sort of measurable output being performed.
(I still think scam is apt when you start breaking down the terminology though, it's still fraudulent practices which have been performed for the companies benefit, i.e. funding away from NASA)
Mmm, probably. If you focus only on the missed deadlines and failed research projects, it could be considered a scam. But in spaceflight that’s more the matter of fact for a project than the exception. I can’t think of even ONE rocket that launched on time or on budget. I mean, look at SLS (a project that actually IS managed by NASA). Now THAT is a mismanaged fiasco that makes SpaceX look mighty responsible in comparison.
But if you also include SpaceX’s successes, you see that they are simply the best rocketry company in the world. They STILL have the only reusable booster, and one of, if not the highest reliability rating of any ride to space. There’s nothing scammy about a product that provides you exactly the service you requested, with less risk and cost.
Sure, call Starship a scam if you want to. It’s unproven and the project could still fail. But SpaceX as a whole absolutely is not.
...
Without reading or verifying anything, I'm just going to assume this is an Elon alt.
I am highly critical of Elon Musk, who is not only a vile human, but is doing more damage to the world than anybody else, except maybe Donald Trump.
But I also understand the launch services industry and know that NASA doesn’t have a viable launcher right now if they stop purchasing Falcon 9, and the only people capable of launching at that cadence right now is probably China.