SpaceX sells a service that NASA buys. It’s cheaper and easier for NASA to contract out space launches & the R&D associated with it to other companies. It’s common for other government agencies to contract out to private companies for goods and services. SpaceX isn’t the only space company that receives contracts from NASA either. NASA is always looking to hedge their bet to not be too dependent on a single company.
Like any other company, SpaceX uses the profit from their business + investors to fund new ventures like Starlink. No matter what you think of Musk, Starlink has had a positive impact for a lot of people in rural areas. Starlink is faster, more reliable and costs less than traditional satellite internet. Even if this cost tax dollars, it would be dollars well spent as we’re connecting more of the country to high speed internet. This has direct social, educational and economical impact.
If you want NASA to stop hiring SpaceX for launches then it’ll hurt NASA too. They will have to spend a lot more money to R&D, test, build and maintain a new rocket program.
This is why I mentioned the importance of funding education earlier. You have tunnel vision because you either didn’t attend school, didn’t pay attention while there or simply had a very poor curriculum.
Feeding the starving and doing everything else aren’t mutually exclusive. The reason why we aren’t feeding the hungry is not because we are launching rockets into space.
Space programs and NASA has contributed a lot of technologies that we use in our everyday life. It made our lives easier, safer and has opened up more economic opportunities. If you are generating more money, more jobs, more services then it’s easier to have extra money for social services.
$2,000,000,000 to Elon this past year
At this point it feels like you have comprehension issues, because me and several other people have already explained to you in detail that NASA isn’t donating money to Elon.
Feeding the starving is mutually exclusive especially when you can subsidize farmers. Farmers make a terrible wage it wouldn’t even be expensive to pay them off for free grain, cattle etc…
NASA is giving money to elon whether it is donated or not. He provides no service worth the cost. 600,000 people have internet versus the entire United States having free grain and hamburgers. For instance, data shows uber paid contractors $15,000,000,000 last year. Assuming food spend is about 10% of your monthly budget Elon would be able to cover the entire food bill of every Uber employee. If you scale that up to his entire company you most likely could pay off the entire industry on a yearly basis.
Feeding the starving is mutually exclusive especially when you can subsidize farmers. Farmers make a terrible wage it wouldn’t even be expensive to pay them off for free grain, cattle etc…
This is starting to feel like a troll because no one can be this dense or uninformed.
Farms and crops are heavily subsidized. The reason farmers are in a bind is not because of subsidies, it’s because of conglomerates and predatory business practices by them.
I won’t even reply to the second paragraph because it’s a word soup written by AI.
Please, for the love of god, do a bit of reading, learn logic and fallacies before coming into public forums to debate.
People starving has absolutely zero to do with NASA’s budget. We are more than equipped to end world hunger, there’s just no profit in it. In the US, 30-40% of food is simply wasted. That’d be a good start to look at.
The gist of it is that the government can simply issue bonds to create more money if they need it. They are bounded by material constraints, and public sentiment, not by monetary constraints. Saying that funding one thing means another can’t be funded is a fundamental misunderstanding of how government finance works with fiat currency.
I’d rather not pay anyone since life was better before Space X existed. You are forgetting Space X used to not exist and these contracts were not vital to our lives.
Life was better before our government prioritized corporate profits over increasing the base quality of human life. SpaceX contributes to the latter by providing continued access to space and the research that goes along with it while also eliminating our dependence on Russia.
What are you arguing for as the alternative? Do nothing?-:
“Access to space”. What will that provide for starving people Lol. Yes, doing nothing is the best here should be obvious. We did nothing before it worked quite well people seemed happier.
Low effort shill post.
Alright, you dumbass, I will entertain.
SpaceX sells a service that NASA buys. It’s cheaper and easier for NASA to contract out space launches & the R&D associated with it to other companies. It’s common for other government agencies to contract out to private companies for goods and services. SpaceX isn’t the only space company that receives contracts from NASA either. NASA is always looking to hedge their bet to not be too dependent on a single company.
Like any other company, SpaceX uses the profit from their business + investors to fund new ventures like Starlink. No matter what you think of Musk, Starlink has had a positive impact for a lot of people in rural areas. Starlink is faster, more reliable and costs less than traditional satellite internet. Even if this cost tax dollars, it would be dollars well spent as we’re connecting more of the country to high speed internet. This has direct social, educational and economical impact.
If you want NASA to stop hiring SpaceX for launches then it’ll hurt NASA too. They will have to spend a lot more money to R&D, test, build and maintain a new rocket program.
No one wants a rocket program. People are starving. $2,000,000,000 to Elon this past year.
This is why I mentioned the importance of funding education earlier. You have tunnel vision because you either didn’t attend school, didn’t pay attention while there or simply had a very poor curriculum.
Feeding the starving and doing everything else aren’t mutually exclusive. The reason why we aren’t feeding the hungry is not because we are launching rockets into space.
Space programs and NASA has contributed a lot of technologies that we use in our everyday life. It made our lives easier, safer and has opened up more economic opportunities. If you are generating more money, more jobs, more services then it’s easier to have extra money for social services.
At this point it feels like you have comprehension issues, because me and several other people have already explained to you in detail that NASA isn’t donating money to Elon.
Feeding the starving is mutually exclusive especially when you can subsidize farmers. Farmers make a terrible wage it wouldn’t even be expensive to pay them off for free grain, cattle etc…
NASA is giving money to elon whether it is donated or not. He provides no service worth the cost. 600,000 people have internet versus the entire United States having free grain and hamburgers. For instance, data shows uber paid contractors $15,000,000,000 last year. Assuming food spend is about 10% of your monthly budget Elon would be able to cover the entire food bill of every Uber employee. If you scale that up to his entire company you most likely could pay off the entire industry on a yearly basis.
This is starting to feel like a troll because no one can be this dense or uninformed.
Farms and crops are heavily subsidized. The reason farmers are in a bind is not because of subsidies, it’s because of conglomerates and predatory business practices by them.
I won’t even reply to the second paragraph because it’s a word soup written by AI.
Please, for the love of god, do a bit of reading, learn logic and fallacies before coming into public forums to debate.
Imagine if it was fully subsidized. You’re halfway there already. Just liquidate Elon’s garbage company.
You are dumb sir.
Reported for harassment
People starving has absolutely zero to do with NASA’s budget. We are more than equipped to end world hunger, there’s just no profit in it. In the US, 30-40% of food is simply wasted. That’d be a good start to look at.
$2,000,000,000 See what you can do with that.
It’s not a matter of that money not being available to be spent on other things. That’s simply not how government finance works.
What do you mean… lol before NASA we used that money for other things like infrastructure.
Someone posted a good video explaining exactly this topic earlier today:
https://lemmy.ml/post/5332899
The gist of it is that the government can simply issue bonds to create more money if they need it. They are bounded by material constraints, and public sentiment, not by monetary constraints. Saying that funding one thing means another can’t be funded is a fundamental misunderstanding of how government finance works with fiat currency.
2B to SpaceX, the most advanced rocket company on the planet fully run by Americans since they deal with DoD. Access to space is not a bad thing.
Agree people are starving. We’re a country at peace spending >700B on the military industrial complex. Try shaving that down.
Elon is in the military industrial complex. Yes, we need to defund the military industrial complex no one is disagreeing with you.
So are you saying you’d rather pay Boeing and Lockheed for a shittier way to access space that they don’t even have working?
I’d rather not pay anyone since life was better before Space X existed. You are forgetting Space X used to not exist and these contracts were not vital to our lives.
Life was better before our government prioritized corporate profits over increasing the base quality of human life. SpaceX contributes to the latter by providing continued access to space and the research that goes along with it while also eliminating our dependence on Russia.
What are you arguing for as the alternative? Do nothing?-:
“Access to space”. What will that provide for starving people Lol. Yes, doing nothing is the best here should be obvious. We did nothing before it worked quite well people seemed happier.