this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58513 readers
3912 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 0 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Step 1. Fire Boeing.

Step 2. Fucking FUND NASA.

Step 3. NASA builds space stuff that works.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

They tried being more actively involved with the Aries I and Aries V rockets, but they got really bogged down to the point where Obama started commercial crew. Aries V eventually evolved into SLS, but with low capability and a very long schedule. And for better or for worse, SLS is getting lots of funding.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

I’ve worked for several aerospace companies including Boeing. I have nothing but contempt and hatred for Boeing and couldn’t get out of there fast enough. Management is garbage, safety comes second to schedule, people are treated like disposable cogs, but I would trust Boeing over NASA. I work with a lot of NASA and ex-NASA people right now on a couple major projects. Dear god NASA upper management makes me want to put my head through a wall! The insufferable sense of superiority trying to tell us “how things are done”. Bro, how is SLS coming? That’s what I thought, shut your mouth and stop pretending like you are the Apple of space systems. Luckily, most of the ground level people at NASA are more down to earth (pardon the puns) and easier to work with.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (9 children)

NASA contracting stuff to space X has probably be the most amazing and sound financial decision they have made.

People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world. Government including the US are miles behind them and struggling to play catch up and they are only trying because Space X has become so much better than them they have to.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world

Elon didn't build it. They literally have a manager whose entire job is to make sure Elon doesn't get too close to the technical stuff because he'll break it with some random order to change it for no reason

[–] rimmedalpha@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 month ago

Ah yes, the CCM: "CEO Childcare Manager"

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I read quite a bit about how spacex was formed, including the book that obviously will tell the hero tales of Elon. But I've never seen any mention of this and would like to learn more. Would you be able to share a link?

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

No it was the engineers not Elon who built Space X up.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's arguably not even him that it really running it

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Seems like he's more involved with starship now than falcon or dragon.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Don't care. He built the company, he's the face of it. People hate the company and live in a dreamland where it's failing because they want what Elon owns to be shit.

It isn't and they are wrong because they can't see past their bias.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Space x doesn't work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

This is all irrelevant to the point I was making which is about people thinking Spacex is a terrible company due to bias.

No more. No less.

[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, Musk has made people hate anything he's involved in, or that enriches him. It's only natural; Actions have consequences. He's a severely mentally ill billionaire, increasingly detached from reality. And now his politics and disinformation are a danger to millions of people. If SpaceX or Tesla wants to feel the love, they know what to do. Until then, I can only assume they accept the consequences.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how peoples delusions are a logical outcome.

If I don't like America that doesn't mean it suddenly isn't the richest country in the world just because I don't like it.

People really need to understand their bias, wanting SpaceX to be shit doesn't make it so. That's what we are talking about. Nothing else. SpaceX rockets aren't powered on feels.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You keep bringing up people wanting spacex to be shit but I don't think that's a prevailing sentiment

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

I have definitely seen that. You see it more on the tests of Starship. Even when it is successful and goes better than expected. Because it blows up a lot of people are laughing at how bad the company is.

[–] vinyl@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From what I see Gwynne Shotwell is the one that's really doing the heavy lifting in the company.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Seriously what is going on here?

Okay? If that is or isn't correct what did I say that was wrong?

Are you saying. People think Spacex is a failing company (when it isn't) because of Shotwell?

[–] vinyl@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I haven't said anything about it being a failing company, I'm just introducing some much needed information because of how much glazing I've noticed.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You don't seem to understand how spaceX works, so your assertions ignore those internals and paint the wrong picture.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

They're just adding context. Calm down you have a real victim complex going on, and it's boring.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

It's not context because it's irrelevant to the point at hand. It's an adjacent point but it isn't related.

I'm talking about people perception of SpaceX. The actual inner workings of the company is an irrelevant point.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

You can practically hear him flop sweating and hyperventilating.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's not a complex, he's reacting to the downvotes (that do seem unfair).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

Lol you were downvoted, fuck these people. They're children.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Step 4. NASA builds planes that work (on the side).

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If BASA build aircraft they would have to throw it all away at the end of the flight.

Need better funding but they absolutely shouldn't be building spacecraft, they are too scared of getting yelled at to innovate, and innovation is required.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Their idea of building a new rocket is by reusing as much of the 1970's shuttle tech as they can.

reusing as much of the 1970's shuttle tech as they can

And reusing the tech, but not the hardware. NASA are throwing four RS-25 shuttle engines (some of which flew multiple shuttle missions) into the ocean with every SLS launch.

[–] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well... except for those times it didn't.

Id argue that nasa is responsible for more deaths than the privately owned companies attempting the same thing.

s/Fire/Nationalize/

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We need to support and upgrade sls

Do we? It's already years behind schedule, billions over budget, and doesn't really have a use beyond Artemis. Also, the Exploration Upper Stage (one of the major planned upgrades) is being developed by... Boeing.

load more comments (5 replies)