Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Xaxxon t1_j9zrerj wrote

Reply to comment by GhettoFinger in Space Force is taking a ‘mutual fund approach’ to buying rocket launches by cnbc_official

Yes in the past that was true. In the future it’s not. Gwynne said it’s profitable this year.

You also ignored all the other parts.

3

GhettoFinger t1_j9zsi0r wrote

Well go ahead and link where she says that, but nonetheless I won’t believe shit until there are concrete numbers and that won’t happen until he releases an IPO. They can say whatever they want, but until it’s backed up more than with a “trust me bro” I’ll take it with a pinch of salt. Also, it needs to be more than just profitable to sustain not only the costs to operate starlink, but also fund their development and non-starlink space flights. That is several years away. Until that point, they are NASA’s servant.

And even when they are fully self sustainable, the government should heavily regulate what they can do. We need to make sure these parasites don’t cover low earth orbit with their trash for profit. If they want to do space flight, they need to be kept on a very tight leash

1

Xaxxon t1_j9zsr06 wrote

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwynne+starlink+profitable

And I listed a bunch of other things that also fund spacex. Starlink is only one part.

In addition to all the things I listed previously, they also sell spaceflights to civilians.

You're really rabbit holeing on one thing -- you're wrong about that but even if you're right the original statement STILL holds. SpaceX doesn't need nasa to get humans on mars, it just makes it easier.

Of course they aren't actually going to go to mars without nasa - nasa will get on board the SpaceX plan at some point - too embarrassing to get left behind. But SpaceX COULD

However, NASA cannot keep astronauts on the ISS full time without either SpaceX or Russia.

0