• lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    A big part of that is money. The competition is either less wealthy Musks or notoriously underfunded government agencies.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Are you saying SpaceX is selling launches at a loss? I don’t think musk is paying for SpaceX launches with Tesla money.

      • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not necessarily, although I wouldn’t be too surprised, scientific endeavors tend to operate at a loss. I’m just saying that Musk’s funding gave SpaceX a jumpstart on the competition. Someone like NASA isn’t going to be able to keep up when their budget is consistently getting cut and Musk is rolling around in more money than anyone could ever spend.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          So then if you want to move that goalpost again at least move it to a comparison that makes sense. SpaceX and Blue Origin are both Billionaire funded launch providers. Even though SpaceX now operates from their launch sales.

          Meanwhile, Blue Origin has a complete lack of real world launch vehicles to send viable payloads. The best they’ve shown is a handful of tourism rides on New Shepard. And massive delays on the new engines for New Glenn and other rockets, which are finally starting to be delivered to customers massively delayed, but still no New Glenn rocket anywhere near being launched.