this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026
248 points (94.0% liked)

Technology

89311 readers
3220 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
248
SpaceX no longer needs NASA, and that’s a problem for America’s space agency: “NASA desperately needs SpaceX, and SpaceX knows it, and Elon knows it.” (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 days ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

SpaceX and Starlink should have to be broken up. xAI's purchase by SpaceX never should have been allowed. The contracts for NASA should have always required ownership of the investments made and the amount of rented tech never should have been allowed critical mass. Starlink should have been allowed a monopolistic ownership of its spots in space and should have been for forced to create an open interoperability standard from the jump.

The fact that "SI" is how SpaceX is talking about those AI projects shows they are very much still a government contractor even in this phase, just looking at different pots of money. Contracts that Musk's massive ties to corruption should be viewed as last resort, at least until they cut him out of the company (while he is charged and tried for his corruption).

[–] UnpoppedCorn@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the long run that makes sense. In the short term, they're linked. SpaceX doesn't have contracts to fill every launch, so they fill in the extra space with Starlilnk launches. Starlink doesn't exist without SpaceX.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Starlink needing a subsidy for launches is only because they are operating as a monopoly. Competitors get flights just fine without it