this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
118 points (98.4% liked)

politics

23968 readers
2611 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Access options:

Background from NPR

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mercano@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The problem is SpaceX has the best product around, and it’s not even close. Falcon 9 launches are so much cheaper than anything that ULA has offered that it’s not even funny. They weren’t even looking in to reusable boosters until SpaceX made it a standard practice in their system. For station cargo flights, Cygnus is an option, but it can’t bring anything back the way Cargo Dragon can. For manned missions, the only other option would be Boeing Starliner, and I don’t think anyone else is ready to call that operational.

Yes, SpaceX has a near monopoly at this point, but for once I don’t think it’s from any underhanded business practices, it’s just they were willing to innovate when the legacy space carriers were coasting along on government contracts. Once NASA, the DOD, the intelligence agencies deemed the Falcon as reliable, the only reasons ULA stayed in business was the government’s desire for a second launch provider for contingencies, and the occasion payload that was too big for Falcon.

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's always been the tragedy for me personally. I absolutely loved the fuck out of SpaceX and what it was doing. It was the shining ray of hope for tech nerds like me hoping to work in a cool industry reminiscent of the 60s space race. And then Musk got on Twitter and got seriously weird and just never stopped.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

All Musk's companies need to ditch Musk. He's doing them no good.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Not likely to happen given they're private (except Tesla), and he owns big stakes in them.

After all the attacks Tesla got early on, he decided to keep his companies private, and that's what led to the funding secured tweet, trying to get away from it all.

Edit: SpaceX for example he has majority voting rights. You'd have to remove him using the law somehow or have it be voluntary.