politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
NASA is already utterly reliant on SpaceX, SX gets bigger contracts, less regulation, and more freedom for non-US partnerships as a private contracter than they would as an official arm of the US government. They have absolutely nothing to gain by having Musk target NASA.
I think Musk will go after SLS, the only in-house launch platform NASA has left.
Once that's been axed, NASA will have no choice but to rely on SpaceX's Starship launch vehicle for it's prestige missions, include the Artemis Program which is supposed to put Americans back on the moon and establish some permanent infrastructure in lunar orbit before the end of the decade. Those contracts probably won't be as lucrative as routine satellite launches and whatnot, but that doesn't mean Musk won't try to hoard them — if nothing else, landing people on the Moon will still spike his stock price.
You might be correct there, though I don't know if he needs to do much about SLS. It's a 1970s rocket that's already blown through multiple budgetary lines. It's like investing in a car design from the 1970s but paying inflated 2070s prices for it. He might not do much to help it, but SLS has long been turning into an embarrassment for NASA -- it's been mismanaged, huge budgetary overruns, and constant delays.
Ironically, the goal is to eventually turn over SLS production and launch operations to a private venture anyway. After SX got more involved with NASA operations, the bloated and inferior SLS program looks even worse. Maybe he tries to have that private venture deal be SpaceX contract instead of Northrup Grumman and Boeing, but that returns us to the "why?" question.
By the time NASA is ready to hand it off to private hands, it's going up be so far behind where SX is at that I doubt they'd want to touch that program with a ten-foot pole. If he's going to do anything, he'll probably just try to have SX be the primary contractor for that mission rather than SLS under the guise of efficiency, superior technology, and cost savings. And he'll be right.