1283

They aren't, and I'm sick of being told they are (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by Custoslibera@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml

201 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 4) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TiKa444@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Even if the are more efficient, they earned the regarding profit for a small number of people, who has to much. For the society it is a loose loose. The services become more expensive and it lead to a redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, whitch is even worse for the society and the economy.

[-] biflip@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

But mail

[-] ghostblackout@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Look at spacex they are more efficient then nasa

[-] Flipper@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Anything is more efficient without cost+ contracts, where the cost is covered + a fixed percentage profit on top.

Those kinds of deals make the cost explode somehow. Who would have thought.

[-] MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

What do you base that on?

Spacex has had zero successful missions to Mars. NASA has landed 5 rovers.

[-] grayman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well one metric would be cost per kg to get something into space. I also recall a lot of people dying when NASA first started going into space, of which SpaceX has not had any rockets explode with people in them, but I'm not impaired enough to make that false equivalence like you did with Mars.

[-] MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Of course my comment is false equivalence, because the initial assertion is false equivalence.

You can't compare NASA and Spacex because they have different goals. NASA even contract many of their payloads to Spacex, which they wouldn't do if they were in the same business.