this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
211 points (97.7% liked)

[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz

11408 readers
1 users here now

This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz

You can find the original sidebar contents below:


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tonytins@pawb.social 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hey, DOGE, you missed one.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s almost like it was never about savings or efficiency.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

GET THIS UNELECTED NAZI OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!!!

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How does "Any and all of them" sound?

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

really good actually.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

While passive, noncontrolling stakes from foreign investors are welcome, it is the Trump administration’s position that adversaries like China use concealed investment strategies to obtain technologies, IP, and leverage in strategic industries.

I'm not an expert in international investment or intellectual property. How could a concealed investment strategy lead to obtaining IP?

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Hey Musk, we invested $5 million in your company. We'll invest 5 more if you give us some of your earlier rocket designs"

Which would probably be an ITAR violation as a dual use technology export (dual use as in it has military value) if not something more serious, hence the secrecy

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Violating ITAR for 5 million dollars seems like it would be a irresponsibly reckless risk for SpaceX to take. And it's not like SpaceX are short on cash. That's like, 5 hours of Starlink revenue.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

I pulled those numbers out of nowhere, it could be billions instead, and would've been going on long before starlink. China did make a lot of advances with their rockets in a time period that makes sense