Xaxxon t1_j9zsr06 wrote


And I listed a bunch of other things that also fund spacex. Starlink is only one part.

In addition to all the things I listed previously, they also sell spaceflights to civilians.

You're really rabbit holeing on one thing -- you're wrong about that but even if you're right the original statement STILL holds. SpaceX doesn't need nasa to get humans on mars, it just makes it easier.

Of course they aren't actually going to go to mars without nasa - nasa will get on board the SpaceX plan at some point - too embarrassing to get left behind. But SpaceX COULD

However, NASA cannot keep astronauts on the ISS full time without either SpaceX or Russia.


Xaxxon t1_j9zp0hm wrote

Spacex doesn’t need nasa to fly astronauts to space.

Nasa needs spacex (or Russia) to fly astronauts to space. (More than once every couple years at least and for less than a billion dollars per person)

Spacex NEEDED nasa for sure at one point but that point has come and gone. Nasa is a great partner but is no longer required.


Xaxxon t1_j2cnbwf wrote

Put content in the title. "question" is not content.

And how would we "run out of water"? What does that even mean? Where did it go?