4 ms·

such a waste of time and (other ppl's) money.

snappyTertle 9y ago
Agreed. There's more important things to spend public money on at the moment (like servicing the $20T in debt). Let private companies, like SpaceX, voluntarily spend R&D on it.
- JshWright 9y ago
  A not insignificant amount of SpaceX's funding (especially considering the critical time of that funding) is from NASA. They are also leveraging decades of NASA research in their engine and rocket design. I'm a huge fan of SpaceX, and think they (and other like them) represent the future, but they have a little ways to go before they are completely financing their own R&D (at the moment they're still spending a lot of public dollars).
- giobox 9y ago
  Given the huge investments NASA has made in SpaceX to date, I'm not entirely convinced that the split between public and private money in this space is as black and white as you suggest. SpaceX arguably wouldn't be here today without NASA's cash. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-would-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-w...
  - Tepix 9y ago
    NASA paid $1.6b and got 12 flights to the ISS for it. Rather cheap in my book. I'm not aware of any other "huge investments" ... there were some smaller ones, however. Looks like both NASA and SpaceX got a good deal.
  - amelius 9y ago
    Sounds a bit like the story of how Microsoft saved Apple, back in 1997. https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Oh wow. That's disappointing.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Why is that disappointing? NASA today exists, in part, to do exactly that, and has benefitted tremendously from their SpaceX partnership.
      - theseatoms 9y ago
        Just thought SpaceX had other revenue sources, I guess.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        They do? http://www.spacex.com/missions http://www.spacex.com/missions About half the missions on there are non-US government flights.
- boona 9y ago
  Considering how little impact they've had recently with a $19 billion dollar annual budget, maybe what we're seeing is an administrative or leadership problem. It would suck for those involved if NASA got severe cuts, but in the long run the geniuses there would find jobs in the private sector like SpaceX and they could make a real difference.
  - mturmon 9y ago
    Just for reference, here is the list of NASA science missions now flying: https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=All&field_phase_tid=29 https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=Al... The private sector would have no incentive and little ability to mount these missions.

Agreed. There's more important things to spend public money on at the moment (like servicing the $20T in debt). Let private companies, like SpaceX, voluntarily spend R&D on it.

JshWright 9y ago
A not insignificant amount of SpaceX's funding (especially considering the critical time of that funding) is from NASA. They are also leveraging decades of NASA research in their engine and rocket design. I'm a huge fan of SpaceX, and think they (and other like them) represent the future, but they have a little ways to go before they are completely financing their own R&D (at the moment they're still spending a lot of public dollars).
giobox 9y ago
Given the huge investments NASA has made in SpaceX to date, I'm not entirely convinced that the split between public and private money in this space is as black and white as you suggest. SpaceX arguably wouldn't be here today without NASA's cash. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-would-be-no-spacex-and-its-brilliant-boat-landing/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-w...
- Tepix 9y ago
  NASA paid $1.6b and got 12 flights to the ISS for it. Rather cheap in my book. I'm not aware of any other "huge investments" ... there were some smaller ones, however. Looks like both NASA and SpaceX got a good deal.
- amelius 9y ago
  Sounds a bit like the story of how Microsoft saved Apple, back in 1997. https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Oh wow. That's disappointing.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Why is that disappointing? NASA today exists, in part, to do exactly that, and has benefitted tremendously from their SpaceX partnership.
    - theseatoms 9y ago
      Just thought SpaceX had other revenue sources, I guess.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        They do? http://www.spacex.com/missions http://www.spacex.com/missions About half the missions on there are non-US government flights.
boona 9y ago
Considering how little impact they've had recently with a $19 billion dollar annual budget, maybe what we're seeing is an administrative or leadership problem. It would suck for those involved if NASA got severe cuts, but in the long run the geniuses there would find jobs in the private sector like SpaceX and they could make a real difference.
- mturmon 9y ago
  Just for reference, here is the list of NASA science missions now flying: https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=All&field_phase_tid=29 https://science.nasa.gov/missions-page?field_division_tid=Al... The private sector would have no incentive and little ability to mount these missions.