3 ms·
Summary: The first time you do anything, it usually sucks. NASA do things first, so that we don't have to.
by DanI-S 16y ago
Summary: The first time you do anything, it usually sucks. NASA do things first, so that we don't have to.
- J3L2404 16y agoI don't like how your summary leads to 'NASA sucks'. It certainly generates a wealth of basic research.
- DanI-S 16y agoThat's most definitely not what I intended. NASA have done things that make me feel proud to be a human being. I was more aiming to highlight the value in having government organizations spearhead research into areas that may not be immediately, clearly profitable. Private industry wouldn't have had much to gain from Apollo...
- rbanffy 16y agoThat implies only the first attempts are bad and NASA would be able to do stuff at the same level of efficiency SpaceX does currently given both have access to the same previous attempts. The fact NASA is not as efficient may indicate either NASA produces more research data or it is indeed less efficient. I would bet the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
- stcredzero 16y agoI think we could accomplish many more firsts with less money if we used the X-Prize model. (If we did this, we wouldn't have to abandon the NASA model either!)
- DanI-S 16y agoI'm not sure, but I suspect that some things are expensive enough to be beyond private investment. Mega-projects like the Apollo missions, the Hubble telescope, the LHC and such seem likely to be too risky to embark on with a prize as the incentive. Edit: I know the LHC has nothing to do with NASA; it is just in a similar vein.
- stcredzero 16y agoI think a $20 billion prize for a manned Mars landing could pay off handsomely for both the winning contestant and the government, particularly if the government received a license to the technology used to accomplish the prize. $2 billion for a fully reusable TSTO lofting 5000 pounds to LEO would also be money well spent.