4 ms·

NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those other

NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those other companies to build its projects.

kome 7y ago
I feel like this idea of creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money. NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I am not American, so: not my money, not my country. I have no say in it... But I wonder if I am the only one to think like that.
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  >NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. No way. NASA is subject to the political whims of two branches of government. The executive branch is looking for short term wins and the legislative branch is looking for jobs in their districts. The private market has introduced great innovations that are significantly driving down the cost of going to space.
  - kome 7y ago
    but to be fair, those companies are subject to political whims as well, as they are mostly paid with public money. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angel... The only difference is that public money now is financing private companies...
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      Nonsense. The private companies have wildly different decision making processes and incentives and have done things very differently from NASA. SpaceX is landing and reusing rockets every month, resulting in much lower launch costs, and you're saying the only difference is where the money is going? Get out of here.
- jakeinspace 7y ago
  NASA never produced everything in house, they've been contracting with private companies and the air Force since the beginning.
- msl 7y ago
  > NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I believe NASA has never produced everything in-house. They don't build (or even design, as far as I can tell) launch vehicles, spacecraft, EVA suits, computers etc. They come up with requirements and contract private companies to build hardware (and software, for that matter) meeting those requirements. For an example, see how the Apollo Lunar Module came to be [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#Contract_letting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#Contract_l...
- willglynn 7y ago
  > NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. NASA doesn't run a rocket factory. It used to be that NASA specified and ordered hardware from contractors then integrated and operated it in house. The space shuttle orbiter was built by Rockwell (now ~Boeing), the external tank by Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), the SRBs by Morton Thiokol (now ATK). Commercial cargo and commercial crew change this model to NASA specifying and ordering missions or mission capabilities. This affords the vendor more autonomy in how they choose to solve problems, and NASA's still in the loop to sign off on their solutions. In principle, this approach contains cost overruns, since NASA pays only for the deliverable. What it doesn't contain are schedule overruns…
  - bryananderson 7y ago
    Even the integration and operation were contracted out. Shuttle operation was done by United Space Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed joint venture).
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money Others have commented on how NASA has never built very much in-house. But I'll go broader. American technological leadership, in space and other fields, goes back to its private contracting heritage. Contractors competed to develop tech. They then had an incentive to find other uses for that tech, thereby proliferating its benefits into the broader economy. It's not a coincidence that while most countries have a tepid public space program, America has multiple launch vehicles under development for a diversity of purposes.
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    And the Soviet Union succeeded partially by having two competing design bureaus.

NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those other companies to build its projects.

kome 7y ago

I feel like this idea of creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money. NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I am not American, so: not my money, not my country. I have no say in it... But I wonder if I am the only one to think like that.

CrazyStat 7y ago
>NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. No way. NASA is subject to the political whims of two branches of government. The executive branch is looking for short term wins and the legislative branch is looking for jobs in their districts. The private market has introduced great innovations that are significantly driving down the cost of going to space.
- kome 7y ago
  but to be fair, those companies are subject to political whims as well, as they are mostly paid with public money. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angel... The only difference is that public money now is financing private companies...
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    Nonsense. The private companies have wildly different decision making processes and incentives and have done things very differently from NASA. SpaceX is landing and reusing rockets every month, resulting in much lower launch costs, and you're saying the only difference is where the money is going? Get out of here.
jakeinspace 7y ago
NASA never produced everything in house, they've been contracting with private companies and the air Force since the beginning.
msl 7y ago
> NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I believe NASA has never produced everything in-house. They don't build (or even design, as far as I can tell) launch vehicles, spacecraft, EVA suits, computers etc. They come up with requirements and contract private companies to build hardware (and software, for that matter) meeting those requirements. For an example, see how the Apollo Lunar Module came to be [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#Contract_letting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#Contract_l...
willglynn 7y ago
> NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. NASA doesn't run a rocket factory. It used to be that NASA specified and ordered hardware from contractors then integrated and operated it in house. The space shuttle orbiter was built by Rockwell (now ~Boeing), the external tank by Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), the SRBs by Morton Thiokol (now ATK). Commercial cargo and commercial crew change this model to NASA specifying and ordering missions or mission capabilities. This affords the vendor more autonomy in how they choose to solve problems, and NASA's still in the loop to sign off on their solutions. In principle, this approach contains cost overruns, since NASA pays only for the deliverable. What it doesn't contain are schedule overruns…
- bryananderson 7y ago
  Even the integration and operation were contracted out. Shuttle operation was done by United Space Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed joint venture).
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money Others have commented on how NASA has never built very much in-house. But I'll go broader. American technological leadership, in space and other fields, goes back to its private contracting heritage. Contractors competed to develop tech. They then had an incentive to find other uses for that tech, thereby proliferating its benefits into the broader economy. It's not a coincidence that while most countries have a tepid public space program, America has multiple launch vehicles under development for a diversity of purposes.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  And the Soviet Union succeeded partially by having two competing design bureaus.