4 ms·
Yes, the government paid to develop crew dragon. And they buy launch services which is another source of revenue. The government paid for Apollo. And once they
by ChuckMcM 6y ago
Yes, the government paid to develop crew dragon. And they buy launch services which is another source of revenue.
The government paid for Apollo. And once they decided they no longer wanted it, it became impossible to use Apollo parts, technology, or any of the engineers or technicians to put people into orbit. The capability "vanished."
If the government never bought another ticket to space, Crew Dragon could be made available to people who want to go into space and are willing to pay for a ticket. So even if NASA got defunded completely tomorrow, the ability to go into space would still be there. Because the market for space, when served in an economic way, is self sustaining.
This has never been true before, and now it is. That is my definition of sustainable.
- tsimionescu 6y agoIf Crew Dragon is only making money from the government, how would it still be there tomorrow if the government weren't paying? Do you really imagine that there will be a market for this as it stands today? How much training and medical evaluation have the astronauts gone through to ensure they could survive the trip and know how to operate?
- colordrops 6y agoThey've already got several private customers who have booked missions.
- joubert 6y agoDo you have more information? (Who, what for)
- piyh 6y agoTom Cruise and presumably at least one camera person for a movie on the ISS
- loufe 6y agoThe story I heard (link below) is that a Japanese fashion businessman wanted to fly his entourage around the moon and back. https://apnews.com/ef359e63b98b4263b4ac0eea28988538/SpaceX's-1st-traveler-is-moonstruck-Japanese-fashion-tycoon https://apnews.com/ef359e63b98b4263b4ac0eea28988538/SpaceX's...
- garmaine 6y agoThat's unrelated (Starship, not Crewed Dragon). There are 4 unnamed tourists set to fly next year. Tom Cruise is also in negotiations to film in space using Crewed Dragon, which would presumably involve at minimum Mr. Cruise plus a cameraman.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- NortySpock 6y agoI think your parent poster's point was that previously the IP was owned by NASA. The companies contracted to build Apollo or the Space Shuttle was unable to reuse the IP to sell rides to another company or fly private citizens, nor could they bundle and sell the IP. SpaceX owns the Crew Dragon IP and tooling, and they can sell flights to private citizens - in fact I believe they said today that they are contracted with Space Ventures to fly 4 people next year. Previously Space Ventures could only buy from the Russians.
- est31 6y agoYou still can't launch a rocket on US soil without a permit from the FAA, and for launches from outside of the US, I'm pretty sure that SpaceX's rocket technology is quite export controlled. But yes, it's now a bit more independent from Congress's financial mood.
- garmaine 6y agoYou also can't fly a plane out of a commercial airport without FAA approval. So what's your point?
- est31 6y agoMy point is that there's still large government involvement. The permits are just one example. Another one would be the military contracts that require contractor employees to maintain clearance levels and create financial dependence, or the government owned launch pads they lease. All of this combined means that SpaceX is still highly dependent from the goodwill of the US government.
- tsimionescu 6y agoI can't imagine the thought process that feels that the IP being owned by a private company who answers to no one and has no accountability to anyone is 'more sustainable' than it being owned by the public through a non-military organization (NASA)...
- garmaine 6y agoSpaceX is selling Crew Dragon to others. There are already bought flights brokered for space tourists, and Tom Cruise is going to be filming a movie in space too.