4 ms·

But how much of that cost was initial R&D vs what SpaceX was doing? It's hard to compare costs given that it feels like much of NASA space development was scie

But how much of that cost was initial R&D vs what SpaceX was doing? It's hard to compare costs given that it feels like much of NASA space development was science research into how to actually do it, paving the way for future projects. There are many examples of successful commercial programs that could only exist because of huge ("unprofitable") government R&D behind it. Google maps, the entire internet, commercial space flight, commercial aviation... I'm not arguing against their success, it's remarkable. I just wonder if this is more nuanced.

tectonic 6y ago
Yes, there were likely other costs, but from NASA's perspective, their costs were way lower. For example, for their first investment of $396M in commercial cargo deliveries to the ISS with SpaceX, they got the development of the Cargo Dragon, the Falcon 9, and the KSC launch site.
wolf550e 6y ago
SLS and Orion were developed in the 21st century, when there was no need for new basic science research, and their development costs are staggering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_his...
- yakz 6y ago
  Those also act as jobs programs, though.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    And nobody works at spacex?
- ineedasername 6y ago
  That's not because of NASA's poor work though, much of the cost bloat there was due to the legislation that dictated how those programs had to operate, like sole-sourcing components, requiring use of Space Shuttle components furthering vendor lock in, etc. It's not a testament to NASA's failings, its a testament to politicians' self-serving legislation.
  - rossdavidh 6y ago
    True that, but that would point to the need to do this outside of NASA.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      I would say it should lead to reform in the legislative process for these sorts of projects. This launch represents the triumph of private enterprise, yes, but there is a strategic need for the US to have such capabilities independently of the ups & downs of private industry. So I would say it points to the need to have a blended approach. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.
      - wolf550e 6y ago
        NASA wants to do exactly the opposite: help create an economy in low earth orbit in which there are many suppliers and many buyers in a healthy market. A market that doesn't need a lot of government intervention, so NASA can buy rides the way they buy regular non-space commercial shipping of people and cargo between NASA centers. They want LEO flights to eventually be managed by FAA and some traffic control organization, like airliner flights. This can only work if there truly are many competing sellers and buyers of the same service. A market with a monopoly or monopsony doesn't work well, and the military industrial sector often has both: NASA, NRO and DoD are not competing as buyers while Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman basically take turns as contractors because DoD doesn't let one win or lose too many contracts in a row to prevent one of them needing rescue.

tectonic 6y ago

Yes, there were likely other costs, but from NASA's perspective, their costs were way lower. For example, for their first investment of $396M in commercial cargo deliveries to the ISS with SpaceX, they got the development of the Cargo Dragon, the Falcon 9, and the KSC launch site.

wolf550e 6y ago

SLS and Orion were developed in the 21st century, when there was no need for new basic science research, and their development costs are staggering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_history_and_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Funding_his...

yakz 6y ago
Those also act as jobs programs, though.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  And nobody works at spacex?
ineedasername 6y ago
That's not because of NASA's poor work though, much of the cost bloat there was due to the legislation that dictated how those programs had to operate, like sole-sourcing components, requiring use of Space Shuttle components furthering vendor lock in, etc. It's not a testament to NASA's failings, its a testament to politicians' self-serving legislation.
- rossdavidh 6y ago
  True that, but that would point to the need to do this outside of NASA.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    I would say it should lead to reform in the legislative process for these sorts of projects. This launch represents the triumph of private enterprise, yes, but there is a strategic need for the US to have such capabilities independently of the ups & downs of private industry. So I would say it points to the need to have a blended approach. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself. I would love, for example, for NASA to license the technology from SpaceX with a massive knowledge-transfer initiative to provide NASA the capabilities to do these launches itself.
    - wolf550e 6y ago
      NASA wants to do exactly the opposite: help create an economy in low earth orbit in which there are many suppliers and many buyers in a healthy market. A market that doesn't need a lot of government intervention, so NASA can buy rides the way they buy regular non-space commercial shipping of people and cargo between NASA centers. They want LEO flights to eventually be managed by FAA and some traffic control organization, like airliner flights. This can only work if there truly are many competing sellers and buyers of the same service. A market with a monopoly or monopsony doesn't work well, and the military industrial sector often has both: NASA, NRO and DoD are not competing as buyers while Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman basically take turns as contractors because DoD doesn't let one win or lose too many contracts in a row to prevent one of them needing rescue.