4 ms·

This is a defense procurement program, NASA is not directly involved. Claims that NASA is being "privatized" are a bit silly, it has relied on private sector s

by kanox 6y ago

This is a defense procurement program, NASA is not directly involved. Claims that NASA is being "privatized" are a bit silly, it has relied on private sector suppliers for it's entire history. The shift from operating it's own rockets (like the Shuttle) is a very good thing and lowers cost through increased competition. It would be better for NASA to spend money on research (like space probes) instead of operating the actual rockets.

KMag 6y ago
But, to be fair to the OP, NASA has launched classified payloads on the Space Shuttle, and perhaps other rockets. Perhaps the OP is wishing things would go the other way, with all government launches having NASA act as the prime contractor.
kiba 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with the idea of NASA launching or even owning their own rocket per se. The problem is always with their bosses, so they always relied on the private sector supplier and contractors instead of using them only when it makes sense.
lalos 6y ago
Not sure how people are misreading the comment, but in an alternate world NASA would still have the capability to sell this same service to DoD. Since that's not the case, this void has been filled by private companies. Given that info, re-read my comment.
- valuearb 6y ago
  NASA isn’t a private company. It’s not selling launches to anyone. It’s also not a good launch system designer, the Space Shuttle may have been the worst operational launch system design in the history of space flight. NASA is a research and exploration organization. It can buy launches for far less than it would cost NASA to build them. Those savings mean more probes, more manned missions, more science. The real solution is to have a half dozen or more companies competing in various segments of the launch business, leading to faster technical advancement and lowering costs. And we are getting close to that today. SpaceX, ULA, Electron, Orbital ATK on line now, with Blue Origin and another half dozen on the way. And this has led to the greatest burst of innovation and economic improvements the launch business has seen since the 1960s. A Falcon 9 can lift almost as much payload as the Shuttle, at a cost forty times lower. We have the first reusable first stages landing themselves, rocket engines being cheaply mass produced on assembly lines, the first operational full flow rocket engine, the first satellite constellations bringing internet access everywhere in the world. In testing right now is the first truly reusable launch system, which if successful will cut the cost of space access by another ten times, and launch the largest payloads in history. It will also be used to make in space refueling commonplace, if it succeed in that it lowers the cost of access to the moon, Mars, and other deep space destinations by at least ten times more.

by kanox 6y ago

KMag 6y ago

But, to be fair to the OP, NASA has launched classified payloads on the Space Shuttle, and perhaps other rockets. Perhaps the OP is wishing things would go the other way, with all government launches having NASA act as the prime contractor.

kiba 6y ago

There's nothing wrong with the idea of NASA launching or even owning their own rocket per se. The problem is always with their bosses, so they always relied on the private sector supplier and contractors instead of using them only when it makes sense.

lalos 6y ago

Not sure how people are misreading the comment, but in an alternate world NASA would still have the capability to sell this same service to DoD. Since that's not the case, this void has been filled by private companies. Given that info, re-read my comment.

valuearb 6y ago
NASA isn’t a private company. It’s not selling launches to anyone. It’s also not a good launch system designer, the Space Shuttle may have been the worst operational launch system design in the history of space flight. NASA is a research and exploration organization. It can buy launches for far less than it would cost NASA to build them. Those savings mean more probes, more manned missions, more science. The real solution is to have a half dozen or more companies competing in various segments of the launch business, leading to faster technical advancement and lowering costs. And we are getting close to that today. SpaceX, ULA, Electron, Orbital ATK on line now, with Blue Origin and another half dozen on the way. And this has led to the greatest burst of innovation and economic improvements the launch business has seen since the 1960s. A Falcon 9 can lift almost as much payload as the Shuttle, at a cost forty times lower. We have the first reusable first stages landing themselves, rocket engines being cheaply mass produced on assembly lines, the first operational full flow rocket engine, the first satellite constellations bringing internet access everywhere in the world. In testing right now is the first truly reusable launch system, which if successful will cut the cost of space access by another ten times, and launch the largest payloads in history. It will also be used to make in space refueling commonplace, if it succeed in that it lowers the cost of access to the moon, Mars, and other deep space destinations by at least ten times more.