4 ms·
It very well could be characterized as a government institution but the structure frees the company from the bureaucracy that has kept NASA stagnant. For examp
by xfitm3 6y ago
It very well could be characterized as a government institution but the structure frees the company from the bureaucracy that has kept NASA stagnant.
For example NASA is running low on mission ready space suits. This delayed the first all female spacewalk[1] because there weren't enough medium sized suits available although a SpaceX ISS supply mission failure did contribute to the delay[2].
It's extremely expensive to refurbish these suits and a new design has been in R&D for a long time. Russia has kicked the USA's ass in this regard[3].
NASA has done a lot of good for humanity but I can't help but feel it's overburdened with politics and featherbedding.
I didn't know anything about NASA and space suits until I read this: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expensive-cost-russia-spacex-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nasa-spacesuits-so-expen...
NASA report: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-all-female-spacewalk-for-want-of-a-medium-sized-spacesuit https://www.npr.org/2019/03/26/706779637/nasa-scraps-first-a...
[2] https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5 https://apnews.com/article/29bf226917954d6e9358b01e83d3a6f5
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_space_suit#Models
- simonh 6y agoGovernment institutions are managed and run by the government. That's what makes them government institutions. SpaceX is neither managed nor run by the government. But more broadly, suppose I accept your characterisation. What does that say about SpaceX that is interesting. Why is that particular approach to organisational taxonomy useful?