3 ms·

You have it exactly backwards. Risk tolerance is higher for the government. Fox example, SpaceX would never just send a rocket to mars just to do science which

by mempko 6y ago

You have it exactly backwards. Risk tolerance is higher for the government. Fox example, SpaceX would never just send a rocket to mars just to do science which would bring it zero profits. It won't take risk funding something where the science may or may not bear any fruit. Also, SpaceX IS mostly funded by NASA anyway as a government contractor. SpaceX exists because the government wanted to create a private space market. Strangely thank George Bush for it. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-... As you can see, SpaceX was so cash strapped in 2017 it obviously didn't go to mars in 2018 as they wanted. Also notice Elon didn't fund that trip (otherwise it would have happened). There is no way he would risk HIS own money on that.

m4rtink 6y ago
Main reason for Red Dragon not happening was NASA requesting parachute landing into the ocean instead of the previously planned propulsive landing on land for Dragon 2. This would mean that SpaceX would need to develop and fund Dragon 2 propulsive landing on their own, with only real mission fully requiring it being Red Dragon. In the end it was much easier to just drop the whole thing, especially with the much more perspective Starship on the horizon.