4 ms·

To add to this point, I think we’re seeing a clear recognition that space travel and infrastructure is shifting out of the Defense sector and into the private s

To add to this point, I think we’re seeing a clear recognition that space travel and infrastructure is shifting out of the Defense sector and into the private sector.

greesil 6y ago
Only because of Elon and team, and a huge brick of money that NASA gave them.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Those huge bricks of money aren't going anywhere. SpaceX (or anyone else) aren't flying missions for the government for free!
- briffle 6y ago
  Which doesn't seem as large, when you calculate it out in number of shuttle launches you could do with that cash.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago
    Or compare it to how much has been spent on SLS, which has yet to net any return aside from keeping people employed (which probably could've been accomplished on a much smaller budget).
- dralley 6y ago
  Yes, but it needs to be said that the "huge brick of money" was half of what NASA gave Boeing (which is itself just a tiny proportion of Boeing's profit). And look where we are.
- mlindner 6y ago
  NASA's budget hasn't increased though. So everything that's changed dramatically is because of knock-on effects of SpaceX's activities and the private funding it has.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  Yes, a big bet by NASA that has paid off beyond just about anyone’s imagination. SpaceX is a massive vindication of NASA and the commercial contracting approach. The US had been falling behind Russia and then China in launch capacity (even becoming reliant on Russian engines as well as Europe on commercial launch, but last year, SpaceX on Falcon 9 alone launched more mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. Almost everything NASA builds is built by contractors. Private companies like Boeing or Lockheed usually get most of it. But just by taking a chance with SpaceX during commercial cargo, NASA saved them and brought American space launch capacity to a level that dominates the world. And Starship brings it to another entire level. To get a lunar Starship to the surface and back to orbit will require about half a dozen Starship launch, each about 100-150 tons IMLEO each. A single one of these missions is about the same launch capacity as all successful Apollo lunar surface missions combined. Which makes sense when you see lunar Starship side by side with the Apollo LM: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/mslpce/starship_hls_vs_apollo_lm_to_scale/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/mslpce/starsh... It finally feels like we’re where we ought to be in the 21st Century with respect to Spaceflight.
sneak 6y ago
I think for at least a generation or two, most of the defense sector is the private sector, no? Or did you mean something else? This will still be a NASA mission, with NASA astronauts with their standard US military ranks, et c.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  Defense is not the private sector. It is a sanctified institution politically where we must always fund it, similar to social security and Medicare. It’s a blank check we write every year, no questions asked. Certain private sector industries wish to join this club. Green energy has the makings of it. Education is obviously one of them. You get the picture.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I believe 40-50% of the defense budget is simply the salaries and benefits of the people who are in the military. People often talk as though all the money was spent on high tech weapons and vehicles, but if you're going to have people, they have to make a living. Even if they just all sat at desks.
    - robertlagrant 6y ago
      Agreed. Having spent some time in the UK equivalent, what they do primarily is training, not hardware procurement. Although they do spend a tidy sum on hardware too, of course!
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        Military personnel + operations and maintenance, not including procurement, is more like 65% of the US budget.
Daho0n 6y ago
SpaceX couldn't offer the prices they do without state aid. Their prices are held down by overpriced military contract launches. So much so that several space agencies ( EU, Russian, etc.) have said that SpaceX are not competing as a private company but as a state sponsored company. This is not the move from state to private launches but the merger of Defense contractor's and NASA's budgets. SpaceX is being used to prop up US launches against foreign competitors. That's not moving out of Defense but keeping it close to heart by throwing money at them.

To add to this point, I think we’re seeing a clear recognition that space travel and infrastructure is shifting out of the Defense sector and into the private sector.

greesil 6y ago

Only because of Elon and team, and a huge brick of money that NASA gave them.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Those huge bricks of money aren't going anywhere. SpaceX (or anyone else) aren't flying missions for the government for free!
briffle 6y ago
Which doesn't seem as large, when you calculate it out in number of shuttle launches you could do with that cash.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  Or compare it to how much has been spent on SLS, which has yet to net any return aside from keeping people employed (which probably could've been accomplished on a much smaller budget).
dralley 6y ago
Yes, but it needs to be said that the "huge brick of money" was half of what NASA gave Boeing (which is itself just a tiny proportion of Boeing's profit). And look where we are.
mlindner 6y ago
NASA's budget hasn't increased though. So everything that's changed dramatically is because of knock-on effects of SpaceX's activities and the private funding it has.
Robotbeat 6y ago
Yes, a big bet by NASA that has paid off beyond just about anyone’s imagination. SpaceX is a massive vindication of NASA and the commercial contracting approach. The US had been falling behind Russia and then China in launch capacity (even becoming reliant on Russian engines as well as Europe on commercial launch, but last year, SpaceX on Falcon 9 alone launched more mass to orbit than the rest of the world combined. Almost everything NASA builds is built by contractors. Private companies like Boeing or Lockheed usually get most of it. But just by taking a chance with SpaceX during commercial cargo, NASA saved them and brought American space launch capacity to a level that dominates the world. And Starship brings it to another entire level. To get a lunar Starship to the surface and back to orbit will require about half a dozen Starship launch, each about 100-150 tons IMLEO each. A single one of these missions is about the same launch capacity as all successful Apollo lunar surface missions combined. Which makes sense when you see lunar Starship side by side with the Apollo LM: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/mslpce/starship_hls_vs_apollo_lm_to_scale/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/mslpce/starsh... It finally feels like we’re where we ought to be in the 21st Century with respect to Spaceflight.

sneak 6y ago

I think for at least a generation or two, most of the defense sector is the private sector, no? Or did you mean something else? This will still be a NASA mission, with NASA astronauts with their standard US military ranks, et c.

runawaybottle 6y ago
Defense is not the private sector. It is a sanctified institution politically where we must always fund it, similar to social security and Medicare. It’s a blank check we write every year, no questions asked. Certain private sector industries wish to join this club. Green energy has the makings of it. Education is obviously one of them. You get the picture.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I believe 40-50% of the defense budget is simply the salaries and benefits of the people who are in the military. People often talk as though all the money was spent on high tech weapons and vehicles, but if you're going to have people, they have to make a living. Even if they just all sat at desks.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    Agreed. Having spent some time in the UK equivalent, what they do primarily is training, not hardware procurement. Although they do spend a tidy sum on hardware too, of course!
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Military personnel + operations and maintenance, not including procurement, is more like 65% of the US budget.

Daho0n 6y ago

SpaceX couldn't offer the prices they do without state aid. Their prices are held down by overpriced military contract launches. So much so that several space agencies ( EU, Russian, etc.) have said that SpaceX are not competing as a private company but as a state sponsored company. This is not the move from state to private launches but the merger of Defense contractor's and NASA's budgets. SpaceX is being used to prop up US launches against foreign competitors. That's not moving out of Defense but keeping it close to heart by throwing money at them.