4 ms·

Congress fires warning shot at NASA after SpaceX Moon lander award

26 points by _Microft 5y ago

jfengel 5y ago
I really like the part where this is about using government money for "out-competing, out-innovating, outgrowing communist China".
- vipa123 5y ago
  And then ignoring the American capitalist company doing exactly that.
- _Microft 5y ago
  It seems like you misunderstood this part. It was Senator Todd Young who expressed frustration that Senator Cantwell piggybacked the unrelated amendment to the bill that is meant to help with "out-competing, out-innovating [and] outgrowing communist China" (<- this is by Mr. Young).
  - jfengel 5y ago
    I did indeed misunderstand. I do nonetheless find it remarkable that he thinks of this bill as creating a government entity to create jobs for the purpose of defeating Communism.
- avmich 5y ago
  Remember, USA won the Moon race by running centrally-planned project with strong government leadership, while USSR lost Moon race by having Korolev, Chelomey and Yangel design bureaus competing with each other. In this case we have SpaceX as a driving force and potentially NASA which provides much needed incentives - both to SpaceX (they won't reject the money) and others (so SpaceX knows it's not alone). Government is still critical, as there is little commercial gain to get in a short term from the Moon. SpaceX has a couple of aces at hand - Starlink and potential for wide use of Starship near Earth. China companies don't have as much of commercial incentives - for them, government participation is even more critical.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
xt00 5y ago
This is fine, just make getting the money contingent upon Blue Origin doing 2 things: 1. shipping fully functional engines to ULA for the Vulcan rocket on-time and on-budget (it looks like they have pretty much done this so far with only minor issues, but still not fully tested on the rocket) 2. putting their New Glenn rocket into orbit Then they can have their beloved billions. If they can't do that, NASA should take the money and give it to RocketLab.
Axien 5y ago
Why do we need two landing systems?
- avmich 5y ago
  In general it's better to have multiple working designs. First, in case something happens with one, another can keep the traffic; that's what happened e.g. with ISS manned flights, when after the Columbia destruction flights moved to Soyuzes. Second, market - if the service is bought from a commercial company, competition helps keeping prices in check. Cost plus scheme, used by the NASA for a long time, does a rather poor job, evidenced by the USA leaving international launch market before the SpaceX coming.
  - Axien 5y ago
    Yea that is a nice to have. But why is going to the Moon so critical and time sensitive we need redundant transport systems? If the Moon lander breaks we wait a few years for the fix. Not a big deal. Money is not free, there is another priority not getting funded. A better solution would be to buy one Moon lander system and take the money saved and fund other critical tech.
Axien 5y ago
Space X is moving ahead with or without government funding using profits from Starlink and private sources. Blue Origin is sitting around with their hands out waiting for the government check. Boeing wants money to build a useless rocket. Who do you think will be the first to the moon?
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  yeah man, or they bribed nasa to get a gimme grant to break the rules. ya know, good ole fashion crony capitalism.
pomian 5y ago
So disappointing. It reads just like the petty office politics where the successful employee is attacked and criticized, by the others who spend all their time figuring out ways to attack and complain, instead of doing their job better. It's some strange human trait seen in every company, office, environment. And I assume it's a global issue. Meanwhile the successful engineer, teacher, developer, is blind to this, because they are working hard at doing a great job. Is it driven by jealousy? Fear?
adriancr 5y ago
Look at the cost difference... spacex 2.9B, Blue Origin 10.2B... even before comparing achievements and viability...

26 points by _Microft 5y ago

I really like the part where this is about using government money for "out-competing, out-innovating, outgrowing communist China".

vipa123 5y ago
And then ignoring the American capitalist company doing exactly that.
_Microft 5y ago
It seems like you misunderstood this part. It was Senator Todd Young who expressed frustration that Senator Cantwell piggybacked the unrelated amendment to the bill that is meant to help with "out-competing, out-innovating [and] outgrowing communist China" (<- this is by Mr. Young).
- jfengel 5y ago
  I did indeed misunderstand. I do nonetheless find it remarkable that he thinks of this bill as creating a government entity to create jobs for the purpose of defeating Communism.
avmich 5y ago
Remember, USA won the Moon race by running centrally-planned project with strong government leadership, while USSR lost Moon race by having Korolev, Chelomey and Yangel design bureaus competing with each other. In this case we have SpaceX as a driving force and potentially NASA which provides much needed incentives - both to SpaceX (they won't reject the money) and others (so SpaceX knows it's not alone). Government is still critical, as there is little commercial gain to get in a short term from the Moon. SpaceX has a couple of aces at hand - Starlink and potential for wide use of Starship near Earth. China companies don't have as much of commercial incentives - for them, government participation is even more critical.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xt00 5y ago

This is fine, just make getting the money contingent upon Blue Origin doing 2 things: 1. shipping fully functional engines to ULA for the Vulcan rocket on-time and on-budget (it looks like they have pretty much done this so far with only minor issues, but still not fully tested on the rocket) 2. putting their New Glenn rocket into orbit Then they can have their beloved billions. If they can't do that, NASA should take the money and give it to RocketLab.

Axien 5y ago

Why do we need two landing systems?

avmich 5y ago
In general it's better to have multiple working designs. First, in case something happens with one, another can keep the traffic; that's what happened e.g. with ISS manned flights, when after the Columbia destruction flights moved to Soyuzes. Second, market - if the service is bought from a commercial company, competition helps keeping prices in check. Cost plus scheme, used by the NASA for a long time, does a rather poor job, evidenced by the USA leaving international launch market before the SpaceX coming.
- Axien 5y ago
  Yea that is a nice to have. But why is going to the Moon so critical and time sensitive we need redundant transport systems? If the Moon lander breaks we wait a few years for the fix. Not a big deal. Money is not free, there is another priority not getting funded. A better solution would be to buy one Moon lander system and take the money saved and fund other critical tech.

Axien 5y ago

Space X is moving ahead with or without government funding using profits from Starlink and private sources. Blue Origin is sitting around with their hands out waiting for the government check. Boeing wants money to build a useless rocket. Who do you think will be the first to the moon?

cyanydeez 5y ago
yeah man, or they bribed nasa to get a gimme grant to break the rules. ya know, good ole fashion crony capitalism.

pomian 5y ago

So disappointing. It reads just like the petty office politics where the successful employee is attacked and criticized, by the others who spend all their time figuring out ways to attack and complain, instead of doing their job better. It's some strange human trait seen in every company, office, environment. And I assume it's a global issue. Meanwhile the successful engineer, teacher, developer, is blind to this, because they are working hard at doing a great job. Is it driven by jealousy? Fear?

adriancr 5y ago

Look at the cost difference... spacex 2.9B, Blue Origin 10.2B... even before comparing achievements and viability...