3 ms·
> SpaceX is a bad replacement for a well funded NASA Please, explain exactly how you came to this conclusion. And use numbers, costs of R&D, costs of launches,
by zpeti 5y ago
> SpaceX is a bad replacement for a well funded NASA
Please, explain exactly how you came to this conclusion. And use numbers, costs of R&D, costs of launches, etc.
I'm absolutely baffled you could think this.
- FeepingCreature 5y agoSpaceX is a bad replacement for a well-funded NASA with a clear mission that advances human exploration of space, without being beholden to political corruption, and with a driven and dedicated administrator. Of course, so is NASA itself.
- greesil 5y agoSpaceX doesn't seem super interested in science, like you know probes 'n stuff. I would say that NASA was never super interested in reducing the cost to access space though. They complement each other very well.
- ksd482 5y agoSpaceX is for profit, so it’s goals need to be profitable monetarily. NASA is government funded so it can focus on important things that may not be profitable monetarily.
- zpeti 5y agoHow is that working out in terms of actual dollars spent? Who’s more efficient at spending $1 including profit in that? Your theory doesn’t hold up to actual numbers
- AYBABTME 5y agoI read recently a pretty good take on this. It goes something like, in order of most risky to least risky: - Government funding is for super high risk, high reward long shots that may never work or prove useful. - Then, VC funding when it's high risk, but within a few years horizon of working or proving useful. - Last, public funding for stuff that's obviously going to work. NASA is in the business of de-risking the edge. Then VC-backed stuff like SpaceX/Rocket Lab/Relativity Space can come and do the still-risky-but-still-less-risky bets. Public companies like Boeing/Lockheed Martin can be in the business of launching rockets as is well known and done for decades now.
- 8note 5y agoSurely VCs aren't putting continuous money into space, and it's government contracts paying most of the way. Scale of cost is a bit high for VC
- sascha_sl 5y agoI am not talking about cost at all. More about commercial interests vs public interests. Elon Musks stance on fighting climate change seems to be that we can just solve the problem with technology without doing much about endless consumption and waste, failing that mitigating the issues for whoever can afford to, starting with biohazard mode on your Tesla and ending with escaping to Mars. I don't want all our space tech in the hands of such a person. Happy to see China is still investing more heavily.
- willbw 5y agoOut of curiosity, how well do you think fighting climate change through reducing consumption and waste is going? Well enough to discount alternatives?
- sascha_sl 5y agoInversion of cause and effect. At least where I live our neoliberal and conservative parties love to defer to technology we don't have yet and might never have (we once had a fun case of "flying taxis" being lauded as a solution to congestion too) to justify doing nothing about emissions. I'm not saying we shouldn't do both, but we have solutions now. Be it nuclear power, penalties for food waste, subsidies for public transport infrastructure, taxing fossil fuels... you get the idea. We just need politicians to stop their wishful thinking - the kind fueled by Elon Musk - and confront the realities of the situation