3 ms·

As if those things wouldn't innovate in the market? Or because 1 thing came from the government, then all things the government touches are gold?

ramesh31 5y ago
The free market can do a lot when it has the basic requirements to operate, but the point is that government spending is the only solution when we end up with a chicken/egg problem as the OP pointed out.
bumby 5y ago
This take might have some hindsight bias. While a lot of industry seem obvious and worth the investment today, when they were nascent that wasn't the case. Would GPS exist if private companies had to fund the rocket and satellite research just to tell you where you are on the map? Or would the aircraft industry exist? Most of those types of high-risk, nebulous reward (at least on short-to-near-term timescales) industries are predicated on government investment. SpaceX, as great as they are, probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have NASA as a customer.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  it certainly does have hindsight bias, on both sides. The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Back in the 90s (during the age of early GPS), Motorola (iirc) tried to launch a satellite phone company too. NASA isn't that big of a customer. DirecTV was a huge consumer of rockets. As it turns out, SpaceX doesn't sell to them because they own their own rocket company.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Correct, but this is an after-the-fact understanding. They spend money to launch now because the industries are no longer nascent and being launched on platforms designed around government investment. The key to my point is that the government spends money when the industries are young and risky to develop platforms. If those platforms work out that helps the private sector have a less risky path down the road. This is why telecoms weren't rushing to develop rockets in the 1960s. >NASA isn't that big of a customer. This is very much the same thing. Early on, NASA was really the only SpaceX customer and NASA helped keep them from going bankrupt [1]. In addition, NASA made early launches more palatable because the government is self-insured. Government contracts help usher along young, risky companies until they could have a less risky business model that the private sector feels more comfortable with. It's very similar to aerospace development over 100 years ago with the Wright brothers and Curtis vying for Army contracts. Without those contracts, they are as much hobbyists as entrepreneurs. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billion-contract-had-saved-spacex-from-going-broke-2502210 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billio...

ramesh31 5y ago

The free market can do a lot when it has the basic requirements to operate, but the point is that government spending is the only solution when we end up with a chicken/egg problem as the OP pointed out.

bumby 5y ago

This take might have some hindsight bias. While a lot of industry seem obvious and worth the investment today, when they were nascent that wasn't the case. Would GPS exist if private companies had to fund the rocket and satellite research just to tell you where you are on the map? Or would the aircraft industry exist? Most of those types of high-risk, nebulous reward (at least on short-to-near-term timescales) industries are predicated on government investment. SpaceX, as great as they are, probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have NASA as a customer.

abfan1127 5y ago
it certainly does have hindsight bias, on both sides. The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Back in the 90s (during the age of early GPS), Motorola (iirc) tried to launch a satellite phone company too. NASA isn't that big of a customer. DirecTV was a huge consumer of rockets. As it turns out, SpaceX doesn't sell to them because they own their own rocket company.
- bumby 5y ago
  >The Satellite TV and Radio industries spend the money to launch. Correct, but this is an after-the-fact understanding. They spend money to launch now because the industries are no longer nascent and being launched on platforms designed around government investment. The key to my point is that the government spends money when the industries are young and risky to develop platforms. If those platforms work out that helps the private sector have a less risky path down the road. This is why telecoms weren't rushing to develop rockets in the 1960s. >NASA isn't that big of a customer. This is very much the same thing. Early on, NASA was really the only SpaceX customer and NASA helped keep them from going bankrupt [1]. In addition, NASA made early launches more palatable because the government is self-insured. Government contracts help usher along young, risky companies until they could have a less risky business model that the private sector feels more comfortable with. It's very similar to aerospace development over 100 years ago with the Wright brothers and Curtis vying for Army contracts. Without those contracts, they are as much hobbyists as entrepreneurs. [1] https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billion-contract-had-saved-spacex-from-going-broke-2502210 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/elon-musk-says-nasas-1-5-billio...