3 ms·
First sentence captures the core issue: "Despite spending billions of dollars..." I'd describe the issue as military capture - as opposed to state capture. Sta
by mmaunder 5y ago
First sentence captures the core issue: "Despite spending billions of dollars..."
I'd describe the issue as military capture - as opposed to state capture. Stand on the hill above the pentagon and look down upon the number of old defense brands surrounding the building, feeding off the mothership.
SpaceX has proven how ripe for disruption NASA and their old school contractors were. Our defense contractors have the same issue and no one is disrupting them. Every new capability is massively overpriced, under-delivered, and behind the innovation curve.
It never used to be this way. Kelly Johnson delivered the U2 and SR71 on schedule and under budget. It is very hard to imagine that happening today. The US government is getting absolutely screwed by their contractors, and it is perpetuated by the continuous public to private migration of military personnel, all cashing in on their career in government.
- HenryKissinger 5y agoThere are like 3 companies left in the entire country that can build fighter aircraft and bombers, after the mergers of the 1990s and 2000s. If you want to found a bomber startup, you must consider the fact that you will have only one customer: the United States government. And that you have to invest massive amounts of upfront capital to start rolling aircraft off an assembly line. I don't know what the solution is. At this point, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are quasi government owned entities, officially operating as private sector corporations. The government would never let them fail. The potential loss of technology and institutional knowledge from any one of these companies going bankrupt would be a legitimate threat to US national security.
- thow-01187 5y ago> SpaceX has proven how ripe for disruption NASA The story there might be murky, too. NASA bankrolls a lot of SpaceX R&D. US military then approaches SpaceX for extremely generous launch contracts, despite the fact NASA already paid for the R&D. There are some allegations that this double-dipping is used by SpaceX to commit price dumping on commercial launches
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoAnd who paid for those two? [ø] https://www.americaspace.com/2012/06/06/top-secret-kh-11-spysat-design-revealed-by-nros-twin-telescope-gift-to-nasa/ https://www.americaspace.com/2012/06/06/top-secret-kh-11-spy... Peanuts! Makes one wonder what are they 'flying' now, how many of them to spare, doesn't it?