3 ms·

You’re missing the key piece: we can still spend the money on NASA programs but demand 10x more productivity and cost reduction of their vehicles. Let’s see the

You’re missing the key piece: we can still spend the money on NASA programs but demand 10x more productivity and cost reduction of their vehicles. Let’s see them turn on a dime and out compete any private venture. So all points still stand: money goes into the economy and jobs, but the workforce becomes more competent, cost aware and sharp.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
I don't think you can just cut funding to NASA and expect them to become more efficient. They'll just do less with the same efficiency they have. The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done. Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1]. Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible. -- [0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties. [1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  Boeing isn't building the SLS for free. The cost-plus contract for SLS benefits profit seeking companies even more than 'commercial space'.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Yes, but. Boeing is a tricky case, because it's a strategic company for the US - in the actual, military/security sense of the word: the US government is willing to burn money with them in peace time, so their expertise and factories exist and are available during war time.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

I don't think you can just cut funding to NASA and expect them to become more efficient. They'll just do less with the same efficiency they have. The issue here is that a lot of what NASA does is not driven by current market needs. They're doing speculative, curiosity-driven R&D, on the extreme end of the "exploration" arm of exploration/exploitation tradeoff. Even though evidence to date tells us NASA spending (and space exploration in general) has a huge RoI, and there's good reason to suspect it'll continue to be huge indefinitely, it's not easy to quantify in terms and on time horizons the market understands[0]. NASA having less money just means less R&D being done. Now, I agree the way they go about things could be improved in terms of efficiency. But, unlike with for-profit companies, budget is the wrong knob to turn. Something else must be changed. I have no idea what[1]. Also, one has to be careful comparing e.g. SpaceX and NASA in terms of costs, because for the former, rocketry is a service they sell. NASA isn't there to be in the business of affordable rocket launches, it's there to be in the business of expanding what's possible. -- [0] - In particular, the market has a really hard time dealing with the idea of work that enriches the society at large - which, from company/investor point of view, is just enriching random third parties. [1] - In a sense, using money for this in the market economy is a way to side-step figuring out what the problem is - the threat of running out of money makes the companies individually try and do something, and either it works or they die. Obviously, this approach can't work in non-profit R&D.

philipwhiuk 4y ago
Boeing isn't building the SLS for free. The cost-plus contract for SLS benefits profit seeking companies even more than 'commercial space'.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Yes, but. Boeing is a tricky case, because it's a strategic company for the US - in the actual, military/security sense of the word: the US government is willing to burn money with them in peace time, so their expertise and factories exist and are available during war time.