5 ms·

How is SpaceX able to undertake such incredible projects when established agencies such as Nasa cannot. I am awestruck. I feel so small compared to people who a

by hi41 4y ago

How is SpaceX able to undertake such incredible projects when established agencies such as Nasa cannot. I am awestruck. I feel so small compared to people who are able accomplish extraordinary things.

MrOwnPut 4y ago
Government programs are inefficient. Also NASA is a former of it's self, funding wise.
- stetrain 4y ago
  The development of Falcon 9, Dragon Cargo, Dragon Crew, and now Starship have all been partially funded as Government Programs. The difference is that a faction within NASA has been fighting to run these and other projects as open-bid commercial service contracts, where NASA can provide detailed requirements but not dictate specifically where and how the vehicles are built, and this has encouraged diversity and competition in these markets. Traditional NASA development projects (like the SLS rocket) are micromanaged by congress in the budget, where congress dictates specifics of rocket design to ensure specific contractors in specific states receive a slice of the pie in defense-industry style cost-plus contracts.
swarnie 4y ago
The most coherent answer I've had when asking this before is it basically comes down to capitalist theory. SpaceX want (and need) to deliver the best viable product to market as soon as possible, everyone involved is focused on this singular vision. NASA will have its funding cut or expanded on a 4-8 year basis. Politicians, agencies, states and other companies will lobby to get investment in their preferred areas. Even scientists/departments/entire universities will lobby to get their personal pet projects on to a mission to further their own agendas. Frankly im unsure how a public space program can even operate most the time.
- 93po 4y ago
  I have heard at least one reason NASA doesn't work as well as it should is because its methods are dictated by politicians who know nothing. I think the shuttle program is the common example of this - it was selected by the VP at the time and there were a lot of detractors in the industry saying it was a bad decision. In retrospect the detractors were proven correct.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  That is one of the reasons that important government projects often involve multiple contractors in multiple states; it ensures that the project won't be cut during the next budget talks. It's not efficient but it is expedient.
Casteil 4y ago
Progress/change can be slow (if not effectively impossible) in organizations with decades of established bureaucracy and politics.
was_a_dev 4y ago
NASA cannot take risks of this magnitude, as US Congress will not fund such projects. SpaceX can take as much (bussiness) risk as Musk deems acceptable
mannyv 4y ago
Most of the time those people are just like us, but in a position to do these things. Some of them, though, really know what they're doing and are just better at doing stuff.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
One difference is that spreading a NASA project to multiple contractors in multiple states makes projects much more expensive but it does insure that the project is very unlikely to be cancelled when it is time to pass a budget, which is the intent. SpaceX doesn't have that issue to deal with.
- stetrain 4y ago
  Yes this is a big part of it. NASA's budget is often micromanaged by congress. Rather than giving them a budget of $X to accomplish goal Y, specific rocket designs and decisions are written into the budget to try to ensure facilities and contractors in various states are given a slice of the pie. SpaceX's success has come with direct partnership with NASA, within specific projects where those inside NASA fought to run the development as an open bid for commercial services, rather than as NASA-engineered projects with work doled out to cost-plus defense industry contractors. SpaceX is not the only beneficiary of these projects, the goal is to try to cultivate multiple successful service providers that can sustain their own businesses. There has been plenty of opposition to these commercial bid projects within congress, but the success and efficiency of these projects so far have made them hard to argue against.
stetrain 4y ago
NASA is part of this project. They are writing SpaceX a check to develop Starship and use it as part of the Artemis program. NASA also wrote SpaceX checks for the development of Falcon 9, the Dragon cargo capsule for space station resupply missions, the Dragon crew capsule for space station crew missions, and various other probe and satellite launches along the way. I think these were good contracts that benefited both organizations massively, let SpaceX survive, and let NASA contract for services without paying the entire development cost since that was shared with SpaceX's own investment and other customers. But it's definitely not a situation that can be boiled down to SpaceX vs NASA, it's been SpaceX and NASA together since the Falcon 9 development program began.

by hi41 4y ago

MrOwnPut 4y ago

Government programs are inefficient. Also NASA is a former of it's self, funding wise.

stetrain 4y ago
The development of Falcon 9, Dragon Cargo, Dragon Crew, and now Starship have all been partially funded as Government Programs. The difference is that a faction within NASA has been fighting to run these and other projects as open-bid commercial service contracts, where NASA can provide detailed requirements but not dictate specifically where and how the vehicles are built, and this has encouraged diversity and competition in these markets. Traditional NASA development projects (like the SLS rocket) are micromanaged by congress in the budget, where congress dictates specifics of rocket design to ensure specific contractors in specific states receive a slice of the pie in defense-industry style cost-plus contracts.

swarnie 4y ago

The most coherent answer I've had when asking this before is it basically comes down to capitalist theory. SpaceX want (and need) to deliver the best viable product to market as soon as possible, everyone involved is focused on this singular vision. NASA will have its funding cut or expanded on a 4-8 year basis. Politicians, agencies, states and other companies will lobby to get investment in their preferred areas. Even scientists/departments/entire universities will lobby to get their personal pet projects on to a mission to further their own agendas. Frankly im unsure how a public space program can even operate most the time.

93po 4y ago
I have heard at least one reason NASA doesn't work as well as it should is because its methods are dictated by politicians who know nothing. I think the shuttle program is the common example of this - it was selected by the VP at the time and there were a lot of detractors in the industry saying it was a bad decision. In retrospect the detractors were proven correct.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
That is one of the reasons that important government projects often involve multiple contractors in multiple states; it ensures that the project won't be cut during the next budget talks. It's not efficient but it is expedient.

Casteil 4y ago

Progress/change can be slow (if not effectively impossible) in organizations with decades of established bureaucracy and politics.

was_a_dev 4y ago

NASA cannot take risks of this magnitude, as US Congress will not fund such projects. SpaceX can take as much (bussiness) risk as Musk deems acceptable

mannyv 4y ago

Most of the time those people are just like us, but in a position to do these things. Some of them, though, really know what they're doing and are just better at doing stuff.

SyzygistSix 4y ago

One difference is that spreading a NASA project to multiple contractors in multiple states makes projects much more expensive but it does insure that the project is very unlikely to be cancelled when it is time to pass a budget, which is the intent. SpaceX doesn't have that issue to deal with.

stetrain 4y ago
Yes this is a big part of it. NASA's budget is often micromanaged by congress. Rather than giving them a budget of $X to accomplish goal Y, specific rocket designs and decisions are written into the budget to try to ensure facilities and contractors in various states are given a slice of the pie. SpaceX's success has come with direct partnership with NASA, within specific projects where those inside NASA fought to run the development as an open bid for commercial services, rather than as NASA-engineered projects with work doled out to cost-plus defense industry contractors. SpaceX is not the only beneficiary of these projects, the goal is to try to cultivate multiple successful service providers that can sustain their own businesses. There has been plenty of opposition to these commercial bid projects within congress, but the success and efficiency of these projects so far have made them hard to argue against.

stetrain 4y ago

NASA is part of this project. They are writing SpaceX a check to develop Starship and use it as part of the Artemis program. NASA also wrote SpaceX checks for the development of Falcon 9, the Dragon cargo capsule for space station resupply missions, the Dragon crew capsule for space station crew missions, and various other probe and satellite launches along the way. I think these were good contracts that benefited both organizations massively, let SpaceX survive, and let NASA contract for services without paying the entire development cost since that was shared with SpaceX's own investment and other customers. But it's definitely not a situation that can be boiled down to SpaceX vs NASA, it's been SpaceX and NASA together since the Falcon 9 development program began.