7 ms·

Public funding of space flight led to mediocre results. And the tech still subcontracted/built/owned by Boeing/ULA folks.

• mmanfrin 3y ago
  > Public funding of space flight led to mediocre results Is this bait? Public funding of space flight lead to spaceflight and landing on the moon.
  • kitsunesoba 3y ago
    And then stagnated for decades when an administration with no interest beyond LEO came into power, which was exacerbated further by each following administration changing NASA's direction, preventing any kind of sustained focus. That's the problem with publicly funded spaceflight: it's subject to the whims of both politicians and public favor, meaning that if it doesn't happen within the span of a single favorable administration it's probably not going to happen. That's extremely limiting, because spaceflight (especially the crewed variety) is extremely difficult and operates on decadal timelines.
    • dubcanada 3y ago
      I mean the same thing can be said about private companies being publicly funded?
      • chasd00 3y ago
        in a way i suppose. Tesla being public almost killed teh entire company when the shorts came after them. SpaceX being (and remaining) private is probably 25% of the reason they're able to accomplish what they can accomplish. Imagine the stock price hit after the starship test, that would take so much time and effort to repair. Also, there's probably 100s of live cams all around Boca Chica spying and watching on every single test and weld. The stock price would fluctuate wildly based on what's happening on those cams. SpaceX remaining private is probably priority 1 on the financial side of things.
        • ivalm 3y ago
          At least a few years ago, spacex didn't do debt financing, which means that fluctuation of the stock price on the secondary market wouldn't matter... The company's finances are affected by the stock price only through cost of capital. If you aren't raising money or taking on debt then the co doesn't care about the stock price at all.
      • kitsunesoba 3y ago
        To an extent, but depending on how the company is set up it can create a layer of indirection that mitigates outside meddling. So for example in the case of SpaceX, a good chunk of their revenue comes from selling their launch services to other companies and selling Starlink, and it's an explicit goal to keep R&D cheap. This lets them start projects even without NASA's interest (as they've done with Starship+Superheavy). If NASA expresses interest somewhere down the line that's great, but the project's going to happen anyway. It's not living or dying by the whims of congressmen. This in turn allows them to have a grander focus that they continue to work towards over the course of decades since they aren't having their direction jerked around constantly.
  • robotresearcher 3y ago
    The Apollo system landed our grandparents on the moon for 2.5% of US annual GDP for 10 years. An incredible achievement at spectacular cost. Then stopped going as the cost/benefit was perceived unfavorable. That last part needs fixed.
• gpm 3y ago
  I think the more reasonable interpretation of the post that you are replying to considers the previous generation that you're discussion "private space exploration with public money" as well. That they want NASA itself to hire the engineers, build and own the technology, rather than contracting/subcontracting it out.
  • Robotbeat 3y ago
    NASA has ALWAYS contracted this stuff out. ALWAYS. Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) made the Apollo lunar lander paid for by public tax dollars.
    • moffkalast 3y ago
      That reminds me of that great docudrama From Earth to the Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQeqMaHVYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLQeqMaHVYs
    • uoaei 3y ago
      The question isn't who does the work, it's who owns (enjoys financial benefits of?) the result.
      • Robotbeat 3y ago
        Defense contractors?
        • uoaei 3y ago
          Well, that's a problem, considering it's funded with public money. Private entities making money off public initiatives is a big reason why we're having the economic troubles we've been having the past few decades.
          • Robotbeat 3y ago
            When has this ever been different in the history of the US?
• hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  I figure it's the same page with criminals and other stuffs that public service failed to do a 6/10 job. Because it's doing so badly let's contract it out to private companies (or just turn an eye away in the case of petty crimes). I really think the best way to do it is to get a better public service. Well this is all talk though, I don't know how to achieve that, whatever.
• techdragon 3y ago
  And the information that you think this leads to based on all the lovely documentation you can find of the Apollo program, it’s gone, none of that happens now, it’s all subcontractors and ITAR and patents and intellectual property, the “public” part of public paying for this stuff was mostly dead by the late 1980s. My best example is the AX-5 hard shell spacesuit. Public funding research done at NASA Ames, not commercialised, not brought up to flight readiness so it’s hardly going to justify some secrecy, and all the documentation is basically nonexistent other than some thin on the ground engineering documentation in non-public access engineering journals. Amazing engineering work and basically none of it is published in and open way.