5 ms·

> 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.

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.