3 ms·

If you're being objective with numerical measurements, care to provide source? Bloat = waste, that is just circular logic. You're defining what you want to cal

If you're being objective with numerical measurements, care to provide source? Bloat = waste, that is just circular logic. You're defining what you want to call waste as a synonym of waste. Nasa gets a budget and spend it on space missions, propulsion technology and launch vehicles. That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. Not the rocket that fits your definition of efficiency. Having more then one actively used propulsion vehicle with different technological approaches is a national investment in resilience. Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic.

Dylan16807 3y ago
I do not have a source for the generic example number. If you want sources for government spending too much on things, those exist all over. > Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic. No, that's not what people are saying. The problem is that the main companies NASA contracts to are running in an extremely inefficient way and they get paid more when they waste money. This is a problem that would exist even if SpaceX never became a company. > That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. The problem is the dollars that aren't going to engineering and R&D. Dollars that just stimulate the economy are bloat when they're going to some big company out of a budget that's supposed to be doing things like exploring space. If you want to just send out dollars to stimulate the economy, send them out to people with low incomes and they'll have a much bigger impact.
- namaria 3y ago
  So you're just inventing numbers and making baseless claims? Got it. Stop wasting my time
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I think it was abundantly clear that "If the government pays 2x" was a generic hypothetical number. Thank you for ignoring 95% of my post with that useless rejection.

Dylan16807 3y ago

I do not have a source for the generic example number. If you want sources for government spending too much on things, those exist all over. > Calling it bloat and inefficient because it takes more money per launch then another 100% experimental and unproven platform is incredibly myopic. No, that's not what people are saying. The problem is that the main companies NASA contracts to are running in an extremely inefficient way and they get paid more when they waste money. This is a problem that would exist even if SpaceX never became a company. > That money employs engineers and scientists and generates demand for high specs engineering firms and supply chains. The bang for the buck is this impact on the economy, stimulating education, R&D etc. The problem is the dollars that aren't going to engineering and R&D. Dollars that just stimulate the economy are bloat when they're going to some big company out of a budget that's supposed to be doing things like exploring space. If you want to just send out dollars to stimulate the economy, send them out to people with low incomes and they'll have a much bigger impact.

namaria 3y ago
So you're just inventing numbers and making baseless claims? Got it. Stop wasting my time
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I think it was abundantly clear that "If the government pays 2x" was a generic hypothetical number. Thank you for ignoring 95% of my post with that useless rejection.