6 ms·
Is it fair to say that NASA would likely require many times the amount of funding for the same result as SpaceX? I ask because as someone who was previously un
by drewblaisdell 15y ago
Is it fair to say that NASA would likely require many times the amount of funding for the same result as SpaceX?
I ask because as someone who was previously unfamiliar with the amount of funding SpaceX had to work with, $800 million sounds like an incredibly small amount of money to do (what looks like) more than NASA does with its ~$18 billion budget.
- cowkingdeluxe 15y agoGood point, and that $800 million was prorated over 4 years whereas NASA gets $18 billion annually.
- mitchty 15y agoNASA also has fair amount more research going on unrelated to "build rockets" as well so direct numerical comparison isn't exactly valid.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- damoncali 15y agoNASA does a lot more than launch people in capsules. It's not fair to compare spaceX to all of NASA. SpaceX has no Hubble, no ISS, no Mars antything, etc, etc. They seem to be doing well, but let's compare apples to apples.
- jacoblyles 15y agoKeep in mind that is $800 million over 8 years. So the Space X budget is about 0.6% of NASA's.
- JeffBlauser 15y agoNot that there couldn't be inefficiencies at nasa, but they have many other programs going on which account for its budget.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- hessenwolf 15y agoPartly true, but partly there is a fundamental inefficiency at play in the way they do things. On the space shuttle, every outer tile is unique and must be manufactured accordingly. Boeing cover their rockets in shitty orange foam. When the shuttle returns, it is driven into this spider-like contraption that actually cost almost as much to build as a shuttle. Boeing put the rocket on its side, and use step-ladders, and, I kid you not, a plank.
- dbarlett 15y agoYes. According to a NASA study [1], Falcon 9 development would cost $1.3B as Cost Plus Fee ("traditional NASA") or $443M Firm Fixed Price ("more commercial approach"). Compare to SpaceX actual of "about $300M". [1] http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf Edit: NASA originally came up with the $4B/$1.7B estimates that InclinedPlane mentioned. They visited SpaceX, saw how they actually operated, and revised the estimated downward.
- bane 15y agoThey visited SpaceX, saw how they actually operated, and revised the estimated downward. I'm not sure that's really fair for NASA to do. The question they were supposed to be answering was "how much would this cost NASA to do?". They can't just see a more efficient operation and then cheat their numbers down because without Space-X, NASA would never have had a reference to work off of. NASA doing it the NASA way would have been the larger figure, not NASA doing it the Space-X way.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoNASA did a study on this actually. Using traditional NASA procurement methods it would have cost at least $4 billion to develop the Falcon 9. Also keep in mind that the $800 million amount is for developing the Falcon I, Falcon 9 ($390 million total) and the Dragon spacecraft (about $400 million). Even had NASA used more commercial oriented procurement methods they estimate it still would have cost at least $1.7 billion to develop.
- edge17 15y agocool, wondering if you have a reference?
- loverobots 15y agoNASA is more than just lifting some stuff in space. They have staff they can't just fire, researchers, building and equipment that must be maintained, future projects and much more. Hint: Fighter jets cost a lot more because parts have to made in many Congressional districts.
- drzaiusapelord 15y agoMeh. Manned space is only part of NASA's mission and the whole agency has been the Federal Agency of Low Earth Orbit for so long, its pretty crazy we're suddenly giving them a hard time. NASA is doing it right: giving up the LEO Shuttle monstrosity to commercial spaceflight and doing the things that are, yes, expensive and difficult. Protip: google 'nasa launch calendar 2011' and compare it to the number of launches SpaceX has had. Seriously, I'll just sit here and wait for you to do this. Now lets talk complexity of missions. Cut NASA down to size and you're just getting more missiles and warships. You're not getting a tax break or the sudden birth of 100 SpaceX's. SpaceX should be applauded for its innovation and drive, not considered the low hanging fruit of space and everyone suddenly saying "This stuff is so easy why isn't NASA using their methods?!?" Because its not easy.
- sliverstorm 15y agoRemember that NASA's job is/was supposed to be to do stuff that hasn't been done before. SpaceX is doing something that has been done before more economically. It doesn't surprise me if two such organizations had different corporate "efficiency" levels.