4 ms·
Clarification to the title: the spacecraft was developed by a private company, but it was publicly funded by way of NASA, as part of their Commercial Lunar Payl
by kibwen 3y ago
Clarification to the title: the spacecraft was developed by a private company, but it was publicly funded by way of NASA, as part of their Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program: https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/ https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/
- samatman 3y agoThis doesn't clarify the title at all. USG pays big bucks to Amazon and Oracle for servers, they're still private companies.
- kibwen 3y agoThe difference being that Amazon and Oracle have customers other than the government. This company is essentially a government-funded startup.
- samatman 3y agoI get that this particular detail matters to you, but the title is accurate and in need of no 'clarification' at all. There have been times in my career when my only client was the federal government. That did not make me a public servant. I wasn't at DARPA, I was a private contractor with DARPA. I assure you everyone involved is crystal-clear on the distinction.
- throwawaymaroon 3y ago[dead]
- happytiger 3y agoI don’t think people realize that Government contracting doesn’t make you a Government entity. As far as anyone is concerned day-to-day, they’re just an important client. This is a day to celebrate. This is a momentous achievement and I can’t wait to see private space scale to its potential — which is ginormous.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kibwen 3y ago> I can’t wait to see private space scale to its potential — which is ginormous. Misconceptions like this are precisely why I find it important to call out where the funds are coming from here... because the potential really isn't enormous. There's a lot of commercial interest in putting satellites in orbit, yes. But there's no commercial interest in private moon landers. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I'm happy to see NASA find ways make their scientific endeavors more efficient. But moonshots (heh) like this are never going to be motivated by economics. There's just nothing on the moon to sell.
- cscurmudgeon 3y agoFor now. If any other company offers them $ to match US govt., I don't see why they won't take that up. Also, Intuitive Machines is a public company with non government investors.
- Retric 3y agoUSG paid for R&D, physical hardware, and the actual launch. It’s about as ‘private’ as the F-22.
- peddamat 3y agoIsn't that generally how customers work?
- Retric 3y agoSure, but when you pay a contractor to build a house it’s your house not theirs. IMO, saying something is private makes sense when the system is reusable and therefore the government is effectively renting a device for a specific mission. Similarly, if it’s software like Excel sold to companies and governments it’s private. As a one way trip paid for by NASA, this is simply a NASA mission.
- bruce511 3y agoUm, not to split hairs, but how is that different to Grumman building the Apollo moon lander?
- nyokodo 3y ago> how is that different to Grumman building the Apollo moon lander? NASA wholly owned and operated the lunar lander after it was built. Intuitive Machines owns and is operating the machines it built for NASA and can use the technology for other customers.
- amethyst 3y agoGrumman wasn’t operating their own Mission Control — NASA did. But NASA isn’t operating this mission, similar to how they don’t operate SpaceX missions even if they are funding them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]