3 ms·
Unfortunately, the demand for space missions is tough to justify starting a new company with that goal in mind. It will require heavy government funding to make
by 1-6 2y ago
Unfortunately, the demand for space missions is tough to justify starting a new company with that goal in mind. It will require heavy government funding to make it sustainable.
And to your comment about SpaceX, this is a Boeing problem and you’re just throwing SpaceX under the bus for the other company’s troubles. SpaceX is the alternative provider. How many more do you think is feasible?
- travisporter 2y agoI didn’t read the parent comment that way, who did give due deference to spacex. This is hard stuff, as I was reminded when the dragon capsule exploded during very early testing. But spacex is such a beast that it overcame that ridiculously fast.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> this is a Boeing problem and you’re just throwing SpaceX under the bus for the other company’s troubles. That is what happens. If a company wants to play in this sort of arena, it will not be treated "fairly" and will suffer for the mistakes of others. In a narrow two-company industry, the mistakes of either party will always impact the industry as a whole. Think of that company that lost a submersible at the Titanic. Undersea tourism is also very narrow industry. All companies involved are dealing with the repercussions of that accident from diminished demand to potentially stricter regulations, not to mention increased insurance costs. That isn't fair, but that is how such industries work.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI am not throwing SpaceX under the bus. I am saying that we can’t rely only on SpaceX. We need to fix Boeing or fund another provider.
- imtringued 2y agoGive Dream Chaser another chance. It is already going to be necessary as an escape pod for large commercial space stations. If it does double duty as capsule backup, it will achieve greater amortization.