4 ms·

Why can they not operate like SpaceX does?

rapsey 2y ago
They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately. Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. They can, or at least they could once upon a time.[1] NASA's problems are all self-inflicted either by themselves or the Congress of the day. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
- class3shock 2y ago
  They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
  - rapsey 2y ago
    > They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which means they can't. Speaking in theoretical terms is entirely pointless.
    - class3shock 2y ago
      Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
      - rapsey 2y ago
        Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations. Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money. > I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you? Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war. I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
        class3shock 2y ago
        It's hard to know what to say to someone I feel like I so fundamentally disagree with. I guess I'll just ask that you have compassion for us silly folks that look at the accomplishments of the past by government organizations (such as NASA) that were amazing, inspiring, and maybe even on time and on budget and maybe mistakenly think we can do that again. I know in your mind we're wrong, I'm not asking you to change your view but we don't think these things because we want the US to become communist, we think these things because we want the US to be the US of the 1960s (in terms of engineering).
        rapsey 2y ago
        I like to think I have a fact and experience based opinions. History is a pretty good guide on what works and what does not. NASA of the 1960s is far removed from the reality of today and the progress they achieved was largely wasted. But I am giggling at the make america great again argument.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.

They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately. Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. They can, or at least they could once upon a time.[1] NASA's problems are all self-inflicted either by themselves or the Congress of the day. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
class3shock 2y ago
They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
- rapsey 2y ago
  > They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which means they can't. Speaking in theoretical terms is entirely pointless.
  - class3shock 2y ago
    Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
    - rapsey 2y ago
      Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations. Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money. > I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you? Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war. I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
      - class3shock 2y ago
        It's hard to know what to say to someone I feel like I so fundamentally disagree with. I guess I'll just ask that you have compassion for us silly folks that look at the accomplishments of the past by government organizations (such as NASA) that were amazing, inspiring, and maybe even on time and on budget and maybe mistakenly think we can do that again. I know in your mind we're wrong, I'm not asking you to change your view but we don't think these things because we want the US to become communist, we think these things because we want the US to be the US of the 1960s (in terms of engineering).
        rapsey 2y ago
        I like to think I have a fact and experience based opinions. History is a pretty good guide on what works and what does not. NASA of the 1960s is far removed from the reality of today and the progress they achieved was largely wasted. But I am giggling at the make america great again argument.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.