4 ms·
> Afterward, NASA even calculated how much it would have cost the agency to develop comparable capabilities using its traditional contracting methods. The resul
by zelon88 2y ago
> Afterward, NASA even calculated how much it would have cost the agency to develop comparable capabilities using its traditional contracting methods. The result? Four to 10 times as much.
The result is that instead of the US taxpayer OWNING the exclusive rights to the most advanced knowledge and technology in the world, we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever.
- rapsey 2y ago> we now LICENSE it from oligarchs who bought it with our money to hold over our heads forever. Oligarchs who went all in and risked their entire net worth to make it work you mean.
- kingkawn 2y agooligarchs who knew that with their monopolies they could always extract more cash from their market-capture on demand
- wat10000 2y ago[dead]
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoTake spacex as an example: spacex received $20bn in funding from federal government. That's 10% of the pre-Trump-election net worth of the oligarch owner.
- ethagknight 2y agoAnd SpaceX has done exactly what they were asked to do with that money. Great value for the taxpayer.
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoIndeed. Because they whole deal of them getting that money was to do the job for NASA the way NASA cannot due to public scrutiny.
- ethagknight 2y agoThat’s a fictional accusation
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoSure: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/.
- ANewFormation 2y agoSpaceX received very little in 'funding' from the government. However they sold extensive services to the government, primarily by offering the best value on competitive contracts.
- rad_gruchalski 2y agoYes, I'm sorry, funding is not the right term. They received $20bn in federal contracts. And they do fantastic work. My point is, the government is certainly aware that spacex does a great job and delivers. It's not a competition between NASA and spacex.
- class3shock 2y agoNo, they meant what they said, a huge amount of the funding for these ventures comes from the taxpayer.
- rapsey 2y agoAnd they got what they payed for. A great result for all involved.
- tossandthrow 2y agoThis comment tastes bad: It says that an oligarchy is OK as long as the oligarchs "risked their entire net worth". Would you say this also applies to other systems? Like dictatorships, etc?
- ethagknight 2y agoYou wanna make the same argument about Microsoft or Apple or Boeing or healthcare administration? Far more government resources goes towards those. Bold to assume that the US government could’ve accomplished what SpaceX has accomplished in the same timeframe in this day of Federal contracting. Bear in mind that no other country, no other competitor comes close to SpaceX’s throughput at this time. They should be commended, not seen as a threat to the US
- PrismCrystal 2y ago> They should be commended, not seen as a threat to the US ¿Por qué no los dos? Recognizing that a private endeavour is a commendable achievement, but then nationalizing it so that it conforms to the nation’s interest (whether the direct interest of the populace, or more oblique national-security interests) has played out again and again throughout history.
- ethagknight 2y agoNurturing a competitive private industry will yield far greater dividends
- rapsey 2y agoExamples please.
- PrismCrystal 2y agoAs probably the most historically impactful example, consider the nationalization of the East India Company, where Britain had long relied on a highly favoured private entity, but eventually it felt that its interests would be better served by bringing that entity under direct control.
- rapsey 2y agoAnd this is somehow applicable to spacex and the us gov in 2024.
- ANewFormation 2y agoOne thing that's important to recognize is that this all isn't just a game where you spend some amount of money on R&D, and inevitably unlock the next tech. In a parallel timeline where NASA gets 100billion a year, but there is no SpaceX, it's entirely possible that the pre-SpaceX status quo just continued on indefinitely. After all when SpaceX was first developing their tech, they were being actively mocked by Boeing/Lockheed (via Tory Bruno) with comments akin to 'yeah cute idea, we worked it out decades ago - not economically feasible. have fun learning.' The SLS was going to be NASA's next big vessel, and costs there are trending to what could be around 4 billion a launch. With costs like that you're never going to do beat things in space.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe actual designs are much less important than the assurance that the general approach works and the expertise of the personnel. The actual designs are worth little in comparison. We had the design and license to build the fabulous Russian RD-180 engines, but chose not to because it would have been too hard. We have the designs for the Saturn V, and wouldn't be able to build it even if we wanted to. OTOH, China is basically copying the SpaceX designs, even without the designs. One great thing about Elon Musk is that he's so horrible to work for that lots of people join SpaceX straight out of school, get that expertise and then leave for better bosses or start their own company. c.f. the "traightorous 8" that left Shockley to start Fairchild. Shockley almost singlehandedly created Silicon Valley by being a horrible boss.
- rich_sasha 2y agoWhich would be fine if they paid taxes...