3 ms·

In what way though? I’ve yet to see anything that rivals any accomplishments by NASA. Or were you being punny?

knicholes 2y ago
No, you're right. NASA has already shown that we can go past our solar system, so... His company has done some really awesome stuff with the ships/rockets, though.
bloppe 2y ago
Did you not watch them land the starship? That's easily the biggest space-faring accomplishment since Apollo, and certainly not something NASA could replicate in the foreseeable future. Speaking of the moon, NASA's SLS is projected to cost several orders of magnitude more than a super heavy launch, and is only aiming for the moon as opposed to Mars. If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA. Of course, that would be the conflict of interest par excellence, and face a bunch of opposition from red-state congressmen with huge contracts in their constituencies. Objectively speaking, though, it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.
- ks2048 2y ago
  > If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA. At 0.3% of the federal budget - if NASA was 100% waste, fixing it wouldn’t make a dent.
- bumby 2y ago
  NASA/DoD did lay some of the groundwork. DC-X was a vertical landing rocket meant for reuse nearly 35 years ago. Granted SpaceX has done amazing things that are more difficult (DC-X was suborbital), but I tend to think if NASA continued they would have got there. From my perspective, SpaceX’s major benefit is they don’t have to follow the same rules as NASA so they can do things quicker and/or cheaper. The “waste” is really just a different risk tolerance. You could make many of the NASA requirements go away, but nobody wants to be the one who signs up for that when the next disaster happens.
  - platybubsy 2y ago
    The waste does not at all stem only from different risk tolerances. SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards. Pork barrel projects like SLS is the real reason why everything NASA does is so expensive and late. The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding.
    - bumby 2y ago
      >SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards Sorry, this is false. When NASA engineers have raised the question of non-adherence to NASA standards by CCP contractors, they were told it wasn’t their role to dictate those kinds of requirements. You can see this in a number of mishaps, like when a strut failure resulted in a lost rocket because they didn’t want to follow well-established and codified aerospace supply chain quality standards. NASA is buying a service with CCP, not a product. This says nothing of the political requirements NASA must work through that contractors do not. >The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding. NASA does, but that NASA VTOL rocket program was cancelled in 1996. My point was that the tech was feasible for NASA, but not a priority.
      - platybubsy 2y ago
        Does Falcon 9 fail more often than other rockets? NASA spending 35 years pursuing pork projects instead of useful technologies like VTOL sounds like the very definition of waste to me.
        bumby 2y ago
        I agree Falcon 9 is showing itself to be reliable and low cost. We probably agree about the pork piece too You’re missing the point (which seems to be a common thread on this) so before I spend too much time constantly reiterating: 1) What do you think is the goal of NASA and 2) What do you think is fundamentally different about CCP?

No, you're right. NASA has already shown that we can go past our solar system, so... His company has done some really awesome stuff with the ships/rockets, though.

bloppe 2y ago

Did you not watch them land the starship? That's easily the biggest space-faring accomplishment since Apollo, and certainly not something NASA could replicate in the foreseeable future. Speaking of the moon, NASA's SLS is projected to cost several orders of magnitude more than a super heavy launch, and is only aiming for the moon as opposed to Mars. If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA. Of course, that would be the conflict of interest par excellence, and face a bunch of opposition from red-state congressmen with huge contracts in their constituencies. Objectively speaking, though, it's a huge waste of taxpayer money.

ks2048 2y ago
> If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of waste and fraud, it's at NASA. At 0.3% of the federal budget - if NASA was 100% waste, fixing it wouldn’t make a dent.
bumby 2y ago
NASA/DoD did lay some of the groundwork. DC-X was a vertical landing rocket meant for reuse nearly 35 years ago. Granted SpaceX has done amazing things that are more difficult (DC-X was suborbital), but I tend to think if NASA continued they would have got there. From my perspective, SpaceX’s major benefit is they don’t have to follow the same rules as NASA so they can do things quicker and/or cheaper. The “waste” is really just a different risk tolerance. You could make many of the NASA requirements go away, but nobody wants to be the one who signs up for that when the next disaster happens.
- platybubsy 2y ago
  The waste does not at all stem only from different risk tolerances. SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards. Pork barrel projects like SLS is the real reason why everything NASA does is so expensive and late. The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding.
  - bumby 2y ago
    >SpaceX launches NASA astronauts which means that they also need to comply to the same standards Sorry, this is false. When NASA engineers have raised the question of non-adherence to NASA standards by CCP contractors, they were told it wasn’t their role to dictate those kinds of requirements. You can see this in a number of mishaps, like when a strut failure resulted in a lost rocket because they didn’t want to follow well-established and codified aerospace supply chain quality standards. NASA is buying a service with CCP, not a product. This says nothing of the political requirements NASA must work through that contractors do not. >The statement that NASA would have achieved reuse eventually is weird considering that NASA still exists today, 35 years later, without succeeding. NASA does, but that NASA VTOL rocket program was cancelled in 1996. My point was that the tech was feasible for NASA, but not a priority.
    - platybubsy 2y ago
      Does Falcon 9 fail more often than other rockets? NASA spending 35 years pursuing pork projects instead of useful technologies like VTOL sounds like the very definition of waste to me.
      - bumby 2y ago
        I agree Falcon 9 is showing itself to be reliable and low cost. We probably agree about the pork piece too You’re missing the point (which seems to be a common thread on this) so before I spend too much time constantly reiterating: 1) What do you think is the goal of NASA and 2) What do you think is fundamentally different about CCP?