4 ms·

But haven't people wanted NASA to be more streamlined, and efficient? Not sure if that is reducing staffing, or changing its mission. SpaceX making such leaps a

But haven't people wanted NASA to be more streamlined, and efficient? Not sure if that is reducing staffing, or changing its mission. SpaceX making such leaps and bounds over NASA had to be a shot across the bow.

lawlessone 1y ago
>leaps and bounds repeated explosions?
- psunavy03 1y ago
  You do realize that while Starship mishaps are making headlines, the Falcon platform is in the background printing money with basically zero major issues, right?
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    fair point
- marcusverus 1y ago
  SpaceX was responsible for ~87% of mass delivered into orbit last year. They are clearly on a whole 'nother level. The thing that's exploding is Starship, which is still under development. Their production vehicles are among the most reliable in history. Falcon has a 99% mission success rate a 95% landing success rate and Falcon Heavy has a 100% mission success rate.
kacesensitive 1y ago
Sure everyone wants NASA to be efficient but cutting it's funding to the lowest since 1961 isn't doing that. You don't "fix" NASA by shooting it in the head. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal-in-charts https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal...
chomp 1y ago
> SpaceX making such leaps and bounds over NASA What? These two do two separate things, do you mean ULA?
burkaman 1y ago
NASA is a SpaceX funder/customer, not a competitor.
taco_emoji 1y ago
> But haven't people wanted Which people?
moolcool 1y ago
NASA and SpaceX aren't competitors. NASA's mission statement is "explore the unknown in air and space, innovate for the benefit of humanity, and inspire the world through discovery". SpaceX is a p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶d̶e̶d̶ privately held company whose mission is to increase shareholder value.
- nixass 1y ago
  SpaceX is not publicly traded
- kortilla 1y ago
  SpaceX’s mission is very explicitly not shareholder aligned, which is why Musk explicitly said he would never take it public or sell his majority stake. The mission is mars and the money making endeavors (starlink) are to bring in the cash to do that.
  - antonvs 1y ago
    > The mission is mars It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is. That realization could explain his weird pivot into e.g. buying Twitter and far-right politics. A midlife crisis triggered by discovering that his childhood dream was just a fantasy.
    - marcusverus 1y ago
      > It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is. Maybe one day Elon Musk will understand space as well as you do.
  - moolcool 1y ago
    Even if he were sincere, sacrificing NASA because it's mission has some overlap with the stated goal of a billionaire is ridiculous.
    - kortilla 1y ago
nilamo 1y ago
Streamlined and efficient normally means removing unneeded excess, or removing programs that didn't align with the overall goal. Convincing all your smart people to work somewhere else isn't streamlining, it's eliminating all possibility of future progress.
jotux 1y ago
>SpaceX making such leaps and bounds over NASA had to be a shot across the bow. SpaceX, which has been awarded tens of billions in government contracts from NASA, is making leaps and bounds over NASA? I think in 2022 almost 50% of SpaceX revenue was NASA contracts. All those leaps and bounds over NASA are literally NASA funded.
- drtgh 1y ago
  In addition NASA has transferred knowledge and technology to SpaceX in an attempt to help them achieve success (or due government order, as I am not certain).
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Not to speak for the other commenter, but there's a perception that private industry (SpaceX specifically) has been more agile in getting some things done than NASA had been; specifically, getting a purpose-built ISS taxi (the Dragon) built, tested, and launched. In some ways, this isn't wrong. It's easier to get a private company to do that than to get NASA to do it, because there's not some congresscritter from Alabama or wherever constantly trying to direct aspects of the project into their state, or to make the project serve their patrons' interests. Of course, you could also say that up until recently, Elon himself was just as much of a patron, but still.
  - jotux 1y ago
    >specifically, getting a purpose-built ISS taxi (the Dragon) built, tested, and launched. I still don't understand this. NASA funded the development of dragon and a few other companies through their Commercial Resupply Services (CRS 1 and 2) contracts. It's right in the name, Commercial Resupply. NASA isn't building anything in these contracts, just defining requirements and overseeing execution and spending. >In some ways, this isn't wrong. It's easier to get a private company to do that than to get NASA to do it But this is wrong. NASA came up with requirements and awarded money to multiple companies (which is how high-risk contacting works -- hedging development by funding multiple companies), one of the companies they funded has been pretty successful, some of them unsuccessful, some are still in development. The whole argument and perception that NASA and Spacex are somehow competitors just makes no sense to me. It's like saying something like, "The US Navy needed a new frigate and funded the development of it from HII and NASSCO. HII made an amazing new frigate, and NASSCO failed. OMG HII is so amazing why don't we just pay them to be the US Navy?"
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
whatevaa 1y ago
NASA is handicaped by politics. SLS is a jobs program, nothing else. Did they axe that shit or they kept it even after funding was cut?
- p_l 1y ago
  NASA would have wanted to get rid of SLS itself (but probably stay some of the subordinated parts) because there's a good reason why it's nicknamed "Senate Launch System"
MattGrommes 1y ago
This is the same argument people made for DOGE. "Don't we want the government to be more efficient?" Yes, nobody is going to argue the opposite. But there are ways of doing this that are rational, then there is the way this is happening. Using a chainsaw for fine cutting only works when you are an expert at chainsaws. Otherwise you're just chopping chunks off something with a dangerous tool. Of course this is assuming they actually want these agencies to be more efficient and not just die, which is a big assumption.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Pretty sure DOGE was always an excuse to point fingers (and make cuts) at any program the administration didn't like. I mean if you were tasked with "government efficiency" don't you think the lowest hanging fruit would be the Pentagon budget? But, sure, go after air traffic control instead.

lawlessone 1y ago

>leaps and bounds repeated explosions?

psunavy03 1y ago
You do realize that while Starship mishaps are making headlines, the Falcon platform is in the background printing money with basically zero major issues, right?
- lawlessone 1y ago
  fair point
marcusverus 1y ago
SpaceX was responsible for ~87% of mass delivered into orbit last year. They are clearly on a whole 'nother level. The thing that's exploding is Starship, which is still under development. Their production vehicles are among the most reliable in history. Falcon has a 99% mission success rate a 95% landing success rate and Falcon Heavy has a 100% mission success rate.

kacesensitive 1y ago

Sure everyone wants NASA to be efficient but cutting it's funding to the lowest since 1961 isn't doing that. You don't "fix" NASA by shooting it in the head. https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal-in-charts https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal...

chomp 1y ago

> SpaceX making such leaps and bounds over NASA What? These two do two separate things, do you mean ULA?

burkaman 1y ago

NASA is a SpaceX funder/customer, not a competitor.

taco_emoji 1y ago

> But haven't people wanted Which people?

moolcool 1y ago

NASA and SpaceX aren't competitors. NASA's mission statement is "explore the unknown in air and space, innovate for the benefit of humanity, and inspire the world through discovery". SpaceX is a p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶d̶e̶d̶ privately held company whose mission is to increase shareholder value.

nixass 1y ago
SpaceX is not publicly traded
kortilla 1y ago
SpaceX’s mission is very explicitly not shareholder aligned, which is why Musk explicitly said he would never take it public or sell his majority stake. The mission is mars and the money making endeavors (starlink) are to bring in the cash to do that.
- antonvs 1y ago
  > The mission is mars It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is. That realization could explain his weird pivot into e.g. buying Twitter and far-right politics. A midlife crisis triggered by discovering that his childhood dream was just a fantasy.
  - marcusverus 1y ago
    > It's hard to believe that by now Musk still hasn't realized what a ridiculous idea this is. Maybe one day Elon Musk will understand space as well as you do.
- moolcool 1y ago
  Even if he were sincere, sacrificing NASA because it's mission has some overlap with the stated goal of a billionaire is ridiculous.
  - kortilla 1y ago

nilamo 1y ago

Streamlined and efficient normally means removing unneeded excess, or removing programs that didn't align with the overall goal. Convincing all your smart people to work somewhere else isn't streamlining, it's eliminating all possibility of future progress.

jotux 1y ago

>SpaceX making such leaps and bounds over NASA had to be a shot across the bow. SpaceX, which has been awarded tens of billions in government contracts from NASA, is making leaps and bounds over NASA? I think in 2022 almost 50% of SpaceX revenue was NASA contracts. All those leaps and bounds over NASA are literally NASA funded.

drtgh 1y ago
In addition NASA has transferred knowledge and technology to SpaceX in an attempt to help them achieve success (or due government order, as I am not certain).
lenerdenator 1y ago
Not to speak for the other commenter, but there's a perception that private industry (SpaceX specifically) has been more agile in getting some things done than NASA had been; specifically, getting a purpose-built ISS taxi (the Dragon) built, tested, and launched. In some ways, this isn't wrong. It's easier to get a private company to do that than to get NASA to do it, because there's not some congresscritter from Alabama or wherever constantly trying to direct aspects of the project into their state, or to make the project serve their patrons' interests. Of course, you could also say that up until recently, Elon himself was just as much of a patron, but still.
- jotux 1y ago
  >specifically, getting a purpose-built ISS taxi (the Dragon) built, tested, and launched. I still don't understand this. NASA funded the development of dragon and a few other companies through their Commercial Resupply Services (CRS 1 and 2) contracts. It's right in the name, Commercial Resupply. NASA isn't building anything in these contracts, just defining requirements and overseeing execution and spending. >In some ways, this isn't wrong. It's easier to get a private company to do that than to get NASA to do it But this is wrong. NASA came up with requirements and awarded money to multiple companies (which is how high-risk contacting works -- hedging development by funding multiple companies), one of the companies they funded has been pretty successful, some of them unsuccessful, some are still in development. The whole argument and perception that NASA and Spacex are somehow competitors just makes no sense to me. It's like saying something like, "The US Navy needed a new frigate and funded the development of it from HII and NASSCO. HII made an amazing new frigate, and NASSCO failed. OMG HII is so amazing why don't we just pay them to be the US Navy?"

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

whatevaa 1y ago

NASA is handicaped by politics. SLS is a jobs program, nothing else. Did they axe that shit or they kept it even after funding was cut?

p_l 1y ago
NASA would have wanted to get rid of SLS itself (but probably stay some of the subordinated parts) because there's a good reason why it's nicknamed "Senate Launch System"

MattGrommes 1y ago

This is the same argument people made for DOGE. "Don't we want the government to be more efficient?" Yes, nobody is going to argue the opposite. But there are ways of doing this that are rational, then there is the way this is happening. Using a chainsaw for fine cutting only works when you are an expert at chainsaws. Otherwise you're just chopping chunks off something with a dangerous tool. Of course this is assuming they actually want these agencies to be more efficient and not just die, which is a big assumption.

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Pretty sure DOGE was always an excuse to point fingers (and make cuts) at any program the administration didn't like. I mean if you were tasked with "government efficiency" don't you think the lowest hanging fruit would be the Pentagon budget? But, sure, go after air traffic control instead.