3 ms·

You say that as though we can't do both. Have you seen NASA's pathetic little budget? And who's to say it has to be a government that does this? Companies like

by toxican 12y ago

You say that as though we can't do both. Have you seen NASA's pathetic little budget? And who's to say it has to be a government that does this? Companies like SpaceX are stepping up and picking up NASA's slack at a rapid pace.

zachrose 12y ago
Is it actually meaningful to compare NASA with SpaceX? My understanding is that SpaceX's primary—if not only—client is NASA. If I've got this right, doesn't it mean that the money still comes from the Feds and SpaceX is not that different from Boeing/Douglas/North American in the Apollo era?
- soperj 12y ago
  You're wrong. Most of their launches are not for Nasa.
- derekp7 12y ago
  The big difference between SpaceX and the others is SpaceX has to do it competitively. They can't just do whatever and send the gov a bill for it.
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
You say that as though we can't do both. In theory we can, but in reality we can't. That is not how, historically we allocate resources. And who's to say it has to be a government that does this? Actually I don't say that at all and intend fully to be on the train for one of these breakthroughs in the private sector. Companies like SpaceX are stepping up and picking up NASA's slack at a rapid pace. NASA "invested" 500M into SpaceX long ago. The USG also picked up most of the bill for the Falcon 9 if I remember correctly. I think SpaceX is doing great stuff but lets not get too excited about market demand for space exploration. The bulk of these programs look at earth, which I think are valuable and useful. I think Musk is going to find that he has trouble finding a robust market for manned exploration - the ROI (in every way) just isn't there.
Shivetya 12y ago
less than eight days of the US's current daily deficit spending covers NASA's budget for the year. Still I have to agree about going back to the moon, manufacturing wise wouldn't zero G be more important than being on the moon?

by toxican 12y ago

zachrose 12y ago

Is it actually meaningful to compare NASA with SpaceX? My understanding is that SpaceX's primary—if not only—client is NASA. If I've got this right, doesn't it mean that the money still comes from the Feds and SpaceX is not that different from Boeing/Douglas/North American in the Apollo era?

soperj 12y ago
You're wrong. Most of their launches are not for Nasa.
derekp7 12y ago
The big difference between SpaceX and the others is SpaceX has to do it competitively. They can't just do whatever and send the gov a bill for it.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

You say that as though we can't do both. In theory we can, but in reality we can't. That is not how, historically we allocate resources. And who's to say it has to be a government that does this? Actually I don't say that at all and intend fully to be on the train for one of these breakthroughs in the private sector. Companies like SpaceX are stepping up and picking up NASA's slack at a rapid pace. NASA "invested" 500M into SpaceX long ago. The USG also picked up most of the bill for the Falcon 9 if I remember correctly. I think SpaceX is doing great stuff but lets not get too excited about market demand for space exploration. The bulk of these programs look at earth, which I think are valuable and useful. I think Musk is going to find that he has trouble finding a robust market for manned exploration - the ROI (in every way) just isn't there.

Shivetya 12y ago

less than eight days of the US's current daily deficit spending covers NASA's budget for the year. Still I have to agree about going back to the moon, manufacturing wise wouldn't zero G be more important than being on the moon?