> Aren't NASA-level standards historically slow and inefficient? I've seen nothing that tells me that this reputation is anything more than 1) the bureaucracy

> Aren't NASA-level standards historically slow and inefficient? I've seen nothing that tells me that this reputation is anything more than 1) the bureaucracy inherent to any large organization, 2) requirements of very complex, cutting edge engineering and science, 3) requirements of engineering systems that must work perfectly the first time (unlike Facebook, NASA can't 'move fast and break things'), and perhaps most of all 4) the public's habit of attributing characteristics to 'the old established thing' (NASA) and to the 'new shiny thing' (SpaceX, etc.) Name every place in the solar system where NASA missions currently are located. Outside the solar system? Where they have gone historically? Their achievements are staggering; history-making events are routine; they are by far the greatest explorers in the history of humanity. Certainly they aren't perfect and every organization can improve, but they do pretty well. > I was of the impression that private parties streamlining that process and coming up with a cheaper program is what led to NASA (or congress by proxy, whatever) abandoning manned spaceflight to the private sector. Manned spaceflight hasn't been delegated to the private sector, only flying to Earth orbit (or only low-Earth orbit?). NASA has been doing it for 50 years; the technology is mature enough that private companies can do it and NASA can invest its resources in bigger challenges, including a manned mission to Mars (in the long term).