This article concludes with a quote stating NASA needs to remove unnecessary ("gold plated") requirements and that they can't afford Artemis without commercial support. I don't know if I agree with either totally but both are a symptom of decades long cutting to NASA. Both in terms of overall money and in terms of missions.
Engineering organizations (I'm speaking towards mechanical engineering oriented ones) thrive when then are consistently trying to do bigger and better things. When they are constantly taking on new technical problems, new missions, and being asked to do more and funded to do more. In this situation they draw many of the best people because they are doing many of the most challenging things, they keep these people around as they keep throwing new problems at them, and ultimately create an organization of experienced mentors and enthusiastic mentees.
As soon as you start to cut doing new and cool things you loose the young enthusiastic people coming in. As soon as you start cutting capability you loose experienced mentors. As you loose both of those populations your ability to take on challenges declines, your understanding of why you do things declines, and your ability to advance your processes declines. Overall you move from an organization that is advancing to one that is struggling just to do things the way it did before.
> 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.
You 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
> 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.
As 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.
> They should be commended, not seen as a threat to the US
They can be both, commended for the technical prowess and achievements while also being a threat if they gain leverage over the US government. That's the fine balance to walk on, SpaceX could only exist because of American taxpayers footing the bill for their launches when they still had to prove they could do it and no other entity more risk-averse would pay for their launches, the government got a product out of it (cheaper launches) but it doesn't mean there's any loyalty involved.
The moment corporations start to have leverage over strategic assets of a nation it starts to shape into a bad time for everyone.
This comment exemplifies that this whole narrative stems from political disagreements with Musk rather than anything to do with SpaceX's technological and commercial merits.
As an aside, Musk was once upon a time aligned with the Left/Progressives/Democrats. He even fell out with Trump before during his first term, not that anyone probably remembers. Understand that Musk was on your side and got pushed away, like a lot of ex-Democrats turned Republicans.
Musk has always been right-wing. He didn't start Tesla because he was an environmentalist, he started it because he believed in the nonsensical Peak Oil theory.
He certainly has become more right wing over time.
Take 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.
SpaceX 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.
Yes, 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.
One 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.
The 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.
They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens.
Time to stop saying "It's bad that the commercial sector makes government run things look bad" and start asking "Why are government run organizations so bad at this?"
Government entities can not operate like SpaceX does. Which is why they should stay on the regulation side and be a customer. Much better for all involved.
They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately.
Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.
They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations.
Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money.
> I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war.
I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.
> They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens.
Spacex received $20bn from federal government. There's no competition. Spacex is hired exactly because of the shortcomings of what the government can and cannot. Maybe it's you who doesn't have the whole picture.
Not to throw cold water on Artemis, because I'm enthralled by the mission, but... With all the things awry in our countries and the world at large, is going to the moon the best use of government money? There's an opioid epidemic, a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, food is getting more and more expensive, and climate change is exacerbating the pre-existing environmental racism not to mention resulting in an influx of climate refugees.
Is putting people on the moon for scientific exploration and human pride really a priority, budget-wise? That's not a rhetorical question, it's an invitation for discussion.
My opinion is yes, because in reality the alternative is none of the things you mentioned will get a single dollar more than they would if we don’t do it. Call me cynical but if the alternative is the same, I would rather have human knowledge increase through space and scientific exploration.
10 seconds of Googling says Artemis is 10 billion a year. Throw that money at any other item - is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis?
If the US Federal government spent 77 billion instead of 67 billion on housing assistance how much better off would people be?
This is all stuff that's hard to put a dollar figure on, which is to say they're political choices.
That's like saying Bald Eagles produce nothing of value so we might as well hunt them to extinction. I mean clearly (I think it's clear anyhow) they produce some value it's just not an easily quantifiable one.
Arguably there's a value there even if you never see a Bald Eagle flying.
The same way I might get something from a program like Artemis that's produced and may never (for me at least) produce anything of value. Equally I get something from a Housing program even if I know for certainty I will never need to make use of it.
The value at question here is in large part (though obviously not entirely ) not quantifiable.
Artemis has not produced anything of value, literally:
* The SLS is a rehash of Space Shuttle components with no new technology. Arguably, it's a regression since we will be using reusable SSMEs as disposables.
* Orion serves no valuable purpose in the wake of Crew Dragon and, indeed, even Starliner.
* The entire program has achieved nothing outside of one or two test launches depending on how you count.
Any other use of this money would produce more value, because any value is bigger than zero.
Yes. Nearly all of those problems are at the root cultural and solved by installing rulers that care about Americans and not the .01%. They’re standard corrupt and greedy elites problems. Throwing money at those problems doesn’t really help.
Pushing tech forward is one of the best things we can do since it often ends up bringing up the bottom end of society. There’s also significant cultural value in accomplishing incredible feats. America is too diverse right now and lacks a coherent culture, so we’re unable to mount any kind of defense against the elites. We need some kind of shared national identity and going to the moon regularly can definitely help with that.
This is the same argument that has always been levied at the space program, and the answer is that it has always been worth it. The things we end up learning impact all of society, and the long term benefits are huge.
Science spending attributed to .54% of the 2024 Federal budget. While the government isn't spending $0 on NASA, it's budget is barely a drop in the bucket.
At a time when predators are hunting down our brethren, when entire crops of fruit have been lost to changing climate and our youth are starving, is it really time to send our bravest and most adventurous people out into the plains of Africa? We should solve the problems we have up here in the trees first!
Before relying on the US commercial space industry, we were relying on Europe and Russia. Now we’ve leap frogged the whole industry by a decade or more.
Is that mentioned in the article? No mention of Russia.
This article concludes with a quote stating NASA needs to remove unnecessary ("gold plated") requirements and that they can't afford Artemis without commercial support. I don't know if I agree with either totally but both are a symptom of decades long cutting to NASA. Both in terms of overall money and in terms of missions.
Engineering organizations (I'm speaking towards mechanical engineering oriented ones) thrive when then are consistently trying to do bigger and better things. When they are constantly taking on new technical problems, new missions, and being asked to do more and funded to do more. In this situation they draw many of the best people because they are doing many of the most challenging things, they keep these people around as they keep throwing new problems at them, and ultimately create an organization of experienced mentors and enthusiastic mentees.
As soon as you start to cut doing new and cool things you loose the young enthusiastic people coming in. As soon as you start cutting capability you loose experienced mentors. As you loose both of those populations your ability to take on challenges declines, your understanding of why you do things declines, and your ability to advance your processes declines. Overall you move from an organization that is advancing to one that is struggling just to do things the way it did before.
> 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.
You 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
> 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.
Nurturing a competitive private industry will yield far greater dividends
Examples please.
As 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.
And this is somehow applicable to spacex and the us gov in 2024.
> They should be commended, not seen as a threat to the US
They can be both, commended for the technical prowess and achievements while also being a threat if they gain leverage over the US government. That's the fine balance to walk on, SpaceX could only exist because of American taxpayers footing the bill for their launches when they still had to prove they could do it and no other entity more risk-averse would pay for their launches, the government got a product out of it (cheaper launches) but it doesn't mean there's any loyalty involved.
The moment corporations start to have leverage over strategic assets of a nation it starts to shape into a bad time for everyone.
When NASA performs experiments and learns something, that knowledge belongs to the American people.
When SpaceX learns something, that knowledge belongs to SpaceX, and specifically a trashboat named Elon Musk.
I'd rather spend 10x more and have the American people benefit. And your assertion of SpaceX's supremacy makes you look like a corporate simp.
This comment exemplifies that this whole narrative stems from political disagreements with Musk rather than anything to do with SpaceX's technological and commercial merits.
As an aside, Musk was once upon a time aligned with the Left/Progressives/Democrats. He even fell out with Trump before during his first term, not that anyone probably remembers. Understand that Musk was on your side and got pushed away, like a lot of ex-Democrats turned Republicans.
Musk has always been right-wing. He didn't start Tesla because he was an environmentalist, he started it because he believed in the nonsensical Peak Oil theory.
He certainly has become more right wing over time.
> 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.
This 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?
No, they meant what they said, a huge amount of the funding for these ventures comes from the taxpayer.
And they got what they payed for. A great result for all involved.
Take 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.
SpaceX 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.
Yes, 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.
And SpaceX has done exactly what they were asked to do with that money. Great value for the taxpayer.
Indeed. Because they whole deal of them getting that money was to do the job for NASA the way NASA cannot due to public scrutiny.
That’s a fictional accusation
Sure: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/.
oligarchs who knew that with their monopolies they could always extract more cash from their market-capture on demand
[dead]
One 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.
The 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.
They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens.
Time to stop saying "It's bad that the commercial sector makes government run things look bad" and start asking "Why are government run organizations so bad at this?"
Government entities can not operate like SpaceX does. Which is why they should stay on the regulation side and be a customer. Much better for all involved.
Why can they not operate like SpaceX does?
They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket. Because they need to answer to the government on what tax dollars are spent on. SpaceX has receive a ton of bad press due to their experimental approach to development over the years. If they were a government entity they would get shut down immediately.
Neither can they pay engineers what they deserve. And probably a ton more reasons. A private company has a ton of flexibility. A government entity very little.
They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons. Which sucks, as NASA is probably the number one engineering org to work for in the eyes of many younger engineers.
> They can it's just we don't give them the money and the ability to do so, for a whole host of reasons.
Which means they can't. Speaking in theoretical terms is entirely pointless.
Do you not dream of things that could be? Wouldn't it be cool to see NASA hit new highs? I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
Absolutely not. NASA can dream big things, then give it to SpaceX to execute. They have proved to be capable of delivering on time and on budget. Private industry can properly motivate their engineers, drive costs down and are motivated to build upon technology for new innovations.
Technology is much better utilized in private hands and the entire history of silicon valley is a testament to this. It all started out from government research money.
> I assume space is more than just a commercial market segment to you?
Capitalism has been the greatest force for technological development in history. Technological development by government bodies is a dead end, just like the NASA apollo program. If government backed technological development worked, the soviet union would have won the cold war.
I and anyone from a former communist country is absolutely appalled by the way of thinking of so many in this thread and in general by the left in the US.
>They can not do experiments that might result in the destruction of a launch tower for instance. Or even the failure of a rocket.
They can, or at least they could once upon a time.[1]
NASA's problems are all self-inflicted either by themselves or the Congress of the day.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
Stakeholder consultation and marketing is more highly valued in government and "failing quickly" on a multimillion dollar project is career-limiting. The same can be true in the private sector, but Musk has successfully created a different risk culture, even at existing scale.
> They did this to themselves though, they essentially had almost lifetime head start on SpaceX and a full lifetime until today to compete and SpaceX is beating them to the point it's embarrassing despite just being out of it's teens.
Spacex received $20bn from federal government. There's no competition. Spacex is hired exactly because of the shortcomings of what the government can and cannot. Maybe it's you who doesn't have the whole picture.
Not to throw cold water on Artemis, because I'm enthralled by the mission, but... With all the things awry in our countries and the world at large, is going to the moon the best use of government money? There's an opioid epidemic, a housing crisis, a mental health crisis, food is getting more and more expensive, and climate change is exacerbating the pre-existing environmental racism not to mention resulting in an influx of climate refugees.
Is putting people on the moon for scientific exploration and human pride really a priority, budget-wise? That's not a rhetorical question, it's an invitation for discussion.
My opinion is yes, because in reality the alternative is none of the things you mentioned will get a single dollar more than they would if we don’t do it. Call me cynical but if the alternative is the same, I would rather have human knowledge increase through space and scientific exploration.
10 seconds of Googling says Artemis is 10 billion a year. Throw that money at any other item - is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis?
If the US Federal government spent 77 billion instead of 67 billion on housing assistance how much better off would people be?
This is all stuff that's hard to put a dollar figure on, which is to say they're political choices.
>is it improved to the degree that's it's worth giving up Artemis?
Considering Artemis has produced quite literally nothing of value?
Yes.
That's like saying Bald Eagles produce nothing of value so we might as well hunt them to extinction. I mean clearly (I think it's clear anyhow) they produce some value it's just not an easily quantifiable one.
Arguably there's a value there even if you never see a Bald Eagle flying.
The same way I might get something from a program like Artemis that's produced and may never (for me at least) produce anything of value. Equally I get something from a Housing program even if I know for certainty I will never need to make use of it.
The value at question here is in large part (though obviously not entirely ) not quantifiable.
Artemis has not produced anything of value, literally:
* The SLS is a rehash of Space Shuttle components with no new technology. Arguably, it's a regression since we will be using reusable SSMEs as disposables.
* Orion serves no valuable purpose in the wake of Crew Dragon and, indeed, even Starliner.
* The entire program has achieved nothing outside of one or two test launches depending on how you count.
Any other use of this money would produce more value, because any value is bigger than zero.
Yes. Nearly all of those problems are at the root cultural and solved by installing rulers that care about Americans and not the .01%. They’re standard corrupt and greedy elites problems. Throwing money at those problems doesn’t really help.
Pushing tech forward is one of the best things we can do since it often ends up bringing up the bottom end of society. There’s also significant cultural value in accomplishing incredible feats. America is too diverse right now and lacks a coherent culture, so we’re unable to mount any kind of defense against the elites. We need some kind of shared national identity and going to the moon regularly can definitely help with that.
This is the same argument that has always been levied at the space program, and the answer is that it has always been worth it. The things we end up learning impact all of society, and the long term benefits are huge.
Science spending attributed to .54% of the 2024 Federal budget. While the government isn't spending $0 on NASA, it's budget is barely a drop in the bucket.
At a time when predators are hunting down our brethren, when entire crops of fruit have been lost to changing climate and our youth are starving, is it really time to send our bravest and most adventurous people out into the plains of Africa? We should solve the problems we have up here in the trees first!
I'm a little confused and need some help.
My understanding is that NASA relied on external contractors for space launches forever (e.g., Douglas Aircraft, Morton thiokol).
Is it a question of who does the design (currently outsourced to Lockheedless and SpaceX?),. construction, maintenance, etc.?
Or is a question of who owns the IP?
Before relying on the US commercial space industry, we were relying on Europe and Russia. Now we’ve leap frogged the whole industry by a decade or more.
Is that mentioned in the article? No mention of Russia.
The author of this article has done lots about Russia. So much so that the former head of the Russian space agency has tagged him a "war criminal".