I'm sorry, but calling out someone visible and public substance abuse problem isn't low. As someone who has dealt with addiction and its fallout since I was a very small child, I can emphatically say the man needs help first and foremost.
But, as the wealthiest man on the planet he's more likely to just be given what he wants: more self-indulgence. When you surround yourself with yes-men and sycophants, actual help isn't likely.
Further, it's entirely right to call this out when his actions impact the rest of the world greatly and the man has obvious problems. To then try and turn it around on me as if I'd done something wrong by pointing out the Emperor has no clothes? Well, I could offer you some choice words, but I'll hold my tongue. However, in my estimation, you could do with some self-reflection and probably a bit less "taste of boot on your tongue".
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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, the point was about the differences in risk that facilitate that work. I agree that SpaceX has done wonderful things, but disagree about the overly simplified explanation.
For example, the commenter uses the word “waste”, probably because they lack a nuanced understanding. NASA operates under different risk constraints than SpaceX. For example, they have to manage political risk which is why centers are spread across politically important states; that prevents funding from drying up. When a project is managed across different geographic locations, it creates funding stability at the cost of inefficiency. SpaceX doesn’t have the same problem, so they can skirt many risk reduction requirements, as well as consolidate operations to maximize efficiency. From that standpoint, both sides of the public/private partnership have unique roles. But people tend to want to color such things in oversimplified terms because it hits well on social media.
There are other differences in risk, but I’m already tired of typing.
Like most things, when people have an overly simple or dichotomous take of a complex issue, it usually belies an incomplete understanding. The OP started off with a claim that showed they don’t understand how the CCP works, and just kept digging.
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.
