Private industry tends to be far more efficient at making “stuff that works” than a non-profit governmental organization.
Even for all the genuinely good and smart people that worked for NASA over the decades, the bureaucratic machinery that makes it run eventually becomes so convoluted, corrupt and bloated for its own good.
I should know; I worked there for over a quarter of a century. Nothing beats the private industry for “making shit that works.”
[−]hn_throwaway_99 · 2026-11-15 Sun 00:59 UTC ·
link
I really think it depends. For long running projects with high ongoing costs like a launch vehicle, I agree. The issue with government projects of this type is that they eventually turn into jobs projects, and that can compromise the main goals of the projects.
But NASA has had some phenomenal successes in their science expeditions - the Webb Space Telescope (and its Hubble precursor, despite its need for "glasses"), the Mars rovers, Voyagers, etc. Those projects would have largely been impossible in the private sector because there is no monetary return.
> Those projects would have largely been impossible in the private sector because there is no monetary return.
Sell the data you get back from the probe.
Many of the Age of Exploration endeavors were funded by non-government institutions for various reasons, such as getting an exclusive on the story and selling newspapers.
> Private industry tends to be far more efficient at making “stuff that works” than a non-profit governmental organization.
If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
NASA projects are well-known to be expensive because they, similar to military procurement in the US, are handled like inofficial job creation projects involving as many states as possible.
[−]TacticalCoder · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:18 UTC ·
link
> If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
Because building/modifying rails crossing many states and cities means having to deal with a unending shitload of bureaucrats at single every level of power.
While sending something up straight in the air and then into space means all those little bureaucrats from all those cities/communities/states do not get a say in the matter.
> If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
Planes are faster, cheaper, safer, require much less infrastructure, go anywhere to anywhere, scale elastically with demand, and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains.
> and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains
The optimal high speed train is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than the equivalent flight on a passenger mile basis. Might look a little different for crossing oceans or thin routes where it's really not worth building a thousand miles of rail to replace a flight a day, but lack of demand between nearby cities or is not why the US doesn't have any high speed rail network...
[−]s1artibartfast · 2026-11-15 Sun 05:39 UTC ·
link
Efficient in what terms? Dollars per mile? In the usa?
The US rail network was created by private industry, including both freight and passenger. This included many of the fastest passenger trainsets at the time, like the Zephyr. In 1971 the US nationalized passenger rail into Amtrak, and Amtrak stopped using off-the-shelf trainsets and managed the development of their own, similar to NASA developing the Space Launch System (the space shuttle) for their use. At that point, the US started falling behind on rail speed records.
In short, the US had stuff that works, including the fastest trains, when run by private industry, but after nationalizing the industry into a non-profit governmental organization, they stopped producing stuff that works.
In 1970 other countries already had state-owned 130+ mph train networks (Germany, for example). Again, the idea that those things can only be done right through private companies is ideology, not fact-based.
Not intending to derail (hah) the thread, but with trains there just are more examples to look for vs. rockets, while still being broadly comparable. In about 6-7 years we can look to China for a comparable, public project with Long March 9 and 9b.
US rail network was created by the US government giving gigantic land grants and loans to railroads and used their army and influence to make sure nobody could stop them.
> they stopped producing stuff that works.
No they reluctantly nationalized a broken industry well past its profitable time and then refused to invest anything into it.
Any development needs investment. If you nationalize and don't invest, of course you will not produce anything new.
While when you nationalize and you do, you might produce something new, just like in private industry.
The technology behind high speed trains literally came from British Rail technology development center and was then used by Japan. Both done by government.
I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world.
+1 "I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world."
This was a topic I wrote papers about in middle school and HS.
This is an overly simplistic take. In many cases, the private industry moves and innovates faster. In many others, it injects its own forms of waste (regulatory capture, profiteering over mission, etc)
The government was the customer, so it was up to them to decide what to do in house and what to hire out. They chose to manage the project in house, creating specific design requirements and contracting out work to meet those requirements, not to create the designs.
Private industry did do most of the work, but they had no leeway to influence the design. Even when they tried to make choices, e.g. Morton Thiokol's Engineers' no-go decision on the Challenger launch due to low temperatures, NASA administrators effectively overrode that decision, by directly calling unqualified employees at Morton Thiokol, until they found one they could pressure into giving a go.
[−]s1artibartfast · 2026-11-15 Sun 05:33 UTC ·
link
Who do you think designed and built all those NASA ships that made the space milestones? Mostly Boeing, Rockwell, and Lockheed
Corruption eventually starts in every organization, when the workplace develops an informal but strict hierarchy where the only way to get ahead is impress someone who matters.
Most federal agencies have been running for 50+ years so they're further along than a company that started 10 years ago. You can't just start a second NASA to compete with the first one. Private companies also become corrupt but they can fail and get replaced.
I think the biggest factor behind it is misaligned benefits. In a state agency you're paid out of a fixed budget so there is no incentive to work harder or push for changes. But it's the same in a corporation where shareholders and top executives capture profits.
The only permanent way out is make workers collectively responsible for outcomes. Set up an independent employee owned agency that takes fixed price contracts from the government. That way it's guaranteed to never go over budget, and they will often deliver ahead of time so they can take on a new contract sooner.
Even for all the genuinely good and smart people that worked for NASA over the decades, the bureaucratic machinery that makes it run eventually becomes so convoluted, corrupt and bloated for its own good.
I should know; I worked there for over a quarter of a century. Nothing beats the private industry for “making shit that works.”
But NASA has had some phenomenal successes in their science expeditions - the Webb Space Telescope (and its Hubble precursor, despite its need for "glasses"), the Mars rovers, Voyagers, etc. Those projects would have largely been impossible in the private sector because there is no monetary return.
Sell the data you get back from the probe.
Many of the Age of Exploration endeavors were funded by non-government institutions for various reasons, such as getting an exclusive on the story and selling newspapers.
If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
NASA projects are well-known to be expensive because they, similar to military procurement in the US, are handled like inofficial job creation projects involving as many states as possible.
Because building/modifying rails crossing many states and cities means having to deal with a unending shitload of bureaucrats at single every level of power.
While sending something up straight in the air and then into space means all those little bureaucrats from all those cities/communities/states do not get a say in the matter.
In most of the world the landowners have far less rights.
The decade(s) long environmental reviews of every piece of land used for the project is also a huge force agains any such projects.
If the legalities were handled, I expect US train builders would excel at building high speed trains. In reality, we'll never know.
Planes are faster, cheaper, safer, require much less infrastructure, go anywhere to anywhere, scale elastically with demand, and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains.
The optimal high speed train is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than the equivalent flight on a passenger mile basis. Might look a little different for crossing oceans or thin routes where it's really not worth building a thousand miles of rail to replace a flight a day, but lack of demand between nearby cities or is not why the US doesn't have any high speed rail network...
This claim is not even in the right ballpark.
Planes are faster only when ignoring the time at/to/from the airport.
In short, the US had stuff that works, including the fastest trains, when run by private industry, but after nationalizing the industry into a non-profit governmental organization, they stopped producing stuff that works.
Not intending to derail (hah) the thread, but with trains there just are more examples to look for vs. rockets, while still being broadly comparable. In about 6-7 years we can look to China for a comparable, public project with Long March 9 and 9b.
> they stopped producing stuff that works.
No they reluctantly nationalized a broken industry well past its profitable time and then refused to invest anything into it.
Any development needs investment. If you nationalize and don't invest, of course you will not produce anything new.
While when you nationalize and you do, you might produce something new, just like in private industry.
The technology behind high speed trains literally came from British Rail technology development center and was then used by Japan. Both done by government.
I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world.
This was a topic I wrote papers about in middle school and HS.
Private industry did do most of the work, but they had no leeway to influence the design. Even when they tried to make choices, e.g. Morton Thiokol's Engineers' no-go decision on the Challenger launch due to low temperatures, NASA administrators effectively overrode that decision, by directly calling unqualified employees at Morton Thiokol, until they found one they could pressure into giving a go.
Most federal agencies have been running for 50+ years so they're further along than a company that started 10 years ago. You can't just start a second NASA to compete with the first one. Private companies also become corrupt but they can fail and get replaced.
I think the biggest factor behind it is misaligned benefits. In a state agency you're paid out of a fixed budget so there is no incentive to work harder or push for changes. But it's the same in a corporation where shareholders and top executives capture profits.
The only permanent way out is make workers collectively responsible for outcomes. Set up an independent employee owned agency that takes fixed price contracts from the government. That way it's guaranteed to never go over budget, and they will often deliver ahead of time so they can take on a new contract sooner.