As said elsewhere, that simplistic take falls apart when you realize there would not be a SpaceX if there wasn’t a NASA.
[−]servo_sausage · 2026-11-15 Sun 04:38 UTC ·
link
I'm not super convinced that the commercial aerospace industry really needed NASA once super high value satellite services came about in the 90s.
The ideal of a good government industry program, is to create a domestic industry, and A: maintain it at a minimum level for whatever goal is in focus (defence, technology familiarity, investment certainty). And B to help it grow to be independent of the government, so the profits and funding can go elsewhere.
To me, most of what NASA did after Skylab are a bit questionable. With most of the high profile stuff being of limited value compare to the RF and solid state electronics projects.
I mean, Musk himself stated SpaceX needed NASA. New entrants especially benefit from a self insured customer because private industry won’t accept that level of risk.
I agree with a lot of your point, but would probably caveat a lot of the JPL work.
You are shoehorning in an entirely different argument. The question is not about whether NASA invested, or loaned, or contracted or whatever other funding mechanism. It is whether their existence is predicated on the existence of the other, and whether they are both dealing with the same problems.
When people fail to acknowledge that, it becomes a vehicle for a digression and creates tired discussions that follow the same well-worn paths.
I mean, considering nothing like it had been done before (or since) kinda proves the inefficient approach worked. I'm not defending gov inefficiency but often it still leads to good results somehow (and also major disasters, sigh)
What does worked mean in this context? A barely reusable craft that risked human lives to launch mundane satellites and was so unreliable DOD stopped using and was so expensive NASA couldn’t afford to keep it running?
With the technology available and the requirements of the missions it was intended to fulfill, that is what was built. You are being stubborn and annoying.
The ideal of a good government industry program, is to create a domestic industry, and A: maintain it at a minimum level for whatever goal is in focus (defence, technology familiarity, investment certainty). And B to help it grow to be independent of the government, so the profits and funding can go elsewhere.
To me, most of what NASA did after Skylab are a bit questionable. With most of the high profile stuff being of limited value compare to the RF and solid state electronics projects.
I agree with a lot of your point, but would probably caveat a lot of the JPL work.
When people fail to acknowledge that, it becomes a vehicle for a digression and creates tired discussions that follow the same well-worn paths.
The other system is way better at doing the thing that it was designed for.
And since both of the design goals are important, having both systems is a good thing.