Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spacex seems to be really delivering lately. NASA doesn’t seem to get enough funding. Either way Im glad to see that someone take the initiative in progressing our species towards tr stars.
I’d like to see them both succeed. You’re right that NASA is underfunded and seems to be rudderless. The private firms are launching satellites and the odd roadster. But manned Spaceflight is a whole huge jump is cost and expertise and a mission to mars will most likely need a multinational effort. Not something likely to happen these days.
Well, I was hoping for more replies before I barged in with my opinions, but...
NASA isn't underfunded per se, they just spend their money in a damn weird fashion. There's no reason for NASA to be building the SLS, for instance - lifting mass to orbit is not on the cutting edge of technology any more.
And the SLS is obscenely expensive. ULA does it cheaper, SpaceX much cheaper. The SLS is only useful for launching something really heavy that has to go up in one piece, but orbital assembly is one of the technologies that have improved considerably since the 70s.
With Falcon Heavy putting 63 tons in LEO for $150M right now and SLS - in a future configuration, not Block 1 - carrying twice the payload at six(!) times the cost sometime in the 2020s - it's hard to see why NASA should insist on having its own.
NASA excels at research and basic, "pure" science - nobody does probes like JPL. FFS, minivan-sized rovers on Mars? But NASA is no longer very good at being owner/operator of launch vehicles.
But manned Spaceflight is a whole huge jump is cost and expertise...
I would not be surprised if we saw either Dragon 2 or CST-100 do manned mission within the next 12 months. Dream Chaser has longer odds. But these are interesting times for manned spaceflight,
Quote:
... and a mission to mars will most likely need a multinational effort.
Id like to see private industry be more successful overall for two reasons:
1. It reduces the burden on the government and tax payer, excluding military needs in space
2. The more companies that build successful business models means there will be a possibly endless flow of ideas, businesses, jobs, investing opportunities, scientific discoveries, and new educational opportunities to come out of it all, rather than relying on one entity with finite resources
NASA. Anything that NASA learns will go to the betterment of mankind. Anything that SpaceX learns will be used to maximize profits.
We need a strong NASA. Not everything should be privatized.
When we can put a pound of NASA science in orbit for 1/3rd the price by putting it on top of a SpaceX rocket instead of a NASA one, perhaps there's a case for both? That money could be better spent.
Space is pretty darn big. I suspect there's operating room for both public and private enterprise.
They have different goals, so they (should) produce different outcomes. Fine by me. We (the larger, humankind "we") need to be there. For all the practical reasons and for the sheer adventure and romance of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
