• PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      SpaceX does one thing though… Well, three things. Rocket development, launch services and starlink.

      NASA does a whole lot more, they have 10 times as many employees and far more suppliers than SpaceX does. SpaceX is basically a service provider for NASA.

      This is kind of like saying that Lockheed Martin is more efficient than the department of defense.

      • grayman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        SpaceX gets shit into space cheaper than NASA. Let’s just compare the services that both provide and not move goal posts.

          • grayman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Ok… So what does NASA do that overlaps with SpaceX? Apparently nothing. NASA is 100% dependent on private rockets. Are we supposed to call that a win or a loss?

    • Srh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      SpaceX would never exist if there was no NASA. Before government programs that can pioneer and not have to be “profitable” no company can exist.

    • AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Definitely more efficient than NASA today. But private companies wouldn’t have been able to pull off the moon landing, which was NASA’s great accomplishment.

      There’s a place for government programs and enormous piles of money.

    • Flipper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Anything is more efficient without cost+ contracts, where the cost is covered + a fixed percentage profit on top.

      Those kinds of deals make the cost explode somehow. Who would have thought.