Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousllama | Hacker News Reader

> you don’t control the agenda

True, but not really in the way you describe. The US is the main (often, the only) customer of US space companies. If you control the money, you control the operational agenda. If you want a a new ISS? Just write up the contract.

The way in which you don’t control the agenda is only inasmuch as the strategic interests of the space company diverges from those of the US govt. But typically, with outsourced high-value work, vendors will evolve to MORE closely align to their big customers. (It screws the small customers often, but hey, the govt isn’t small).

The issue in my mind is much more value extraction & leverage, but as long as there’s multiple players (including an in-sourced option), I don’t see how it’s a problem.

View on HN

Gigadollar-scale space projects seem like a particularly poor fit for the private industry model, though. Conventionally the idea of free-market competition is that companies stand to gain if they succeed but have to eat the losses if they fail, and so competition eventually selects the best. But we're not talking about making widgets or sandwiches or launch vehicles. Things like the ISS, JWST, etc are all one-off projects, and they cannot be allowed to fail, so competition doesn't really help and the public is left holding the bag, just like we see in the endless cost overruns of politically unkillable DoD contracts.

"Public bad private good" isn't a coherent strategy. If NASA isn't good enough then the preference should be to improve NASA rather than to insert an unnecessary layer of profit-taking for SpaceX or Boeing to do the same thing anyway.

>Things like the ISS, JWST, etc are all one-off projects, and they cannot be allowed to fail

True

> "Public bad private good" isn't a coherent strategy

Also true

Still, an infinite series of one-off projects comprise a continuous market. If SpaceX royally screws up one project, then yes, the public is left holding the bag _on that project_. But you know who's getting a lot fewer projects? SpaceX.

A federal gov't monopoly isn't the answer, just as abolishing NASA isn't the answer. Both are good. But... SpaceX is proving they can launch cheaper, quicker, and just as safely - isn't that a thing worth encouraging?

But space x work in spite of the nasa system... could you dream of nasa celebrating SN8 plowing into the ground as a raging success... it’s a huge cultural shift, not so much driven by private sector competition (Honestly who competes with space x?), more to do with leadership style.

BlueOrigin is a perfect Nasa 2.0 comparison.

  > could you dream of nasa celebrating SN8 plowing into
  > the ground as a raging success.

Nobody is celebrating SN8 plowing into the ground. We are celebrating the fact that SN8 plowed into the correct square meter of ground. We also celebrate the fact that SN8 plowed into that particular meter of ground while oriented in the direction that we hoped, but barely dreamed, that it would be oriented.

That’s my point... I’m not saying space X is bad or irresponsible, they are just different (and I think in a good way). Agree SN8 was amazing! And something NASA would never have done. Nor would they livestream it, nor keep it available on their website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com