"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.
"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.
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?
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.