Yet, compare the results of having SpaceX build out launch services currently serving the bulk of world launch traffic, to the Artemis program. The commercial service developed practical reusability that NASA didn’t, refined the service to a fraction of traditional cost, and scaled up far beyond what NASA did. Sure NASA funded and supervised but letting SpaceX do it their way was a great investment and NASA never have delivered the same results. Compare that to the Artemis program, currently expecting to cost $1B/launch with limited usefulness and only four planned launches

I think space is one example where private industries actually can and do deliver cheaper, even if you just blame it on risk avoidance and Congressional interference at NASA.

More importantly, we do have a high value commercial market in satellites. We do have a global market in cooperation with other country’s space development, which are readily served by commercial launch services with only oversight by NASA.

I have no idea what the next phase of commercial development in space will be, but satellites are a resounding success

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

SpaceX is - among other reasons - faster because they are willing to take more risks. When a crew of astronauts dies on a Dragon spacecraft like they did on the Columbia or Challenger, people might reconsider the costly and slow public approach.

Notwithstanding, they did do some impressive design, however some prices are paid after getting what you invested in. In this case because damage control is necessary with an insecure rich snob kid that owns the place & has public temper tantrums on red wine and sedatives.

Edit: oh, and I forgot to say: basically that stupid Ambien kid alone is ruining astronomy results and polluting near earth orbit with the small dick compensation project starlink.