this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
1281 points (91.6% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
983 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ghostblackout@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Look at spacex they are more efficient then nasa

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but NASA hasn't even had launch capabilities since what, 2006?

[–] grayman@lemmy.world 1 points 11 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 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

There's no way to test that. You can't really see what didn't happen.

[–] AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world 3 points 11 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 2 points 11 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.

[–] MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What do you base that on?

Spacex has had zero successful missions to Mars. NASA has landed 5 rovers.

[–] grayman@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well one metric would be cost per kg to get something into space. I also recall a lot of people dying when NASA first started going into space, of which SpaceX has not had any rockets explode with people in them, but I'm not impaired enough to make that false equivalence like you did with Mars.

[–] MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Of course my comment is false equivalence, because the initial assertion is false equivalence.

You can't compare NASA and Spacex because they have different goals. NASA even contract many of their payloads to Spacex, which they wouldn't do if they were in the same business.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

there's an exception to the rule