[jvm]

This is such an annoying argument.

The government gave $18B to the SLS and so far has vapor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

The government spent $211B on the shuttle program and got 133 launches. SpaceX will probably surpass that number this year at a fraction of the cost.

NASA's record on rockets since Apollo has been abysmal.

I don't think government is necessarily bad (the Russians did a much better job in recent decades!) but it leans into its failures and often has bad incentives. SpaceX fails fast, has great incentives, and has achieved an incredible amount on a (comparatively) shoestring budget.

[SahAssar]

SpaceX has had very impressive successes, some government programs have failed or run over budget. Some government programs were also impressive, both in the US and abroad.

I think we can all agree on those points. The point of the GP that I (and I think many others) react to is the "Only in America things like this can happen" part. I just don't get American exceptionalism I guess.

[conductr]

It's a "standing on shoulders of giants"-type figure of speech that American's use. Like, NASA is foundational to the accomplishments of SpaceX. Many countries on Earth do not have space programs at all. Our history with space as a nation is profound to our national identity whether we realize it or not.

[adampk]

Do you mean you don't understand why American's would think that America has done incredible things, or do you not believe America has done incredible things?

[throwthere]

Do you have some other country in mind that could support a nascent space company?

[seventytwo]

It costs way more to be the innovator than the fast- follower or optimizer.

The government (US taxpayers) were the ones that did the initial work to level the raw earth and pave the road. SpaceX may be doing amazing work improving the process, but comparing the two as you’re doing is not appropriate.

[kevin_thibedeau]

> Russians did a much better job in recent decades

The multiple problems with Nauka suggest they've lost their edge and never learned the lessons from docking issues with Progress in the past.

[BatFastard]

What is Russia good at these days other than illegal industries like hacking? Their extraordinary level of corruption is leading to their demise.

[quartesixte]

For what it’s worth, NASA doesn’t directly build much. Even the Apollo program was a huge web of private vendors (many who still exist today).

SpaceX is/was just another entry on the long list of private contractors commissioned to build things for NASA, DoD, et al. But different here is that SpaceX worked at very very different speed than Aerojet Rocketdyne, ULA, and all the other old-space fossils. Still, those old contractors are valuable for other things — good welders, technicians, and engineers take many years to train and these old legacy corps provide a steady income stream to maintain a certain level of manufacturing readiness.

[throw0101a]

> For what it’s worth, NASA doesn’t directly build much. Even the Apollo program was a huge web of private vendors (many who still exist today).

All created because the government wanted something done and was willing to cut a check:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

[emkoemko]

and yet it would be nice to still have the shuttle program... so far nothing is capable of EVA like the shuttle was so any repairs in space are still not possible, like they did in the past with the shuttle.

[nwallin]

The Space Shuttle costed $1.6 billion per launch. There's not a whole lot of things that would be cheaper to repair than to build a new one and launch it on a Falcon 9.

I agree that the Space Shuttle had a cool factor that nothing else does.

[nickik]

Repairs in space with humans never actually make sense. For the price of those missions you could have simply built a better sat in the first place.

[nickik]

> the Russians did a much better job in recent decades

The they didn't. What nonsense. They just keep flying the same old stuff as the quality gets worse and they don't do anything new.

[CTmystery]

You start by saying the argument is annoying but then you don't refute it in the slightest. Illustrating that the gov also invests heavily in gov agencies does not sever the productive link between gov investment and private industry