[doubtfuluser]

Not sure in how many countries it would be ok to slash NASA personnel while having your own space company.

[dmix]

Wouldn't an expansion of NASA benefit SpaceX, not the inverse? They don't exactly compete.

[pyrale]

Regardless of the decision, a businessman being in control of the government agency that funds his company is as bad as it gets in terms of corruption.

Next time there's a tender, how will the NASA employee know whether their decision wrt SpaceX is going to get them fired or not?

[insane_dreamer]

The inverse benefits SpaceX, because NASA has less capability to do things itself therefore is more dependent on contracting work out to SpaceX.

[nradov]

They don't compete, but a cynic might say that cutting NASA personnel expenses frees up money to buy more launch services from vendors like SpaceX.

[JohnBooty]

They compete for talent, definitely.

Also for public mindshare. Which translates into funding. Congress likes to fund popular stuff because it helps them get re-elected. They do not like to fund unpopular stuff.

[ceejayoz]

They absolutely compete. SLS and Starship, for example.

[bpodgursky]

I get the sentiment, but NASA doesn't really compete with SpaceX on anything. They pay SpaceX for launches.

NASA has essentially 0 in-house manufacturing nowdays. Separate question whether that's a good thing, but that's not something the current NASA headcount is doing.

If anything, slowing down NASA slows down launch cadence which hurts SpaceX.

[eCa]

> They pay SpaceX for launches.

Sounds like it is easier to cut out the middleman, eventually? (Only half-joking)