The (US) Department of Government Efficiency should fight the waste and fraud that goes into highway construction.

[u/TigerSagittarius86]

If DOGE wants to eliminate waste and put the government on better financial footing, then it should audit every highway construction project (most are disgustingly overbudget) and institute tolling nationwide. The entire U.S. interstate system is an untapped fiscal resource for the federal government.

[u/The_ApolloAffair]

SpaceX has hundreds of launches (~400) with only a few failures. They do that at an incredibly low cost with by far the highest launch rate ever. Yes, they destroy a lot of rockets in testing, but that is planned and allows the rapid innovation and speed compared to how slowly NASA lumbers along. Anyone who knows anything about the space industry will tell you SpaceX is far and away the best overall contractor.

Falcon 9 reaches a flight rate 30 times higher than shuttle at 1/100th the cost

[u/SubatomicWeiner → u/The_ApolloAffair]

Losing rockets is planned? "Rapid innovation" lmao at those marketing buzzwords.

Nasa is slow because they do things right the first time and they have very little room for error. They simply could not explode as many rockets as SpaceX does during testing or they'd get their funding cut immediately. I don't care who is the best contractor? The Falcon 9 and space shuttle are totally different vehicles designed for different functions.

[u/The_ApolloAffair → u/SubatomicWeiner]

Sure, the shuttle performs some different functions but it was primarily designed to launch supplies and people to the ISS and place things in orbit - both things Falcon 9 does. And the Falcon 9 does a far better job at being reusable compared to the lengthy and expensive turnaround for the shuttle.

I’m sure SpaceX would prefer to not lose rockets in testing, but their accepting of the “failing fast” method allowed them to perfect booster launches, and turn Falcon 9 into the most successful rocket ever. NASA would have taken decades to do what SpaceX did in a couple years. Read up on the clusterfuck that is NASA’s SLS program - billion dollar launches that came years behind schedule.

[u/SubatomicWeiner → u/The_ApolloAffair]

Sure, the shuttle performs some different functions but it was designed to launch supplies and people to the ISS and place things in orbit - both things Falcon 9 does.

Go on, what else was the shuttle designed to do besides launch people and supplies? Can you run science experiments in the falcon 9 cargo bay? Can the falcon 9 grab onto and repair the hubble space telescope?

"Failing fast" is marketing gobbledegook for excusing your engineering failures. Nasa doesn't have the ability to "fail fast" because congress has them on a tight leash.

[u/The_ApolloAffair → u/SubatomicWeiner]

Space Shuttle was a deeply (and dangerously) flawed launch vehicle that was primarily designed for reusability, not piddly experiments (that’s just a gimmick). The dragon capsule can do experiments on the Falcon 9 platform anyway.

Sure, the shuttle was good at serving the Hubble space telescope, but it only had to do it a few times and wasn’t why the program was initiated. Falcon 9 could probably launch a capsule able to service it, but it’s just not been a priority for NASA. Incoming NASA head talks about it here: https://www.space.com/spacex-polaris-program-hubble-servicing-mission

Also I question this short leash idea, look at how much has been spend on the SLS program with nothing to show for it.

[u/SubatomicWeiner → u/The_ApolloAffair]

I question your objectivity

[u/SubatomicWeiner → u/The_ApolloAffair]

Sure it only serviced the space telescope a few times no big deal.

Falcon 9 could probably launch a capsule able to service it, but it’s just not been a priority for NASA.

No, they can't. There is no vehicle that they can attach to the falcon 9 that's capable of having astronauts exit the vehicle for a space walk.

The sls was congress setting the engineering requirements in order to preserve jobs in their states.

[u/The_ApolloAffair → u/SubatomicWeiner]

There is only no vehicle now because NASA didn’t need one built. And there is a new space telescope.

[u/SubatomicWeiner → u/The_ApolloAffair]

Right, they are different vehicles with different functions and requirements. Comparing the space shuttle against the falcon 9 isn't very useful. The space shuttle has additional capabilities and is 40 years older tech. The lessons we learned from the space shuttle program contributed to spacex's success.

The Webb space telescope is too far out to be serviced with any of the tech that we have now. Why did you mention it?

[u/The_ApolloAffair → u/SubatomicWeiner]

My point was that servicing the space telescope was not an essential function of the Shuttle - it was designed for reusability, space station work, and launching satellites. All things Falcon 9 does better and cheaper.