News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by giobox on Thursday July 13, 2017 @10:28AM (#14761510)
Given the huge investments NASA has made in SpaceX to date, I'm not entirely convinced that the split between public and private money in this space is as black and white as you suggest.

SpaceX arguably wouldn't be here today without NASA's cash.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-w...

Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by amelius on Thursday July 13, 2017 @10:34AM (#14761551)
Sounds a bit like the story of how Microsoft saved Apple, back in 1997.

https://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/

Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by Tepix on Thursday July 13, 2017 @10:33AM (#14761548)
NASA paid $1.6b and got 12 flights to the ISS for it. Rather cheap in my book. I'm not aware of any other "huge investments" ... there were some smaller ones, however.

Looks like both NASA and SpaceX got a good deal.

Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by theseatoms on Thursday July 13, 2017 @11:00AM (#14761817)
Oh wow. That's disappointing.
Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by ceejayoz on Thursday July 13, 2017 @11:17AM (#14761987)
Why is that disappointing?

NASA today exists, in part, to do exactly that, and has benefitted tremendously from their SpaceX partnership.

Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by theseatoms on Thursday July 13, 2017 @09:32PM (#14766769)
Just thought SpaceX had other revenue sources, I guess.
Re:NASA admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on... by ceejayoz on Friday July 14, 2017 @08:42AM (#14769304)
They do?

http://www.spacex.com/missions

About half the missions on there are non-US government flights.