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.
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.
SpaceX arguably wouldn't be here today without NASA's cash.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/without-nasa-there-w...