Department of Gaia Escape

Department of Galactic Exploration

Department of Glorious Evolution

Well XASA obviously!

The government would save billions (tens of billions over the long haul), increase cadence, increase mission scope, and cut flight times, by cutting NASA’s build-&-burn rocket manned program in favor of SpaceX’s reusable manned craft and space refueling services.

SpaceX Starship could also reduce the cost and increase cadence of scientific missions, in two ways:

1) By reducing launch costs via greater system reuse.

2) And by increasing available launch volume, eliminate a lot of the design & manufacturing time, cost, complexity and risk created by today’s need to fit craft into toad’s more limited volumes.

Less need for craft miniaturization means (a) fewer risky/complex unfolding maneuvers in flight, (b) much easier radiation mitigation via more shielding, larger more resilient circuits, redundancy, etc. And (c) fewer craft, with more capabilities and higher longevity.

And as with the manned program, increase mission scope, while reducing transfer to target times, via in orbit refueling.

If only we could find someone with the incentives, plan, means and mandate, to cut government space spending while somehow also expanding its manned & scientific space exploration capabilities and scope.

The hardest part is to find such a uniquely capable person, who also has enough slack time to take this on. A rare trait combination, indeed. What are the chances of finding a genius reefer doom scrolling bloviating slacker? Who could put all that disposable time to better use?

In case that all seemed too pro-SpaceX:

1) I think NASA does best when it focuses on the frontier of space, where private industry does not yet have the incentives or capabilities to increase our knowledge and access to space and solar system resources.

2) I think NASA does best, when it takes the greatest advantage of private industry, where ever industry is able to provide lower costs or higher performance.

I think this is more in line with how public money should be spent.

I think it reduces a lot of wasted money spent on unnecessary redundant and obsolete efforts.

I think it results in the greatest bang for the buck, for the government, and the greatest incentive to improve for industry.

At this time, I think the frontier NASA should be focused on (where industry is not yet incentivized enough), is manned space habitats, and unmanned and manned exploration of the solar system's potential manned sites and resources.

Where I think it should have already passed on the torch, is manned and unmanned orbital, lunar and solar system launch capabilities. Industry is already performing and incentivized to provide these capabilities better than NASA. NASA can best contribute to improving those capabilities, with the least investment, by being a demanding customer.

SpaceX happens to have put itself in the center of those principles, due to a lot of fine work. But the principles make just as good sense, regardless of who the industrial innovators are.

If we actually funded public services to the required levels NASA and so forth would be fine to do things in house. We're just allergic to anything that makes actual sense when we have an oligarchy to support. That's it.

How do you view the cost effectiveness of the SLS?

Couldn't that money be put to better use expanding the boundaries of human and machine exploration, instead of being a less efficient redundant effort?

Curious what you think of the SLS.

NASA hasn’t run its own rockets for a long time, it is a customer, it chooses the launch vehicle based on the mission requirements.

The SLS is a massive rocket. Or I should say, rockets, since they are not reusable. They are still building, launching and discarding them.

X.gov