Last piece of evidence i'll show... SpaceX is vastly farther ahead, with a order of magnitude less budget. Thus, the reason crazy libs want to nationalize are exactly what will be destroyed by it's nationalization. You can't force people to innovate only give them economics incentive to do so.
I get that you're trying to engage in a sort of confidence struggle with me here, but just saying I've provided you evidence doesn't actually mean I have. You said that NASA is incapable of producing a reusable design. That's demonstrably false. The question of whether it can improve on that design is a different one - demonstrably yes is the answer, since the shuttle wasn't its first design. There's nothing unique about SpaceX. The people that worked there would simply be working for NASA instead under a nationalized space program. Hell maybe Musk would even be there!
> You can't force people to innovate only give them economics incentive to do so.
I posted about this recently elsewhere, but the long and short of it is: you can't force people to innovate, full stop. No amount of money inspires innovation. People are inherently driven to innovate by their human nature. Longer comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50389140
You'd need evidence for this claim, because it's evidently false given the nationalized space program of the soviet union and the nationalized HSR program of the PRC both had cost optimizations built in. Also, the Soviet Union's wasn't entirely centralized, different design departments competed.
> they never would have developed reusability,
Space shuttle.
> However, keeping a profit incentive ensure proper allocation of resources and goals with economic fucundity
What's the profit incentive of a nuclear weapons program? Access to space is an assurance of sovereignty. There's no room for inefficient resource allocation mechanisms like profit incentive.