There is a lot to criticize about SpaceX but overall for NASA they’ve been pretty good partners, especially composted to ask the contracts NASA has with traditional aerospace companies.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I see several contracts
The commercial crew development: NASA awarded two contract to SpaceX and Boeing for sending astronauts to the ISS (with Boeing receiving almost twice the amount for the same missions).
Result: the capsule Crew Dragon has been sending astronauts regularly and safely to the ISS. The only astronauts that used the Starliner capsule from Boeing had to use another capsule (sent by SpaceX) to return because it was too risky to use the Boeing one.
All the satellites and probed launched for NASA. NASA chose SpaceX for multiple missions, I don’t think any of the missions failed because of SpaceX. It include Europa Clipper, a probe that was originally supposed to be sent on the SLS (the SLS program is a disaster).
The human landing system: even though there is delays SpaceX is progressing well in the development of the system. Blue origin got a contract as well but so far they only launch their rocket once and didn’t managed to recover the first stage. I don’t know about their moon lander, I don’t think there is many info available about it. As a comparison SpaceX launched the Starship rocket, recovered the first stage AND reused it several times already. Although comparison between the two companies is hard since they have very different approaches.
Those delays are normal. I hate Elon, too, but I’ve worked with them, and their shit is fresh. SLS is also not a disaster. That first mission was almost perfect, and the SLS community is strong. The difference is that NASA can not tolerate failure, and SpaceX can. NASA must be right the first time. SpaceX just breaks shit quickly.
I have a picture of SpaceX Falcon on the launch pad. The picture is from 2008. Claims that they are faster are not accurate. We have built two launch vehicles and successfully completed testing since then. Starship just now had a decent test or two, IIRC. We didn’t start SLS until like 2012, and SpaceX had Falcon on pad in 2008. Had they not canceled Ares I right after a successful flight, NASA would be farther along. Both Falcon and SLS are good options. Vulcan is promising, but Boeing is too screwed up now for my comfort, so we’ll see.
NASA is different because its money is Congressionally controlled, so not only does that expect perfection in an area that will have mistakes, but has a small window to act in before political interest wanes, and has little flexibility as things are learned on the way. The only advantage of a national space program is deep pockets. Even the small percent that NASA gets is a lot more than most commercial organizations can swing. Imagine if they had a few percent of what the military gets and a bit of latitude to find ways for us to expand out.
Which SpaceX contact was a disaster ?
There is a lot to criticize about SpaceX but overall for NASA they’ve been pretty good partners, especially composted to ask the contracts NASA has with traditional aerospace companies.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I see several contracts
https://gizmodo.com/spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-could-be-years-late-nasa-safety-panel-warns-2000662122
Their original timeline claimed people on the moon by 2024- currently, it looks unlikely to have any landings before 2028.
Those delays are normal. I hate Elon, too, but I’ve worked with them, and their shit is fresh. SLS is also not a disaster. That first mission was almost perfect, and the SLS community is strong. The difference is that NASA can not tolerate failure, and SpaceX can. NASA must be right the first time. SpaceX just breaks shit quickly.
I have a picture of SpaceX Falcon on the launch pad. The picture is from 2008. Claims that they are faster are not accurate. We have built two launch vehicles and successfully completed testing since then. Starship just now had a decent test or two, IIRC. We didn’t start SLS until like 2012, and SpaceX had Falcon on pad in 2008. Had they not canceled Ares I right after a successful flight, NASA would be farther along. Both Falcon and SLS are good options. Vulcan is promising, but Boeing is too screwed up now for my comfort, so we’ll see.
NASA is different because its money is Congressionally controlled, so not only does that expect perfection in an area that will have mistakes, but has a small window to act in before political interest wanes, and has little flexibility as things are learned on the way. The only advantage of a national space program is deep pockets. Even the small percent that NASA gets is a lot more than most commercial organizations can swing. Imagine if they had a few percent of what the military gets and a bit of latitude to find ways for us to expand out.