Posted on Mar 10, 2018
29
29
0
I am awestruck by the success of SpaceX, especially the reusable aspects of the Falcon platforms. (check out the side boosters landing in the attached link.)
What lesson does a focused organization a fraction of the size of NASA teach us as a society?
Sometimes a small organization focused on a single goal is the best design to achieve results.
Having competition with government is a good thing, it increases competence in both organizations. Can we apply these lessons to other parts of the military and government to help organizations and people achieve results?
https://www.space.com/39943-space-exploration-not-just-for-billionaires.html
What lesson does a focused organization a fraction of the size of NASA teach us as a society?
Sometimes a small organization focused on a single goal is the best design to achieve results.
Having competition with government is a good thing, it increases competence in both organizations. Can we apply these lessons to other parts of the military and government to help organizations and people achieve results?
https://www.space.com/39943-space-exploration-not-just-for-billionaires.html
Space
Defense and Space
Public Policy
Competition
Competence
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 17
Suspended Profile
That’s if you want anything done efficiently, keep it as far away from the government as possible. The only thin they excel at is taking most of your paycheck.
LTC John Shaw
CPT(P) Jake Ledgerwood Government got us to the moon in less than 10 years. We have lost the sense of urgency and mission in NASA, it is hard to keep that level of excitement but doing something new and not thought possible, that is motivation.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I would argue the bulk of any accomplishment in the government sector is accomplished by the private contractor sector.
1
1
0
No government red tape, no interorganization fighting.
Has Space X gone to the moon yet though?
Has Space X gone to the moon yet though?
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
PO1 Don Mac Intyre SpaceX says they are hell bent for Mars in the BFR (their name) for the rocket that is larger than Saturn V.
The BFR is targeted as reusable for moon, space station, etc.
So Mars cargo by 2020 and manned by 2024. I want to get a serious handle on radiation shielding before I would put myself in a rocket heading to Mars, staying on Mars and returning only to die from radiation exposure from the mission back on earth.
Let' hope they have lots of gold foil or created a protective magnetic ring like what the earth has around it.
The BFR is targeted as reusable for moon, space station, etc.
So Mars cargo by 2020 and manned by 2024. I want to get a serious handle on radiation shielding before I would put myself in a rocket heading to Mars, staying on Mars and returning only to die from radiation exposure from the mission back on earth.
Let' hope they have lots of gold foil or created a protective magnetic ring like what the earth has around it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Elon Musk is not risk averse, he's an innovator and not afraid to fail. You start throwing government money around you're bound by bureaucracy--it's that simple.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC John G. Shaw, It just reaffirms what we already know; the private sector will do a better job than the government in most things. Just because they must be profitable to survive in a Democratic Republic where companies must operate in an open market, whereas the government relies on a never ending stream of taxes and has limmited accountability for cost overruns or failed ventures. Case in point the millions thrown at Solar Companies that no longer exist.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SPC (Join to see) - Sure it does, you fire them. That is the ultimate accountability. You go out of business.
Government just hangs on and sucks the taxpayer dry and you can't stop it.
Government just hangs on and sucks the taxpayer dry and you can't stop it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I’d really like to know what genius signed the contract to install Russian RD-180 rocket engines on the ass-end of the Atlas V booster. NASA and DoD had been using the Aerojet engine for decades.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
MSgt Richard Randall Can you explain your comment?
The Falcoln uses the Merlin_1D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#Merlin_1D
The Falcoln uses the Merlin_1D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#Merlin_1D
(0)
(0)
MSgt Richard Randall
LTC John Shaw - Much of NASA and DoD’s development programs were left to wither on the vine due to severe budget cutbacks. The Atlas had been used for DMSP as well as other polar orbit missions for decades. Aerojet Rocketdyne, formerly Aerojet-General, had developed the booster engines for both the Atlas and Thor LV2F platform. From what I understand it was much cheaper for Aerojet to reengineer and adapt the Russian made RD-180 than to continue to develop their own in-house engines. A lot of this was due to Aerojet being split up and the rocket/booster portion merging with Rocketdyne. I simply find it ironic that a DoD program would be dependent on the technology of a possible adversary.
And yes, I am aware of SpaceX development of the Merlin engine. I don’t live too far from McGregor, Texas and have actually seen (mostly heard) one of their static engine tests. Very impressive.
As other have alluded, NASA or DoD’s primary goal for space launches is to get device A into orbit B. They rarely ask, “what if” or “how come” when it comes to the actual physical act of getting a gizmo in orbit. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin do ask essential questions as to the most efficient and cost-effective way to get people and equipment into space. The science and engineering efforts coupled with a healthy dose of imagination is something SpaceX and Blue Origin both do. The government? Not so much.
And yes, I am aware of SpaceX development of the Merlin engine. I don’t live too far from McGregor, Texas and have actually seen (mostly heard) one of their static engine tests. Very impressive.
As other have alluded, NASA or DoD’s primary goal for space launches is to get device A into orbit B. They rarely ask, “what if” or “how come” when it comes to the actual physical act of getting a gizmo in orbit. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin do ask essential questions as to the most efficient and cost-effective way to get people and equipment into space. The science and engineering efforts coupled with a healthy dose of imagination is something SpaceX and Blue Origin both do. The government? Not so much.
(0)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
MSgt Richard Randall - I was not aware that NASA and DoD had their hands tied behind their back like that, this is why I LOVE the RP forum, so many smart people!
Thank you for the historical perspective and education.
Thank you for the historical perspective and education.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think the lessons it teaches is government isn't the end all be all. I think the lessons it teaches is generally the free market is much better at adaptation and innovation than the government who seeks after it's own power and protection of its own position, without the influence of competition. Government puts down competition by force of law and force of arms, whereas in the free market companies put down their competition through innovation and efficiency.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What? SpaceX wasted $278 Million doing what NASA could have done for only $278 BILLION! What a waste.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google