A clear example of how private enterprise does it better:

[Loren Pechtel]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/elon-musk-knows-whats-ailing-nasa-costly-contracting/

I have repeatedly pointed out the problem with government doing thing is the lack of competition resulting in major inefficiency. Here's a stunning example of it:

NASA didn’t see it this way. In the months after the Dragon’s historic flight, NASA studied the cost of developing the Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX's booster with nine engines that had lifted the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. The analysis concluded that had NASA developed the rocket through its traditional means, it would have cost taxpayers about $4 billion.

Instead of doing that, however, NASA simply asked SpaceX for a service—cargo delivery to the space station—and left the details to the company. And so Musk and his small workforce, with a Silicon Valley mindset that pushed employees hard, set about delivering. The analysis found that SpaceX spent just $443 million to develop the Falcon 9 rocket—a little more than a tenth of what NASA would have expended for a comparable rocket.

It's amazing how much better things work when people have their own skin in the game.

 

[prideandfall]

well that's a bullshit title coming to a bullshit conclusion based on a bullshit premise.

this is a clear example of how new entities approaching old problems will come up with ideas that entrenched organizations won't.
it has nothing to do with NASA or the government and everything to do with the fact that "the upstart little guy" always innovates in ways the traditional standard-bearer won't, this is true of any industry regardless of whether it's government or private.

 

[marc]

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

 

[dismal]

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

PG&E and SCE were always private companies.

 

[Jaecp]

well that's a bullshit title coming to a bullshit conclusion based on a bullshit premise.

this is a clear example of how new entities approaching old problems will come up with ideas that entrenched organizations won't.
it has nothing to do with NASA or the government and everything to do with the fact that "the upstart little guy" always innovates in ways the traditional standard-bearer won't, this is true of any industry regardless of whether it's government or private.

It helps that its a specific piece of tech and not the program itself, which is fundamentally a service. When we've privatized the services in the past that has lead to bad results for people because the private companies profit motive works at a cross purpose to the citizenry, like when a company shortens yellow lights to get more citations or, say, healthcare in general. A private company is great when you have a clear idea of what you want, based upon having done it yourself for a long time because you can have accountability. SpaceX wouldn't exist without NASA.

Government is really really good at at least one specific thing: Stuff that affects everyone of us. When Space Travel was viewed as a national defense concern this was nominally true. Now it isn't so much so contracting out makes sense.

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

PG&E and SCE were always private companies.

Then what's he referring to? Technically "private" companies that have their rates set because they're utilities?

 

[crispy]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/elon-musk-knows-whats-ailing-nasa-costly-contracting/

I have repeatedly pointed out the problem with government doing thing is the lack of competition resulting in major inefficiency. Here's a stunning example of it:

NASA didn’t see it this way. In the months after the Dragon’s historic flight, NASA studied the cost of developing the Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX's booster with nine engines that had lifted the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. The analysis concluded that had NASA developed the rocket through its traditional means, it would have cost taxpayers about $4 billion.

Instead of doing that, however, NASA simply asked SpaceX for a service—cargo delivery to the space station—and left the details to the company. And so Musk and his small workforce, with a Silicon Valley mindset that pushed employees hard, set about delivering. The analysis found that SpaceX spent just $443 million to develop the Falcon 9 rocket—a little more than a tenth of what NASA would have expended for a comparable rocket.

It's amazing how much better things work when people have their own skin in the game.

And you draw the conclusion that the reason NASA didn't come up with this is because its funding comes from the government?

Christ.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

An interesting example. Legally mandated geographic monopolies and prices set by government. That is your example of private?

 

[bilby]

"NASA simply asked SpaceX for a service". So, who were the other bidders? Where was the competition?

Big organisations are less efficient than little ones. Whether they are privately or government owned and/or funded makes fuck all difference; but most government owned organisations are big.

As the employee of a multinational corporation that rivals many nation states in both population and wealth, I can assure you that a non-government entity can be every bit as inefficient, ineffective and bureaucratic as any government entity.

And there are plenty of things that only a big entity can do well - or at all. So we need big organisations - and the question is whether we maintain some level of public control over them via the ballot box, or just let the hyper wealthy call all the shots.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

Utilities are natural monopolies. Privatizing doesn't make much sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It helps that its a specific piece of tech and not the program itself, which is fundamentally a service. When we've privatized the services in the past that has lead to bad results for people because the private companies profit motive works at a cross purpose to the citizenry, like when a company shortens yellow lights to get more citations or, say, healthcare in general. A private company is great when you have a clear idea of what you want, based upon having done it yourself for a long time because you can have accountability. SpaceX wouldn't exist without NASA.

Having a clear performance metric is the important thing, whether you have done it yourself or not doesn't really matter. Contracting out a nebulous target is a bad idea.

Government is really really good at at least one specific thing: Stuff that affects everyone of us. When Space Travel was viewed as a national defense concern this was nominally true. Now it isn't so much so contracting out makes sense.

SpaceX carries classified payloads.

Oh yes, it is always better to go with privatization. Private companies always perform better than government control. Like when California privatized its utilities. That worked out great didn't it??

PG&E and SCE were always private companies.

Then what's he referring to? Technically "private" companies that have their rates set because they're utilities?

I didn't say anything about privatizing utilities and I don't even think it's a good idea because they are monopolies.

- - - Updated - - -

"NASA simply asked SpaceX for a service". So, who were the other bidders? Where was the competition?

Big organisations are less efficient than little ones. Whether they are privately or government owned and/or funded makes fuck all difference; but most government owned organisations are big.

As the employee of a multinational corporation that rivals many nation states in both population and wealth, I can assure you that a non-government entity can be every bit as inefficient, ineffective and bureaucratic as any government entity.

And there are plenty of things that only a big entity can do well - or at all. So we need big organisations - and the question is whether we maintain some level of public control over them via the ballot box, or just let the hyper wealthy call all the shots.

There are other companies in the space launch business. I believe there have been no government launches since the Shuttle retired.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/elon-musk-knows-whats-ailing-nasa-costly-contracting/

I have repeatedly pointed out the problem with government doing thing is the lack of competition resulting in major inefficiency. Here's a stunning example of it:

NASA didn’t see it this way. In the months after the Dragon’s historic flight, NASA studied the cost of developing the Falcon 9 rocket, SpaceX's booster with nine engines that had lifted the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. The analysis concluded that had NASA developed the rocket through its traditional means, it would have cost taxpayers about $4 billion.

Instead of doing that, however, NASA simply asked SpaceX for a service—cargo delivery to the space station—and left the details to the company. And so Musk and his small workforce, with a Silicon Valley mindset that pushed employees hard, set about delivering. The analysis found that SpaceX spent just $443 million to develop the Falcon 9 rocket—a little more than a tenth of what NASA would have expended for a comparable rocket.

It's amazing how much better things work when people have their own skin in the game.

Simple and easy question - Why would private 'supply side' econ go to space? Unless of course the public sector 'demanded' it in the first place?

Private sector absolutely sucks at providing solutions to problems undiscovered by society in general. The military needed location information accurate to < 10m for planning and execution. Why would Garmin ever invest in GPS if the DEMAND for that service never existed?

aa

 

[untermensche]

Free enterprise is not driving SpaceX.

It is just the pet project of some rich guy.

He is the only one willing to spend the millions on research and development.

But that is what the government does, that is what NASA does.

Spend on research and development.

And NASA sends people into space, at least it did, and only has one chance on it's missions to the planets. So it over researches and over develops and puts in extra safeties.

That costs extra.

NASA didn't consider the bottom line when it considered safety for the astronauts.

 

[Jaecp]

Having a clear performance metric is the important thing, whether you have done it yourself or not doesn't really matter. Contracting out a nebulous target is a bad idea.

Those small towns performance metrics are "pay us this much per year, now do your thing" which inevitably results in abuses.

Government is really really good at at least one specific thing: Stuff that affects everyone of us. When Space Travel was viewed as a national defense concern this was nominally true. Now it isn't so much so contracting out makes sense.

SpaceX carries classified payloads.

And that makes space travel a national defense concern? The reinvigorated cold war hasn't had a space race yet

 

[jonatha]

I believe there have been no government launches since the Shuttle retired.

Last shuttle flight (STS 135, 2011-07-08)

4 Delta and 5 Atlas launches from Canaveral or Vandenberg in 2012.

3 and 8 in 2013. 5 and 9 in 2014. 3 and 9 in 2015. 4 and 8 in 2016. 1 and 3 so far this year.
Who's launching all those Atlas and Delta rockets?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

well that's a bullshit title coming to a bullshit conclusion based on a bullshit premise.

this is a clear example of how new entities approaching old problems will come up with ideas that entrenched organizations won't.
it has nothing to do with NASA or the government and everything to do with the fact that "the upstart little guy" always innovates in ways the traditional standard-bearer won't, this is true of any industry regardless of whether it's government or private.

You are on the right track here. In the business world, there's such a thing as first mover into a market and second mover. NASA would be considered a first mover and traditional advantages would be IP control and establishing a good reputation to help corner the market, not to mention that they are first. The second mover can often analyze the first mover's path they used to production and their product to do it cheaper, even when both are private corporations. So the second mover has an advantage. In the case of NASA, they ALSO gave rights to all of their IP to public so the private sector can do it even less expensively than a second mover ordinarily would.

 

[iolo]

Why does 'better', to Americans, mean 'making more money for the rich'?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Why does 'better', to Americans, mean 'making more money for the rich'?

Because every human endeavor should produce revenue, of which at least 30% should go to the job creators.

This appears to be the prime objective of public purpose in America.

 

[iolo]

Why does 'better', to Americans, mean 'making more money for the rich'?

Because every human endeavor should produce revenue, of which at least 30% should go to the job creators.

This appears to be the prime objective of public purpose in America.

Like burglars: they produce lots of work for the police. Etcetera. Human credulity is wonderful to behold, isn't it?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Because every human endeavor should produce revenue, of which at least 30% should go to the job creators.

This appears to be the prime objective of public purpose in America.

Like burglars: they produce lots of work for the police. Etcetera. Human credulity is wonderful to behold, isn't it?

For the conspiracy minded:

It’s the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean’s new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor’s work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch.

Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...james-mcgill-buchanan-totalitarian-capitalism

 

[LordKiran]

Free enterprise is not driving SpaceX.

It is just the pet project of some rich guy.

He is the only one willing to spend the millions on research and development.

But that is what the government does, that is what NASA does.

Spend on research and development.

And NASA sends people into space, at least it did, and only has one chance on it's missions to the planets. So it over researches and over develops and puts in extra safeties.

That costs extra.

NASA didn't consider the bottom line when it considered safety for the astronauts.

A perfect example of this is that zero G pen. People like to mock the zero G pen for being so expensive to produce when Russians just used a pencil, until you later learn how graphite or lead particles in a zero G environment can get caught in the machinery and put everyone's lives and millions of dollars in development in jeopardy.

By the by, Russia later adopted the zero G pen too.