SpaceX rocket carrying NASA load blows up after takeoff. Was privatization worth it?

NASA was forced to take the private contractor, SpaceX after some budget cuts. You could argue that NASA has had launch accidents, but this wasn't a shuttle mission. It was a cargo launch to the ISS that would be routine for NASA. Now NASA lost a package. This is cheaper? If not, what was supposed to be the advantage of privatizing space missions?


Most Helpful Guy

  • It is good there are other space companies out there, but NASA shouldn't have had its' budget cut.

    • I agree. SpaceX should have done things independently without eating into NASA resources. I don't even see how it's an authentic free enterprise if they require government resources to operate.

    • In the future these companies will take the reigns from NASA and there will be a booming economy in space related ventures. We just need the technology to be more advanced, which within a decade or two will be.

    • Nice image, but if this is the start, it will all be a government-funded effort.


Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • It's not worth it.


What Guys Said 4

  • Yes, it is still cheaper. Privatizing space is meant to reduce the overall costs. The government doing things themselves is very expensive. However, the problem with being a private company where your only customer is the government, you run the risk that your client may leave. As long as the budget doesn't cut anymore or the company can find other clients (very difficult to find other government clients), it should continue as business as usual.

    • The government isn't the only customer for getting things to space. Virgin Galactic does Earth orbit tourism already. And how is it cheaper to lose a public package in a routine operation? Not to mention the supply delay the ISS is going to suffer now.

    • Show All
    • You have provided invalid and incomplete citations towards misleading arguments. One link didn't even work.

      And just because Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the big hitters in the world of no-bid government contracts doesn't mean the privatization of NASA missions is a good thing. Did those contractors deploy the Apollo missions? That's pretty much the height of space exploration. Even the ESA achieved the amazing feat of landing a probe on a comet.

      And you make another point for me. SpaceX is small potatoes. The focus shouldn't be on privatizing space cargo. It should be on space exploration. And the NASA planetary budget should not be cut for political reasons (hiding global warming).

    • Go do the research yourself. You clearly have read jack and you provided zero citations. Again you're a hypocrite. All you do is write nonsense. Talk to your congressman if you're concerned, but you're the kind that just likes to complain without doing anything.

  • It will now be dearer in the long run for them

  • An ISIS bomb?

  • I'll bet NASA has better toys than what the SpaceX staff had to play with. It ain't worth hiring an electrician to replace your power grid when you're the best one in the world.