Looking bad at nasa goddard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of crazy when you think about it, the last time NASA actually built a rocket on its own was all the way back in 2011 with the final Space Shuttle launch. That used to be their thing right? Designing and building rockets was basically the core of what NASA did.

But now? It’s all private companies. SpaceX is basically the face of modern spaceflight. They’re doing launches every other week it seems. Then there’s Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and others stepping in too.

NASA doesn’t even try to build rockets by themselves anymore. And honestly, we don’t even expect them to. They don’t fund it fully, they don’t build it in house, they just partner up and let the commercial guys handle it.

Feels like they kind of shot themselves in the foot there. Gave up the one thing that made them essential. Now they’re just along for the ride while the private sector takes the lead.

They aren’t getting the funding as politicians want to pad their friends pickets. Privates are not being successful.

[Anonymous]

So between NASA and NOAA, are we looking at 1000s of jobs over the coming weeks?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/04/11/trump-noaa-cuts-proposal/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of crazy when you think about it, the last time NASA actually built a rocket on its own was all the way back in 2011 with the final Space Shuttle launch. That used to be their thing right? Designing and building rockets was basically the core of what NASA did.

But now? It’s all private companies. SpaceX is basically the face of modern spaceflight. They’re doing launches every other week it seems. Then there’s Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and others stepping in too.

NASA doesn’t even try to build rockets by themselves anymore. And honestly, we don’t even expect them to. They don’t fund it fully, they don’t build it in house, they just partner up and let the commercial guys handle it.

Feels like they kind of shot themselves in the foot there. Gave up the one thing that made them essential. Now they’re just along for the ride while the private sector takes the lead.

Because it's a lot more expensive and takes a lot more time to do things by the book, safely and without cutting corners. Space X is a known polluter, and has ruined the areas adjacent to its launches.

That argument falls apart when you look at the results.

Yes, NASA does things “by the book” , but that book is hundreds of pages thick, written decades ago, and hasn’t kept up with modern engineering practices. The result? Massive costs, years of delays, and bloated bureaucracy. The SLS rocket is the perfect example — it cost over $20 billion, took over a decade to develop, and still relies on Space Shuttle-era components. All for a rocket that’s used once and then thrown away.

Meanwhile, SpaceX built Falcon 9 and Starship for a fraction of the cost, and they’re both designed to be reused. Falcon 9 has launched hundreds of times with a solid safety record. Reusability, rapid iteration, and private funding have proven to work better.

As for the pollution claim, there have been some impacts at Boca Chica, but they have been blown way out of proportion. Most criticism comes from people who don’t want a rocket launch site near their town. And let’s not pretend NASA has always been a clean operator, they’ve had toxic waste issues at multiple old facilities.

Bottom line:
NASA’s model is outdated. SpaceX is doing it faster, cheaper, and smarter, and pushing humanity forward. We’re not going to Mars or building a Moon base by waiting on NASA to slowly tiptoe there with a $4 billion rocket every few years.

This almost tells the story, but leaves out the part where NASA provided most of the funding for SpaceX in its early years and enabled it to survive. Serving as an anchor customer saved it from bankruptcy and let it develop reusability. That wasn’t designed in at first - SpaceX started in 2002 and it didn’t carry anything on a reused rocket until 2017.

Bottom line: without NASA we wouldn’t have SpaceX.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a surprise as Musk wants the money to go to his private companies.

+1

Why are the MAGAs all so happy with a Musk monopoly they will never benefit from?

Liberal tears duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a surprise as Musk wants the money to go to his private companies.

Umm NASA spends lots with SpaceX. The launch contract for Roman gives SpaceX a quarter billion dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a surprise as Musk wants the money to go to his private companies.

+1

Why are the MAGAs all so happy with a Musk monopoly they will never benefit from?

Liberal tears duh

Let’s be clear here— you weren’t invited to stick your hands into Musk’s pocket and pull out a couple thousand dollars as a prize. Rather, you are holding open his pockets for him as he empties the cash register. Got it?

[Anonymous]

This is all a.giant looting opportunity for billionaires, particularly Musk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a surprise as Musk wants the money to go to his private companies.

+1

[Anonymous]

How is this happening? How is all this being allowed to happen? How?

[Anonymous]

Why do we need NASA? Seriously, how does it enrich the day to day lives of most citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we need NASA? Seriously, how does it enrich the day to day lives of most citizens?

Manned space light is a pssing contest. But lots of tech derived from it.

Planetary science is nice, probably less relevant to day to day.

Earth science, what is being cut the most, is absolutely helping day to day life. Communication satellites, weather, defense, maps, all built on NASAs work.