Would you say SpaceX is doing better than NASA?

[Duski]

Just now, RenegadeRad said:

True, but still SpaceX has a 12 year old space enthusiasist like goals whereas Nasa is more adult  or not?

I guess you could say in some way  Elon Musk does match that description. Having 12 year old like goals but yet attempting to bring them to life.

[kerbiloid]

NASA added to KSP the asteroid mod.
What SpaceX did?

[Duski]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

NASA added to KSP the asteroid mod.
What SpaceX did?

Hopefully they'll add a Dragon 2 mod I can play with because I want that pod very badly.  

Edited June 8, 2016 by Duski
Smiley faces answer everything.

[Spaceception]

Regarding planetary exploration, I would say 0/10 purely because they haven't done any, the furthest they've sent their rocket is geostationary orbit.

Regarding cost, 10/10, those prices are loooow

Regarding schedule, 6/10, they don't always launch on time, or get stuff done on time, but when they do, they (Nearly) do it perfectly.

Overall, 8/10, SpaceX is awesome, but another thing, it doesn't sum up to what NASA has done (Apollo), but when they launch colonies to Mars, SpaceX will probably be better, but for now, NASA da real MVP.

50 minutes ago, Duski said:

Hopefully they'll add a Dragon 2 mod I can play with because I want that pod very badly.  

You ask, and you shall receive:

Spoiler

By the way, I am not affiliated with the mod maker

 

[Duski]

14 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Regarding planetary exploration, I would say 0/10 purely because they haven't done any, the furthest they've sent their rocket is geostationary orbit.

Regarding cost, 10/10, those prices are loooow

Regarding schedule, 6/10, they don't always launch on time, or get stuff done on time, but when they do, they (Nearly) do it perfectly.

Overall, 8/10, SpaceX is awesome, but another thing, it doesn't sum up to what NASA has done (Apollo), but when they launch colonies to Mars, SpaceX will probably be better, but for now, NASA da real MVP.

You ask, and you shall receive:

  Reveal hidden contents

By the way, I am not affiliated with the mod maker

 

Ooo sweet

[Wjolcz]

You can't really compare them like that. NASA does way more research. SpaceX uses the experience and tech of previous projects, not necessarily their own (the reusable VTOL rockets were originally proposed by NASA, I think).

BUT I feel like if NASA gets more focused on the tech and SpaceX on providing launching capabilities they both could coexist and work together really well.

[PB666]

Does anyone else get tired of these silly wacker measuring contests?

[DDE]

2 hours ago, RenegadeRad said:

True, but still SpaceX has a 12 year old space enthusiasist like goals whereas Nasa is more adult  or not?

And that's what's alarming.

The consensus is that extraterrestrial colonization is not an economically viable project.

Which is the kind of project you'd expect to be right up an statist's alley. Elon Musk is eventually going to run out of money. NASA can nag the executive branch into just borrowing more.

Edited June 8, 2016 by DDE

[Kerbinchaser]

4 hours ago, RenegadeRad said:

Kerbal Space Program is better, they have explored the whole solar system, silly noobs SpaceX and Nasa

Ha ha! Absolutely! 

[PB666]

10 minutes ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Ha ha! Absolutely! 

IOW, i could have simplified the poll

Realist - NASA

Delusional - Choose spaceX

Really delusional - Choose KSP

[Robotengineer]

Apples and oranges. NASA is (primarily) a research and exploration agency, while SpaceX is a launch provider with great ambitions.

[asmi]

NASA's biggest problem is that it's controlled by politicians who's real goals have very little to do with space exploration (if any at all).

[RenegadeRad]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

IOW, i could have simplified the poll

Realist - NASA

Delusional - Choose spaceX

Really delusional - Choose KSP

It's a joke...

[PB666]

16 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

It's a joke...

I just extended the joke one step further.

[RenegadeRad]

6 minutes ago, PB666 said:

I just extended the joke one step further.

and you nailed it

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, Duski said:

As title says, would you say SpaceX is doing better than NASA? Like in terms of planetary exploration and quite possibly how they do things different which makes them better.

At the moment, my candidate is SpaceX. Musk seems to be making ambitious plans that really seem to be working out and with recycling boosters, they're probably better off with finances IMO.

Now what's your opinion?

Lol no. NASA is funding SpaceX's payroll right now .

9 hours ago, CptRichardson said:

Oh, and getting their 'taxi service' as cheap as they have so far is kind of a big deal, since NASA never came close to it despite trying. It's rather hard to go planetary exploring without having something to explore with. A situation in which NASA is sorely lacking at the moment, while SpaceX is making a plan to go to Mars with a spacecraft for giggles and bragging. (Which would put them even with India). NASA's not really going to be doing any further planetary exploration without SpaceX, honestly, while SpaceX is gearing up to do planetary exploration without NASA just to test out the capabilities of their spacecraft.  One is kind of doing better than the other at the moment, just saying.

Even India is farther then SpaceX- one actually already has a few probes- the other doesn't.

Also, Red Dragon has significant NASA influence.

SpaceX is also

NASA also has way more projects right now than SpaceX.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=future

List of a few^^^^.

8 hours ago, DDE said:

A) I find your excess of trust in Musk disturbing. He has a lot of incentive to be less than perfectly honest while maintaining a façade of being perfectly honest.

B) If it's being checked out, than it's not a certainty that it will fly. If it will be reusable as the Space Shuttle Orbiter (20-30% of ship replaced between each flight), it will be a failure.

D) NASA's doing just fine, thank you. They're about to put Juno into Jupiter orbit, they're fixing Discovery Mission 12 (InSight), busy picking Mission 13, pushing ahead with two Flagship missions, and have at least three craft in Mars orbit alone. SpaceX have gone further than any commercial program ever, but it's nothing compared to state-backed ones when it comes to exploration:

You're falling to the hype.

Quote

A) I find your excess of trust in Musk disturbing. He has a lot of incentive to be less than perfectly honest while maintaining a façade of being perfectly honest.

True.

Quote

B) If it's being checked out, than it's not a certainty that it will fly. If it will be reusable as the Space Shuttle Orbiter (20-30% of ship replaced between each flight), it will be a failure.

I doubt it will- F9 is a far better design.

Quote

D) NASA's doing just fine, thank you. They're about to put Juno into Jupiter orbit, they're fixing Discovery Mission 12 (InSight), busy picking Mission 13, pushing ahead with two Flagship missions, and have at least three craft in Mars orbit alone. SpaceX have gone further than any commercial program ever, but it's nothing compared to state-backed ones when it comes to exploration:

NASA actually has more than that in Mars Orbit- but some aren't functioning.

They are also busy with restarting the New Frontiers Program, JWST, the ISS operations, Astrophysics (though it's apparently being cut ), Heliophysics (Solar Probe Plus is epic), and SLS/Orion is chugging along on budget (but off schedule), which isn't too bad for a government program.

7 hours ago, Duski said:

But even if these ambitious plans of Musk's go through, would you say they'd be on par?

Would they ever?

7 hours ago, KSK said:

With regards to B) I don't follow the logic. The fact that SpaceX are 'checking out' the booster tells us precisely nothing about how reusable it is. Whether it ends up being reusable or not, I'd expect the first few recovered boosters to be extensively checked over and compared to see how different re-entry regimes affects their flightworthiness. Once you've gathered enough data to be confident in the basic design then it should be possible (I would think - I aint an engineer) to dial back the extensive checking and develop a workable inspection regime.

C)  I'm pretty sure they have, although not as far as they were hoping and not as far as they expect to with a reusable booster.

D) Agreed. My answer to OP's question is 'both' Both NASA and SpaceX are doing just fine in their respective areas. Hopefully we'll see more overlap between them in future so that they can both do even greater things.

Quote

D) Agreed. My answer to OP's question is 'both' Both NASA and SpaceX are doing just fine in their respective areas. Hopefully we'll see more overlap between them in future so that they can both do even greater things.

I don't see how that would help?

Quote

With regards to B) I don't follow the logic. The fact that SpaceX are 'checking out' the booster tells us precisely nothing about how reusable it is. Whether it ends up being reusable or not, I'd expect the first few recovered boosters to be extensively checked over and compared to see how different re-entry regimes affects their flightworthiness. Once you've gathered enough data to be confident in the basic design then it should be possible (I would think - I aint an engineer) to dial back the extensive checking and develop a workable inspection regime.

Well,they did fire the booster a bunch of times again, but they could be hiding unforseen difficulties/lack of economy. Time will tell.

Also, I wouldn't dial back the extensive checking much, if at all. That's what led to 7 people dying on that rocket launch in 1986.

Quote

C)  I'm pretty sure they have, although not as far as they were hoping and not as far as they expect to with a reusable booster.

Doubt it- maybe for FH, but for F9, they need to show to the world reuse isn't just an empty promise with no benefit- thus, there will need to be a price reduction after the 1st reusable rocket booster launches.

6 hours ago, RCgothic said:

SpaceX has done a fine job recovering 4 boosters and have designed a damn fine kerolox engine in the Merlin 1D.

Technologically, the Russians are still doing way better on the engine side.

6 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

NASA doesn't have any SSTO plans. Who cares about SSTO anyway ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

6 hours ago, Duski said:

I think the SLS will get cancelled anyway because of cost overruns.

Really? When Congress constantly acts like

to the SLS/Orion program every budgetary year?

6 hours ago, RenegadeRad said:

If Nasa was not in the problem of funding and bureaucracy, we would be extremely "advanced" right now... 

You could extend that to pretty much every other space agency right now, especially CNSA and ESA, which are hosted by nations with similar economic sizes to the US, and yet get MUCH less funding.

The USA is regaining its title as "space leader" for a reason.

 

[DDE]

Well, to be honest, the US pretty much has had that title since the mid-60s, thanks to Gemini, the cancellation of Soviet Tsiolkovsky and Saturn probes, and, oh, that little fact that the Soviets put two tortoises on a lunar fly-by while 'merica put some boots on the regolith.

[Nibb31]

12 minutes ago, fredinno said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Which were abandoned respectively 19 and 15 years ago. Thanks for making my point.

[Matuchkin]

I think you mean "is SpaceX doing better than ULA". I would say yes. Though ULA has extremely reliable systems, and extremely experienced personnel as staff, SpaceX is making progress with blistering speed and will catch up to ULA's status in no time at all. Perhaps, though, ULA will follow with SpaceX's ideas, and the two companies will remain on the same level.

[DDE]

5 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Which were abandoned respectively 19 and 15 years ago. Thanks for making my point.

Well, SSTOs are not a dead end.

If NASA's willing to design a closed-cycle nuclear turbojet/scramjet/afterburning thermal rocket/power-generating reactor, they might get some nice results. But then no-one even lets them make the really cool stuff.

1 minute ago, Matuchkin said:

I think you mean "is SpaceX doing better than ULA". I would say yes. Though ULA has extremely reliable systems, and extremely experienced personnel as staff, SpaceX is making progress with blistering speed and will catch up to ULA's status in no time at all. Perhaps, though, ULA will follow with SpaceX's ideas, and the two companies will remain on the same level.

No, I'm afraid the OP's actually actually comparing SpaceX's interplanetary probe program (0 launches) with NASA's.

In the launcher business, ULA has a considerable chance to get trashed, and even Roscosmos's cheap and toxic Protons are feeling the pressure. But then SpaceX is unlikely to take over the whole market.

Also, Protons kinda deserve it.

 

[Matuchkin]

8 hours ago, Duski said:

IMO I really would say that they are pretty much sitting around aswell.

Nope. SpaceX is pretty much doing what every Realism Overhaul player is doing with their ambitious rockets. Flying them, improving them, trying to perfect that goddamn landing system (or something else), and putting up a few actual missions while they're at it. I know, I have done the same. The only difference is the "revert flight" button.

6 hours ago, RenegadeRad said:

True, but still SpaceX has a 12 year old space enthusiasist like goals whereas Nasa is more adult  or not?

Please do not refer to it that way. Though SpaceX has ambitious goals, the concepts were tested and the goals were proven to be important. NASA is currently at the phase where it has systems that are already good enough, hence not needing as much improvement as SpaceX. Also, if the Falcon 9 is "12 year old ambition", then what is the Space Shuttle? 5-year old ambition?

12 minutes ago, DDE said:

Also, Protons kinda deserve it.

What do you have against the Proton? I especially love that one, due to its multiple usages and versatility.

Also, if  this discussion is about NASA's space exploration program, then I'm more with NASA. NASA is time-tested, reliable, experienced in the business, and already has an evolved space exploration program. As for SpaceX- we'll have to see. Chances are that SpaceX will be mostly centred (screw you, autocorrect, I'm a Canadian) around launchers, but will be very good at operating and creating them.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Matuchkin

[DDE]

5 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

What do you have against the Proton? I especially love that one, due to its multiple usages and versatility.

It succeeded in murdering Roscosmos's previous chief. Say it with me: asymmetric dimethylhydrazine nitrogen tetroxide extremely toxic extremely cancerogenic. Russian launchers may be rugged designs, but right now they are suffering greatly from crappy management and crappy workmanship, to the point that it's becoming a major commercial liability. Those payloads are insured, ya know?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Let's let the evidence answer this silly question.

SpaceX:

Quote

Nothing

NASA:

Quote

NASA Missions A-Z

 

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X 

 

 

A

ACE
AIM
Apollo
Apollo-Soyuz
Aqua
Aquarius
ARCTAS
ARTEMIS
Asteroid Redirect Initiative
ASTRO-1
ASTRO-2
Astro-E2 (Suzaku)
ATTREX
Aura

(Back to Top)

B

BARREL

(Back to Top)

C

CALIPSO
Cassini-Huygens
CHAMP
Chandra X-Ray Observatory
CINDI
Clementine
CATS: Cloud-Aerosol Transport System
Cloudsat
Cluster ESA/NASA Mission
Commercial Crew
Commercial Space Transportation
Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory
Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer (CHIPS)
CubeSats
Curiosity
CYGNSS (Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System)

(Back to Top)

 

D

Dawn
Deep Impact
DISCOVER-AQ

(Back to Top)

 

E

Earth Observing-1
Earth Probe Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (EP-TOMS)
Earth Radiation Budget Satellite
EPOXI
Euclid
Europa Mission
Exploration Plans
Explorer
Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer

(Back to Top)

F

FAST
Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope
Fire and Smoke
FUSE

(Back to Top)

G

GALEX
Galileo
Gemini
Genesis
Geotail
GLAST
Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)
Glory
GOES
GRAIL
Gravity Probe-B
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)

(Back to Top)

H

Herschel
HETE-2
Hinode (Solar-b)
Hitomi (ASTRO-H)
Hubble
Hurricanes

(Back to Top)

I

IBEX
ICESat
ICESat-2
Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON)
IMAGE
InSight
International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory (INTEGRAL)
International Space Station
IRIS: Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph

(Back to Top)

J

James Webb Space Telescope
Jason
Juno
 

(Back to Top)

 

K

Kepler and K2

(Back to Top)

 

L

LADEE: Lunar Atmosphere Dust Environment Explorer
LAGEOS 1 and 2
Landsat
Landsat Data Continuity Mission
LCROSS
LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter)
Lunar Quest Program

(Back to Top)

 

M

Magellan
Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS)
Mariner
Mars 2020 Mission Plans
Mars Express
Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity
Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Odyssey
Mars Pathfinder
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Mars Science Laboratory
MAVEN: Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN
Mercury (Human Spaceflight Program)
MESSENGER: Mercury, Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging
Mini-RF
Moon Mineralogy Mapper

(Back to Top)

 

N

Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR)
NEOWISE
New Horizons
NMP EO-1
NOAA-N
NOAA-N Prime
NPP
NuSTAR

(Back to Top)

 

O

Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2
Operation Ice Bridge
Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle
OSIRIS-REX

(Back to Top)

 

P

Phoenix
Pioneer
Pioneer Venus
Planck
POES
Polar

(Back to Top)

 

Q

QuikSCAT

(Back to Top)

 

R

Radiation Belt Storm Probes/Van Allen Probes
Ranger
RapidScat
RHESSI
Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT)
Rosetta
RXTE

(Back to Top)

 

S

SDO
SEAC4RS
SERVIR
Scientific Balloons
Shuttle-Mir
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
Skylab
Small Satellites
SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive)
SOFIA
SOHO
Solar Anomalous and Magnetospherice Particle Explorer (SAMPEX)
Solar Probe Plus
Solar Orbiter Collaboration
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)
Sounding Rockets
Space Launch System (SLS)
Space Shuttle
Space Station
Space Technology 5
Spitzer
Stardust-NExT
STEREO
Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS)
Suomi NPP
Surveyor
Suzaku
Swift

(Back to Top)

 

T

TDRS
Terra
TESS
THEMIS
TIMED
TOMS-EP
TOPEX/Poseidon
TRACE
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
TWINS

(Back to Top)

 

U

Ulysses
Upper Atmosphere Radiation Satellite (UARS)

(Back to Top)

 

V

Van Allen Probes
Viking
Voyager

(Back to Top)

 

W

Wide-Field Infrared Explorer
WIND
WISE 
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

(Back to Top)

X

XMM Newton

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by SuperFastJellyfish

[Pipcard]

Indeed, NASA has a much longer history, but saying SpaceX has "nothing" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

And SpaceX is doing better than NASA at cost-efficiency.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Pipcard

[KSK]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

I don't see how that would help?

Well,they did fire the booster a bunch of times again, but they could be hiding unforseen difficulties/lack of economy. Time will tell.

Also, I wouldn't dial back the extensive checking much, if at all. That's what led to 7 people dying on that rocket launch in 1986.

Doubt it- maybe for FH, but for F9, they need to show to the world reuse isn't just an empty promise with no benefit- thus, there will need to be a price reduction after the 1st reusable rocket booster launches.

Well Red Mars is a prime example, assuming it flies. SpaceX get their publicity shot/technology demonstrator/milestone in their Mars programme, call it what you want. NASA get access to SpaceX's data on supersonic retropropulsion techniques for Mars landings and don't pay a cent of direct costs for the mission, although they do make very significant contributions-in-kind in terms of sharing their data with SpaceX. If you can't see how more shared missions like that would help both sides then I'm not really sure what to say. 

As regards the extensive checking, I disagree with your analysis and believe the enquiry found that NASA internal culture played a significant role too - but that's getting political so we'd probably better steer clear of that particular discussion.

No - F9 has already lowered launch prices. I don't know how reliable these figures are especially given the rather large acknowledged caveat that "It should be noted that not all rocket prices are publicly available, in fact, most aren't." However, other launch companies efforts to put themselves on more competitive footing with SpaceX have been fairly widely reported, which makes me think that F9 has lowered launch costs, although certainly not by the rather grandiose amounts that Musk has claimed full reusability will enable. So I stand by my original comment, thank you.

Edited June 8, 2016 by KSK