And after all of this, exactly one species (us) advanced to the point of even being able to ask this question.

Don't discount how much the SpaceX success in the 21st Century was predicated on the technical innovation and output from NASA in the 20th.

There's absolutely technical advancement happening across the space industry, but their baseline was from a textbook on NASA's prior successes and failures.

Don't discount how much the SpaceX success in the 21st Century was predicated on the technical innovation and output from NASA in the 20th.

There's absolutely technical advancement happening across the space industry, but their baseline was from a textbook on NASA's prior successes and failures.

Don't discount how much the SpaceX success in the 21st Century was predicated on the technical innovation and output from NASA in the 20th.

There's absolutely technical advancement happening across the space industry, but their baseline was from a textbook on NASA's prior successes and failures.

of the culture risk is highlighted nicely in Ashlee Vance's When The Heavens Went On Sale, particularly on the headwinds that Pete Worden received when he tried to use NASA Ames to support commercial space endeavors and launch accessibility. It's a big organization stymied by internal politics (which is even more documented in Alan Stern's Chasing New Horizons, which almost didn't fly to Pluto because he was using cheaper APL resources and NASA JPL wanted the work).

Your comment on risk-takers making space more accessible is right on, and I believe it's evident that NASA is financially and vocally supporting that for LEO programs (and even some Moon landers now). That commitment will only increase when the ISS is de-orbited in a few years and a commercial station replaces it.

But your initial comment was that NASA has spent decades with only incremental steps, and that's not true. No other organization is shipping Mars landers and deep space telescopes -- at least for now.

Don't discount how much the SpaceX success in the 21st Century was predicated on the technical innovation and output from NASA in the 20th.

There's absolutely technical advancement happening across the space industry, but their baseline was from a textbook on NASA's prior successes and failures.

But they’re not grabbing a launch vehicle out of the air with chopsticks in 1995.

Rick, you misquoted me and Jeff above (swapped our boxes).

I’m not typically the one in the room defending NASA, but wow are there some strong opinions in here.

NASA helped fund the DCX/Delta Clipper program, and while it ultimately did go up in smoke, the mix of federally- and privately-funded learnings from the program did feed into the popular space companies we have today — due significantly to DoD and NASA funding into the 80s and 90s.

Can you imagine where we’d be if we stopped funding these programs when the Apollo generation retired?

I agree that SpaceX technologies were available 30 years ago. They first launched almost 20 years ago, so that timeline works. But they’re not grabbing a launch vehicle out of the air with chopsticks in 1995.

I worked for Maj Jess Sponable (then)….and I don’t believe NASA funded the Delta Clipper DC-X. The vehicle was transferred to NASA after we finished our flight testing at White Sands. But that was +30 years ago….so I could be off, but I know our thoughts were not positive with NASA.

https://youtu.be/J6ZyDSmC-d0?si=aI1qJOoMPt7rV2-I

The honeymoon is over with Musk. Isaacman was collateral damage.

Vindictiveness defines this administration and it will slow down SpaceX aspirations going forward. Competence is secondary to absolute loyalty.

Mike C.

I am not sure he cares what anyone thinks of him and that seems to be an asset.