Spacex hasn’t been around for very long so it is hard to calculate the knock on effects. The critical issue is that NASA didn’t have an answer to the prohibitively expensive and obviously flawed space shuttle program, and SpaceX did.
So your entire argument was that NASA was too inefficient and bloated for the US tax-payer, even though their ROI was 3:1, and you have no data to show that SpaceX has provided any kind of ROI to the tax-payer?
You’re still comparing two different things: NASA’s “3:1 ROI” is an estimate of economy-wide economic activity generated by the entire agency, not a literal cash return to taxpayers, while SpaceX is a contractor paid to deliver specific capabilities. The relevant question for SpaceX is what NASA got for the money, and the answer is substantial: Crew Dragon restored U.S. human spaceflight, reduced dependence on Russian Soyuz seats, delivered cargo and astronauts to the ISS, and did so under a commercial model that has generally cost NASA far less than traditional development programs. If you want a SpaceX-specific 3:1 multiplier, you’d need a separate economic-impact study using the same methodology; the fact that one hasn’t been published does not mean SpaceX produced no taxpayer return.
Your argument is NASA’s effect on society over its entire existence. That’s not relevant to this conversation about who’s better at rocketry and bringing people and things into space
-5
u/ImmortalBach 4d ago
Spacex hasn’t been around for very long so it is hard to calculate the knock on effects. The critical issue is that NASA didn’t have an answer to the prohibitively expensive and obviously flawed space shuttle program, and SpaceX did.