Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hallowass t1_j7shwyu wrote

Same with the space shuttle, the cost to maintain the shuttle was nearly the same as just building a new one.

2

funkboxing t1_j7siei7 wrote

The STS wasn't privately owned.

−1

Emble12 t1_j7u2mzo wrote

Why does it matter if it can get what NASA wants to space?

1

funkboxing t1_j7uhz2m wrote

Why does it matter what subsidies we give the petroleum industry as long as they put gas in stations for us to buy?

1

Emble12 t1_j7w62ju wrote

If they’re doing it cheaper and maintaining standard, sure

1

funkboxing t1_j7w8f9x wrote

Then why do they need public funding?

0

Emble12 t1_j7w9cxl wrote

NASA gets the public funding. They choose how to allocate it, such as contracts to launch companies.

1

funkboxing t1_j7w9v7q wrote

NASA isn't privately owned.

1

Emble12 t1_j7wa6hc wrote

Yes, it’s a government agency and allocated government funding. It’s then up to NASA to use that funding, such as investing in and buying contracts from private companies.

1

funkboxing t1_j7wd0zm wrote

And if NASA contracts a company to develop a system you think the IP for that system should belong to the company?

1

Emble12 t1_j7xvzgu wrote

Depends on the contract, for most old space contracts NASA takes operations and so should have more ownership, but for new space contracts the company takes most operations and so has a right to control their assets.

1