Very very untrue. The vast bulk of public support for NASA has long been shown to be due to it spending money in the voters districts. Something like 90% of the folks who’d actually write to a congressman etc, are for the pork. No surprise why gov programs maximize pork. Its just worse for NASA, since unlike the mil or the huge welfare programs, their actual products gen very little interest.

> … The rest of us wish you’d all go get real jobs…

Don’t look at me dude, at the moment I’m doing Dream Chaser.
;)

> Also to be noted, the false conflation of cost and quality.

Yeah, lets just say when you say you can do things for 100 times cheaper then NASA and dozens of times cheaper then any commercials, people can pretty well expect their going to get a Trabant not a Caddy.

>
> I think you’ll find SpaceX has quite a few “experienced folk in the teams” including a few NASA veterans
> so ancient they actually worked there when the agency knew how to design and build stuff.===

Actually NASA never designed and built stuff, they ordered it from companies who did. Back in Von Brauns day they did excel at systems engineering, requirements analysis, traceability — all the plus side of paperwork [the major now “standard aerospace practices” that are why the – which are things engineering folks I know who toured SpaceX noted was seriously missing.

Actually the low % of senior folks and expertice was long noted as a issue with SpaceX, as well as a high turn over rate of the prime folks. But as to teams.. compare that with SNC Dream Chaser Team

Boeing Phantom Works – construction of some early[which?] test articles[12][dated info]
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory – Guidance, Navigation and Control[12]
Aerojet – reaction control system technology[12]
University of Colorado – human-rating[12]
AdamWorks – composites[12]
MDA – systems engineering[12]
Lockheed Martin – airframe construction and human rating of the spaceplane[44][45]

And of course smaller groups like the Orbitek team I’m working on doing ECLSS, TCS, and possibly soon propulsion systems.

>…Huge political connections?” Surely you jest. ..

If you’ld noted here and other places. Musk has been very good about pouring money into the best hands.

Also to be noted, the false conflation of cost and quality.

I think you’ll find SpaceX has quite a few “experienced folk in the teams” including a few NASA veterans so ancient they actually worked there when the agency knew how to design and build stuff. That would exclude most anyone who has come aboard NASA in the last, say, three decades. Not surprising to me at all if SpaceX round-filed their resumes.

Note: “no standard aerospace practices” = no bribing Congressmen to get cost-plus contracts with no hard performance requirements.

:Huge political connections?” Surely you jest. I once called the local office of the Congresswoman who represents the district in which SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA plant is located. The person who took my call seemed never to have heard of SpaceX despite it being one of the largest employers in the district.

Dream Chasers a lot cheaper, and still built by reputable teams and high quality, but not as high so it costs significantly less. But the softer landing, more operationally flexible then the other two is a plus.

SpaceX is the wild child spending ridiculously little, no experienced folk in the teams, no standard aerospace practices etc, and still kinda pricy; but huge political connections.

Its a guess for everyone which way it will go.