[s1artibartfast]

That's the point. Specifically, the point is to pay for aerospace jobs if we want to compete in the aerospace market. Nasa launch contracts are the carrot for companies like spacex and others to get in the market. Various contracts keep a larger pool of engineers in the market

[avmich]

The idea of paying for aerospace jobs lead to steady losses in the aerospace market, until deeply capitalistic (in a sense) SpaceX came and lowered costs.

Once again: the idea that USA would keep competing on international aerospace market of launch services wasn't working before SpaceX started launching Falcon-9. Maybe the market losses are because of paying for aerospace jobs, or maybe it's just a coincidence, but USA was practically pushed out from the market, until - heavily vertically integrated - SpaceX put the launch price on their website.

I think the idea of paying for aerospace jobs in this way doesn't work.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm not sure that we understand each other.

I'm not talking about NASA headcount, I am talking about NASA contracts which support private sector companies and aerospace engineers.

The USA wants to maintain the domestic capability to for launches, and this means funding technology and expertise. If you don't award contracts domestically, in 10-20 years the capability is gone. No domestic contracts => no jobs => no grads => no rocket engineers.

NASA's model has always been to award contracts to the private sector companies. This is why you have SpaceX, Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed launch capabilities.

>I think the idea of paying for aerospace jobs in this way doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by paying for aerospace jobs. NASA funded private sector manufacturers before and continues to fund it now.

I agree the the US manufacturers were ripe for disruption, and SpaceX did a great job of doing just that. However, the entire market and jobs exist to chase these government contracts. Do you think that SpaceX would exist if it wasn't for NASA and DOD launch contracts? I don't.

[avmich]

Yes, I think we talk about different things. Main focus of criticism of alt-space, a.k.a new private space community is cost-plus schemas of payments, which encourage increases in costs. The big difference of SpaceX was offering a "function" for sale - there is a launch capability, which has price N dollars per launch or M dollars per kilogram on LEO, and NASA can take it or not.

This way the idea that all or many congressional districts should participate in NASA contracts - because then those congressmen support increasing NASA's budgets - goes out the window. Now congressmen - and congresswomen, of course - can judge NASA in terms of space progress vs. money spent, not in terms of distribution of money to jobs in their districts. From this point of view, your question is irrelevant - no, it wouldn't, as after forth launch Falcon-1 SpaceX didn't have funds to continue, and NASA helped, but that doesn't mean NASA doesn't have an ineffective policy.