[mschuster91]

> Injecting a large amount of capital all at once into a project just isn't efficient.

SpaceX would beg to disagree here. The reason why they are so cheap, agile and sustainable (=reusable rockets) is precisely because SpaceX got a load of money without the "pork" requirements that were commonplace with ULA & friends. That enabled SpaceX to embrace vertical, on-site integration and go for what was technically the best option instead of what was required by some buffoons in Congress.

Although a point may be made that a "hand out cash" program needs a competent, strong and undisputed leader at the top. There's a lot of issues with Elon Musk, but it is undeniable that he is a very effective and inspiring leader.

[biorach]

ITER vs SpaceX is a really poor comparison.

ITER is a high risk foray into still-experimental technology with no hope of direct return on investment (it can not function as a commercial power plant). It had to be built at this scale because they had reached the limits of smaller-scale prototypes (tho I think there was not unanimity about this). Pooling resources makes sense here.

SpaceX is a more efficient take on technologies and processes that have been battle tested over many decades. This gives them a clear path to profitability, with some risk, but low enough to get investors on board, which ITER would have no hope of doing. Granted they are innovating, but incrementally, not from scratch. Very different.

[mschuster91]

> Pooling resources makes sense here.

Yes, but still - instead of all the components needed being manufactured on or near site, they are shipped from across the world... so parts end up damaged [1], not made according to spec or the spec having errors introduced somewhere among dozens of companies and institutions. With sometimes weeks or months of shipping round-trip times, that is causing a fucking lot of delays. Not to mention that shipping all the stuff around itself is also causing issues given the current COVID-caused shipping delays.

The problem is that ITER, ULA, EADS, Airbus, the ISS and a bunch of other international cooperative projects all are considered by politicians primarily as a way to distribute pork, secondarily as a way to show off on the international stage and only then as a way to actually advance scientific knowledge.

[1]: https://news.newenergytimes.net/2021/09/26/component-issues-...

[ClumsyPilot]

Airbus is an inefficient port project? They build almosy half the world's aircraft.

Boeing has 1 boss and what are they better at, defrauding regulators to sell dangerous aircraft? And all other private manufacturers combined are a rounding error?

[mschuster91]

They could be a lot more efficient if they were not forced to ship parts and airframes around Europe multiple times.

[gameshot911]

SpaceX is so much more than just the capital. It's the capital plus the unwavering vision of the leadership. The latter is much harder to find.

[rootusrootus]

It helps that SpaceX is just iterating on 1960s technology.

[nicoburns]

SpaceX didn't get anything near $50B in investment though. And certainly not committed all at once.