NASA is supporting the privatized space industry, though. Remember that Dragon were/is developed because NASA gave SpaceX a contract for ISS support. Falcon 9 development also got NASA support.
"support" is not the same as a contract. ULA got a $1B a year just for "readiness", SpaceX gets contracts to do actually useful things, at a far lower cost than other contractors or NASA itself.
That's a good point, and you're right that NASA's budget will trickle down as support to privatized space companies.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
Comments
NASA is supporting the privatized space industry, though. Remember that Dragon were/is developed because NASA gave SpaceX a contract for ISS support. Falcon 9 development also got NASA support.
"support" is not the same as a contract. ULA got a $1B a year just for "readiness", SpaceX gets contracts to do actually useful things, at a far lower cost than other contractors or NASA itself.
That's a good point, and you're right that NASA's budget will trickle down as support to privatized space companies.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
There is no "trickle down" for what NASA is doing with SpaceX and OrbitalATK: It's an outright contract to deliver stuff to the ISS.
I meant that the government funding trickles down to SpaceX and OrbitalATK through NASA's contract.
That's not what those words usually mean when applied to money, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics