Wouldn't an expansion of NASA benefit SpaceX, not the inverse? They don't exactly compete.

Regardless of the decision, a businessman being in control of the government agency that funds his company is as bad as it gets in terms of corruption.

Next time there's a tender, how will the NASA employee know whether their decision wrt SpaceX is going to get them fired or not?

why isn't it considered corruption if you've been a career employee and you get promoted to be in control of an agency? You'll be tendering all of the salaries of all of the people you've known and/or contracted with over your career.

(im not saying elon is good here)

> why isn't it considered corruption if you've been a career employee and you get promoted to be in control of an agency?

Because a civil servant being promoted to be "in control" merely means that they become the first contact the political administrators give their orders/roadmap to, and their role is to execute on that roadmap. They don't get to decide the agency budget or goals, and they're the one who get fired when they're in conflict with elected officials or their representatives, or if issues with the administration come up.

Because you don’t have a direct financial incentive to embezzle funds or sabotage the agency’s mission.

Elon does.

Also, these career employees rose through the ranks based on job performance, and did so regardless of which political party was in charge.

1. direct financial incentive is not the only form of corruption

> Elon does.

note the "not defending elon" bit.

> these career employees rose through the ranks based on job performance,

2. thats laughable (i have a direct relative who works for the federal government and based on their commentary thats a crazy thing to believe)

The agency head does not tender salaries, or set government service payscale, or even make the vast majority of hiring decisions.

The inverse benefits SpaceX, because NASA has less capability to do things itself therefore is more dependent on contracting work out to SpaceX.

They don't compete, but a cynic might say that cutting NASA personnel expenses frees up money to buy more launch services from vendors like SpaceX.

They compete for talent, definitely.

Also for public mindshare. Which translates into funding. Congress likes to fund popular stuff because it helps them get re-elected. They do not like to fund unpopular stuff.

Boeing builds SLS, not NASA. NASA is the paying customer.

Boeing builds SLS to NASA's specs. They're a contractor; Boeing has no other use for the rocket.

Starship is a very different scenario; SpaceX fully intends for it to serve their own purposes as well.

I get the sentiment, but NASA doesn't really compete with SpaceX on anything. They pay SpaceX for launches.

NASA has essentially 0 in-house manufacturing nowdays. Separate question whether that's a good thing, but that's not something the current NASA headcount is doing.

If anything, slowing down NASA slows down launch cadence which hurts SpaceX.

> They pay SpaceX for launches.

Sounds like it is easier to cut out the middleman, eventually? (Only half-joking)