I don't feel that way about the part of NASA that awarded contracts to SpaceX, but I do feel that way about the part of NASA that wastes billions on SLS (I know it's Congress's fault).
It's about efficiency. Even for research that doesn't make revenue, you can do it efficiently or inefficiently. SLS and Google X are way down on the inefficient end of the spectrum.
What are you expectations of Google X based on? in other words, what are you measuring against? Are there similar research ventures pursuing moonshots that are doing better?
Your comment was pretty harsh. Google X has been around for what? only 14 years? The number of projects they funded and the researchers they employed during that time frame is great initiative and admirable on its own.
The criticism of SLS is beat to death. The reason it exists is to ensure a viable alternative launch vehicle to space and beyond. It’s good to have redundancy in certain things. The USG has determined space access is one of them.
Yeah it costs more. But it costs less than if you ever needed it suddenly and it didn’t exist.
It's about efficiency. Even for research that doesn't make revenue, you can do it efficiently or inefficiently. SLS and Google X are way down on the inefficient end of the spectrum.