4 ms·
He may depend less on gov contracts than ULA, but he still depends on them, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Not trying to be rude, I would just apprec
by yoyomaforce 10y ago
He may depend less on gov contracts than ULA, but he still depends on them, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Not trying to be rude, I would just appreciate it if you would explain it to me, so I can understand what you mean.
- karkisuni 10y agoI think its more of a response to the growing misconception that Elon's companies are exceptionally and fully dependent on government money in the form of contracts, loans, and tax breaks to its customers. This suggests the companies are being artificially kept afloat on the backs of the taxpayer and are not "good businesses". Reality is, of course, more complicated. SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity of course each benefit(ed) from the above, but not any more than their competitors and are not entirely dependent on them. Loans were paid back, contracts were competed and won fairly, tax breaks incentivize desired behavior and are common industry-wide in transportation/energy. Your original comment could imply that SpaceX is more dependent on the federal government than other launch providers, hitting a sensitive spot for those fighting the above misconception, but that's not the case. Governments have the money and motive to fly expensive satellites (or people) and are the biggest customers for nearly all launch providers.
- yoyomaforce 10y agoI get that. There has been a lot of anti-Elon stuff published in the last 6 months.