5 ms·

Public companies are only interested in short-term profits. Technically a private company by an eccentric billionaire (musk? bezos?) could be perfectly happy t

Public companies are only interested in short-term profits. Technically a private company by an eccentric billionaire (musk? bezos?) could be perfectly happy to burn billions to build a moon base

paublyrne 10y ago
I think we're talking about > 50 billion dollars. I'm not sure even those guys have the kind of resources you would need.
- nickjarboe 10y ago
  Not yet.
jjcc 10y ago
Good point. public and private funding are complementary to each other so there is a healthier Eco system for technology/social progress. Funding from (some time bureaucratic or socialist) government without concerning profit is necessary part of the system. Let me give you a few examples. Quite a few many pioneers like Hinton, Bingo ,maybe LeCun(was working with Hinton before moved to NY) are happened to be from Canada. I realized the answer for the mysterious coincidence until I watched the video that Hinton explained why he moved to Toronto: There was not enough funding from US other than Military at the time while there were some funding in Canada that didn't demand much instant result from his research. The healthcare system in Canada is also better than the states although it has a lot lot lot of problems. I believe socialist Canadians care more about people than efficiency of the system initially but it ended up with only 6 or 7 payers for the cost and less overhead instead of more than 2 thousands of payers along with less regulated but very complicated system. The hi speed train system in China funded by government totally changed the concepts of distance , time, space , contribute so much to economy beyond calculation. I guess if California government can do the same thing, Silicon Valley would spread to be a bigger area and a lot of developer can afford housing by living 100 miles away from where they work. BTW, I myself was quite pro small government/free market but became more moderate not because I'm influenced by my follow Canadians but by looking it at "High Order" level of efficiency.
legulere 10y ago
Especially when part of that money comes from government subsidies: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...
- mastax 10y ago
  The only figure in the article that's related to SpaceX is > On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.) $20m is pocket change as subsidies go. And if you consider the contracts that NASA has with SpaceX as subsidies then you'd have to think that about Boeing and BAE and all the other defense contractors. Cost-plus procurement being corporate welfare is a valid position, but it's a much bigger issue than SpaceX.

Public companies are only interested in short-term profits. Technically a private company by an eccentric billionaire (musk? bezos?) could be perfectly happy to burn billions to build a moon base

paublyrne 10y ago

I think we're talking about > 50 billion dollars. I'm not sure even those guys have the kind of resources you would need.

nickjarboe 10y ago
Not yet.

jjcc 10y ago

Good point. public and private funding are complementary to each other so there is a healthier Eco system for technology/social progress. Funding from (some time bureaucratic or socialist) government without concerning profit is necessary part of the system. Let me give you a few examples. Quite a few many pioneers like Hinton, Bingo ,maybe LeCun(was working with Hinton before moved to NY) are happened to be from Canada. I realized the answer for the mysterious coincidence until I watched the video that Hinton explained why he moved to Toronto: There was not enough funding from US other than Military at the time while there were some funding in Canada that didn't demand much instant result from his research. The healthcare system in Canada is also better than the states although it has a lot lot lot of problems. I believe socialist Canadians care more about people than efficiency of the system initially but it ended up with only 6 or 7 payers for the cost and less overhead instead of more than 2 thousands of payers along with less regulated but very complicated system. The hi speed train system in China funded by government totally changed the concepts of distance , time, space , contribute so much to economy beyond calculation. I guess if California government can do the same thing, Silicon Valley would spread to be a bigger area and a lot of developer can afford housing by living 100 miles away from where they work. BTW, I myself was quite pro small government/free market but became more moderate not because I'm influenced by my follow Canadians but by looking it at "High Order" level of efficiency.

legulere 10y ago

Especially when part of that money comes from government subsidies: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...

mastax 10y ago
The only figure in the article that's related to SpaceX is > On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.) $20m is pocket change as subsidies go. And if you consider the contracts that NASA has with SpaceX as subsidies then you'd have to think that about Boeing and BAE and all the other defense contractors. Cost-plus procurement being corporate welfare is a valid position, but it's a much bigger issue than SpaceX.