3 ms·

What's really a shame is SpaceX is going to have to compete with these massive government programs while SpaceX created their own program from scratch with priv

What's really a shame is SpaceX is going to have to compete with these massive government programs while SpaceX created their own program from scratch with private investors. How is this fair? Sure DOD and NASA are customers but SpaceX financed their advancements and had to convince the US government to use their platform with successful launches. This sounds similar to Airbus's support. Why is this allowed. US intelligence should be sabotaging these free market cheaters. Europe is acting like China, where the government is financially supporting major industries competing with the US. I will call it what it is. Economic Warfare. Maybe more aptly Economic Welfare Warfare.

gpm 9y ago
If the EU wants to subsidize US satellite companies by paying part of the launch cost (which is what you are accusing them of) I don't see why the US should consider that a negative, let alone sabotage them.
arkh 9y ago
You may want to learn about Boeing and how the US intelligence agencies are used for US industrial interests. And have been for decades.
gozur88 9y ago
SpaceX got money from the US taxpayer. It wasn't a lot by the standard of rocket development, and Musk put in a lot of his own money, but SpaceX wouldn't have survived without the government. Elon Musk is very up front about that. Boeing gets a lot of support from various levels of government as well. They get cushy tax deals at the state and local level. And what is a virtually-guaranteed military contract for cargo and tanker aircraft worth when you're developing a new air frame?
anacoluthe 9y ago
SpaceX was awarded $1.6 billion for 12 cargo missions 10 years ago. Given their current pricing, that sounds a lot like public investment... The model is simply different in Europe where public money funds most of the development costs: market size is smaller in Europe (compared to US institutional market for example), geographic return makes things more complicated and it is of course all about independent space access. Finally, all US institutional satellites must be launched on American launchers ("Buy American Act"), which is not the case in Europe. Free market, were you saying?

gpm 9y ago

If the EU wants to subsidize US satellite companies by paying part of the launch cost (which is what you are accusing them of) I don't see why the US should consider that a negative, let alone sabotage them.

arkh 9y ago

You may want to learn about Boeing and how the US intelligence agencies are used for US industrial interests. And have been for decades.

gozur88 9y ago

SpaceX got money from the US taxpayer. It wasn't a lot by the standard of rocket development, and Musk put in a lot of his own money, but SpaceX wouldn't have survived without the government. Elon Musk is very up front about that. Boeing gets a lot of support from various levels of government as well. They get cushy tax deals at the state and local level. And what is a virtually-guaranteed military contract for cargo and tanker aircraft worth when you're developing a new air frame?

anacoluthe 9y ago

SpaceX was awarded $1.6 billion for 12 cargo missions 10 years ago. Given their current pricing, that sounds a lot like public investment... The model is simply different in Europe where public money funds most of the development costs: market size is smaller in Europe (compared to US institutional market for example), geographic return makes things more complicated and it is of course all about independent space access. Finally, all US institutional satellites must be launched on American launchers ("Buy American Act"), which is not the case in Europe. Free market, were you saying?