4 ms·
That is mostly false. Neither Tesla nor SpaceX depend on government funding. SpaceX absolutely does not depend on NASA for funding. The majority of SpaceX miss
by nickik 9y ago
That is mostly false. Neither Tesla nor SpaceX depend on government funding.
SpaceX absolutely does not depend on NASA for funding. The majority of SpaceX missions are not for the government. The majority of their developments and research are not directly funded by NASA.
> Congress can absolutely decide to fund SpaceX less
They can hurt them by telling NASA and DoD to not use SpaceX even if they are the cheapest. But that would absolutely not kill SpaceX in any way.
It would also massively hurt the government since it would cost them billions.
> or charge SpaceX more for use of government facilities
Unless they break their contract that were already negotiated for the long term, no they can't. But that's a stupid argument, of course the US government can destroy any company in the world if they really want to.
> Elon Musk is very good at designing companies built on government handouts. ;) Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that.
Not really. First of all, in the case of SpaceX they were not handouts, but rather competitively bid contracts that SpaceX can execute cheaper then anybody else. In fact SpaceX had to sue the government multiple times to even be allowed to bid for some of the contracts.
Kistler for example was not able to execute and NASA cut their funding and they went down.
These actions actually saved the government a shit-ton of money, rather then the government giving handouts to SpaceX.
The same goes for Tesla, its mostly successful because it a good product. The tax cuts they get are nice, but again, any other company has access to the same tax-cuts as well.
> We are past the "pioneer" stage of space launches
The BFR is absolutely a pineer project.Pretty much nothing like it has ever been done. Not the engines. Not the structure. Not the fuel. Not the orbital refueling. Not the full reusability.
And of course then landing it on Mars and hopefully flying it back, that's absolutely a pioneer project.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoUh, most of SpaceX wouldn't exist without the $3.144 billion SpaceX was given under the Commercial Crew Program: https://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-essentials/ https://www.nasa.gov/content/commercial-crew-program-the-ess... Which, for what it's worth, SpaceX still hasn't actually delivered a result on, since they decided not to make the Dragon a crewed spacecraft after all.
- nickik 9y agoYou are just continung to show that you total ignorance of the space industry, NASA and SpaceX. First of all, the argument that SpaceX would not exist without that contract is 100% wrong. When it was awarded they already had a successful comercial buissness with many people having order launches. Second, you seem to be under the delusion that SpaceX was given this money. That is false, the money is conditional on reaching milestones and is only paid out if NASA is sadified. If NASA is not sadified the company has to pay for the delays out of their profit margin, unlike JWST for example. SpaceX has not jet recived the waste majority of that money. Third, the 3 billion is by FAR the cheapest offer NASA had. You can see in your own link that SpaceX gets 2.6 billion while Boeing gets 4.2 billon for the operational phase. The DreamCheaser was around 3.6. So what do you want? Do you want NASA to build everything themselfs? NASA itself admits that they could not develop something nearly as cheap. Their own evaluations have ahown this over and over again. Are you just against spaceflight in general? Do you think the government should not be invovlved? The document you yourself provided showes that SpaceX got the contract because they convinced NASA in a highly technical highy comptetive. So whats your issue? Why this irrational hate?
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoI don't have irrational hate. And I wish SpaceX the best on their endeavors and look forward to seeing what they accomplish. Why the irrational fanboyism? Why are you taking a realistic discussion of the company like a shot across the bow?
- outworlder 9y agoBecause the discussion is not realistic. You are misrepresenting facts for some reason.
- nickik 9y agoMaybe its not hate, but it is irrational. You are either lying and misrepresent the facts, or you just simply don't know what you are talking about. In either case you should stop going into technical forums and write strongly worded comments like: > Uh, most of SpaceX wouldn't exist without the $3.144 billion SpaceX was given under the Commercial Crew Program Secondly > Why the irrational fanboyism? How is it irrational? I'm a 'fanboy' because of what SpcaeX has achived. I'm a fanboy for any company that pushes technology and SpaceX just happens to be one of the most visionary and aggressive companies around. > Why are you taking a realistic discussion of the company like a shot across the bow? I'm all for realistic discussion. If you had argued that SpaceX would not exists without NASA or the governmnet (2008 COTS contract), then I would have responded differently. But you did not make realistic discussions, you asserted things that were false. There is a realistic discussion about SpaceX and the profitiabiltiy of its vision. And I'm happy to talk about that, because it is a difficult thing. Being a 'fanboy' does not preclude realism. All I did was give you the facts to correct your mistake. Don't be salty.