4 ms·

While I absolutely agree that defense contractor spending is an abhorrent waste of public funds, this is a bad take. Literally every company in this space (ISP'

While I absolutely agree that defense contractor spending is an abhorrent waste of public funds, this is a bad take. Literally every company in this space (ISP's, and more so ISP's that utilize satellites) have used it as a platform to grift public funds. Examples include Lightsquared, Iridium, Globalstar, and the worst of all, DISH) SpaceX has significantly reduced the cost of building a satellite ISP but you need to consider the history here and the other players that have already cost American citizens a shitload of wasted money and resource. If the FCC believed they should give assistance to SpaceX, it should have been in the form of access to the spectrum Charlie Ergen has been squatting over at DISH making the same promises SpaceX is doing right now. For those unaware of Ergan's history, the FCC for the first time decided to give a light wrist slap over setting up a constellation of fake shell corporations to bid on spectrum that included rural and small carrier subsidies. DISH has blown every build-out deadline and it's set back terrestrial carriers for years now. There were two they completely blew off that came due this year, and the only purpose they served was as an excuse to let the Sprint/TMUS merger happen, where previously TMUS had been calling out their business practices. I'm aware every Elon fanboy is going to wax poetic about how it won't be the same, but I'd caution you to consider SolarCity and what a public funds debacle that has been. There's a history of making big promises in areas and leaving a mess. Running an ISP is an easy to understand business model, either be the only option in an area or provide better service (and/or price) then incumbents. As others in this thread have said, there's already a shitload of capital flowing around, so why should this capital come from the public. Why didn't Elon just run another 'Deposit $100 to get in line for Starlink!' As it stands most of the US is stuck with shit ISP's because of a lack of competition, and giving subsidies to incumbents (like Charter) are only going to enrich them and further entrench their monopolies. SpaceX didn't launch this service as a practical or sensible business model for them, they already get paid to launch other telecommunications equipment into space, they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit.

rlt 6y ago
> Literally every company in this space have used it as a platform to grift public funds. > they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit $1B is a fraction of what SpaceX, and Morgan Stanley among others, believe they can make from Starlink: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/22/morgan-stanleyz-spacex-to-be-100-billion-company-due-to-starlink-starship.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/22/mor... I think this time it really is different. SpaceX has already reduced launch cost by an order of magnitude, and if Starship is successful another 1-2 orders of magnitude. This gives them a huge advantage over other LEO constellation attempts. I don’t think this money is necessary for their success but if the money is there for the taking why wouldn’t they take it?
- bumby 6y ago
  >reduced launch cost by an order of magnitude Which specific launches are you referring to? Some of the Space Force launch costs have gotten quite bloated for SpaceX as well
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    The Space Force is getting $300M in infrastructure and a launch for $316M.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Yes, but I was actually poking at the "order of magnitude" more inexpensive statement. I'm a cheerleader for SpaceX, but sometimes people overextend. "United Launch Alliance, was awarded $337 million to launch two missions comparable to the one awarded to SpaceX" https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%94%20When%20the%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20announced,many%20were%20surprised%20by%20the%20large%20price%20tag https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-forc....
ehsankia 6y ago
Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route?
- joecool1029 6y ago
  >They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. Majority of the subsidies (around 70%?) were indirect on EV's through buyer incentive credits. I wouldn't directly consider this a Tesla subsidy as any established auto manufacturer could claim it with an electric vehicle. The remaining subsidies were far less than this FCC subsidy is. > Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? Because when a company that isn't a telecommunications company decides to be one, it's important to understand why and the best way to do so is to look at the history of the industry and the behavior of principle executives in the company deciding to pivot. >They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. This was a great success and they should absolutely be commended for this. There are situations where the public and SpaceX have received a mutual benefit. The GPS, ISS missions, and Lockheed defense contracts all saved taxpayers a ton of money. > Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route? Sweeping aside that this is the way it's always been for a market that should not require subsidies now that costs can actually be amortized (unlike previously for Iridium), there's already a track record of scandals around their Elon-associated affiliates looting public funds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investi...
nickik 6y ago
> SpaceX didn't launch this service as a practical or sensible business model for them, they already get paid to launch other telecommunications equipment into space, they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit. This is pretty much nonsense. Spend 10min actually researching the market and you would know it is nonsense. Rocket launches are tiny part of the space market, even if SpaceX had a monopoly it would not be that much money. Also, the most valuable launches are trying up and there are not nearly enough of them for SpaceX to continue to grow. Telecommunications however is a much bigger market, and that is why SpaceX is going into it. There is a gigantic market to be captured and SpaceX with cheap launch and amazing sat technology have a chance to do it. This is also a global play, the idea that this was done just to get access to US subsidies is nonsensical. They have been planning for this for many, many, many years long before it was even clear if they could get access to this FCC subsidy at all, something that was disputed until just a couple months ago. They didn't invest multiple billion into this project to hopefully get less then 1 billion back in the next 10 years. As to why SpaceX takes advantage of this, why should they not? SpaceX would do the same thing without these funds, but why not take advantage of it if the government offers it?

rlt 6y ago

> Literally every company in this space have used it as a platform to grift public funds. > they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit $1B is a fraction of what SpaceX, and Morgan Stanley among others, believe they can make from Starlink: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/22/morgan-stanleyz-spacex-to-be-100-billion-company-due-to-starlink-starship.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/22/mor... I think this time it really is different. SpaceX has already reduced launch cost by an order of magnitude, and if Starship is successful another 1-2 orders of magnitude. This gives them a huge advantage over other LEO constellation attempts. I don’t think this money is necessary for their success but if the money is there for the taking why wouldn’t they take it?

bumby 6y ago
>reduced launch cost by an order of magnitude Which specific launches are you referring to? Some of the Space Force launch costs have gotten quite bloated for SpaceX as well
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  The Space Force is getting $300M in infrastructure and a launch for $316M.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Yes, but I was actually poking at the "order of magnitude" more inexpensive statement. I'm a cheerleader for SpaceX, but sometimes people overextend. "United Launch Alliance, was awarded $337 million to launch two missions comparable to the one awarded to SpaceX" https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%94%20When%20the%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20announced,many%20were%20surprised%20by%20the%20large%20price%20tag https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-forc....

ehsankia 6y ago

Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route?

joecool1029 6y ago
>They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. Majority of the subsidies (around 70%?) were indirect on EV's through buyer incentive credits. I wouldn't directly consider this a Tesla subsidy as any established auto manufacturer could claim it with an electric vehicle. The remaining subsidies were far less than this FCC subsidy is. > Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? Because when a company that isn't a telecommunications company decides to be one, it's important to understand why and the best way to do so is to look at the history of the industry and the behavior of principle executives in the company deciding to pivot. >They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. This was a great success and they should absolutely be commended for this. There are situations where the public and SpaceX have received a mutual benefit. The GPS, ISS missions, and Lockheed defense contracts all saved taxpayers a ton of money. > Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route? Sweeping aside that this is the way it's always been for a market that should not require subsidies now that costs can actually be amortized (unlike previously for Iridium), there's already a track record of scandals around their Elon-associated affiliates looting public funds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investi...

nickik 6y ago

> SpaceX didn't launch this service as a practical or sensible business model for them, they already get paid to launch other telecommunications equipment into space, they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit. This is pretty much nonsense. Spend 10min actually researching the market and you would know it is nonsense. Rocket launches are tiny part of the space market, even if SpaceX had a monopoly it would not be that much money. Also, the most valuable launches are trying up and there are not nearly enough of them for SpaceX to continue to grow. Telecommunications however is a much bigger market, and that is why SpaceX is going into it. There is a gigantic market to be captured and SpaceX with cheap launch and amazing sat technology have a chance to do it. This is also a global play, the idea that this was done just to get access to US subsidies is nonsensical. They have been planning for this for many, many, many years long before it was even clear if they could get access to this FCC subsidy at all, something that was disputed until just a couple months ago. They didn't invest multiple billion into this project to hopefully get less then 1 billion back in the next 10 years. As to why SpaceX takes advantage of this, why should they not? SpaceX would do the same thing without these funds, but why not take advantage of it if the government offers it?