4 ms·

> redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? i was under the impr

> redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? i was under the impression that they were sinking their time and money into them too, as more of a hobby than a money-maker

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? They aren't. We have currently two billionaire hobby space programs. One is a pure hobby and doesn't do actual space yet (suborbital hops != orbit). The other one exists solely to open Mars for regular access and eventual colonization, in the process also opening up near-Earth space for general exploration and exploitation. If it succeeds, it'll create an unprecedented amount of lasting value for humanity in general. Really, complaining about billionaire space is one of the dumbest part of the current zeitgeist.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  If you read the wikipedia page for SpaceX (which is as neutral as you are likely to get) you see that in the first 10 years of operation, SpaceX spend $1 billion, of which $200M were private investments (Musk $100M) and $400M came from NASA via progress payments on launch contracts, so yes SpaceX was primarily funded through government contracts. It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending.
  - theonlybutlet 5y ago
    And the product of this investment will benefit all, it's not just some billionaire rollercoaster unlike others * cough * blue origin * cough *.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      How?
      - theonlybutlet 5y ago
        In ways we are already seeing tangible benefits: supply missions and passenger missions to the ISS, Commercial and military satellite launches, Starlink. Future benefits this tech would potentially support: asteroid mining, colonising other planets. The other company I reference have not made a commercially viable rocket that will get you into orbit.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    To quote you: > largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires Which means that you are saying that Musk is getting taxpayer money from SpaceX. This clearly isn't the case, he's sinking his own money into it too
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      I'm not sure how you think investment works. He is not donating his money to SpaceX and it disappears. If the government contracts increase the value of SpaceX it is increasing his investment.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending. Well, yes, they're a real company providing real services and getting paid in exchange. Anyway, whether the contracts are private or government is off-topic (if it was, I'd point out that the government is getting a really good deal here, which is a very rare case in large-scale government spending). The point is, all that money isn't being funneled to line Musk's pockets, it's being reinvested straight into "let's go to Mars" R&D program.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> are these space programs really profitable for the billionaires in question? They aren't. We have currently two billionaire hobby space programs. One is a pure hobby and doesn't do actual space yet (suborbital hops != orbit). The other one exists solely to open Mars for regular access and eventual colonization, in the process also opening up near-Earth space for general exploration and exploitation. If it succeeds, it'll create an unprecedented amount of lasting value for humanity in general. Really, complaining about billionaire space is one of the dumbest part of the current zeitgeist.

cycomanic 5y ago
If you read the wikipedia page for SpaceX (which is as neutral as you are likely to get) you see that in the first 10 years of operation, SpaceX spend $1 billion, of which $200M were private investments (Musk $100M) and $400M came from NASA via progress payments on launch contracts, so yes SpaceX was primarily funded through government contracts. It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending.
- theonlybutlet 5y ago
  And the product of this investment will benefit all, it's not just some billionaire rollercoaster unlike others * cough * blue origin * cough *.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    How?
    - theonlybutlet 5y ago
      In ways we are already seeing tangible benefits: supply missions and passenger missions to the ISS, Commercial and military satellite launches, Starlink. Future benefits this tech would potentially support: asteroid mining, colonising other planets. The other company I reference have not made a commercially viable rocket that will get you into orbit.
- namdnay 5y ago
  To quote you: > largely redistributing wealth from the commons to rich billionaires Which means that you are saying that Musk is getting taxpayer money from SpaceX. This clearly isn't the case, he's sinking his own money into it too
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    I'm not sure how you think investment works. He is not donating his money to SpaceX and it disappears. If the government contracts increase the value of SpaceX it is increasing his investment.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > It doesn't really matter if they made a profit or not, the growth of SpaceX is largely build on government spending. Well, yes, they're a real company providing real services and getting paid in exchange. Anyway, whether the contracts are private or government is off-topic (if it was, I'd point out that the government is getting a really good deal here, which is a very rare case in large-scale government spending). The point is, all that money isn't being funneled to line Musk's pockets, it's being reinvested straight into "let's go to Mars" R&D program.