3 ms·

>The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government No, it's not. (No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subs

by TMWNN 4y ago

>The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government No, it's not. (No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subsidies" is not true.)

hef19898 4y ago
This question was, lest say, discussed between the EU and the US for litteraly decades regarding Airbus subsidies and Boeing subsidies. The former came directly the latter came through government contracts. Government contracts are one of the easiest ways to subsidize a company, and SpaceX got plenty of those.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  I am well aware that EU claimed for decades that Boeing's military contracts were some sort of hidden subsidy for its civilian business. That does not make said claims accurate, or why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed would not have sought to benefit from such subsidies, as opposed to selling itself to Boeing and exiting the airliner business, respectively. SpaceX gets plenty of government contracts because it has proven, reliable, and volume-capable launchers of government payloads. Many within NASA were fiercely opposed to SpaceX for years.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Whether or not government contracts can be considered subsidies was the question of the related WTO dispute. And it was never ruled that they are not. Since the WTO is the highest authority in those questions, everything else is just an opinion.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  There is a waste over estimation on how large SpaceX government contracts are. You are ignoring that Airbus is also getting additional government contracts. Arianespace gets massive infrastructure subsidy, they are gone get at least 5 billion all said and told for Ariane 6, and that does not cover the last 20 years of sub-component level development for things like the engine and the solid fuel. Lots of the testing and development for sub-components is all done in govenrment funded institutions that all have their own public funding. In addition to Arianespace has received lots of 'contracts' for development of things like engines, carbon fiber second stages, different re-usability prototypes and the list goes on. And when all that is done, Ariane 6 will STILL GET GOVERNMENT contracts, such as launches from ESA, EU governments projects like Galileo and countries own launches. SpaceX actually likely lost money on development of Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon. The had incredibly competitive bids and the govenrment got absolutely amazing deals by anybodies accounting. For Arianespace to claim SpaceX is subsidized and that's why they can launch cheaper is simply the height of hypocrisy and and Arianespace actually knows that they are outright lying when they say that. The reality is Arianespace and Europe dominated the market for 20 years and barley made any technological or price progress in that time. Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. If that's not a complete failure I don't know what is.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. Is that correct? Are/were Arianespace designs based on Russian rockets? I know that the US used Russian engines for years.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      No, Arianespace literally launches and markets the Soyuz. So basically using European company to sell a Russian rocket in the international market. Basically Ariane 5 was only worth flying for double GEO launches. That was Okish because this was during a time period where there were a pretty decent amount of GEO launches. Europe had the tiny Vega rocket as well. However between those two things the Russian Soyuz launched by Arianespace and Russian Proton rocket were successful. > Are/were Arianespace designs based on Russian rockets? Europes own rockets, like Ariane 5 and Vega are not meaningfully derived from Russian designs. The are more a product of copying from the post-Apollo, Shuttle area in US space flight. Basically Ariane 5 was suppose to be the base of a European Shuttle. This is why Ariane 5 is so big, instead of doing the sensible thing and making a mid-sized rocket to take over all the market, they made a huge rocket so it can fly a big space plane (Hermes). And then of course they canceled the space plane but didn't reevaluate the rocket. The Ariane 5 uses hydrogen core stage with side booster, so its basically like the Shuttle. Notably why these European designs can never be reusable like Falcon 9. The Core stage is way higher energy then the Falcon 9 Core stage. Vega, Vega C, Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 all use solid fuels, something that Russians don't use much. Its basically a lot of research done by France on the ICBM program that is being use here. > I know that the US used Russian engines for years. This was a post cold war development of course. By that point Europe had started development on their own hydrogen engine and didn't have much interest in RP-1. Hydrogen and solids were the way to go, or so they thought. I wish Europe had just picked up the Nk-33 and built a medium sized rocket with it.

by TMWNN 4y ago

>The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government No, it's not. (No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subsidies" is not true.)

hef19898 4y ago

This question was, lest say, discussed between the EU and the US for litteraly decades regarding Airbus subsidies and Boeing subsidies. The former came directly the latter came through government contracts. Government contracts are one of the easiest ways to subsidize a company, and SpaceX got plenty of those.

TMWNN 4y ago
I am well aware that EU claimed for decades that Boeing's military contracts were some sort of hidden subsidy for its civilian business. That does not make said claims accurate, or why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed would not have sought to benefit from such subsidies, as opposed to selling itself to Boeing and exiting the airliner business, respectively. SpaceX gets plenty of government contracts because it has proven, reliable, and volume-capable launchers of government payloads. Many within NASA were fiercely opposed to SpaceX for years.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Whether or not government contracts can be considered subsidies was the question of the related WTO dispute. And it was never ruled that they are not. Since the WTO is the highest authority in those questions, everything else is just an opinion.
panick21_ 4y ago
There is a waste over estimation on how large SpaceX government contracts are. You are ignoring that Airbus is also getting additional government contracts. Arianespace gets massive infrastructure subsidy, they are gone get at least 5 billion all said and told for Ariane 6, and that does not cover the last 20 years of sub-component level development for things like the engine and the solid fuel. Lots of the testing and development for sub-components is all done in govenrment funded institutions that all have their own public funding. In addition to Arianespace has received lots of 'contracts' for development of things like engines, carbon fiber second stages, different re-usability prototypes and the list goes on. And when all that is done, Ariane 6 will STILL GET GOVERNMENT contracts, such as launches from ESA, EU governments projects like Galileo and countries own launches. SpaceX actually likely lost money on development of Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon. The had incredibly competitive bids and the govenrment got absolutely amazing deals by anybodies accounting. For Arianespace to claim SpaceX is subsidized and that's why they can launch cheaper is simply the height of hypocrisy and and Arianespace actually knows that they are outright lying when they say that. The reality is Arianespace and Europe dominated the market for 20 years and barley made any technological or price progress in that time. Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. If that's not a complete failure I don't know what is.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. Is that correct? Are/were Arianespace designs based on Russian rockets? I know that the US used Russian engines for years.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    No, Arianespace literally launches and markets the Soyuz. So basically using European company to sell a Russian rocket in the international market. Basically Ariane 5 was only worth flying for double GEO launches. That was Okish because this was during a time period where there were a pretty decent amount of GEO launches. Europe had the tiny Vega rocket as well. However between those two things the Russian Soyuz launched by Arianespace and Russian Proton rocket were successful. > Are/were Arianespace designs based on Russian rockets? Europes own rockets, like Ariane 5 and Vega are not meaningfully derived from Russian designs. The are more a product of copying from the post-Apollo, Shuttle area in US space flight. Basically Ariane 5 was suppose to be the base of a European Shuttle. This is why Ariane 5 is so big, instead of doing the sensible thing and making a mid-sized rocket to take over all the market, they made a huge rocket so it can fly a big space plane (Hermes). And then of course they canceled the space plane but didn't reevaluate the rocket. The Ariane 5 uses hydrogen core stage with side booster, so its basically like the Shuttle. Notably why these European designs can never be reusable like Falcon 9. The Core stage is way higher energy then the Falcon 9 Core stage. Vega, Vega C, Ariane 5 and Ariane 6 all use solid fuels, something that Russians don't use much. Its basically a lot of research done by France on the ICBM program that is being use here. > I know that the US used Russian engines for years. This was a post cold war development of course. By that point Europe had started development on their own hydrogen engine and didn't have much interest in RP-1. Hydrogen and solids were the way to go, or so they thought. I wish Europe had just picked up the Nk-33 and built a medium sized rocket with it.