3 ms·

A subsidy is not the same thing as NASA ordering private contracts for actual “products” Spacex didn’t get money handed to them (unlike the corn and oil indust

by zpeti 3y ago

A subsidy is not the same thing as NASA ordering private contracts for actual “products” Spacex didn’t get money handed to them (unlike the corn and oil industries). It got orders to complete certain tasks that NASA thought it might do better than itself. Boeing and many others got these types of orders too. It explains nothing about why spacex succeeded. This “Elon did spacex thanks to government” is a serious misrepresentation of what happened, and if it was true, why is the government funded EU space program struggling so much?

sofixa 3y ago
> Spacex didn’t get money handed to them (unlike the corn and oil industries). It got orders to complete certain tasks that NASA thought it might do better than itself. Boeing and many others got these types of orders too. According to the WTO, those are overgenerous and the same as subsidies (check Airbus' cases against Boeing for illegal subsidies). > It explains nothing about why spacex succeeded Indeed, just money (even government money) is not sufficient. Never said it was, only that it is a flat out lie to say only private funding can innovate and that SpaceX/Tesla did it all on their own and Musk is a self-made man/billionaire.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > According to the WTO, those are overgenerous SpaceX offers payloads to space at an order of magnitude lower price than its competitors. Infinity times cheaper in the case of the CRS contract, where the competitor has to date delivered 0 kg of human mass to space
  - jackmott42 3y ago
    SpaceX costs might be an order of magnitude cheaper, but their prices are not, yet.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > According to the WTO, those are overgenerous and the same as subsidies (check Airbus' cases against Boeing for illegal subsidies). Interesting that you have to point to Boeing because no such case exists for SpaceX. And all of those contracts for SpaceX were cheaper then what Arianespace could have offered, or any US competitor. You are just parating lies that ArianeGroup has been spouting for a decade because they have no technical way to compete. Its literally just false propaganda. The reality is ArianeGroup has and had subsidies far, far, far larger then what SpaceX had. The total cost of the original Falcon 9 was maybe 400M and maybe 300M of that was part of the governments program to get private supply for ISS (that the Europeans handed over to the US and SpaceX to do because they couldn't do it cheaply). In comparison Ariane 6 is costing the government 4 billion $ minimum, likely more. If anybody has grounds to complain with the WTO its SpaceX.
raverbashing 3y ago
The secret of SpaceX was that they got paid, but the government didn't manage the program (which is common with those other programs like SLS, Arianne, etc) Also being in a position of 'up-and-comer' you definitely don't want to stay behind But that being said, being reusable is great, but not a "be all, end all" objective. Sure, it can make launches cheaper, but not even Falcon 9 is reusable if they need to get to higher orbits (I believe the last F9H launch was fully expended)

by zpeti 3y ago

sofixa 3y ago

> Spacex didn’t get money handed to them (unlike the corn and oil industries). It got orders to complete certain tasks that NASA thought it might do better than itself. Boeing and many others got these types of orders too. According to the WTO, those are overgenerous and the same as subsidies (check Airbus' cases against Boeing for illegal subsidies). > It explains nothing about why spacex succeeded Indeed, just money (even government money) is not sufficient. Never said it was, only that it is a flat out lie to say only private funding can innovate and that SpaceX/Tesla did it all on their own and Musk is a self-made man/billionaire.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
> According to the WTO, those are overgenerous SpaceX offers payloads to space at an order of magnitude lower price than its competitors. Infinity times cheaper in the case of the CRS contract, where the competitor has to date delivered 0 kg of human mass to space
- jackmott42 3y ago
  SpaceX costs might be an order of magnitude cheaper, but their prices are not, yet.
panick21_ 3y ago
> According to the WTO, those are overgenerous and the same as subsidies (check Airbus' cases against Boeing for illegal subsidies). Interesting that you have to point to Boeing because no such case exists for SpaceX. And all of those contracts for SpaceX were cheaper then what Arianespace could have offered, or any US competitor. You are just parating lies that ArianeGroup has been spouting for a decade because they have no technical way to compete. Its literally just false propaganda. The reality is ArianeGroup has and had subsidies far, far, far larger then what SpaceX had. The total cost of the original Falcon 9 was maybe 400M and maybe 300M of that was part of the governments program to get private supply for ISS (that the Europeans handed over to the US and SpaceX to do because they couldn't do it cheaply). In comparison Ariane 6 is costing the government 4 billion $ minimum, likely more. If anybody has grounds to complain with the WTO its SpaceX.

raverbashing 3y ago

The secret of SpaceX was that they got paid, but the government didn't manage the program (which is common with those other programs like SLS, Arianne, etc) Also being in a position of 'up-and-comer' you definitely don't want to stay behind But that being said, being reusable is great, but not a "be all, end all" objective. Sure, it can make launches cheaper, but not even Falcon 9 is reusable if they need to get to higher orbits (I believe the last F9H launch was fully expended)