3 ms·

Government contracts are work done in exchange for money. They are not subsidies as much as you might wish for them to be. If the government buys 1000 pens bec

Government contracts are work done in exchange for money. They are not subsidies as much as you might wish for them to be. If the government buys 1000 pens because it literally needs them to do its job, it isn't subsidizing the pen industry.

georgeg23 3y ago
In the case of Musk, that isn't true. The COTS contract awarded half the money ($150M) without any hardware built--it was up-front. This amounted to more than the total amount Elon invested and more than covered Falcon 1, meaning he never had to spend his own money.
- cookingrobot 3y ago
  But it was a contract for work yes? That sounds more like a pre-payment than a grant.
  - georgeg23 3y ago
    If presenting a PowerPoint you already made is work (for $150M) then sure.
    - nebula8804 3y ago
      Others got the same (or better) deal no?
      - georgeg23 3y ago
        I believe the deal here was very unusual--not unless they had someone with government power directly pulling big strings. In this case Griffin.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Part of the money being given up front doesn't make it a subsidy either... The COTS program required the development of an appropriate vehicle after a competitive process to evaluate different proposals. You're acting like it was money to cover his previous costs and not money intended to pay for the development of the thing they were being contracted for, along with associated milestones for further payments. And hell, not like they were the only ones to get that money or even the ones to get the most money, they were the only ones to actually manage to deliver. Why is it that only when it comes to a Musk company people act like these are unique contracting methods? You can easily find this info using the very thing you're using to post deceitful half truths. Edit: Actually it isn't even a half truth, it's outright wrong, the initial payment SpaceX got was $23M. Everything else was dependent on milestones and design reviews, with NASA being able to cancel any time for non-performance (as they had done with one of the other companies under the program). The end result was NASA paying slightly less than half the development cost that SpaceX incurred. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Lindenmoyer_%20COTS%20Summary%20%28ARPA-E%2010-23-2018%20R1%29.pdf https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Lindenmoyer_%2...
  - georgeg23 3y ago
    Look at the actual COTS agreement wording: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj... page 34 details the milestones. The first 12 milestones are paper design / powerpoints. Half the money before any hardware development at all. Mike Griffin structured it this way for Elon.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      Look, I get that you're trying to be malicious, but you could do a better job than that. They literally describe what the criteria for successful design reviews are in Appendix 3. Hint: Design reviews are not "powerpoints". They're typically several hundred to several thousand page technical documents.
      - georgeg23 3y ago
shapefrog 3y ago
that excludes government contracts

georgeg23 3y ago

In the case of Musk, that isn't true. The COTS contract awarded half the money ($150M) without any hardware built--it was up-front. This amounted to more than the total amount Elon invested and more than covered Falcon 1, meaning he never had to spend his own money.

cookingrobot 3y ago
But it was a contract for work yes? That sounds more like a pre-payment than a grant.
- georgeg23 3y ago
  If presenting a PowerPoint you already made is work (for $150M) then sure.
  - nebula8804 3y ago
    Others got the same (or better) deal no?
    - georgeg23 3y ago
      I believe the deal here was very unusual--not unless they had someone with government power directly pulling big strings. In this case Griffin.
dotnet00 3y ago
Part of the money being given up front doesn't make it a subsidy either... The COTS program required the development of an appropriate vehicle after a competitive process to evaluate different proposals. You're acting like it was money to cover his previous costs and not money intended to pay for the development of the thing they were being contracted for, along with associated milestones for further payments. And hell, not like they were the only ones to get that money or even the ones to get the most money, they were the only ones to actually manage to deliver. Why is it that only when it comes to a Musk company people act like these are unique contracting methods? You can easily find this info using the very thing you're using to post deceitful half truths. Edit: Actually it isn't even a half truth, it's outright wrong, the initial payment SpaceX got was $23M. Everything else was dependent on milestones and design reviews, with NASA being able to cancel any time for non-performance (as they had done with one of the other companies under the program). The end result was NASA paying slightly less than half the development cost that SpaceX incurred. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Lindenmoyer_%20COTS%20Summary%20%28ARPA-E%2010-23-2018%20R1%29.pdf https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Lindenmoyer_%2...
- georgeg23 3y ago
  Look at the actual COTS agreement wording: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj... page 34 details the milestones. The first 12 milestones are paper design / powerpoints. Half the money before any hardware development at all. Mike Griffin structured it this way for Elon.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    Look, I get that you're trying to be malicious, but you could do a better job than that. They literally describe what the criteria for successful design reviews are in Appendix 3. Hint: Design reviews are not "powerpoints". They're typically several hundred to several thousand page technical documents.
    - georgeg23 3y ago

shapefrog 3y ago

that excludes government contracts