3 ms·

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

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
      The point is Elon didn't risk his own money as is oft dramatized. In fact they were mostly spreadsheets and PowerPoints to obtain that money which could then be used for build out.

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
    The point is Elon didn't risk his own money as is oft dramatized. In fact they were mostly spreadsheets and PowerPoints to obtain that money which could then be used for build out.