6 ms·

He's always been all-in on the winning candidate. His whole business is getting government subsidies. His single principle is sucking up to people in power. He

He's always been all-in on the winning candidate. His whole business is getting government subsidies. His single principle is sucking up to people in power. He loved Obama when he was in power, too. Proud to say I've found that asshole annoying since WAY before it was cool.

sebzim4500 2y ago
Obama space policy was ok though. I think Biden was great in every other respect, but his space policy is a clear step back from Trump's.
- adastra22 2y ago
  To his credit he didn’t kill Artemis, as everyone had expected.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    To his detriment, he didn’t kill Artemis and replace it with something workable.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Artemis' unworkable design is because of the limitations of Starship. I was all-in on "cool, huge rocket go brr" until I realized that it's going to take between 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission just to get to the moon. That's a clear regression from the Saturn V.
      - marssaxman 2y ago
        If you think that's a boondoggle, wait until you find out about the SLS!
      - gridspy 2y ago
        > 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission That is not actually such a big deal when you realize they are just ferrying fuel on a reusable rocket. They're also doing it well in advance of the mission. There is a massive logistics chain making it possible to buy fuel on your road trip, this is similar. > That's a clear regression from the Saturn V. Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V (though a bit less due to reusability) - it is the extra mass to the moon which requires the refuelling.
        kibwen 2y ago
        > Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellites have differing needs when it comes to orbital trajectories, it's unclear whether we even need that capability. By analogy, we've had jumbo jets for decades, but most air routes are not flying on jumbo jets, because the demand isn't there.
        cryptonector 2y ago
        > But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. Yet it was used to put Skylab in orbit.
        gridspy 2y ago
        > Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. Saturn V was completely destroyed by each launch with only the payload surviving. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you compare # launches. Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen.
        2y ago
      - adastra22 2y ago
        Starship is the only part of Artemis that is actually working. In any case, a reusable rocket architecture is way ahead of the Apollo model, not a regression.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        None of Artemis is working. Including Starship. (If Starship is working so is Orion.)
        adastra22 2y ago
        Sorry by working I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc. By that measure has humanity ever even been to space?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Can you expand on that? Biden's space policy was remarkably and suprisingly similar to Trump's. A little bit more money for planetary science, and that's about it AFAICT.
llboston 2y ago
SpaceX did get government contracts, but not subsidies, and saved NASA and US Taxpayers lots of money.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  SpaceX's contracts were absolutely subsidies - the contracted Falcon 1 tests and the resulting Falcon 9 contracts were an expensive moonshot for the USG at first - but even if you discount them, Tesla absolutely hoovered up subsidies like the EV tax credits. They even have a page about them: https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives
  - llboston 2y ago
    From Wiki [1]: SpaceX spent its own capital to develop and fly its previous launcher, Falcon 1, with no pre-arranged sales of launch services. SpaceX developed Falcon 9 with private capital as well, but did have pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights once specific capabilities were demonstrated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches Customers: DARPA, DARPA, DOD/NASA, mass simulator (instead of the intended payload after the first three launches), Malaysia (the intended payload of the fourth flight). "pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights" is a subsidy, as were the milestone payments along the way. I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but let's not pretend they could've done this alone. They very nearly went bankrupt on Falcon 1, per Musk - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex-nearly-failed-itself-out-of-existence.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex... - and had they needed to self-fund those launches/payloads entirely they would not have survived. It's a beautiful example of how powerful public/private partnerships can be.
      - 2y ago
inglor_cz 2y ago
"His whole business is getting government subsidies." SpaceX absolutely dominates the commercial launch market. No one forces companies from abroad to buy launches from SpaceX - only their reliability and lower prices. For fully subsidized organizations that nevertheless cannot compete on the commercial market, see Roskosmos and Arianespace.
- willy_k 2y ago
  In fairness the wording is “His”, not “their”. I interpret that as a claim about how Musk achieves success, not about how SpaceX makes money.
TeaBrain 2y ago
As SpaceX is essentially the only mature commercial launch company with reusable rockets, it should be no surprise that the company gets government contracts.

sebzim4500 2y ago

Obama space policy was ok though. I think Biden was great in every other respect, but his space policy is a clear step back from Trump's.

adastra22 2y ago
To his credit he didn’t kill Artemis, as everyone had expected.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  To his detriment, he didn’t kill Artemis and replace it with something workable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Artemis' unworkable design is because of the limitations of Starship. I was all-in on "cool, huge rocket go brr" until I realized that it's going to take between 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission just to get to the moon. That's a clear regression from the Saturn V.
    - marssaxman 2y ago
      If you think that's a boondoggle, wait until you find out about the SLS!
    - gridspy 2y ago
      > 5 and 20 Starship launches per mission That is not actually such a big deal when you realize they are just ferrying fuel on a reusable rocket. They're also doing it well in advance of the mission. There is a massive logistics chain making it possible to buy fuel on your road trip, this is similar. > That's a clear regression from the Saturn V. Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V (though a bit less due to reusability) - it is the extra mass to the moon which requires the refuelling.
      - kibwen 2y ago
        > Not exactly, as the fuel provided in orbit by these other missions will allow a much larger payload to reach the Moon's surface and return. Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. > StarShip can already deliver a similar payload to orbit as Saturn V But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. We have plenty of rockets capable of getting to orbit. And given that satellites have differing needs when it comes to orbital trajectories, it's unclear whether we even need that capability. By analogy, we've had jumbo jets for decades, but most air routes are not flying on jumbo jets, because the demand isn't there.
        cryptonector 2y ago
        > But Saturn V's purpose was not getting things to orbit. Yet it was used to put Skylab in orbit.
        gridspy 2y ago
        > Amortized over the number of launches it takes to get a single moonshot. Saturn V was completely destroyed by each launch with only the payload surviving. It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison when you compare # launches. Those 10-15 launches of StarShip will be a lot cheaper than a single Saturn V launch because at the end you still have all the StarShips you launched and all you used was some methane and oxygen.
        2y ago
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Starship is the only part of Artemis that is actually working. In any case, a reusable rocket architecture is way ahead of the Apollo model, not a regression.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        None of Artemis is working. Including Starship. (If Starship is working so is Orion.)
        adastra22 2y ago
        Sorry by working I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > I meant more along the lines of “on track, on budget, meeting expectations” etc. By that measure has humanity ever even been to space?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Can you expand on that? Biden's space policy was remarkably and suprisingly similar to Trump's. A little bit more money for planetary science, and that's about it AFAICT.

llboston 2y ago

SpaceX did get government contracts, but not subsidies, and saved NASA and US Taxpayers lots of money.

ceejayoz 2y ago
SpaceX's contracts were absolutely subsidies - the contracted Falcon 1 tests and the resulting Falcon 9 contracts were an expensive moonshot for the USG at first - but even if you discount them, Tesla absolutely hoovered up subsidies like the EV tax credits. They even have a page about them: https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives
- llboston 2y ago
  From Wiki [1]: SpaceX spent its own capital to develop and fly its previous launcher, Falcon 1, with no pre-arranged sales of launch services. SpaceX developed Falcon 9 with private capital as well, but did have pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights once specific capabilities were demonstrated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches Customers: DARPA, DARPA, DOD/NASA, mass simulator (instead of the intended payload after the first three launches), Malaysia (the intended payload of the fourth flight). "pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights" is a subsidy, as were the milestone payments along the way. I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but let's not pretend they could've done this alone. They very nearly went bankrupt on Falcon 1, per Musk - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex-nearly-failed-itself-out-of-existence.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex... - and had they needed to self-fund those launches/payloads entirely they would not have survived. It's a beautiful example of how powerful public/private partnerships can be.
    - 2y ago

inglor_cz 2y ago

"His whole business is getting government subsidies." SpaceX absolutely dominates the commercial launch market. No one forces companies from abroad to buy launches from SpaceX - only their reliability and lower prices. For fully subsidized organizations that nevertheless cannot compete on the commercial market, see Roskosmos and Arianespace.

willy_k 2y ago
In fairness the wording is “His”, not “their”. I interpret that as a claim about how Musk achieves success, not about how SpaceX makes money.

TeaBrain 2y ago

As SpaceX is essentially the only mature commercial launch company with reusable rockets, it should be no surprise that the company gets government contracts.