4 ms·

Is SpaceX going to return the billions for the Artemis contract from missing their milestones? This is generally what happens with corporate welfare - the peopl

Is SpaceX going to return the billions for the Artemis contract from missing their milestones? This is generally what happens with corporate welfare - the people getting the handout win contracts by over-promising the most and then under-deliver.

yapyap 2y ago
SpaceX’s owner has a hand up the proverbial puppet running the United States of America right now, intel doesn’t.
klysm 2y ago
Turns out you don’t actually have to hit milestones on grants. The unfortunate reality is grants are typically unrealistic in the same way VC backed startups vastly overestimate their growth curve. In order to win the grant, you’re competing against other ideas. It’s easy to win grants with ideas that aren’t feasible because they sound better than ideas that are actually feasible. It enables incredible amounts of grift once you understand how to exploit the dynamics. Look up SBIR mills
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  I had the displeasure of submitting a few honest SBIRs at one point in time. Needless to say, they were rejected for not being ambitious enough. It is actually so bad that there is an inverse relationship between your ability to get an SBIR and your ability to produce a commercial product - startups who try and fail are statistically more likely to succeed in the market than startups who get an SBIR (even with the benefit of the money).
  - klysm 2y ago
    I’ve had the displeasure of working for companies that did get SBIRs and firmly believe you are correct that there is an inverse relationship on producing products. The machine knows how to get grants, and it does not care about delivering anything. Do you have any references on this topic I can look into further? I find it difficult to articulate that particular behavior to management
- hermannj314 2y ago
  I found a link on grant fraud from the OIG and to my non-legal mind this confirms exactly what you say. Conflict of interest and bad accounting practices are the types of fraud being alerted to, but failure to perform apparently is not. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/GrantFraudHandout.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/GrantFra...
somenameforme 2y ago
Starship has been progressing relatively well because delays in these things are the norm, not the exception. A big issue is that the previous administration was weaponizing regulatory agencies against SpaceX to intentional delay launches. It led to some amusing stories like this one. [1] SpaceX were required to prove that Starship wouldn't hit a shark when coming down in the ocean. So they asked if they could have the data on sharks, but the answer to that was no - apparently it was pseudo-classified for fear that shark fin hunters might get their hands on it. It all comes off as a comedy sketch, but it's real! Artemis will never go anywhere, but it won't be because of SpaceX. SLS/Boeing play a key role, and the astronauts they barely managed to send up to the ISS like 9 months ago are still stranded there. By the time they're ready to fly SpaceX will certainly be fully capable of single-handedly delivering people to the Moon completely obsoleting the point of the big convoluted multi-company mission. [1] - https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1847846282410258876 https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1847846282410258876
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Ketamine is a terrible drug that rots your brain.
- oa335 2y ago
  The source is that information is the CEO of SpaceX.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Another comment in this thread linked to at least one of the reports - some 120 pages long with near to 100 references of the sharks.
    - oa335 2y ago
      The report explicitly states in several places that the risk to marine life is insignificant. https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 “ 3.3.4.1 Impact by Fallen Objects Direct strikes by debris from Starship are extremely unlikely for all species of concern, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals. This is due to the small size of the components as compared to the vast open ocean. If debris from the vehicle struck an animal near the water's surface, the animal would be injured or killed. As stated in the 2022 PEA, given the low frequency of the Starship/Super Heavy ocean descent and landing operations, and the fact that marine wildlife, marine mammals, and special status species spend the majority of their time submerged as opposed to on the surface, it is extremely unlikely they would be impacted. The relative occurrence of these animals at the ocean surface, spatially and temporally, combined with the low frequency of the Proposed Action, reduce the likelihood of impacts to extremely low. Additionally, there are no known interactions with any of these species after decades of similar rocket launches and reentries. Further, the projected landing areas for both Super Heavy and Starship are well offshore where density of marine species decreases compared to coastal environments and upwelling areas (FAA 2017).” Pretty much every subsection of the report regarding risk to biological life ends on a similar note.

yapyap 2y ago

SpaceX’s owner has a hand up the proverbial puppet running the United States of America right now, intel doesn’t.

klysm 2y ago

Turns out you don’t actually have to hit milestones on grants. The unfortunate reality is grants are typically unrealistic in the same way VC backed startups vastly overestimate their growth curve. In order to win the grant, you’re competing against other ideas. It’s easy to win grants with ideas that aren’t feasible because they sound better than ideas that are actually feasible. It enables incredible amounts of grift once you understand how to exploit the dynamics. Look up SBIR mills

pclmulqdq 2y ago
I had the displeasure of submitting a few honest SBIRs at one point in time. Needless to say, they were rejected for not being ambitious enough. It is actually so bad that there is an inverse relationship between your ability to get an SBIR and your ability to produce a commercial product - startups who try and fail are statistically more likely to succeed in the market than startups who get an SBIR (even with the benefit of the money).
- klysm 2y ago
  I’ve had the displeasure of working for companies that did get SBIRs and firmly believe you are correct that there is an inverse relationship on producing products. The machine knows how to get grants, and it does not care about delivering anything. Do you have any references on this topic I can look into further? I find it difficult to articulate that particular behavior to management
hermannj314 2y ago
I found a link on grant fraud from the OIG and to my non-legal mind this confirms exactly what you say. Conflict of interest and bad accounting practices are the types of fraud being alerted to, but failure to perform apparently is not. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/GrantFraudHandout.pdf https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/GrantFra...

somenameforme 2y ago

Starship has been progressing relatively well because delays in these things are the norm, not the exception. A big issue is that the previous administration was weaponizing regulatory agencies against SpaceX to intentional delay launches. It led to some amusing stories like this one. [1] SpaceX were required to prove that Starship wouldn't hit a shark when coming down in the ocean. So they asked if they could have the data on sharks, but the answer to that was no - apparently it was pseudo-classified for fear that shark fin hunters might get their hands on it. It all comes off as a comedy sketch, but it's real! Artemis will never go anywhere, but it won't be because of SpaceX. SLS/Boeing play a key role, and the astronauts they barely managed to send up to the ISS like 9 months ago are still stranded there. By the time they're ready to fly SpaceX will certainly be fully capable of single-handedly delivering people to the Moon completely obsoleting the point of the big convoluted multi-company mission. [1] - https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1847846282410258876 https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1847846282410258876

DonHopkins 2y ago
Ketamine is a terrible drug that rots your brain.
oa335 2y ago
The source is that information is the CEO of SpaceX.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Another comment in this thread linked to at least one of the reports - some 120 pages long with near to 100 references of the sharks.
  - oa335 2y ago
    The report explicitly states in several places that the risk to marine life is insignificant. https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 “ 3.3.4.1 Impact by Fallen Objects Direct strikes by debris from Starship are extremely unlikely for all species of concern, fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals. This is due to the small size of the components as compared to the vast open ocean. If debris from the vehicle struck an animal near the water's surface, the animal would be injured or killed. As stated in the 2022 PEA, given the low frequency of the Starship/Super Heavy ocean descent and landing operations, and the fact that marine wildlife, marine mammals, and special status species spend the majority of their time submerged as opposed to on the surface, it is extremely unlikely they would be impacted. The relative occurrence of these animals at the ocean surface, spatially and temporally, combined with the low frequency of the Proposed Action, reduce the likelihood of impacts to extremely low. Additionally, there are no known interactions with any of these species after decades of similar rocket launches and reentries. Further, the projected landing areas for both Super Heavy and Starship are well offshore where density of marine species decreases compared to coastal environments and upwelling areas (FAA 2017).” Pretty much every subsection of the report regarding risk to biological life ends on a similar note.