Didn't build that -SpaceX, Tesla get massive government subsidies, just like Solyndra

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Both of Elon Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, survive on government subsidies to the tune of $465M for Tesla and $278M for SpaceX, for a grand total of $743M or nearly 3/4 of a billion in tax-payer money.


Had Musk’s SpaceX taken the route that Burt Rutan did in funding his space efforts through investors, his voice might carry farther...



http://www.americaspace.org/?p=2816
 
\\((|))// said:
Both of Elon Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, survive on government subsidies to the tune of $465M for Tesla and $278M for SpaceX, for a grand total of $743M or nearly 3/4 of a billion in tax-payer money.


Had Musk’s SpaceX taken the route that Burt Rutan did in funding his space efforts through investors, his voice might carry farther...



http://www.americaspace.org/?p=2816
Click to expand...

Wow, I might have to retract something. No, I only said it was an example of less government regulation. I am good.

What form does this "subsidy" take? I know you have already spent quite a bit of time looking for some article that mentions subsidy in relation to SpaceX, but do you have anything less vague.

That is, they could just be referring to awarding SpaceX some government contracts. This move cuts our costs and is largely credited to/blamed on Obama. The right wingers have always wanted military control of the space program.
 
Obama is rewarding Musk with subsidies, since he is a big Obama supporter and bundler. Obama gotta keep feeding the machine.
 
Private manned missions to space are not expected to occur until 2017.

Once a company has demonstrated they are capable of reliably transporting both cargo and people, NASA may choose them to be the official replacement of the shuttle program.

The chosen company (most likely SpaceX) will receive increased funding in an attempt to increase the speed of development. All other companies will no longer receive any funding.

With one company receiving heavy government subsidies, the others will not be able to effectively compete. Can you imagine what would happen to Pepsi if Coke suddenly started receiving massive government subsidies? It seems Congress is becoming even more reliant on picking winners than market competition to produce viable businesses.

Once the competition is gone, costs are likely to increase, innovation is likely to slow, and deadlines are even less likely to be met.

The chosen company will no longer face the myriad of risks that are keeping it in line today: the risk of another company doing the job better, cheaper, quicker, or safer. The company has already won the money, so why work that hard?

What isn’t acceptable is Congress choosing to invest taxpayer money in an unproven company that has lost all incentives to be efficient. The last thing we need is to preemptively bail out a company that hasn’t even fully developed yet.

They get government to finance their escapades.

Tesla is heavily dependent on government funding - a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy.

So subsidies are good when they go to Elon Musk (Tesla AND SpaceX).


http://news.yahoo.com/spacex-tesla-common-232253360.html

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8...loration-but-congress-could-ruin-all-progress
 
\\((|))// said:
So subsidies are good when they go to Elon Musk (Tesla AND SpaceX).
Click to expand...

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

You did not answer my question. You just provided more vague information.

The Obama admin is behind this "new subsidy" so as far as I can tell, you (a left wing knee jerk reactionary without principles) should think it is good while the partisan hacks on the other side must think it is bad.
 
SpaceX has thus far received $390 million in government subsidies of the $680 million that has spent to develop the Dragon spacecraft for cargo missions, according to AFP. Should the Dragon be authorized for cargo flights to the International Space Station, SpaceX stands to make another $1.6 billion.


http://news.yahoo.com/spacex-dragon-flies-second-launch-attempt-184400634.html
 
\\((|))// said:
SpaceX has thus far received $390 million in government subsidies of the $680 million that has spent to develop the Dragon spacecraft for cargo missions, according to AFP. Should the Dragon be authorized for cargo flights to the International Space Station, SpaceX stands to make another $1.6 billion.


http://news.yahoo.com/spacex-dragon-flies-second-launch-attempt-184400634.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand you are capable of searching for buzzwords like "subsidy" and SpaceX. That's fantastic, please send whoever educated you my thanks by slapping them in the face as hard as you can. J/k

What I am looking is some sort of intelligent analyses. You cannot provide that. My guess is that these "subsidies" came in the form of contracts which SpaceX, hopefully, bid on in competition with others. While one honestly could call that a subsidy it is still a market reform in relation to Nasa monoploizing the process entirely.
 
SpaceX will receive $440 million in subsidies.


http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-selects-spacex-boeing-sierra-nevada-commercial-crew-165300568.html


Regarding the privatization of a government service (space flight has been almost exclusively a government service until recently), should taxpayer dollars be used to secure the lowest cost replacement regardless of origin?

Or, should taxpayer dollars be used to "assist the transition from government monopoly to private enterprise"?

This debate is far more nuanced.

Given the history, I think this form of "subsidy" is appropriate in exploring the transition.

In fact, many foreign entities enjoyed "subsidies" that allowed them to reach their current positions.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
 
\\((|))// said:
SpaceX will receive $440 million in subsidies.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-selects-spacex-boeing-sierra-nevada-commercial-crew-165300568.html

Regarding the privatization of a government service (space flight has been almost exclusively a government service until recently), should taxpayer dollars be used to secure the lowest cost replacement regardless of origin?

Or, should taxpayer dollars be used to "assist the transition from government monopoly to private enterprise"?

This debate is far more nuanced.

Given the history, I think this form of "subsidy" is appropriate in exploring the transition.

In fact, many foreign entities enjoyed "subsidies" that allowed them to reach their current positions.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/private-spaceflight
Click to expand...

More from your search engine and some dishonest editing on your part. Some of the context you left out of your quote from the COMMENT section of the above referenced article...

I'm not sure I understand the point of sizzlestick's question. The term "subsidy" can be construed quite broadly, so it can always apply to payments made by a government. (e.g. one definition is "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.") By this definition, the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs were "subsidies" and one could consider a contract to the Koreans in the same light.

It seems more relevant to me to ask about the "state of privatization". In the United States, NASA -- an agency of the federal government -- has been both the prime consumer and also producer of space transportation. NASA is looking at ways of getting out of the role of "space tranportation producer" but it will remain a consumer and, hence, will have to contract for services.

SpaceX has been contracted to develop space transportation capabilities, verified by performance milestones. SpaceX and RpK both won development contracts in 2006, but RpK was not able to meet the performance milestones so it's contracts were terminated. Orbital Sciences Corp won a competition to replace RpK in 2008. (Technically, SpaceX and Orbital are not "contractors", but "partners" and do have certain legal protections.)


Regarding the privatization of a government service (space flight has been almost exclusively a government service until recently), should taxpayer dollars be used to secure the lowest cost replacement regardless of origin? Or, should taxpayer dollars be used to "assist the transition from government monopoly to private enterprise"? This debate is far more nuanced. Given the history (sizzestick notes American patents and innovations), I think this form of "subsidy" is appropriate in exploring the transition. I think it is in NASA's best interest to get out of the business of "producing" space transportation and stick only to consuming.

But, because NASA stayed in the "producing" business too long, subverting private enterprise in the process, I think it is appropriate to give American businesses an opportunity to catch up. In fact, many of these foreign entities enjoyed "subsidies" that allowed them to reach their current positions.

....

The Economist's COMMENT makes some valid points. Are you in agreement with it?
 
It appears that one of the nine Merlin engines exploded, but SpaceX is saying that is not the case.


The flight continued and, as designed, the other eight engines were more than enough to deliver the Dragon spacecraft to its proper orbit.


“Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do,” SpaceX said in a statement. “Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.”


All appeared to be going well during the flight until the “engine anomaly” 79 seconds after lift off. The failure occurred just a few seconds before a combination of rocket velocity and atmospheric density puts the rocket under peak mechanical stress, a time known as “Max Q.” In the slow-motion video (after the jump), there appears to be a catastrophic failure...


But SpaceX says the onboard computers commanded a shutdown of the engine after a sudden pressure loss and that the engine did not explode because they continued to receive data after the shutdown.
“Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release” SpaceX explained, “and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.”






http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/10/spacex-engine-loss-orbit/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top