SpaceX

[Corraleno]

31 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

When you can just have the billionaire fund the whole thing directly, build more faster, do more iterations to gather more data sooner, and hey, his money is going towards tech and goals that will benefit all of humanity not just his own bottom line, if the whole thing does ever pay off in his lifetime anyway. I honestly don't understand how filtering his money, projects, etc. through the government would make them objectively better. 

Musk is mostly definitely not "funding the whole thing" himself — he only even owns 43% of SpaceX, the rest is owned by investors who expect a profitable return on their money. And both SpaceX and Tesla have received billions of dollars in government subsidies and contracts — I'm not sure why giving government money to a private company with little oversight, whose primary goal is making money for investors, is a better idea than allocating the money to a government entity like NASA, whose primary goal is advancement of science rather than investor return. 

 

[BronzeTurtle]

41 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Musk is mostly definitely not "funding the whole thing" himself — he only even owns 43% of SpaceX, the rest is owned by investors who expect a profitable return on their money. And both SpaceX and Tesla have received billions of dollars in government subsidies and contracts — I'm not sure why giving government money to a private company with little oversight, whose primary goal is making money for investors, is a better idea than allocating the money to a government entity like NASA, whose primary goal is advancement of science rather than investor return. 

 

 

I was careless with my words Of course I realize he has investors and is accountable for making them a return on their money. I don't see that as a net negative if what people want to make money on is space exploration, which, as it happens, benefits humanity. the tech doesn't somehow get pigeonholed because rich people fund it in the first place. The data is available to all those same govt organizations.

I don't see investor return as somehow less moral or less desirable or even at odds with the advancement of science. You've posed them at odds here with the "rather than" wording. I think spaceX is showing how both things can happen in a hybrid model. 

NASA's primary goal may be the advancement of science. But if you think that somehow the private companies that NASA contracts to aren't interested in making money just like SpaceX then I think that's naive. Everyone involved wants to make money, from the individual level on up. Even in government organizations.

I would like the most efficient return on a dollar when it comes to tech/science/etc. Space spending is inherently something that's going to be wasteful precisely because of test flights like this. If some eccentric billionaire interested in colonizing Mars can convince other eccentric billionaires to fund flights of fancy that ultimately result in better ways of exploring the universe and scientific advancement, let them try. 

Is there a proposed alternative that doesn't allow space exploration by anyone except government organizations? As in Elon can't raise capital or spend on something like starship if his organization isn't under the umbrella of NASA?

 

[BronzeTurtle]

I think it would be different if we were talking about a different aspect of government. I just think you have to throw a lot of money at something like space stuff that isn't efficient or practical and that government would be better suited to use for social programs which are more defined benefits. I'm not asking anyone to agree here. But maybe I do think the taxpayer dollar pie should be sliced up slightly differently in terms of space/tech vs. social since we don't have an unlimited sized pie. But if you have someone like a howard hughes wanting to make a new kind of airplane because of eccentricities and a lot of money to throw around, I don't think that's bad overall. It can be bad, but in the case of spaceX it seems like all are or can benefit from the data of starship and the like. And if we can build 2 or 3 starships in the time it takes to build one SLS...with better results?

Edited April 21, 2023 by BronzeTurtle

[Corraleno]

 

9 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Is there a proposed alternative that doesn't allow space exploration by anyone except government organizations? As in Elon can't raise capital or spend on something like starship if his organization isn't under the umbrella of NASA?

Musk is of course free to raise all the capital he wants and do all the private space exploration he wants. My objection is to providing taxpayer-funded subsidies to private, for-profit companies who end up owning all the rights to the technology they develop with those subsidies. SpaceX also owns the StarLink system, and they have very aggressively gone after US government subsidies for that, including subsidies to provide internet service in rural communities in the US.

Musk made a big deal about "donating" an extensive StarLink system to Ukraine at the beginning of the war, without mentioning that 85% of his "donations" were paid for by the US and other countries. And then once the Ukrainian military was entirely dependent on StarLink, Musk sent a letter to the Pentagon saying SpaceX could no longer fund StarLink in Ukraine and insisting the US government start paying millions of dollars per month for the service. Then service to 1300 of the 4000 StarLink terminals being used by the military were suddenly disconnected from service, which the military described as "catastrophic."  The Pentagon said they were in "ongoing negotiations" with Musk over payment for the StarLink service in Ukraine.

Allowing a private, for-profit company to have exclusive control over critical areas that not only involve scientific research but also have real implications for national defense, seems stupid to me. Musk owes billions of dollars to the Saudis and Qataris, and he is currently amplifying Russian propaganda on Twitter. His proposed "peace plan" for Ukraine was to give up Crimea and all four regions Russia is occupying, plus agree to never join NATO — essentially give Russia whatever they want. I just don't think giving this guy control over a significant chunk of the US space program, with taxpayer funding, is a smart move.

 

[Faith-manor]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

Musk is of course free to raise all the capital he wants and do all the private space exploration he wants. My objection is to providing taxpayer-funded subsidies to private, for-profit companies who end up owning all the rights to the technology they develop with those subsidies. SpaceX also owns the StarLink system, and they have very aggressively gone after US government subsidies for that, including subsidies to provide internet service in rural communities in the US.

Musk made a big deal about "donating" an extensive StarLink system to Ukraine at the beginning of the war, without mentioning that 85% of his "donations" were paid for by the US and other countries. And then once the Ukrainian military was entirely dependent on StarLink, Musk sent a letter to the Pentagon saying SpaceX could no longer fund StarLink in Ukraine and insisting the US government start paying millions of dollars per month for the service. Then service to 1300 of the 4000 StarLink terminals being used by the military were suddenly disconnected from service, which the military described as "catastrophic."  The Pentagon said they were in "ongoing negotiations" with Musk over payment for the StarLink service in Ukraine.

Allowing a private, for-profit company to have exclusive control over critical areas that not only involve scientific research but also have real implications for national defense, seems stupid to me. Musk owes billions of dollars to the Saudis and Qataris, and he is currently amplifying Russian propaganda on Twitter. His proposed "peace plan" for Ukraine was to give up Crimea and all four regions Russia is occupying, plus agree to never join NATO — essentially give Russia whatever they want. I just don't think giving this guy control over a significant chunk of the US space program, with taxpayer funding, is a smart move.

 

Hear hear!

[BronzeTurtle]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

 

Musk is of course free to raise all the capital he wants and do all the private space exploration he wants. My objection is to providing taxpayer-funded subsidies to private, for-profit companies who end up owning all the rights to the technology they develop with those subsidies. SpaceX also owns the StarLink system, and they have very aggressively gone after US government subsidies for that, including subsidies to provide internet service in rural communities in the US.

Musk made a big deal about "donating" an extensive StarLink system to Ukraine at the beginning of the war, without mentioning that 85% of his "donations" were paid for by the US and other countries. And then once the Ukrainian military was entirely dependent on StarLink, Musk sent a letter to the Pentagon saying SpaceX could no longer fund StarLink in Ukraine and insisting the US government start paying millions of dollars per month for the service. Then service to 1300 of the 4000 StarLink terminals being used by the military were suddenly disconnected from service, which the military described as "catastrophic."  The Pentagon said they were in "ongoing negotiations" with Musk over payment for the StarLink service in Ukraine.

Allowing a private, for-profit company to have exclusive control over critical areas that not only involve scientific research but also have real implications for national defense, seems stupid to me. Musk owes billions of dollars to the Saudis and Qataris, and he is currently amplifying Russian propaganda on Twitter. His proposed "peace plan" for Ukraine was to give up Crimea and all four regions Russia is occupying, plus agree to never join NATO — essentially give Russia whatever they want. I just don't think giving this guy control over a significant chunk of the US space program, with taxpayer funding, is a smart move.

 

This is really great research into a lot of things! I find it fascinating how the space race was at first against the soviets, then we partnered with Russia on some stuff, and now it's very not okay to even suggest partnering with anyone undesirable on space stuff.

Have you looked into any other companies with government contracts and their CEOs might compare in terms of global ties? The ones you mentioned but also China being a big one. I mean NASA gives contracts to tons of civilian aerospace firms where the bolded concerns would apply? I'm guessing there are a lot of global partners involved that would make us all cringe, but I admit to not being able to do the "strings on the bulletin board" analysis in depth.

I'm not sure how this got into internet access, but I would guess the govt contracts most of that out if they are implementing it in rural areas to increase access. Is Starlink the only one involved across the entire country? I agree in general that the govt essentially giving a monopoly to a private firm is bad news.

Have you ever read about the Fat Leonard scandal? Not to divert from your points here but in that case you have vetted and tested us military officers doing the bribing and getting the kickbacks, so I'm not sure how government control of the entities would prevent financial malfeasance or even just plain greed or having connections with foreign entities that are less than desirable. Either everything, every industry would simply just be government run and staffed, or you have to have govt contracting with private businesses. What would the difference be in a govt contract or a subsidy as in reference to your above post? Wouldn't any private company want tech they develop to be beneficial to them in some way? as far as I know the defense industrial complex + aerospace industry is pretty enmeshed across the board. 

I don't think having him do this stuff is giving him control of the space program. especially if the funding is as shared as what you're talking about among different (though undesireable and global) investors and he's as terrible to work for and as big of a phony as other people in this thread say. I know you can do a lot with money but faking being able to run a space program would not be one of them, at least not for long I wouldn't think.

I would like, as a citizen, the most effective use of dollars I guess. I'm assuming everyone does. if an SLS is demonstrably slower to build and less cost-effective, I don't know what you do with that. Plus if private contracting is involved in building the SLS, everything you're talking about above applies too in the sense that you would want no foreign connections where the tech would be available to a govt but proprietary to a private company, right?

[BronzeTurtle]

does anybody think there was a different attitude towards elon and spaceX pre-twitter takeover? Did anyone here feel more excited in a science-y sort of way about spaceX launches and developments before he did that? or was private space exploration always a big red flag?

[pinball]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

does anybody think there was a different attitude towards elon and spaceX pre-twitter takeover? Did anyone here feel more excited in a science-y sort of way about spaceX launches and developments before he did that? or was private space exploration always a big red flag?

Well, there’s this:

 

[Pam in CT]

re SpaceX and taxpayer funding

7 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

...As for private vs. government....okay, we take government money, filter it through a layer of nonsense and then give it to a private company who may or may not be the lowest bidder in a government contract. And then deal with layers of bureaucracy in even building stuff after 

When you can just have the billionaire fund the whole thing directly, build more faster, do more iterations to gather more data sooner, and hey, his money is going towards tech and goals that will benefit all of humanity not just his own bottom line, if the whole thing does ever pay off in his lifetime anyway. I honestly don't understand how filtering his money, projects, etc. through the government would make them objectively better. ...

I can't quite tell from your post if you are, yourself, making this same point:

SpaceX is, after all, essentially a government contractor, racking up $15.3B+ in government contracts since 2003.

(Which, just to make my own perspective clear, nothing wrong with that. Every US administration of both parties has funneled billions of dollars to private companies whose CEOs haul in tens / hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth every year.  I would not, however, characterize the fundamental relationship as "having the billionaire fund the whole thing directly.")

[Terabith]

I was struck by the fact that not only did this launch not seem to have any veterans who had anything to do with a Saturn V launch, but they don’t seem to have had anyone who had even watched videos.  They didn’t even have a sound suppression system, and this rocket is bigger than the Saturn V.  The precautions taken just seemed ridiculously flimsy, and they really, really should have known they needed both a flame trench and sound suppression.  

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Terabith said:

I was struck by the fact that not only did this launch not seem to have any veterans who had anything to do with a Saturn V launch, but they don’t seem to have had anyone who had even watched videos.  They didn’t even have a sound suppression system, and this rocket is bigger than the Saturn V.  The precautions taken just seemed ridiculously flimsy, and they really, really should have known they needed both a flame trench and sound suppression.  

the last Saturn V launched in 1973 - 50 years ago.  Most of the veterans who were there would be at least 80 years old, and probably into their 90s.

 

[kirstenhill]

In regards to what needs to be done to fix the OLM/pad area for the next launch, I've been enjoying this guy's analysis on Twitter.  In another thread he said that when he worked for NASA, his job title was "Physicist of Launch Pad Materials ". 

 

[Terabith]

10 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

the last Saturn V launched in 1973 - 50 years ago.  Most of the veterans who were there would be at least 80 years old, and probably into their 90s.

 

Right, I am not surprised they didn’t have people who had worked on it, but I would think they’d have had people who studied the history of space flight and had seen videos.