Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's called taxpayer funding. Or taking Other People's Money.
It is corporate welfare, no more, no less. Seems like something many liberals are happy to support.
I have a good bit of respect for Musk. No doubt the man is brilliant. But I think he is learning that running a successful auto manufacturer is more difficult than writing a piece of software. The auto industry has many brilliant people, in what is arguably the most difficult manufacturing business in the world. Musk is one guy, with no industry or even manufacturing experience, so his difficulties are not unexpected. The problem is that the taxpayer is on the hook to support his education. Why?
While SpaceX is rumored to be profitable, it’s hard to believe it got there without tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from Pentagon and NASA procurement contracts and because SpaceX is a private company it's not required to publicly release its financials, so its profitability claim cannot be independently verified.
The US government chose a dud.
Say again? First, no, SpaceX has so far gotten diddly-squat from Pentagon. They've had to sue to break into the extremely lucrative national security launch market, a market monopolized by the very well entrenched ULA - Boeing and Lockheed Martin in a most unholy alliance. Shaking those two out of their complacency and forcing them to - gasp! - compete is well worth the price of the mission.
(This is where I can't but help mentioning that Lockheed Martin uses Russian-built RD-180 engines in their Atlas V, because designing and building stuff is haaaaard. Oh, they've taken about a billion of our money to figure out how to build copies of the RD-180, they're just not quite ready to do it unless we pay them another couple of hundred million.
Compare and contrast to SpaceX, who build their own engines, of their own design, in Hawthorne, CA.)
SpaceX' government contracts so far have been with NASA, notably the COTS/CRS ISS resupply programs, where - again in stark contrast to established practice - there were no cost-plus contracts. (Cost-plus being the classical launch model for government contract - you develop a rocket, tell the government how much it cost, and get the cost plus a fixed percentage.) COTS/CRS are fixed price, set deliveries, and if you don't deliver, you're not paid. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are trying to come back for CRS2, because they sure as all out weren't ready to operate under business-like conditions in 2012, when SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won the contract.
SpaceX is launching like clockwork, Orbital Sciences somewhat less so.
Hell, ULA has just announced that they're trimming 30% of their executive staff to compete with - SpaceX.
Not helpless... but there is a reason why people gave up being nomads to submit to a cultural and political pact to form governments. But put words in mouth when history doesn't suit you.
Henry Ford (who just created a viable assembly line/mass productction) wouldn't have created the auto industry without government support for infrastructure and standardization. Same with the Wright brothers.
We can go back and forth with examples all day long, but the fact remains that the government provides funding and the means for many industries to succeed. This isn't new; where'd America be without the government and railroads?
People would have built the railroads because there was money in it. It's so odd to me, and while I hate to I'll have to generalize but it's odd to me how some will condemn the rich as greedy but then defend the use of taxpayers money to make them even more wealthy.
Henry Ford (who just created a viable assembly line/mass productction) wouldn't have created the auto industry without government support for infrastructure and standardization. Same with the Wright brothers.
They aren't the ones making the argument so why would I ask them but it brings up another question.
Its O.K. to be a greedy rich guy as long as you are in the right business and are perceived to be a good guy?
Musk seems to be providing a product and service that many people want. The DOE and NASA contracts were won based on a competitive procurement. Congress decided to fund these efforts. If not Tesla, then there would have been some other company spending the money. I think your complaint might be with Congress.
Good luck to you!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
