Submitted by Lolbitable t3_102b5i8 in space
disturbednadir t1_j2sf88z wrote
Reminder, the US Navy pays more money to keep the rust off of mothballed WWII fleet than NASA's entire budget.
Disruption0 t1_j2tf396 wrote
Wait what?
[deleted] t1_j2tm4pb wrote
[deleted]
BlueKnight17c t1_j2u0iyo wrote
What point are you trying to make? I'm struggling to understand the relevance of any of that info to the comment or post
[deleted] t1_j2u1hht wrote
[deleted]
ProjectDv2 t1_j2ubr4p wrote
How is your comment more relevant, or relevant at all, to the post or his comment? He didn't say anything about the DoD or its entire budget. He said the U.S. Navy (only one part of the Department of Defense) spends more money maintaining decommissioned ships from WWII, than NASA's entire budget. Of course the entire DoD budget will be higher than NASA's, that's a no-brainer. But more is spent maintaining obsolete warships that do not, and very likely never will again, see active service, than on NASA.
[deleted] t1_j2ugall wrote
[deleted]
ProjectDv2 t1_j2ugk52 wrote
That didn't even address the substance of my comment, let alone his. You're changing the scope of his comment to make your argument. That's not how it works.
pimpy543 t1_j2vymcx wrote
Your right, their just talking to talk.
ProjectDv2 t1_j2w2djq wrote
And making bad arguments while doing it.
[deleted] t1_j2uh120 wrote
[deleted]
ProjectDv2 t1_j2ui4ef wrote
No, it's just not relevant. You're bringing up the entire Department of Defense budget, he's talking about a single project from a single arm of the DoD. You're changing the scope of his comment well beyond what it actually said.
[deleted] t1_j2vnmdg wrote
[deleted]
ProjectDv2 t1_j2w2bgq wrote
>Reminder, DoD still owns GPS, is half of SpaceX’s launch demand (which helps pays for the other half); SpaceX would go under without DoD demand), and NASA utilizes DoD’s TDRSS (communication). Among other things.
Ok, you're right. You brought up the DoD at all, and several unrelated projects, none of which had anything to do with his comment on a single project of a single branch of the armed forces that falls under the DoD. I'm still right, you changed the scope of his comment which isn't how this works.
>Furthermore as much or as little as Europe allocates to defense, the same is true for ESA, when compared to NASA.
You brought up the entire EUROPEAN defense budget, which is even more off-base. Forgive my confusion. In completely missing his point, you created a whole marsh of "wtf is he going on about" that let details overlap in my head. Sucks to suck, I guess.
Real cute trying to imply I'm a sock puppet account, though. Bonus points for pulling an easily disproved deflection out of your ass.
jivatman t1_j2witi0 wrote
And SpaceX also self-funded the development of Starlink, which has been vital to Ukraine's war effort and would be similarly vital to the U.S. and Taiwan in the event of a war with China.
And they're still losing money on it, clearly more money then they get from DOD launches.
The DOD is paying for the development of ULA's Vulcan rocket and engine, which they also did for ULA's previous rockets... Nobody paid SpaceX anything to develop Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, or Starship.
Furthermore, every gov't contract SpaceX has won, has been competitively bidded with them the low bidder, and fixed price.
Seems like the government is getting a pretty good deal. But I'd be fascinated to hear arguments against.
IsayNigel t1_j2wswbw wrote
The US is absolutely not going to war with China and neither is Taiwan, this is insane. And spacex was paid by the government to roll out starlink in Ukraine, which musk threatened to shut down.
jivatman t1_j2wuzgg wrote
The U.S. government never paid anything for Starlink Service in Ukraine.
They paid for a few dishes, but even on those dishes SpaceX has paid for service for a year now. They are losing money on those, they could have gone to paying customers.
And I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about development costs. But thanks for bringing that up, it's yet another instance of SpaceX helping the U.S. without adequate compensation.
As for a potential Taiwan invasion I suggest you search Google for recent news on the subject. I assure you the military does not consider this possibility to be insane. Heck, people thought the idea of Russia attacking Ukraine was insane.
IsayNigel t1_j2z5xio wrote
I’m sorry, what was that? What’s this about “adequate compensation”? if you’re going to simp for the world’s biggest fraud, at least do some research.
Also, comparing China and Russia is laughably out of touch.
jivatman t1_j2z7yy5 wrote
Sorry, did you miss the part in the last comment where I said this, or did you just want a source:
>They paid for a few dishes, but even on those dishes SpaceX has paid for service for a year now. They are losing money on those, they could have gone to paying customers.
Here's the USAID official spokesperson's statement. Rather then your editorializing from Jeff Bezo's outlet.
>“USAID has purchased Starlink terminals, but has not paid for Starlink service,” the spokesperson said. “Like many mobile network markets, the most important cost factor is not the device itself, but the service, which SpaceX is offering for free for all devices.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/22/ukraine-internet-starlink-elon-musk-russia-war/
>Also, comparing China and Russia is laughably out of touch.
Yes, China is obviously a bigger threat. The Ukraine war proves what many had already said, that Russia's capabilities have been greatly exaggerated.
IsayNigel t1_j2z8t3k wrote
Lmao “oh that part doesn’t count because I don’t want it to”. Hundreds of millions of dollars, to say nothing of the billions in other subsidies musk’s companies have gotten. I guess we won’t talk about the part where he lied about that though right?
The US will never go to war with China over taiwan, to suggest anything otherwise is absurd
jivatman t1_j320bp1 wrote
If there's one takeaway I'd like you to have from this conversation, it's that being the lowest bidder in competitive, fixed price contracts is a very different thing from a subsidy.
Because subsidies actually do exist. So do cost-plus contracts, which, without oversight, actually are similar to subsidies.
These are important, basic principles of how the government spends money. Lack of understanding them is ultimately an impediment to having a cost effective government.
jivatman t1_j2zaq1j wrote
Bro, SpaceX sells the dishes at a loss. The Verge and other outlets have done teardowns to confirm this. And USAID says all they did was buy dishes.
If by "subsidies' you mean being the lowest bidder in competitive bidding... and therefore actually saving the government money compared to competitors in all SpaceX's contracts, that's a pretty weird definition of 'subsidy'.
Sitting back and letting China take Taiwan without defending them seems like a bad idea, but I admit that predicting what US political leaders might do in response is pretty hard.
aspheric_cow t1_j2xmoc3 wrote
>Nobody paid SpaceX anything to develop Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, or Starship.
NASA did help fund the development of Falcon-9 through the COTS program and by buying launches before it was ready to fly. NASA is also paying them $3 billion to develop and launch the Starship HLS.
the6thReplicant t1_j2wme38 wrote
The same amount as the Army spent on air conditioning in Afghanistan.
zeeblecroid t1_j2wttw8 wrote
To be fair that actually provided some kind of tangible benefit somewhere, which maintaining a couple hundred Liberty ships just in case the world suddenly needs a lot of 80-year-old cargo ships on short notice does not.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments