Submitted by upyoars t3_10xehop in technology
ragnarmcryan t1_j7rvju3 wrote
I would like to congratulate us for our taxpayer dollars making this possible
Edit: snowflakes will downvote
ThestralDragon t1_j7s5oc3 wrote
It wasn't a gift, you paid for services which were delivered
funkboxing t1_j7sfx3d wrote
We paid to develop those services, but ownership of the results of all that development are privately held.
coldblade2000 t1_j7sx63v wrote
If I have a construction company and am hired by the government to build them a warehouse, it doesn't mean the government then owns my fucking house
funkboxing t1_j7w89bb wrote
A functional analogy would be if you accepted government funding to research and develop a new construction process that you'd then patent.
coldblade2000 t1_j7w9l0y wrote
>you accepted government funding to research
It'd be nice if you actually pointed to this "research funding". I looked over and all the money SpaceX was given by NASA was "service contracts" which are fulfilled or being fulfilled, or the Commercial Crew Program. In this one, SpaceX didn't receive money in the first round. In the second, seed money was first given to a few companies like BlueOrigin, Boeing and SpaceX to develop technologies for crewed vehicles. In SpaceX's case, their proposal was making their ALREADY EXISTING Dragon capsule human-rated, and finishing its abort system. The Falcon 9 had already flown various resupply missions to the ISS by then. The rest of their funding was NASA paying SpaceX to render services, or specifically making changes to SpaceX's vehicles for NASA's purposes
funkboxing t1_j7wclov wrote
I guess if you don't consider paying for services yet to be developed as funding research, then yeah- I suppose that didn't happen.
Bensemus t1_j8flh1j wrote
It's not that simple. Blue Origin had issues in the HLS contract because they tried to avoid NASA's R&D sharing requirements. NASA allows some stuff to be reserved as trade secrets but not everything. Accepting NASA money means you need to share technology with NASA.
hallowass t1_j7shwyu wrote
Same with the space shuttle, the cost to maintain the shuttle was nearly the same as just building a new one.
funkboxing t1_j7siei7 wrote
The STS wasn't privately owned.
Emble12 t1_j7u2mzo wrote
Why does it matter if it can get what NASA wants to space?
funkboxing t1_j7uhz2m wrote
Why does it matter what subsidies we give the petroleum industry as long as they put gas in stations for us to buy?
Emble12 t1_j7w62ju wrote
If they’re doing it cheaper and maintaining standard, sure
funkboxing t1_j7w8f9x wrote
Then why do they need public funding?
Emble12 t1_j7w9cxl wrote
NASA gets the public funding. They choose how to allocate it, such as contracts to launch companies.
funkboxing t1_j7w9v7q wrote
NASA isn't privately owned.
Emble12 t1_j7wa6hc wrote
Yes, it’s a government agency and allocated government funding. It’s then up to NASA to use that funding, such as investing in and buying contracts from private companies.
funkboxing t1_j7wd0zm wrote
And if NASA contracts a company to develop a system you think the IP for that system should belong to the company?
Stupid-Idiot-Balls t1_j7wogep wrote
Depends on the kind of contract
Emble12 t1_j7xvzgu wrote
Depends on the contract, for most old space contracts NASA takes operations and so should have more ownership, but for new space contracts the company takes most operations and so has a right to control their assets.
quettil t1_j7v8a42 wrote
Yeah better to pay Boeing ten times as much for the same service.
Bensemus t1_j7webin wrote
lol "same service". Boeing cant' even manage that. They are years behind delivering crews to the ISS despite getting more money initially and even managing to go back to NASA and get an extra billion.
afterburners_engaged t1_j7s9e5d wrote
Did Spacex get any subsidies?
coldblade2000 t1_j7sxt8l wrote
They got seed money from NASA, and plenty of contracts, but not much that could be considered a "subsidy". At worst, they may have gotten some fat contracts as an investment by NASA, who desperately needed private companies to fill the LEO hole, and quick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX#Funding
Supposedly, by 2012, about half of their funding had been government contracts that provided down payments, while the rest were private investments. A year later, they would be undercutting the costs of the Ariane 5 and Proton-M
AlexandersWonder t1_j7sdtyi wrote
NASA has contracts with them for their rockets. So in a way I guess some of our taxes might go to them. But not a lot, NASA has a pretty small budget compared with other government agencies
afterburners_engaged t1_j7sk0oi wrote
But those are payment for services rendered or services that will be rendered right? A subsidies main purpose is to keep the cost of something low. Kind of like the $7500 income tax credit for electric cars
AlexandersWonder t1_j7skurs wrote
it’s not a subsidy, I was just speculating as to why this first commenter brought up taxpayer dollars
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments