As such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.A dollar spent on SpaceX is going to have exactly the same trickle-down effect as a dollar spent on SLS.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:02 amQuote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.A dollar spent on SpaceX is going to have exactly the same trickle-down effect as a dollar spent on SLS.Better: the strength of the trickle-down effect depends on how little of the money spent winds staying in company coffers as profit. SpaceX continues to run in start-up mode, where there's essentially nothing left at the end of the day. It has all been spent. And if it has been spent, it has left SpaceX and entered the broader economy.Whether that money is spent on employees, equipment, materials, energy, or on subcontractors, matters little here.
Quote from: rpapo on 02/28/2017 12:20 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 02/28/2017 06:02 amQuote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy.A dollar spent on SpaceX is going to have exactly the same trickle-down effect as a dollar spent on SLS.Better: the strength of the trickle-down effect depends on how little of the money spent winds staying in company coffers as profit. SpaceX continues to run in start-up mode, where there's essentially nothing left at the end of the day. It has all been spent. And if it has been spent, it has left SpaceX and entered the broader economy.Whether that money is spent on employees, equipment, materials, energy, or on subcontractors, matters little here.On the contrary, it makes all the difference what the dollar is spent on.SpaceX is / has been saving money. One could say it has been put into compant coffers, for example the investments into solar city. This money however has been working for the economy.A dollar spent on raw aluminium is leaving the country. Some of it will go to the smeltery, the rest to a mine in south amerika.A dollar spent on wages is simply reentering the cycle to be spent again. A dollar spent on a subcontractor for R&D can create many more dollars for selling spinoff technology to others.Really the worst thing to invest a dollar is into imported technology/ goods ( for example an imported russian engine , or raw metal,or oil ) to then be expended in flight/burnt. The best way to spend that dollar is where it enables others to create additional revenue, multiplying its effect on the economy.Company profits might not be the worst things, if they get reinvested into the right thing, of course if the only make a foreign investor rhich, then little is gained.
On the contrary, it makes all the difference what the dollar is spent on.SpaceX is / has been saving money. One could say it has been put into compant coffers, for example the investments into solar city. This money however has been working for the economy.
A dollar spent on raw aluminium is leaving the country. Some of it will go to the smeltery, the rest to a mine in south amerika.
The best way to spend that dollar is where it enables others to create additional revenue, multiplying its effect on the economy.Company profits might not be the worst things, if they get reinvested into the right thing, of course if the only make a foreign investor rhich, then little is gained.
Quote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy. This statement is really what your entire argument rests on, and the numbers are obviously completely made up.The SpaceX number is obviously wrong, because you are basically claiming that 80% of money paid to SpaceX goes to aluminum imports and similar, which is completely untrue.Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.
Quote from: meberbs on 03/01/2017 01:26 amQuote from: CorvusCorax on 02/28/2017 05:33 amAs such one could argue that, if for SLS for every govermnent dollar spent, 8 cent pay for the vehicle/ mission , 92 cent become a general economy subsidy, securing jobs and economic growth in entire regions or states.While for SpaceX, although cheaper by factor 10, 80 cent pay for the actual rocket, and only 20 cent trickle back into the economy. This statement is really what your entire argument rests on, and the numbers are obviously completely made up.The SpaceX number is obviously wrong, because you are basically claiming that 80% of money paid to SpaceX goes to aluminum imports and similar, which is completely untrue.Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.You're right, the numbers weren't looked up but meant as examples. I fixed the o-postBut that's exactly what I meant, sourcing electronic components from sub-contractors has a higher economic multiplier than making them in house like SpaceX does. (It is however also a lot more expensive!)
I have no idea what you are advocating for, or against.
No, you don't seem to understand how the multiplier works, or SpaceX's practices. SpaceX might design its boards in house, but they don't have a plant to make chips, and I would bet they don't actually make boards either. Even if they are doing it in house they are paying that many more employees who will buy that many more donuts. And they still buy the chips from manufacturers who pay their own employees, and buy silicon wafers from.... etc.It would take a thorough research project to actually figure out which project has the bigger multiplier, and in the end I'd bet that they might be within the margin of error of each other. At which point you would have to compare the value of what you got for your money directly.
But that's exactly what I meant, sourcing electronic components from sub-contractors has a higher economic multiplier than making them in house like SpaceX does. (It is however also a lot more expensive!)
Unless SpaceX would pay a chip designer to create a specific controller just for them, their impact on the "silicon business" is less then negligible. They simply don't require the numbers to even matter in their metric. 10 Million Smartphones sold with an embedded microprocessors matter. 100 Space rockets won't even measure in the manufacturers books, any distributor/reseller would deliver that out of surplus stock.
I think there was a little scandal a few years ago where some old telco corp wasbitching that SpaceX was hiring their ex employees who were circuit / hf / chip designers. This would suggest that SpaceX does at least some of this in house ( although I think the personell in question were for the sat business )
I think for the US government this mus have been the main purpose for the space program throughout most of Constellation and SLS, otherwise they would have never put up with the inefficiency. It has been allowed to continue on because it secures jobs, lots of them, not because SLS is such a great and innovative rocket. (It's 40 year old tech given a multi billion polish)
I think one has to look at a bigger picture to see the purpose and benefit of this program. It secures not just jobs but also expertise in the workforce nation wide. Without this "rocket manufacturing legacy" even SpaceX might not have had the skilled "old school experts" they hired to get where they are now.
Further, I'm putting up for debate if the way SpaceX is doing it has the same scale of economic impact.
At the beginning of the "Space Race" only governments could afford to build space transportation systems. Fast forward to today and our aerospace sector has become more than capable enough to take on this task in the private sector. The need for government-owned transportation systems, at least for the U.S. Government, has now ended. The U.S. aerospace sector is far more capable than NASA is, and more cost effective for U.S. Taxpayers.
Also, because of multiple stages of trickle down the total increase can be greater than 100%, but your description is incomplete and ignores this. As an example, NASA spending in 1987 overall had a multiplier effect of 2.1, and some specific industries were higher such as electronic components with a multiplier of 5.9. (Your .92 of "general economy for SLS" would mean a multiplier of 1.92) Source.
I think SpaceX wouldn't have made it without Gov incentives through NASA (specifically in 2008, after they just launched their first payload to orbit but were essentially depleted their funds)
On the other even Apollo was built by private contractors (although to specs by NASA, as opposed to SpaceX who is doing their own designs) so it was never ONLY gov.
If you simplify enough, the only really new thing in COTS is "fixed price contracts" (although SpaceX had relatively free reign with their designs, NASA did help with expertise and technology input - from PICA to scientific data)
Only now that the private sector has matured can it take up this task on its own.
Dare I mention, in context to the previous post, that the SLS core stage panels are being fabricated in Germany? That the ICPS LH2 tank comes from Japan? That the RL10 extension comes from Europe? - Ed Kyle
Since SpaceX claims to have secured at least one commercial launch contract for FH, you could argue that FH will/may have a larger economic impact on the U.S. economy in the near term.
In the longer term, it gets much, much harder to estimate. There is no demonstrated commercial market for a launch vehicle in the class of SLS. The arguments that some markets may evolve for such a class of launcher are highly speculative and not (purely in my opinion) particularly compelling.
Now without turning this into an SLS vs FH thread (of which there are far too many already), it's arguable that there is a (potentially very large) long term economic return from investing in technologies and capabilities that are useful for public policy reasons and do not yet have a commercial use but that may open up new markets and commercial opportunities in the future.
I agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.
Quote from: incoming on 04/12/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.You are responding to a topic on a different thread.
The dollar spent on SpaceX may have the same trickle down effect as a dollar spent on SLS, but you get far more bang for the buck. Also, Because Europe went into depression BEFORE America and therefore didn't buy American products. This helped cause the Great Depression. Germany went in to depression by 1924, bringing down Europe. Domestically produced products create more jobs. For every manufacturing factory, it helps create at least 4 support jobs. SpaceX gets a better handle on things producing them in house and in America. Chinese products are crap compared to former American made by the same companies. I've older and have been around longer. In my opinion, America, Japan, Germany, and usually most European countries make better products. We make the best Rockets, hands down. Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV, previously the shuttle, Titan, and Saturn IB and Saturn V.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/12/2017 02:31 pmQuote from: incoming on 04/12/2017 02:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/06/2017 09:35 pmI agree that there is a place for the U.S. Government to spend money to either support an existing market, or to help create a future market. However the SLS and Orion do not help to achieve either of those goals, since they don't leave behind any durable infrastructure in space for the private sector to leverage, nor are they paving the way for private sector spinoffs in the future.Unsurprisingly, I disagree completely. Regardless of what launch system you use to put the outpost up there, establishing a small outpost in cislunar space creates a market for deep space logistics in much the same way as ISS did for LEO.This post for about economic trickle-down of the SLS vs Falcon Heavy, not about small outposts in cis-lunar space.You are responding to a topic on a different thread.I know what thread i'm responding to. the point you were arguing in THIS thread is that SLS is not being planned to be used in a way that creates markets for commercial opportunities. That isn't true.