Worth noting that Boeing/Lockheed ("Other US" on chart) get a billion dollar annual subsidy even if they launch nothing. SpaceX does not.
How is a contract to provide services a subsidy?
Sorry. That is simply not true. There is no "billion dollar subsidy". Amazing that this myth persists.
Can you make the argument that it is a subsidy? Do ya even know what they use the money for?
The focus on the word "subsidy" is missing the point, you can change it to "contract" if you like, the point is Boeing/Lockheed gets annual government funding even if they don't launch anything, this is not true for SpaceX.
Quote from: su27k on 07/14/2017 03:06 amThe focus on the word "subsidy" is missing the point, you can change it to "contract" if you like, the point is Boeing/Lockheed gets annual government funding even if they don't launch anything, this is not true for SpaceX.Which leads to an interesting question: can they use ELC funds to support launches that are competitively bid?If they can, that would be a major advantage, since a lot of overhead would already be paid off.
Maybe you should have italicized the word subsidy?
@yokem55 @elonmusk covers a fixed number and a specific and definite scope. It simply gives the USG flexibility to be late with the birds or change their orderhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/885692106949271552So, it ends up being a means for the government to prepay for some fixed launch costs. This ends up stabilizing ULA's cash flow in the face of variable demand. Is it a 'subsidy'? Well, I count 6 commercial launches in 3 years including the Cygnus launches. Would that commercial demand have been enough to keep everything running properly if the government only paid for it's launches in full as it needed them?