SpaceX And Tax Payer Money

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

I support SpaceX and the effort of private companies to do this kind of work but this comes at a great cost to tax payers. This is by no means a private company considering the handouts it has received.

Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

[VulcanCafe]

This is by no means a private company considering the handouts it has received.

For clarity, please define the 'handouts' received by SpaceX.

[Chris Bergin]

Uh oh, this thread won't last long!

I'm going to allow it as it needs one visible debunking, as I know Numba (welcome to the site's forum) won't be alone in that incorrect opinion.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

This is by no means a private company considering the handouts it has received.

For clarity, please define the 'handouts' received by SpaceX.

Millions through COTS and millions more through bloated contracts to deliver supplies to the international space station

[Robotbeat]

So SpaceX is supposed to deliver supplies to ISS for free?

EDIT: Next time I get billed by FedEx, I'll refuse to pay, because hey, it's a handout.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Majority of the launches on SpaceX's manifest are commercial and not for NASA. COTS pays SpaceX for services provided and is probably the leanest contract around for delivering supplies (or anything for that matter) to the ISS, especially where SpaceX is concerned (they get less money than Orbital), etc, etc...
I will let others fill in the rest.

[ugordan]

This is by no means a private company considering the handouts it has received.

For clarity, please define the 'handouts' received by SpaceX.

Millions through COTS and millions more through bloated contracts to deliver supplies to the international space station

In that case, I'm eagerly awaiting an identical post of yours in the Orbital Sciences section.

[ChefPat]

Americans spend more than the yerarly NASA budget on Christmas Presents for dogs & cats. We can afford to help SpaceX with their plan to begin Colonisation of Mars too.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

So SpaceX is supposed to deliver supplies to ISS for free?

EDIT: Next time I get billed by FedEx, I'll refuse to pay, because hey, it's a handout.

No, the government is currently paying ~$130 million per flight. Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

Also, not sure what the point of your FedEx post was..

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

Uh oh, this thread won't last long!

I'm going to allow it as it needs one visible debunking, as I know Numba (welcome to the site's forum) won't be alone in that incorrect opinion.

Thanks, glad to be here.

Could you explain why that's an incorrect opinion? Thanks

[Elmar Moelzer]

No, the government is currently paying ~$130 million per flight. Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

Because that is what a flight of a new Dragon capsule with supplies to the ISS costs.
Its like complaining about Dell selling a computer monitor to the US government for X amount of money and not X*0.5. Some things cost as much as they do.

[oiorionsbelt]

 Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

They're working on it. Check the Grasshopper and reusability threads.

[cambrianera]

[
Millions through COTS and millions more through bloated contracts to deliver supplies to the international space station

I have two questions for you.
1) Which kind of value you give to 1 kg of upmass to the ISS?
2) Which kind of value you give to 1 kg of downmass from the ISS?

Given the law of supply and demand the second one is troublesome for your opinions.

[Hobbes-22]

NASA paid SpaceX for services rendered. That alone disqualifies it from being called a handout. So what's left is haggling over the price level. Did NASA overpay? Was anyone else able to deliver cargo to the ISS for a lower price?
Let's compare. ESA developed the ATV for supply runs to the ISS. Development cost was $1.3 billion, manufacturing cost $300M per vehicle, launch cost $120M. 5 flights in the program.
COTS cost $278M which bought 3 flights.
ESA: $420M per flight plus development
SpaceX: $93M per flight including development.

[oiorionsbelt]

No, it's bloated.

compared too?

[Jim]

No, the government is currently paying ~$130 million per flight. Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

Because it costs that much, which includes F9 and a Dragon.  There are no handouts in the $130 million.

The only thing that may be categorized as handout is the COTS money but NASA still got something in return.  It got a new launch vehicle to add to the stable and a space station logistics vehicle that has done its duty 3 times and so to be 4.

[JBF]

No, the government is currently paying ~$130 million per flight. Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

Because that is what a flight of a new Dragon capsule with supplies to the ISS costs.
Its like complaining about Dell selling a computer monitor to the US government for X amount of money and not X*0.5. Some things cost as much as they do.

No, it's bloated.

Also doesn't explain COTS

Where is your proof it's bloated?

COTS can best be explained as an NRE charge NASA paid out to several companies for developing a capability they needed.

[Jim]

No, it's bloated.

You have no data to support that claim.

[Jim]

Could you explain why that's an incorrect opinion? Thanks

Because it is not based on reality and facts.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

 Why can't they provide launches for ~$60 million?

They're working on it. Check the Grasshopper and reusability threads.

Yea, that Grasshopper is damn impressive