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

[Jim]

No, SpaceX got a bunch of new launch vehicles which it will profit off of.

Wrong, NASA got a new launch service provider.
And so what if Spacex makes a profit, that is the point of commerce and the market.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

[
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.

It's not about me giving it a value. Let the free market determine that, which is impossible to do when the government is busy giving handouts.

[Jim]

It's not about me giving it a value. Let the free market determine that, which is impossible to do when the government is busy giving handouts.

False logic.  The government is the only user of up and down mass to the ISS.  It did let the  free market determine the price

[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.

It's not about me giving it a value. Let the free market determine that, which is impossible to do when the government is busy giving handouts.

If you can't give a value, why are you complaining?
(Btw do you know that only SpaceX has downmass capability from the ISS except for very small and light packages on Soyuz?)

Additional hint: in a true free market they would charge whatever they want for the service.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

This is nothing but a ridiculous trolling exercise. Just one person's unsupported opinions without supporting facts. Why does it continue?

Right, except I see this all the time with space programs.. They're bloated and almost always end up costing more than expected, that's why the JWST almost got the ax, because government is terrible with these kind of things. And it's not just an opinion, just ask your congressmen how they feel about space-dollars when there are all kinds of issues at home to deal with.

[Elmar Moelzer]

No, SpaceX got a bunch of new launch vehicles which it will profit off of

No, they did not. The money was for the development of cargo services to the ISS, which involves a lot more than just the development of a launch vehicle and the Dragon spacecraft. There are a lot of requirements that do not apply to satellite launches that had to be fulfilled by SpaceX. NASA like any commercial customer had to pay SpaceX for these extra requirements. In addition to that SpaceX had to do 2 demo launches (3 if you count the first demo launch of the F9 with the boilerplate Dragon).

It's not about me giving it a value. Let the free market determine that, which is impossible to do when the government is busy giving handouts.

There were no handouts. COTS was the closest to a free market approach you will find in the launch business. You think you will find anything for cheaper out there, good luck!

[Elmar Moelzer]

Right, except I see this all the time with space programs.. They're bloated and almost always end up costing more than expected, that's why the JWST almost got the ax, because government is terrible with these kind of things. And it's not just an opinion, just ask your congressmen how they feel about space-dollars when there are all kinds of issues at home to deal with.

Except COTS was cheap and a lot more bang for the buck compared to most other space programs. One can argue about JWST, but that is probably an extreme example. Either way aerospace is hard and costly. NASA budget is peanuts compared to other government institutions. Just look at the cost of the F35! NASA is cheap compared to that and the thing is not even that great.

[Jim]

Right, except I see this all the time with space programs.. They're bloated and almost always end up costing more than expected, that's why the JWST almost got the ax, because government is terrible with these kind of things. And it's not just an opinion, just ask your congressmen how they feel about space-dollars when there are all kinds of issues at home to deal with.

Wrong.  It is not applicable in this case (Spacex and OSC) and there are many others.  Commercial comsats, Juno, Grail, RBSP, and many other projects that met their budgets.  Also, science missions can not be don't commercially, there is no market for them

[ChefPat]

there are all kinds of issues at home to deal with.

The NASA Budget is a small fraction of 1% of the Federal Budget.
Please come up with just 1 "issue" that could be "solved" with the NASA Budget.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I thought the Dragon was reusable?

Will eventually be, but they are not reused yet and even then refurbishment costs some money. Also, I think (and I might be wrong) NASA requires a new Dragon for every CRS mission.

[Elmar Moelzer]

One example? Geez. What about the SLS? Elon Musk says he can build one for a fraction of the cost, and that's exactly why I like SpaceX - They're innovative. But please be innovative on your own dollar, not mine.

I gave one extreme example (F35 will end up costing over a trillion USD). I thought that would be enough.
Not a fan of the SLS myself. Heavy lift launchers still need a customer. Musk believes he could eventually build one for less. But NASA (or congress, depending on who you ask), wants the capability now (for some reason) and that means that someone needs to build it now. Fast, good, cheap, pick two!

[Jim]

Contract them out imo.

They already are.  Most science spacecraft are built by industry and not NASA, there are a few exceptions and those exception still have a heavy industry participation.

Exceptions for 2000's, MSL, MER, MMS, LRO, and SDO.   With the exception of MSL and maybe MER, they came within budget.  Anyways, you can't contract for a Mars rover.

Just like comment about not knowing the $130 Million included the Dragon, you again made assumptions not based on fact.

[cambrianera]

Main pont is: you can't call something handout if you don't know the value of the thing.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

Main pont is: you can't call something handout if you don't know the value of the thing.

Say something is worth $5, and is sold to everybody for $5 until the government comes along, with taxpayer money, and decides, for no reason, to start paying $10. That extra $5 is a handout.

Say I want to build a new type of pencil but don't want to spend my own money because there's significant downside so I get taxpayers to foot the bill. That's a handout.

[Jim]

Say something is worth $5, and is sold to everybody for $5 until the government comes along, with taxpayer money, and decides, for no reason, to start paying $10. That extra $5 is a handout.

Your premise is wrong.  Where is the gov't overpaying for spacecraft?  How do you know they are overpaying?

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

Say something is worth $5, and is sold to everybody for $5 until the government comes along, with taxpayer money, and decides, for no reason, to start paying $10. That extra $5 is a handout.

Your premise is wrong.  Where is the gov't overpaying for spacecraft?  How do you know they are overpaying?

Isn't the Dragon reusable?

Buying unnecessary equipment - that's a handout.

[Jim]

]

Isn't the Dragon reusable?

Not yet

[cambrianera]

Main pont is: you can't call something handout if you don't know the value of the thing.

Say something is worth $5, and is sold to everybody for $5 until the government comes along, with taxpayer money, and decides, for no reason, to start paying $10. That extra $5 is a handout.

Say I want to build a new type of pencil but don't want to spend my own money because there's significant downside so I get taxpayers to foot the bill. That's a handout.

Say you don't know the value of what SpaceX sold to the government..............

[SpacexULA]

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.

Can you please give an example of a check that was written to SpaceX that did not have a milestone associated with it?  The word Handout is defined as "something given free to a needy person or organization."

Here are the links to help you make your case.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdf

Please give a specific example of how the the relationship between NASA and SpaceX is different than the relationship NASA has with Florida P&L or Brevard County Water. 

NASA needed new power service (Cargo Services) to a building that they no longer had the ability to power (shut down of the shuttle).  The did a open bid to provide power to the building (COTS), and Florida Power and Light won the contract (SpaceX/Orbital/Kistler).  The companies all stated there would be a set up fee to run the new service (COTS milestones), and a further monthly charge for power (CRS).  NASA agreed, but would only pay for services rendered (The milestone / Not Cost Plus setup of CRS/COTS).  The contractors agreed that they would pay any additional costs outside of the contract out of their pocket.

In the above situation, do you see the money paid to Florida P&L to run new power service to a building, and the monthly power bill as a handout?

[Lars_J]

NumbaJuanSpaceFan, you were clearly misinformed. But nobody knows you here - you don't have to keep digging yourself a deeper hole just to be stubborn.

You won't lose any face by admitting that you are wrong. Or that what you define is 'handout' is something that does not meet the definition, and is incorrect.

[Chris Bergin]

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

Maybe if you sit back and read the posts, you'll learn something. 21 posts - now far less after removing some of the pointless ones - from you already on this thread suggests your trolling. This thread will be deleted if you aren't here to learn why you're wrong.

If you are not here to learn, you won't be here much longer.

[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.

NumbaJuanSpaceFan this is an engineering based forum, your going to need to give facts to back up your assertions. 

SpaceX is a contractor who supplies products to NASA, just like Staples that provides them with office supplies and the UPS who ships goods for them.

Can you please give an example of a check that was written to SpaceX that did not have a milestone associated with it?

Here are the links to help you make your case.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdf

Please give a specific example of how the the relationship between NASA and SpaceX is different than the relationship NASA has with Florida P&L or Brevard County Water. 

NASA needed new power service (Cargo Services) to a building that they no longer had the ability to power (shut down of the shuttle).  The did a open bid to provide power to the building (COTS), and Florida Power and Light won the contract (SpaceX/Orbital/Kistler).  The companies all stated there would be a set up fee to run the new service (COTS milestones), and a further monthly charge for power (CRS).  NASA agreed, but would only pay for services rendered (The milestone / Not Cost Plus setup of CRS/COTS).  The contractors agreed that they would pay any additional costs outside of the contract out of their pocket.

In the above situation, do you see the money paid to Florida P&L as a handout?

Ah, interesting points. Thanks for the response buddy.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

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

Maybe if you sit back and read the posts, you'll learn something. 21 posts - now far less after removing some of the pointless ones - from you already on this thread suggests your trolling. This thread will be deleted if you aren't here to learn why you're wrong.

If you are not here to learn, you won't be here much longer.

Yikes. Okay then...

[Jim]

 whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies.

Wrong, COTS only for the government.  Private companies have no need for a ISS logistics vehicle.

[SpacexULA]

Ah, interesting points. Thanks for the response buddy.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

I live at the end of a VERY long road, 15 years ago I had to pay Time Warner to run a cable wire 2 miles out to my house to get service.  Since then more houses have been built on my road, and I am sure that the cable that was originally ran for me was used.

When Cape Canaveral was built in a swamp, the government paid huge amounts of money to build freeways, power lines, sewage, etc to service the facility.  Titusville gets to share the infrastructure that was built for the space center.  It was not a "Handout" to Titusville.

I agree that NOW handouts to oil companies are not needed.  But back in the 1910s, when the nation needed oil and had nowhere near the infrastructure necessary to provide the nation with the oil supplies it needed for defense, the subsidies made perfect since. This is the situation NASA found themselves in.  Russia was gouging us for cargo, NASA didn't want to share launchers with DOD, and could not use the already existing international rockets.

A subsidy can be a handout, or an "instillation fee", depending on the situation.  Oil is pushing toward a handout at this point, but it started out as an instillation fee.

[Asher82]

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.

NumbaJuanSpaceFan this is an engineering based forum, your going to need to give facts to back up your assertions. 

SpaceX is a contractor who supplies products to NASA, just like Staples that provides them with office supplies and the UPS who ships goods for them.

Can you please give an example of a check that was written to SpaceX that did not have a milestone associated with it?

Here are the links to help you make your case.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdf

Please give a specific example of how the the relationship between NASA and SpaceX is different than the relationship NASA has with Florida P&L or Brevard County Water. 

NASA needed new power service (Cargo Services) to a building that they no longer had the ability to power (shut down of the shuttle).  The did a open bid to provide power to the building (COTS), and Florida Power and Light won the contract (SpaceX/Orbital/Kistler).  The companies all stated there would be a set up fee to run the new service (COTS milestones), and a further monthly charge for power (CRS).  NASA agreed, but would only pay for services rendered (The milestone / Not Cost Plus setup of CRS/COTS).  The contractors agreed that they would pay any additional costs outside of the contract out of their pocket.

In the above situation, do you see the money paid to Florida P&L as a handout?

Ah, interesting points. Thanks for the response buddy.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

So you're saying that if NASA paid for the spacecraft and didn't allow anyone else to use it, it wouldn't be a hand out and would therefore be OK?

[PreferToLurk]

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

Maybe if you sit back and read the posts, you'll learn something. 21 posts - now far less after removing some of the pointless ones - from you already on this thread suggests your trolling. This thread will be deleted if you aren't here to learn why you're wrong.

If you are not here to learn, you won't be here much longer.

Please don't delete this thread.  If anything lock it down and pin it to the top. Many highly respected members have made excellent posts here that would be very instructive for people with similar concerns in the future.

[Chris Bergin]

So I'll have a go at this....

NASA gets 17-18 billion dollars per year. Out of that NASA has to pay for everything, from Hubble, to the ISS, to Mars Rovers and even airplane safety improvements. All sorts of things.

NASA also used to run the Space Shuttle, something like $4.5 billion per year out of that above funding.

NASA retired the Shuttle fleet, using that money to create a return to exploration plan, with SLS and Orion, and also to hand over Low Earth Orbit to commercial providers.

SpaceX are one of these providers, starting with cargo, eventually with crew. That is vital, because without that, the US has no means of notable NASA upmass, downmass to an ISS the US has mainly paid for, and no hope of getting out of paying a huge amount of money for seats on Soyuz.

The money which goes to the commercial providers is less than a billion or so per year (all the companies, not just SpaceX). Out of that we're getting brand new launch vehicles and spacecraft that they are using to provide services to NASA, along with - eventually crew - at a much cheaper price than sending hundreds of millions of your dollars to Russia.

So first of all you should have a problem with the money going to Russia, if you have a problem with how NASA's money is being spent, as opposed to a domestic company who benefit NASA a heck of a lot more than Roscosmos do.

SpaceX and companies like SNC are increasing their skilled workforce with this work, including a lot of the lost workforce when Shuttle was retired. Not to have that would be a brain drain and it also allows for a new breed of workforce in the space industry, especially seen at SpaceX. I know enough of these young guys personally.

SpaceX are not laughing all the way to the bank via NASA commercial funding. Far from it. They may even be losing some money over it, but they can deal with that as they have their own commercial ops that benefit from the overall picture via the same improving launch vehicles and spacecraft (that is win win for all concerned).

We have to support this because the alternative is far less value for your money if we just keep throwing money at Russia. What would you prefer?

[dante2308]

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?

I need to point out something. It is  true that the government is trying to create a new commercial human and cargo space transportation industry here and it is materially supported by tax receipts. In fact it is true that Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City have based a large part of their business plans on monetizing incentives or programs designed to spur the generation and adoption of new industries and technologies. This is absolutely the case.

The US government believes that investment in and the mass adoption of certain new and emerging technologies will result in a public good. This perceived public good ranges from cost reductions and increased global competitiveness for existing goods and services to the broadening of and expansion of the general economy into new markets that would otherwise be closed to a high barrier of entry to general improvements in the quality of life for the public. Furthermore,  the government believes that programs like COTS and CCP are an effort to privatize a state monopoly on an industry and that SpaceX and others represent a credible vehicle for privatization.

Here is the real question for the opening poster:

1) Is it a valid exercise for a society to collectively invest in new technologies and opening new markets by allocating tax revenues to organized non-government entities. Why or why not?

My personal opinion is yes. With oversight, an organized society can achieve more focused goals through government investment than through simply relying on the stochastic noise of competitive personal and corporate profit-seeking. Furthermore, I think that investing in entities that have an earnest desire to improve society and giving them an advantage over entities that have no stated desire will result in a net improvement.

2) Is SpaceX a valid vehicle for realizing the collective interest of society? Why or why not?

My personal opinion is yes. Musk has demonstrated significant non-interest in personal profit and has demonstrated a significant track record in trying to use the resources at his disposal to address problems he finds in society. Compared to other entities, SpaceX and Tesla both represent a rare opportunity for realizing societal benefit and it is in the public's interest to see the ventures succeed and thrive.

[Norm38]

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

Okay, here is the root of Numba's argument.  He doesn't feel that companies should profit off providing services to the government.  Because that profit becomes a "subsidy" that will allow them to make more profit in the private sector.

But Numba, that situation is in no way unique to NASA or COTS.  You are aware that everytime Boeing sells an aircraft to the government, they make a profit, yes?  If Boeing sells the Feds a fleet of new 747s, Boeing will make a profit on that sale.  Profit is why they're in business.  Now if Boeing turns around and invests some of that profit in 787 development, would you say that the Feds just subsidized the 787 and that's wrong?  That Boeing should pay for that development on their own dime? 

But they did, with profit they earned.  We don't require every company doing business with the government to be a non-profit.  We want to ensure the profit isn't excessive or gouging.  But if there was no profit to be made, no one would provide a service.  The gov't would then have to start it's own aircraft building operation.  And as you said the gov't always makes things more expensive, surely you recognize that it's cheaper in the long run for the gov't to pay a fair profit for 747s than to try and build them itself?

Right now with COTS you're complaining that a $130 Million COTS SpaceX launch isn't cheap enough compared to a $450 Million non-COTS Shuttle flight.  But if you don't allow SpaceX to profit and grow and get launch costs down to $60 Mil, they never will.  $130 is cheaper than $450.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

[yg1968]

Not that it matters but "taxpayer" is actually one word.  I don't usualy bother people with spelling (I make mistakes too) but when it's in the title of the thread, the error is repeated in every post.

[dante2308]

I think it is a valid concern when companies make a profit off of providing a public good. That extra money, even if in the best case reinvested into making the public good better or cheaper, is going towards an activity not explicitly supported by the public or the intent of the program that paid for the service.

How common the practice is or how much the government can save by using it compared to other options is irrelevant to whether it is good or should continue.

[Dudely]

NASA took some of the money they were spending on the shuttle and gave it to various commercial companies to replace the capability. Halfway through, the ones that did the best got more money to finish their vehicles.

The contracts say, basically, that they have to deliver a certain number of pounds to the ISS. If the vehicle blows up or they wind up making a crappy rocket that needs to be launched twice as often to get the same amount of pounds to the ISS- whatever, doesn't matter- NASA pays the same regardless.


I think you're under the impression that launching a satellite and launching a spacecraft to a space station should cost the same. True, it's mostly the same up until you get to LEO. But after that you've got to do all this extra work getting the thing to the ISS, having it docked for weeks, and bringing it back safely, including a large, expensive operation to retrieve it out of the ocean.

They do all of this extra work for I think something like 40 million. I don't know exactly; do the math yourself .

The COTS program is one of the smartest things NASA has done in years.

[mme]

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

Airlines frequently pre-order airplanes and work with the manufactures during the design phase to ensure they get an airplane that meets their needs. The manufacturer still gets to sell the new airplane to other airlines. If you want a package shipped overnight, you pay an additional fee. Because doing something faster costs more money.

NASA needed a launch vehicle and spacecraft to get cargo (and people) up and back from ISS. They paid SpaceX to accelerate the development of a launch vehicle and spacecraft that would meet their specific needs. By accelerating the development, NASA saves money. They save a lot of money.

Unlike in the past, the current contract is fixed price. In the past if there were cost overruns, they would be passed on to NASA. With the current contract, NASA has locked in a price for a set number of launches [1]. This is just like buying futures. You may not get the lowest cost in the long run for a specific contract, but you know what you will pay and you are protected from unexpected expenses. If SpaceX underestimated the development and operational costs, they would have to eat it. SpaceX took a risk too.

You seem stuck on the reusability issue. First of all, NASA is not funding reusability. SpaceX is developing that technology themselves. Second of all, SpaceX is not reusing rockets yet and if SpaceX succeeds in developing reusable rockets and NASA chooses to use them in a future contract, NASA will be the beneficiary of that and get an even lower price. Finally, NASA missions will probably always be more expensive than commercial missions because NASA will probably always have special requirements.

[1] Actually, I think it's a set amount of mass up and down.

[Norm38]

Dante:  So when a police department wants to buy new squad cars, Ford and Chevy have to sell them at cost?  And cost by what definition?  If the workers get paid to build the cars, is that profit?
When the government wants to rebuild an interstate, does the construction company have to work at cost?  Workers don't get paid there either?

In the above situations, how long do you expect the government to continue to be able to acquire the services it wants?  What happens when Ford and Chevy say "No profit, no cars!"?  What happens when the roads are crumbling because the workers refuse to toil for scraps?

Honest profit paid to workers and companies for services rendered drives the overall economy and is part of the public good.  The government shouldn't pay more for a service than the private sector pays.  But it shouldn't pay less either.

[dante2308]

Dante:  So when a police department wants to buy new squad cars, Ford and Chevy have to sell them at cost?  And cost by what definition?  If the workers get paid to build the cars, is that profit?
When the government wants to rebuild an interstate, does the construction company have to work at cost?  Workers don't get paid there either?

In the above situations, how long do you expect the government to continue to be able to acquire the services it wants?  What happens when Ford and Chevy say "No profit, no cars!"?  What happens when the roads are crumbling because the workers refuse to toil for scraps?

Honest profit paid to workers and companies for services rendered drives the overall economy and is part of the public good.  The government shouldn't pay more for a service than the private sector pays.  But it shouldn't pay less either.

I just said it was a valid concern and highlighted why it is a concern and some invalid reasons to dismiss the concern. I made no judgement as to what should be done beyond what I said in the longer post.

[BrightLight]

this is an interesting thread. to add my two cents - government defense procurement usually requires about a 1:1 ratio of funds spent to build a widget as on management and oversight.  Every defense related new build over 100 million is over budget and behind schedule - this is a unfortunate but true statement.  SpaceX built the first units with internal money without direct government oversight - spent something like 300 million to get there - congressional estimates say that if NASA were to do the same thing it would be about 1 billion - three times what SpaceX spent.  SpaceX took all the risk, developed the systems and sold a service to NASA.  I recall (no citation here - just hand waving) that Musk was not happy about the amount of paper work involved in govt. activity - welcome to FAR. If SpaceX can sell the service for 130 million to NASA, my guess is that without the required govt. paper work, he might be able to get away with less then 100 million per launch.  The tax payer got a bargain any way you look at it.

[yg1968]

Some of the same arguments have been used by opponents of commercial crew (especially in the House) by saying that the government shouldn't be building an industry and shouldn't be picking winners and losers. They give the example of Solyndra as a case in point where the idea of industry building failed.

I would argue that commercial crew and cargo isn't industry building because NASA is acquiring a capability that it needs. Obviously, NASA should not be funding commercial companies if the only persons that benefits from the agreement is the companies themselves.  However, if NASA is profiting from the arrangement, it then becomes a partnership because NASA is getting something out of it. If commercial crew and cargo wasn't a good deal for NASA, then I agree that it would be a bad idea to pursue it. But that isn't the case. Cost comparaisons show that COTS/CRS has been a very good deal for NASA (and thus to taxpayers in general).

[Elmar Moelzer]

Some of the same arguments have been used by opponents of commercial crew (especially in the House) by saying that the government shouldn't be building an industry and shouldn't be picking winners and losers. They give the example of Solyndra as a case in point where the idea of industry building failed.

As with any high risk investment (any investor will tell you that), you get one winner for 9 loosers. Some are quick to parade about the loosers but the winners will eventually  more than make up for that.

Cost comparaisons show that COTS/CRS has been a very good deal for NASA (and thus to taxpayers in general).

I agree with that.

[yg1968]

Some of the same arguments have been used by opponents of commercial crew (especially in the House) by saying that the government shouldn't be building an industry and shouldn't be picking winners and losers. They give the example of Solyndra as a case in point where the idea of industry building failed.

As with any high risk investment (any investor will tell you that), you get one winner for 9 loosers. Some are quick to parade about the loosers but the winners will eventually  more than make up for that.

Yes but their argument is that the government shouldn't be investing in these companies regardless of whether they are winners or losers. But like I said, this is very different from what is going with commercial crew and cargo where NASA is also fulfilling a need.  The expression public-private partnership captures the essence of this idea.

[RocketmanUS]

Guy from South Africa comes to America and gets COTS funding for his space launch company.

Why didn't we have a program like this before for the Americans that were already here?

Shuttle was in the way, it got canceled, CxP was born, then COTS.
While shuttle was flying it would have been hard for anyone to launch against it as it was a political program.

COTS was underfunded. Many others should have been funded under COTS for both cargo and crew.

Other launch companies have and are getting tax payer money.

The real question is are we getting value for our dollar invested in SpaceX and will we continue to do so?

If we get cargo and crew for less and safer than shuttle and paying other countries while American companies can compete for cargo and crew supply for NASA to LEO then it could be a good investment.

To bad America has not been interested in educating it's own citizen. We could have been to Mars already. The education students get these days can not even compare to what they got before the 1950's.

[R7]

US taxpayer gets two good returns for his/hers tax bucks invested in SpaceX;

1. A good bang for the buck when NASA as a customer (for those who actually care about that).

2. A competitive launch provider that reels in foreign launch contracts, resulting more jobs at SpaceX/subcontractors and tax income for the govt.

PS this thread has survived surprisingly long 

[BrightLight]

US taxpayer gets two good returns for his/hers tax bucks invested in SpaceX;

1. A good bang for the buck when NASA as a customer (for those who actually care about that).

2. A competitive launch provider that reels in foreign launch contracts, resulting more jobs at SpaceX/subcontractors and tax income for the govt.

PS this thread has survived surprisingly long 

Both SpaceX and orbital have done a remarkable job of proving service on-demand, although Orbital has yet to find a customer for Antares?

[Elmar Moelzer]

Guy from South Africa comes to America and gets COTS funding for his space launch company.
Why didn't we have a program like this before for the Americans that were already here?
Shuttle was in the way, it got canceled, CxP was born, then COTS.

I don't think it was just the shuttle. Bur I don't think that any American (or anyone before Musk for that matter) was willing to bet hundreds of millions of his own money on developing launch vehicles from scratch.

[RocketmanUS]

US taxpayer gets two good returns for his/hers tax bucks invested in SpaceX;

1. A good bang for the buck when NASA as a customer (for those who actually care about that).

2. A competitive launch provider that reels in foreign launch contracts, resulting more jobs at SpaceX/subcontractors and tax income for the govt.

PS this thread has survived surprisingly long 

Both SpaceX and orbital have done a remarkable job of proving service on-demand, although Orbital has yet to find a customer for Antares?

Antares is not a problem as the air launch will most likely replace it. And as we know SpaceX is getting some commercial launches and hopefully will be able to open up a new commercial option(s) with F9/FH.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

Ah, interesting points. Thanks for the response buddy.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

I live at the end of a VERY long road, 15 years ago I had to pay Time Warner to run a cable wire 2 miles out to my house to get service.  Since then more houses have been built on my road, and I am sure that the cable that was originally ran for me was used.

When Cape Canaveral was built in a swamp, the government paid huge amounts of money to build freeways, power lines, sewage, etc to service the facility.  Titusville gets to share the infrastructure that was built for the space center.  It was not a "Handout" to Titusville.

I agree that NOW handouts to oil companies are not needed.  But back in the 1910s, when the nation needed oil and had nowhere near the infrastructure necessary to provide the nation with the oil supplies it needed for defense, the subsidies made perfect since. This is the situation NASA found themselves in.  Russia was gouging us for cargo, NASA didn't want to share launchers with DOD, and could not use the already existing international rockets.

A subsidy can be a handout, or an "instillation fee", depending on the situation.  Oil is pushing toward a handout at this point, but it started out as an instillation fee.

Interesting, nice to get a different perspective on the issue, thanks.

[BrightLight]

US taxpayer gets two good returns for his/hers tax bucks invested in SpaceX;

1. A good bang for the buck when NASA as a customer (for those who actually care about that).

2. A competitive launch provider that reels in foreign launch contracts, resulting more jobs at SpaceX/subcontractors and tax income for the govt.

PS this thread has survived surprisingly long 

Both SpaceX and orbital have done a remarkable job of proving service on-demand, although Orbital has yet to find a customer for Antares?

Antares is not a problem as the air launch will most likely replace it. And as we know SpaceX is getting some commercial launches and hopefully will be able to open up a new commercial option(s) with F9/FH.

SpaceX manifest is loaded with commercial customers - good for them! Will the reusable F9 1st stage be in time for CRS-3?

[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.

NumbaJuanSpaceFan this is an engineering based forum, your going to need to give facts to back up your assertions. 

SpaceX is a contractor who supplies products to NASA, just like Staples that provides them with office supplies and the UPS who ships goods for them.

Can you please give an example of a check that was written to SpaceX that did not have a milestone associated with it?

Here are the links to help you make your case.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-016.pdf

Please give a specific example of how the the relationship between NASA and SpaceX is different than the relationship NASA has with Florida P&L or Brevard County Water. 

NASA needed new power service (Cargo Services) to a building that they no longer had the ability to power (shut down of the shuttle).  The did a open bid to provide power to the building (COTS), and Florida Power and Light won the contract (SpaceX/Orbital/Kistler).  The companies all stated there would be a set up fee to run the new service (COTS milestones), and a further monthly charge for power (CRS).  NASA agreed, but would only pay for services rendered (The milestone / Not Cost Plus setup of CRS/COTS).  The contractors agreed that they would pay any additional costs outside of the contract out of their pocket.

In the above situation, do you see the money paid to Florida P&L as a handout?

Ah, interesting points. Thanks for the response buddy.

The short answer to your question is no. The long answer to your question is a bit more complex - the power supply is ONLY for a NASA building, whereas the COTS most likely will also be used for private companies. In essence, you have the government subsidizing a private company here which will then turn around and profit off those subsidies.

I don't support this just like I don't support government handouts for oil companies when they decide to drill for oil.

So you're saying that if NASA paid for the spacecraft and didn't allow anyone else to use it, it wouldn't be a hand out and would therefore be OK?

Not exactly. I'm saying if the item is going to be developed by the private sector anyways, save the taxpayer money for other issues.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

I think it is a valid concern when companies make a profit off of providing a public good. That extra money, even if in the best case reinvested into making the public good better or cheaper, is going towards an activity not explicitly supported by the public or the intent of the program that paid for the service.

How common the practice is or how much the government can save by using it compared to other options is irrelevant to whether it is good or should continue.

Exactly this. Pointing out other handouts doesn't justify the further use of handouts.

[john smith 19]

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.

As well as on home delivered pizza ($27Bn) and the aircon for overseas military bases ($40Bn)

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

So I'll have a go at this....

NASA gets 17-18 billion dollars per year. Out of that NASA has to pay for everything, from Hubble, to the ISS, to Mars Rovers and even airplane safety improvements. All sorts of things.

NASA also used to run the Space Shuttle, something like $4.5 billion per year out of that above funding.

NASA retired the Shuttle fleet, using that money to create a return to exploration plan, with SLS and Orion, and also to hand over Low Earth Orbit to commercial providers.

SpaceX are one of these providers, starting with cargo, eventually with crew. That is vital, because without that, the US has no means of notable NASA upmass, downmass to an ISS the US has mainly paid for, and no hope of getting out of paying a huge amount of money for seats on Soyuz.

The money which goes to the commercial providers is less than a billion or so per year (all the companies, not just SpaceX). Out of that we're getting brand new launch vehicles and spacecraft that they are using to provide services to NASA, along with - eventually crew - at a much cheaper price than sending hundreds of millions of your dollars to Russia.

So first of all you should have a problem with the money going to Russia, if you have a problem with how NASA's money is being spent, as opposed to a domestic company who benefit NASA a heck of a lot more than Roscosmos do.

SpaceX and companies like SNC are increasing their skilled workforce with this work, including a lot of the lost workforce when Shuttle was retired. Not to have that would be a brain drain and it also allows for a new breed of workforce in the space industry, especially seen at SpaceX. I know enough of these young guys personally.

SpaceX are not laughing all the way to the bank via NASA commercial funding. Far from it. They may even be losing some money over it, but they can deal with that as they have their own commercial ops that benefit from the overall picture via the same improving launch vehicles and spacecraft (that is win win for all concerned).

We have to support this because the alternative is far less value for your money if we just keep throwing money at Russia. What would you prefer?

Good question.. It seems the US has backed themselves into a corner at this point since they didn't develop a backup for when the Shuttle retired. Imo, this presents a larger question: does NASA need to be reformed? After the failure of the Proton M rocket in Russia this past Summer, Roscosmos decided to reorganize the agency. Too much redundancy, too much waste - the same could be true of NASA?

[BrightLight]

I think it is a valid concern when companies make a profit off of providing a public good. That extra money, even if in the best case reinvested into making the public good better or cheaper, is going towards an activity not explicitly supported by the public or the intent of the program that paid for the service.

How common the practice is or how much the government can save by using it compared to other options is irrelevant to whether it is good or should continue.

Exactly this. Pointing out other handouts doesn't justify the further use of handouts.

SpaceX developed the Falcon LV and Dragon spacecraft on there own dime, bought a used surplus launch site and now they are selling services using NASA acquisition rules - wheres the handout?

[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?

I need to point out something. It is  true that the government is trying to create a new commercial human and cargo space transportation industry here and it is materially supported by tax receipts. In fact it is true that Tesla, SpaceX, and Solar City have based a large part of their business plans on monetizing incentives or programs designed to spur the generation and adoption of new industries and technologies. This is absolutely the case.

The US government believes that investment in and the mass adoption of certain new and emerging technologies will result in a public good. This perceived public good ranges from cost reductions and increased global competitiveness for existing goods and services to the broadening of and expansion of the general economy into new markets that would otherwise be closed to a high barrier of entry to general improvements in the quality of life for the public. Furthermore,  the government believes that programs like COTS and CCP are an effort to privatize a state monopoly on an industry and that SpaceX and others represent a credible vehicle for privatization.

Here is the real question for the opening poster:

1) Is it a valid exercise for a society to collectively invest in new technologies and opening new markets by allocating tax revenues to organized non-government entities. Why or why not?

My personal opinion is yes. With oversight, an organized society can achieve more focused goals through government investment than through simply relying on the stochastic noise of competitive personal and corporate profit-seeking. Furthermore, I think that investing in entities that have an earnest desire to improve society and giving them an advantage over entities that have no stated desire will result in a net improvement.

2) Is SpaceX a valid vehicle for realizing the collective interest of society? Why or why not?

My personal opinion is yes. Musk has demonstrated significant non-interest in personal profit and has demonstrated a significant track record in trying to use the resources at his disposal to address problems he finds in society. Compared to other entities, SpaceX and Tesla both represent a rare opportunity for realizing societal benefit and it is in the public's interest to see the ventures succeed and thrive.

1. Absolutely. My question is whether the government needs to step in at all? SpaceX was created and funded on private dollars, why the need for government to step in?

2. Yes, I do. But this vehicle would have been developed without the use of taxpayer money. Musk is ambitious and has already stated his intent for these vehicles to transport people.

Also important to note that Tesla did receive funding from the government in the form of a loan from the DOE.

[Chris Bergin]

Good question.. It seems the US has backed themselves into a corner at this point since they didn't develop a backup for when the Shuttle retired. Imo, this presents a larger question: does NASA need to be reformed? After the failure of the Proton M rocket in Russia this past Summer, Roscosmos decided to reorganize the agency. Too much redundancy, too much waste - the same could be true of NASA?

You're going off message. I suspect you have a problem with the 0.4 cents in your tax dollar being spent on NASA, and then a small percentage of that being spent on something Americans can be proud of?

That sometimes crops up with some of the anti-SLS gang, citing money - yet I hope such people are banging down the doors of their lawmakers asking why billions upon billions are being sent as aid to nations who absolutely hate the United States. (Rhetorical, I don't want to send the thread off into that conversation!)

The Russians are very capable. I just assume Americans would rather the money is spent at home.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

Good question.. It seems the US has backed themselves into a corner at this point since they didn't develop a backup for when the Shuttle retired. Imo, this presents a larger question: does NASA need to be reformed? After the failure of the Proton M rocket in Russia this past Summer, Roscosmos decided to reorganize the agency. Too much redundancy, too much waste - the same could be true of NASA?

You're going off message. I suspect you have a problem with the 0.4 cents in your tax dollar being spent on NASA, and then a small percentage of that being spent on something Americans can be proud of?

That sometimes crops up with some of the anti-SLS gang, citing money - yet I hope such people are banging down the doors of their lawmakers asking why billions upon billions are being sent as aid to nations who absolutely hate the United States. (Rhetorical, I don't want to send the thread off into that conversation!)

The Russians are very capable. I just assume Americans would rather the money is spent at home.

I think the anti-SLS gang have very valid points. The Constellation program of GB came to a close with Obama and considering the long(look how many tax dollars we wasted on that), drawn out timeline of the SLS, it seems reasonable this will go the same way.

I don't have a problem with the 0.4 cents of every tax dollar going towards NASA, I have a problem with waste and government employees sitting back on their fat taxpayer dollars. NASA does - did - great things, time to get back to that.

[Lourens]

So you're saying that if NASA paid for the spacecraft and didn't allow anyone else to use it, it wouldn't be a hand out and would therefore be OK?

Not exactly. I'm saying if the item is going to be developed by the private sector anyways, save the taxpayer money for other issues.

You're ignoring the factor time, which is a pity because the argument was made upthread. Please read more carefully. Yes, SpaceX would have developed Falcon 9 and probably Dragon (for taxi service to Bigelow space stations, plus they want to send people to Mars eventually) on their own dime, but NASA's involvement sped it up significantly. Soyuz seats keep getting more expensive, so it's worth it for NASA to invest money towards getting some competition in the crew-to-ISS market sooner rather than later. WAGging some numbers, if a Soyuz seat costs $70M and a Dragon seat costs $20M and you're sending four people per year, then spending up to $200M to get crewed Dragon available a year earlier will actually make you come out ahead. So what you are calling a "handout" probably actually saves taxpayer money, and then we haven't even looked at the jobs created and other economic spin-off effects.

Also, Tesla has nothing to do with this forum, and a loan is not a handout. They paid it back early, the government made a nice profit (interest), and the American people got a more competitive car industry. And the SLS money goes to the contractors, not to government employees. Also the (your!) topic is SpaceX and taxpayer money, not SLS. There's a different forum for that.

[NumbaJuanSpaceFan]

I think it is a valid concern when companies make a profit off of providing a public good. That extra money, even if in the best case reinvested into making the public good better or cheaper, is going towards an activity not explicitly supported by the public or the intent of the program that paid for the service.

How common the practice is or how much the government can save by using it compared to other options is irrelevant to whether it is good or should continue.

Exactly this. Pointing out other handouts doesn't justify the further use of handouts.

SpaceX developed the Falcon LV and Dragon spacecraft on there own dime, bought a used surplus launch site and now they are selling services using NASA acquisition rules - wheres the handout?

Aside from the handouts I've already mentioned, there are these new developments..

about $20 million of financial incentives, laws changed to close a public beach during launches and legal protection from noise complaints.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20140212-texas-other-states-dangle-incentives-to-lure-billionaire-elon-musk-s-spacex-project.ece?nclick_check=1

[Jim]

Aside from the handouts I've already mentioned, there are these new developments..

You haven't produced any proof of handouts.

[Jim]

 there are these new developments..

about $20 million of financial incentives, laws changed to close a public beach during launches and legal protection from noise complaints.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/business-headlines/20140212-texas-other-states-dangle-incentives-to-lure-billionaire-elon-musk-s-spacex-project.ece?nclick_check=1

Not unique to space, No different than what plane and automakers or other industries get for putting up a factory in certain districts.  And that is not a handout.  Spacex is not receiving money but getting a tax break.

[Jim]

NumbaJuanSpaceFan, You have yet to back up your claims with any relevant data.  You have your opinion and you aren't going to change it despite insurmountable facts stating otherwise.

[R7]

Actually the latest data points out that even the states see presence of SpaceX as profitable for them, thus the luring. It's not happening because there are enthusiastic space cadets calling the shots.

[mme]

1. Absolutely. My question is whether the government needs to step in at all? SpaceX was created and funded on private dollars, why the need for government to step in?

Yes. Because NASA had specific requirements for flying specific missions. Why is that so hard to understand?

2. Yes, I do. But this vehicle would have been developed without the use of taxpayer money. Musk is ambitious and has already stated his intent for these vehicles to transport people.

Really? SpaceX would have spent money developing a capsule specifically for docking with the ISS purely hoping that NASA would use it?

Also important to note that Tesla did receive funding from the government in the form of a loan from the DOE.

This is not a Tesla forum, how is that "important to note." Sounds like an ideological talking point when you call a loan that’s been paid back “funding.”

[Jim]

1. Absolutely. My question is whether the government needs to step in at all? SpaceX was created and funded on private dollars, why the need for government to step in?

It didn't step in.  NASA had a need and Spacex, OSC and others stepped up.  Spacex and OSC won the competition to support the ISS.  What other uses that the companies do with their systems is up to them. 

[Jim]

Good question.. It seems the US has backed themselves into a corner at this point since they didn't develop a backup for when the Shuttle retired. Imo, this presents a larger question: does NASA need to be reformed? After the failure of the Proton M rocket in Russia this past Summer, Roscosmos decided to reorganize the agency. Too much redundancy, too much waste - the same could be true of NASA?

Now you are just throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks.  This has nothing to do with "SpaceX And Tax Payer Money".  You just have an axe to grind.

It isn't NASA, it is congress.  NASA was going to have OSP or CEV replace the shuttle.

[Jim]

Not exactly. I'm saying if the item is going to be developed by the private sector anyways, save the taxpayer money for other issues.

That is where you are wrong.  The item is not going to developed by the private sector anyways.

[Norm38]

Not exactly. I'm saying if the item is going to be developed by the private sector anyways, save the taxpayer money for other issues.

As has been explained before in this thread, NASA has unique requirements not shared by the rest of the private sector.  NASA didn't pay SpaceX to develop the Merlin engine or the F9 in general.  Those were developed by SpaceX to meet the private sector satellite market.  What NASA did pay for was:

Under the $75 million agreement, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) and SpaceX are working to outfit Dragon with life support systems and a launch abort system.

Right now there is no manned private sector.  The only user of life support and abort system for crew is NASA to send astronauts to ISS.  If NASA didn't provide funding to meet their specific, non-private sector needs, then either those needs never do get met, or they don't get met on NASA's schedule.  NASA wasn't prepared to sit and wait for Bigelow to ask SpaceX for a manned rating.  That may never happen.

The only other NASA funding SpaceX has received is the COTS contract - payment for cargo delivered, not development costs.  COTS did work out the way you say it should have.

Aside from the handouts I've already mentioned, there are these new developments..

about $20 million of financial incentives, laws changed to close a public beach during launches and legal protection from noise complaints.

Have you seen what Chicago is spending on the O'Hare airport expansion?  All to benefit United and American Airlines mostly.

[R7]

The only other NASA funding SpaceX has received is the COTS contract - payment for cargo delivered, not development costs.  COTS did work out the way you say it should have.

COTS $278M was for development and demonstration. CRS $1.6B is for cargo delivered. Still a bargain.

edit: from http://pennysleuth.com/spacex-successfully-launches-and-lands-reusable-rocket/ :

[mme]

I don't have a problem with the 0.4 cents of every tax dollar going towards NASA, I have a problem with waste and government employees sitting back on their fat taxpayer dollars. NASA does - did - great things, time to get back to that.

What "government employees" are "sitting back and getting fat" at SpaceX? SpaceX developed a launch vehicle with their own funds. They got paid a small amount of money to develop a spacecraft to fulfill a specific need. As far as I can tell, they did it for significantly less money than anyone in the history of spaceflight.

Please point to the pre-existing private fleet of spacecraft ready to deliver humans and cargo to the ISS at any price. Please provide a reference to a comparable non-COTS launch service that could supply the ISS and return cargo to Earth for a lower price. Please point to the specific bloat and waste in the program. Please explain how this program is any different than R&D projects funded between private corporations. Please explain how doing valuable work at far below previous market rates to provide a necessary service is "getting a handout."

[Chris Bergin]

Time to lock it, given the question's been dealt with and the poster is still banging on about US tax dollars (despite being a Canadian).

Plus we need to teach Jim how to make a point over one post, not four.