SpaceX And Tax Payer Money

[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.