SpaceX And Tax Payer Money

[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.