SpaceX And Tax Payer Money

[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.