I think you might be getting hung up on sloppy wording or a one-off situation. Clearly SpaceX owns its rockets and customers pay for the delivery of payloads.
There is nothing in the article about customers personally benefiting from this. SpaceX could take the money and put it towards ground infr., etc., customers only seeing reduced payments due to NRE/maintenance subsidies. It sounds like SpaceX has quite a bit of autonomy here.
In this case the money they're receiving is closer to grant money than payment from a customer. But in any case, the further-up-the-thread post was just arguing that whether SpaceX will go to Mars (or anywhere else) depends in significant part on convincing their one dominant "customer", the U.S. Federal Government, to spend taxpayer money on the goal. The alternative, funding a trip to Mars entirely from private-sector funds and private-sector customers, does not appear so far to be close to materializing, considering that they haven't even successfully funded a trip to low-earth orbit via that means.
Launching their own payloads is not the same as launching those from a paying customer. They do not make any money off launching their own satellites until those satellites are profitable. We can known if SpaceX turns a profit based on their employees and funding they've been raising.
Just because you saw one in real life doesn't mean it's special compared to any of the other companies doing launches. Sure, they have lower cost, but you need paying customers to pay the 7,000 employees you have. They have a total of 2 paying customers (NASA) in 2020, 11 in 2019, and 20 in 2018. Do you see the trend now?
No I actually follow spaceX and understand the political reasons. I meant, how did spaceX receive the largest contract ever, then 2 lines later, it says Boeing received a larger contract.
>If SpaceX had failed to do the human launch, the cost would have been on SpaceX.
This is not how govt launches work. The payload (which is sometimes worth more than the rocket) is self-insured, meaning SpaceX is not responsible for eating that cost if it's lost. They are paid for the service (i.e., the ride) but have little to no cost regarding the cargo on govt launches.
Huh? It looks like SpaceX might be able to supply the ISS with cargo very soon. If that works people will follow not to long after that.
Sure, they are paid by NASA to do that but currently NASA is completely unable to supply the ISS with anything.
NASA is awesome at putting together science missions. SpaceX (currently) doesn’t want to do that, you can’t even compare the two in that respect. But what’s so bad about launching all your stuff with rockets from a private company?
I don't think that claiming the Falcon 9's reusability is not a significant factor in SpaceX's comparatively low launch costs stands up to scrutiny. How could it not lower costs significantly? Likewise, claiming SpaceX benefits from government subsidies is a red herring - all aerospace companies benefit from government subsidies as the government is their primary customer.
false, spacex is a contractor with bounding contracts, who cares which organization spend the money. The contract matter, if you want to argue, there is starliner to criticize
Right. Sorry I meant how could spaceX have the largest contract, then 2 lines later, it says Boeing gets nearly twice as much. The author did some linguistic gymnastics to make Boeing sound like it was in fact, undercutting SpaceX. I felt the need to clarify it in my above post because of how obtuse that language was.
I think its more of a response to the growing misconception that Elon's companies are exceptionally and fully dependent on government money in the form of contracts, loans, and tax breaks to its customers. This suggests the companies are being artificially kept afloat on the backs of the taxpayer and are not "good businesses". Reality is, of course, more complicated. SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity of course each benefit(ed) from the above, but not any more than their competitors and are not entirely dependent on them. Loans were paid back, contracts were competed and won fairly, tax breaks incentivize desired behavior and are common industry-wide in transportation/energy.
Your original comment could imply that SpaceX is more dependent on the federal government than other launch providers, hitting a sensitive spot for those fighting the above misconception, but that's not the case. Governments have the money and motive to fly expensive satellites (or people) and are the biggest customers for nearly all launch providers.
One small correction which I think makes the difference even clearer: the US government was not the first paying customer. SpaceX has already delivered several satellites into orbit for other non-US governments and corporations.
The price you quote for a SpaceX launch covers the reusable portion of the payload only, not the full unlocked capability of the launch vehicle. That's an Apple's to Oranges comparison.
I don't see why the government contracts would act as a shield for SpaceX. It's not like being forced to carry a competitor is going to make them unable to carry the government's rockets.
reply