Musk made everything off of government handouts with a few exceptions.Musk must be very confident on Harris being an honorable person to go so hardcore on Trump. Most businessmen try to curry favor with both sides or at least not piss anyone off. Especially with SpaceX basically running on government funds.
Musk has a different kind of brainworms running the show: Aspergers on ketamine. If the autistic kid had trouble rev'ing up the empathy circuits "natural" then imagine his damage on ketamine. Psychopath.Musk must be very confident on Harris being an honorable person to go so hardcore on Trump. Most businessmen try to curry favor with both sides or at least not piss anyone off. Especially with SpaceX basically running on government funds.
There is no alternative to SpaceX, so he's not too worried there.Musk must be very confident on Harris being an honorable person to go so hardcore on Trump. Most businessmen try to curry favor with both sides or at least not piss anyone off. Especially with SpaceX basically running on government funds.
Musk must be very confident on Harris being an honorable person to go so hardcore on Trump. Most businessmen try to curry favor with both sides or at least not piss anyone off. Especially with SpaceX basically running on government funds.
Boner pills, "tactical" gear, professional accompaniment services, hentai purveyors...
Musk made everything off of government handouts with a few exceptions.
Even if you don't consider it handout, you can say SpaceX is built on the back of tons of government investment in space science and engineering. Commercial crew and cargo could be considered a partial handout because the government paid for the development, without claiming ownership of the final design. Commercial airlines, for example, do not directly pay for the development of an aircraft. Military who does directly pay for development generally retains ownership rights over the design.How are you defining a government hand-out? For example is the Commercial Crew and Cargo contracts that NASA has with SpaceX, is that a example of a government handout?
How are you defining a government hand-out? For example is the Commercial Crew and Cargo contracts that NASA has with SpaceX, is that a example of a government handout?
Those seem to have paid off pretty well though as SpaceX is the best launch provider in the world at this time.His companies wouldn't exist to be awarded those contracts except he received numerous govt bailouts at convenient times to keep him afloat.
Even if you don't consider it handout, you can can SpaceX is built on the back of tons of government investment in space science and engineering. Commercial crew and cargo could be considered a partial handout because the government paid for the development, without claiming ownership of the final design. Commercial airlines, for example, do not directly pay for the development of an aircraft. Military who does directly pay for development generally retains ownership rights over the design.
His companies wouldn't exist to be awarded those contracts except he received numerous govt bailouts at convenient times to keep him afloat.
Umm it's absolutely no question that Boeing, Lockheed, and NGC exist on the back of government spending. Most of the major engine breakthroughs have also been on the backs of direct government investment.Wouldn't then every aerospace company in the US be built on the back of tons of government investments in space, science and engineering? They everyone aerospace company exists on government handouts?
As far as Commercial Crew and Cargo. The US government didn't pay for the full development which is one of the reasons why the US government didn't claim full ownership. If the US government claims full ownership they then assume responsibility for the vehicle and support of that vehicle government forward. A good example of that would be the SLS program which the US government assumes full ownership of the vehicle and all support costs including production line costs. With the resulting in tens of billions of costs for NASA. In your commercial airline example. In a way airlines do pay for development costs by signing a contract for a purchase commitment of a certain number of airframes. Getting enough purchase commitments is a way that a aerospace company judges interest for new airframe development. With space right now, we have to remember that the US government is the largest purchaser of space services for the industry because the industry is developing. For Space the US government is trying to develop the industry so they are just one of many customers and if they want services all they have to do is buy a ticket.
THe largest portion of Tesla's profits right now are from essentially government subsidies via carbon credits.Umm it's absolutely no question that Boeing, Lockheed, and NGC exist on the back of government spending. Most of the major engine breakthroughs have also been on the backs of direct government investment.
Of course airlines indirectly pay for the development of an aircraft, and sometimes they directly pay for certain modifications. But Southwest doesn't directly give Boeing $10B to develop a new 737.
But there is nothing wrong with this. I fully support government funding science and innovation. Without the government there would basically be no space technology. My issue is when companies benefit massively from government spending and investment, then once they make it they all of a sudden become very libertarian.
I do also think the firm fixed price structure of commercial crew produces much better results than cost plus fixed fee of SLS. SLS was obviously nothing but a government bailout from day one.
Tesla also exists as it does today through direct government subsidization.
Umm it's absolutely no question that Boeing, Lockheed, and NGC exist on the back of government spending. Most of the major engine breakthroughs have also been on the backs of direct government investment.
Of course airlines indirectly pay for the development of an aircraft, and sometimes they directly pay for certain modifications. But Southwest doesn't directly give Boeing $10B to develop a new 737.
But there is nothing wrong with this. I fully support government funding science and innovation. Without the government there would basically be no space technology. My issue is when companies benefit massively from government spending and investment, then once they make it they all of a sudden become very libertarian.
I do also think the firm fixed price structure of commercial crew produces much better results than cost plus fixed fee of SLS. SLS was obviously nothing but a government bailout from day one.
Tesla also exists as it does today through direct government subsidization.
What was the government bailout for SpaceX?
Wasn't necessarily a "bailout", but SpaceX did get a rather convenient contract award in '08 when Leon himself had said the company was close to the brink.
Very true. However, conservatives like to use the term "bailout" and "handout" any time government money is involved. So I think it's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that even though SpaceX was successful and revolutionized the industry, were it not for a government contract to keep it financially afloat during a critical time, it would have gone under.SpaceX executed on that contract successfully. I really don't see that as a bailout when a company bids on a contract, is awarded the contract and then successfully executes on that contract.