Musk's SpaceX Launching Classified Payloads

[FrgMstr]

Elon Musk may not be happy with our government, but make no mistake that SpaceX still likes its money green. SpaceX has been making its way up the ladder for US Military space launches at it is outbidding its competitor United Launch Alliance LLC.

One major reason for SpaceX’s appeal to Pentagon brass: sticker price. With its launches starting around $61 million, Musk’s company has been able to undercut its more established rival. United Launch Alliance, a Centennial, Colo.-based joint venture of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp., boasts an unblemished record of more than 100 launches, but it’s still working to bring its cost below $100 million. It plans to do so by 2019.

Of course at least $40M per launch is quite a savings for sure, but can SpaceX provide a perfect launch record over time? I would assume that you would just have to blow up one payload to wipe out the savings immediately. SpaceX cost Facebook $200M back on September 1st.

 

[nutzo]

Competition lowering prices? How can that be?

I though greed business men are only out to enrich themselves, and only government efficiency could lower prices

 

[EODetroit]

September 1st is when I bought my SolarCity stock, knowing that it would be bought by Tesla. It all makes sense now, the stock was getting crushed for no good reason because another Musk company (SpaceX) made a boo-boo. Its a shame I didn't wait another week, but all in all, looking at TSLA's value today, its done pretty good so far.

 

[Retronym]

Competition lowering prices? How can that be?

I though greed business men are only out to enrich themselves, and only government efficiency could lower prices

report to the gulag.

 

[Croak]

I admire a lot of what Musk has done, but the foundation of his business ventures are ALL built on government subsidies or contracts. He should have a care, hand that feeds you and all that.

 

[kju1]

I admire a lot of what Musk has done, but the foundation of his business ventures are ALL built on government subsidies or contracts. He should have a care, hand that feeds you and all that.

Not really. Thats the great thing about this country. You can bitch and moan all day long about how its run but at the end of the day you are still treated fairly when it comes to opportunities to get work from it.

 

[Croak]

Not really. Thats the great thing about this country. You can bitch and moan all day long about how its run but at the end of the day you are still treated fairly when it comes to opportunities to get work from it.

Great country, no doubt, but Musk is gaming the hell out of the system, and one could argue that subsidies are a definition of unfairness. I think there's also a fair degree of hypocrisy involved in sucking the gov't teat that unfairly promotes your agenda over other market forces, and then bitching about other government policies that insult your practically religious belief in something else.

 

[EvilWays]

It's a sleight-of-hand game Elon Musk is playing. Two of three companies of his (Solar City and Tesla) don't make much of a profit (if at all any), rely heavily on subsidies, and relies on the third company to not crash. This was exposed with the September 1st rocket explosion which could have collapsed everything. The only one making out like a bandit in these ventures are Elon Musk and his cronies.

 

[Mohonri]

Is the $60 million launch cost for a brand-new rocket, or does it take into account the savings from reusing spent first stages?

 

[Rob94hawk]

Elon Musk is a fucking hypocrite. Time to cut Tesla's subsidies off. See how fast they survive on their own.

They'd probably fold within hours.

 

[gamerk2]

I admire a lot of what Musk has done, but the foundation of his business ventures are ALL built on government subsidies or contracts. He should have a care, hand that feeds you and all that.

Technically, it's really hard to find any product created post-WWII that isn't indirectly tied into some government funding. Between public universities and DARPA [government funded R&D labs], pretty much everything has at least a little federal government funding in it.

 

[gamerk2]

It's a sleight-of-hand game Elon Musk is playing. Two of three companies of his (Solar City and Tesla) don't make much of a profit (if at all any), rely heavily on subsidies, and relies on the third company to not crash. This was exposed with the September 1st rocket explosion which could have collapsed everything. The only one making out like a bandit in these ventures are Elon Musk and his cronies.

That's normal for startups, and the primary reason it's hard to get competition these days. Startup & R&D costs are INSANE, and you literally have to eat years of negative profits while you build up the necessary base to mass produce your product. Amazon is the shining example of this effect; they lost money for over a decade before eventually making stable profits.

 

[kju1]

Great country, no doubt, but Musk is gaming the hell out of the system, and one could argue that subsidies are a definition of unfairness. I think there's also a fair degree of hypocrisy involved in sucking the gov't teat that unfairly promotes your agenda over other market forces, and then bitching about other government policies that insult your practically religious belief in something else.

I disagree with the overly broad statement of subsidies being the definition of unfairness. Do you consider food stamps and subsidized housing to be unfair? Lets scope that down to "in business" and even then I dont necessarily agree. I think they are abused and not used correctly but the intent of a subsidy is to create the ability for something that otherwise would not have a snowballs chance in hell. I.e. to give it a fair chance in order to give the public options. This is a whole separate topic in and of itself to be honest.

Hypocrisy? Sure thing. But your original message implied that if he continued bashing the government he should expect some form of reprisal. Thats not going to happen (legally anyway) and that was my point. I agree its got a touch of hypocrisy but its definitely well within his rights to bash away while taking tax payer money and it should have no effect on his ability to take such money...

 

[NeoNemesis]

It's a sleight-of-hand game Elon Musk is playing. Two of three companies of his (Solar City and Tesla) don't make much of a profit (if at all any), rely heavily on subsidies, and relies on the third company to not crash. This was exposed with the September 1st rocket explosion which could have collapsed everything. The only one making out like a bandit in these ventures are Elon Musk and his cronies.

If all he cared about was money he'd retire. The guy's worth billions.

I greatly admire the work that Musk does and his reasons for doing so. He's obviously on a mission, and he's lit a fire under an industry (automotive) that hasn't released a truly innovative product in nearly a century.

As for subsidies, the transition away from cheap, dirty energy is expensive, but it's an investment in all of our futures so suck it up.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Should be noted the newest rocket has a perfect record. The FB satellite that was lost was due to the client requiring the payload to be in the rocket for a static motor test, SpaceX STRONGLY recommended not doing this. There was a problem when fueling and the rocket and payload were lost.

As for ULA, their contract price with the government is actually 420M per launch, for the same launch SpaceX is 90M, that means you could launch AND BUILD two of those satellites for the single launch cost from ULA.

 

[Mohonri]

That's normal for startups, and the primary reason it's hard to get competition these days. Startup & R&D costs are INSANE, and you literally have to eat years of negative profits while you build up the necessary base to mass produce your product. Amazon is the shining example of this effect; they lost money for over a decade before eventually making stable profits.

Actually, in Amazon's case, it's (mostly) about tax avoidance. They've intentionally kept their profits near-zero by investing in infrastructure/growth/R&D/new products. At some point, those investments will tail off, and they'll start posting huge profits. Or at least that's what the market's betting on, if you look at their stock price.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Actually, in Amazon's case, it's (mostly) about tax avoidance. They've intentionally kept their profits near-zero by investing in infrastructure/growth/R&D/new products. At some point, those investments will tail off, and they'll start posting huge profits. Or at least that's what the market's betting on, if you look at their stock price.

Very true, Amazon was all about HEAVY growth, above all, they could have turned a profit much quicker, but they didn't want to just be another etailer, they wanted to be THE etailer, which meant expanding to capture market as it grew, as the market was still very young at the time. Very few people to this day, still don't understand how massive Amazon is.