6 ms·

So it needs taxpayer subsidy just to be on par with fully-private Falcon 9? Seems like it loses before the match even begins.

noir_lord 12y ago
What a narrow world view. A fully reusable single stage to orbit "plane" completely changes the dynamics of putting stuff in orbit both on cost and turn around time. The Falcon 9 is privately funded as is the Merlin engine it uses however pretty much all the materials science, initial engineering etc required to design and build a merlin was publicly funded. There are times when a public/private partnership makes sense and this is one of them.
outworlder 12y ago
The 'subsidy' is less than a non-SpaceX launch would cost and peanuts for a R&D project, specially one with this potential. And it's about the same amount the US military is currently spending to certify SpaceX for military launches. What about the NASA contracts? These are done with taxpayer money too.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  I find it fascinating that Elon Musk hasn't chipped in since even though it's a competitor to SpaceX it is ultimately a step in the right direction for his goal of putting people on Mars and into space. Hell he could take the engine and build a new spacecraft based on it.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    I think he's happy with the engines he has, as well as the ability to say "here's what we're doing" without someone else having the final say.
    - goodcanadian 12y ago
      Also, as rich as he is, he is not made of money. His wealth is tied up in SpaceX and Tesla.
leoedin 12y ago
SpaceX received a subsidy from Elon Musk. The financial case for the company wasn't clear at the start - it was only because they had significant financial backing for the initial development period that they could get to where they are now. They may now be profitable, but if you'd tried to make a case a decade ago for funding you'd get nowhere. There are all sorts of high-capital technology developments that simply aren't immediately profitable or low risk enough for VC funding. Why should we as a society rely on the whims of a few wealthy people? This kind of technology, should it be realised, has a value to everyone.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Why not call it a risky investment? He ended up with a big ownership stake, he wasn't just supporting them for the hell of it.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    The UK isn't supporting Skylon "for the hell of it", either. Their taxpayers would likely be pretty happy to have the next Boeing/Airbus live on their soil.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine when people call a private, profitable financial arrangement a subsidy. I complain about the usage for cell phones too.
      - ceejayoz 12y ago
        Both situations involve someone with money taking a bet on a currently non-profitable venture hoping it'll pay off in the future. SpaceX wasn't profitable when Musk put money in.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Note that one of the partners is QinetiQ, the privatized wing of the UK defence research establishment. There's a strategic interest here too.
avz 12y ago
I'm baffled. How does the need for public financing make a project "loose before the match even beings"? The project needs public financing because private investors wouldn't shoulder the risk. Most significant leaps of technological innovation in the history of civilization required public support. And as we move on the leaps will become harder and riskier still which means even less willingness of the private investors to put up the money. So brace yourself :P
blueskin_ 12y ago
They are completely different designs, with different technology and applications. The Falcon is 1940s technology updated; the Skylon is new; there has never been anything else flown using the same engine concept before.

noir_lord 12y ago

What a narrow world view. A fully reusable single stage to orbit "plane" completely changes the dynamics of putting stuff in orbit both on cost and turn around time. The Falcon 9 is privately funded as is the Merlin engine it uses however pretty much all the materials science, initial engineering etc required to design and build a merlin was publicly funded. There are times when a public/private partnership makes sense and this is one of them.

outworlder 12y ago

The 'subsidy' is less than a non-SpaceX launch would cost and peanuts for a R&D project, specially one with this potential. And it's about the same amount the US military is currently spending to certify SpaceX for military launches. What about the NASA contracts? These are done with taxpayer money too.

Fuxy 12y ago
I find it fascinating that Elon Musk hasn't chipped in since even though it's a competitor to SpaceX it is ultimately a step in the right direction for his goal of putting people on Mars and into space. Hell he could take the engine and build a new spacecraft based on it.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  I think he's happy with the engines he has, as well as the ability to say "here's what we're doing" without someone else having the final say.
  - goodcanadian 12y ago
    Also, as rich as he is, he is not made of money. His wealth is tied up in SpaceX and Tesla.

leoedin 12y ago

SpaceX received a subsidy from Elon Musk. The financial case for the company wasn't clear at the start - it was only because they had significant financial backing for the initial development period that they could get to where they are now. They may now be profitable, but if you'd tried to make a case a decade ago for funding you'd get nowhere. There are all sorts of high-capital technology developments that simply aren't immediately profitable or low risk enough for VC funding. Why should we as a society rely on the whims of a few wealthy people? This kind of technology, should it be realised, has a value to everyone.

maxerickson 12y ago
Why not call it a risky investment? He ended up with a big ownership stake, he wasn't just supporting them for the hell of it.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  The UK isn't supporting Skylon "for the hell of it", either. Their taxpayers would likely be pretty happy to have the next Boeing/Airbus live on their soil.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine when people call a private, profitable financial arrangement a subsidy. I complain about the usage for cell phones too.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Both situations involve someone with money taking a bet on a currently non-profitable venture hoping it'll pay off in the future. SpaceX wasn't profitable when Musk put money in.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Note that one of the partners is QinetiQ, the privatized wing of the UK defence research establishment. There's a strategic interest here too.

avz 12y ago

I'm baffled. How does the need for public financing make a project "loose before the match even beings"? The project needs public financing because private investors wouldn't shoulder the risk. Most significant leaps of technological innovation in the history of civilization required public support. And as we move on the leaps will become harder and riskier still which means even less willingness of the private investors to put up the money. So brace yourself :P

blueskin_ 12y ago

They are completely different designs, with different technology and applications. The Falcon is 1940s technology updated; the Skylon is new; there has never been anything else flown using the same engine concept before.