[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launches

Customers: DARPA, DARPA, DOD/NASA, mass simulator (instead of the intended payload after the first three launches), Malaysia (the intended payload of the fourth flight).

"pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights" is a subsidy, as were the milestone payments along the way.

I'm a huge SpaceX fan, but let's not pretend they could've done this alone. They very nearly went bankrupt on Falcon 1, per Musk - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex... - and had they needed to self-fund those launches/payloads entirely they would not have survived. It's a beautiful example of how powerful public/private partnerships can be.

[cryptonector]

Would you call that a subsidy still if the government saved more money than it provided as the subsidy?

[ceejayoz]

Yes, absolutely.

We made money off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program, but it was 100% a subsidy.

[cryptonector]

Does his competition also get subsidies? Who gets more, who gets less? Are your complaints motivated by Musk's political opinions and activities?

[ceejayoz]

I have no complaints here. It's a good use of subsidies. Government should use subsidies for this sort of purpose.

I just take issue with pretending they aren't subsidies, and incorrect assertions NASA/government had little/nothing to do with their success.

I'm an enormous fan of SpaceX - you could probably have heard me scream a mile away when they caught the booster last month - and have a personal dislike for Musk since the Twitter acquisition and his hypocrisy there. Nothing in this thread from my end criticizes SpaceX for being subsidized. In fact, I'm all for it.

[johngladtj]

Would you call all options and futures subsidies? Are airlines subsidizing oil companies when they purchase oil futures in order to hedge their oil costs?

There is no indication that these commitments were underpriced by the government, so to call them subsidies is at best baseless misinformation.

[ceejayoz]

> Are airlines subsidizing oil companies when they purchase oil futures in order to hedge their oil costs?

No; both parties in the deal have successfully accomplished their respective roles repeatedly before. The airline isn't doing anything new; the oil company isn't doing anything new.

(And they both absolutely get subsidized!)

> There is no indication that these commitments were underpriced by the government...

They got paid for a launch of an untested platform and a student-built payload, regardless of success, in hopes it would result in a good tested platform. What else do you call it?

[signatoremo]

No question that NASA was pivotal to SpaceX’s success, especially COTS program. However that wasn’t subsides. They only got paid when they could deliver. Had they fail to launch Falcon 9 or cargo Dragon they would have gotten no dimes from NASA.

[ceejayoz]

> Had they fail to launch Falcon 9 or cargo Dragon they would have gotten no dimes from NASA.

That's false.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/189228main_s... - start at page 34.

The first demonstration mission is paid milestone #13. If I'm adding it up correctly, about $200M paid out prior to that first demonstration flight.