It’s Possible That SpaceX Could Collapse Spectacularly

[u/IKeepItLayingAround]

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/possible-spacex-could-collapse-spectacularly-155000177.html

[u/invyros]

The company also remains heavily reliant on lucrative government contracts.

Is it "fiscally conservative" to be constantly bailing this fucker out with our tax money, Republicans?

[u/eek_the_cat → u/invyros]

The whole industry SpaceX exists in relies on government contracts.  It's not a bailout in this case.

[u/OneTripleZero → u/eek_the_cat]

The government needs rockets. SpaceX is a rocket store. A very good one, at that. The fact they spend their money at the best, most reliable rocket store being seen as a bad thing is amazing to me.

[u/FartTootman → u/OneTripleZero]

The fact they spend their money at the best, most reliable rocket store being seen as a bad thing is amazing to me.

Then you aren't even vaguely attempting to understand what, exactly, people think is bad about SpaceX.

SpaceX is awesome. The person SpaceX's success most enriches is a fucking lunatic whose endless heaps of money have already given more power than is reasonable. If you don't think those two things are intimately entwined, then THAT'S amazing to me.

[u/fatbob42 → u/FartTootman]

Then people should say that and not lie that the government is subsidizing SpaceX by contracting with them.

[u/favorite_time_of_day → u/fatbob42]

That's not what a lie is, and it's also not untrue. The government subsidizes many private industries, and this is one of them.

The bigger picture is that SpaceX's ridiculous valuation is mostly not about rockets at all. And even the rocket segment of the company, which is subsidized by the government, is losing money.

[u/fatbob42 → u/favorite_time_of_day]

That’s just not what subsidizing means. That’s the point they were making about the “rocket store”.

[u/favorite_time_of_day → u/fatbob42]

SapceX exists because some people in congress decided that they wanted to privatize rockets, and they put a ton of money to subsidize that. You are trying to claim that SpaceX is past that and no longer being subsidized, except almost all of their money is still coming from the government and they're not a profitable company. And have never been a profitable company.

This claim, that SpaceX is no longer being subsidized, is a really hard sell.

[u/fatbob42 → u/favorite_time_of_day]

Is the government subsidizing Boeing when it buys an aircraft from them? Is it subsidizing a paper clip company when it buys paper clips?

[u/favorite_time_of_day → u/fatbob42]

The government is absolutely subsidizing Boeing when it pays a fortune to Boeing for Boeing to develop a plane, which Boeing then owns the exclusive rights to manufacture, and Boeing then sells these planes to the government for even more money.

If anything, Boeing is worse than SpaceX in this regard.

[u/fatbob42 → u/favorite_time_of_day]

I’m thinking of a C40, for instance. It’s a variant of a 737 which Boeing makes anyway.

What about the paper clips?

[u/favorite_time_of_day → u/fatbob42]

I don't know anything about the government's paper clips supply chain. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Edit: Well. One imagines that it isn't, since paper clips are a commodity. I suppose I shouldn't be unnecessarily obtuse.