30 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Besxar has government funding (for an undisclosed amount of course) with the department of defense.

 

Indeed, but Besxar aren't SpaceX... and you were referring to "he" as in Elon Musk (SpaceX) having unlimited government funds to play with.  Besxar have signed a launch agreement, that's it. Besxar are paying SpaceX for a ride, SpaceX aren't paying Besxar. 😁 Nothing to do with what SpaceX can or cant afford. 

 

30 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

As with a lot of what Musk/Tesla and partners do

 

Besxar are a customer. Nothing to do with Musk's SpaceX having unlimited government funds to play with, which they don't.  SpaceX are 90% self funding. 

 

You mistakenly thought this was a SpaceX endeavor, not just a customer buying space on Falcon 9. 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2025Nov 5 by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Indeed, but Besxar aren't SpaceX... and you were referring to "he" as in Elon Musk (SpaceX) having unlimited government funds to play with.  Besxar have signed a launch agreement, that's it. Besxar are paying SpaceX for a ride, SpaceX aren't paying Besxar. 😁 Nothing to do with what SpaceX can or cant afford. 

Kinda semantics to me. Government money is government money, no matter how many shell entities backdoors and etc. are used to funnel it to Musk. I would posit that government-backed contracts can easily be used as an obscured subsidy by those with intent.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Besxar are a customer. Nothing to do with Musk's SpaceX having unlimited government funds to play with, which they don't.  SpaceX are 90% self funding. 

Our perspectives are different. At this point I believe the government and Musk have an arrangement to funnel various streams of public largesse into the coffers of Musk.... That sustain them even as the company pays little to no tax, leaving it uncommonly free to "self invest".

As far as Falcon 1.....

Customers: DARPA, DOD/NASA, Including pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights. (essentially a subsidy, as were the milestone payments along the way.)

SpaceX could not have done this alone. They very nearly went bankrupt on Falcon 1, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/elon-musk-warning-not-first-time-spacex-has-risked-bankruptcy.html  and had they needed to self-fund those launches/payloads entirely they would not have survived.

Later, when investigations of Musk's companies were being conducted by at least 32 federal agencies, all of those agencies were (purely coincidently I'm sure) gutted by DOGE. The investigations were stalled or stopped completely, and the relevant Inspectors General were summarily fired..

This is not even getting into his apparently unfettered access to Americans sensitive and personal data, potentially giving him an advantage over other companies/rivals to acquire even more future federal/government contracts.

I find it all pretty stinky.

Edited November 5, 2025Nov 5 by HiFlyer

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Kinda semantics to me. Government money is government money

 

No its not semantics. You specifically said HE  (Elon) has plenty of government funds to play with. Not relevant in the least. Its Besxar spending the money not Elon. 😁 It must be April 1st again.

Nobody is surreptitiously funneling it to Musk, no more than any of the other customers who have chosen SpaceX to launch their payloads. SpaceX is the cheapest launch provider, that's why they are frequently chosen as a provider. You wouldn't expect them to say... "Hmm, SpaceX are the cheapest and most reliable, better find something less reliable and more expensive". 😄 Do you really think that customers from all over the world are using SpaceX because they are part of a conspiracy to funnel them money?

This is what I'm referring to, Elon Derangement Syndrome. Lets call it EDS. Those not fond of him, often for good reason, abandon all reason and trash not just the dodgy stuff he does but EVERYTHING he does. 😁 They'd have more credibility if they just stuck to the dodgy stuff. 

What you are actually doping is instead of admitting you got it wrong and mistakenly believed this was a SpaceX endeavor, you are trying to wriggle out of trouble. We all get things wrong, me all the time. 😉

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

and had they needed to self-fund those launches/payloads entirely they would not have survived.

 

They were self funded! And were one launch away from bankruptcy, due to rocket failure. Luckily that last launch was successful. The funding received for Falcon 1 was from the Department of Defense for the first two launches to evaluate new launch vehicles. There were 5  launches in total. DoD funding two initial launches for the purposes mentioned is hardly some huge conspiracy. The DoD didn't just help fund the two first Falcon 1 launches, it was part of an initiative where they were helping to fund a number of new launch companies, as part of the EELV program. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2025Nov 5 by martin-w

I am Fan of SpaceX and Musk. Pushing the boundaries of space we can learn a lot more about our own Planet and what we know. 

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

No its not semantics.

You believe

2 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Nobody is surreptitiously funneling it to Musk

I glad your records of their finances are so complete as to state that as a fact.

3 minutes ago, martin-w said:

What you are actually doping is instead of admitting you got it wrong and mistakenly believed this was a SpaceX endeavor, you are trying to wriggle out of trouble.

My posts were about government money flooding into SpaceX and yes, tangentially also other Musk companies. How that money arrives is less interesting to me than the source in all too many cases, as well as the timing. Like the 400 Million for Armored Teslas that disappeared when the spotlight was shone.

As to trouble.... What trouble, exactly? Is this discussion getting reposted to X? Should I expect a knock? 🥱

5 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Do you really think that customers from all over the world are using SpaceX because they are part of a conspiracy to funnel them money?

Nice misstatement of what I actually said regarding us taxpayer money, and no, I wont defend an argument I did mot make. I will say however that historically, there's a certain synergy to the way this works. Money attracts money, and cliques of financial interest form. Absent watchdogs and scrutiny things can easily devolve to Quid pro Quos, gentlemen's agreements and whatever else it can be called. Once you are rich enough, even nations take notice. Refuting that would be much easier if the relevant watchdogs were not being rather forcefully silenced. 

11 minutes ago, martin-w said:

This is what I'm referring to, Elon Derangement Syndrome. Lets call it EDS. Those not fond of him, often for good reason, abandon all reason and trash not just the dodgy stuff he does but EVERYTHING he does.

And.... Nice bit of stereotyping. Should I then reverse that and bring up the term Musketeers for people who reflexively defend? Silliness.

36 minutes ago, martin-w said:

They were self funded! And were one launch away from bankruptcy, due to rocket failure.

The point was Mr Musk self funded several hundred million on the venture and failed on his first three tries. He tried a final time and then would not have been able to continue except for a commercial contract with NASA that saved the company.

He has been saved several times by government money swooping in, but as I mentioned above about money and power, the relationship of the US government smartly funding innovation in the early days has changed, and I believe the dynamic now is that the people who assisted him, for laudable reasons, are now supplanted by those jockeying for his favor and largesse by guiding more funds into his pockets and or making deals with him.

Once that dynamic comes into play and I see the watchdogs being fired: yes, I am off the train. I also hate seeing us essentially put all our eggs into one rather eccentric mans basket. (Look up Musk, techno accelerationism and fortressed escape pods)

Yeah.

Meanwhile, does anyone really believe that SpaceX is taking us to Mars via literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of starships (the math isn't mathing) and starting a colony there using self funding? Or is it more likely the taxpayer would pay through the nose and see the profits from this dubious endeavor (if any) go into private hands?

I wouldn't trust Bezos either at this point, which is why I now believe certain things should remain national projects rather than privately dominated, with all the inherent historical incentives for corporate greed and corruption. There's enough of that when the government is in charge, but at least they (had) watchdogs.

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

As to trouble.... What trouble, exactly? Is this discussion getting reposted to X? Should I expect a knock? 🥱

 

It's a figure of speech. Admit it, you got the wrong end of the stick and mistakenly believed this was a SpaceX endeavor. 😉

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Nice misstatement of what I actually said regarding us taxpayer money, and no, I wont defend an argument I did mot make.

 

You misunderstand, my point was that all manner of companies use SpaceX Falcon 9 launch facilities, numerous private costumers, clearly those companies aren't all part of a dastardly funneling funds conspiracy, for some reason you claim ONE is. The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and that's that those customers, including Besxar use SpaceX because they are the cheapest regarding a horrendously expensive technology.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

And.... Nice bit of stereotyping. Should I then reverse that and bring up the term Musketeers for people who reflexively defend?

 

Highlight one of his dodgy practices and I'll be the first to join you in criticizing him. But not for simply accepting business from a customer. 😁 It's not even a higher value customer, relatively speaking. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

He has been saved several times by government money swooping in

 

As mentioned, Tesla loans were paid back 9 years ahead of schedule and the tax payer profited. A good deal me thinks. SpaceX doesn't have loans, just contracts for customers, like any company. They just happen to be the biggest launch provider and cheapest, on the planet.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Meanwhile, does anyone really believe that SpaceX is taking us to Mars via literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of starships (the math isn't mathing) and starting a colony there using self funding? Or is it more likely the taxpayer would pay through the nose and see the profits from this dubious endeavor (if any) go into private hands?

 

Well, Its not just Musk and SpaceX, last I heard it's NASA that want to go to Mars, to beat the Chinese, just like the Moon. China has a long term plan to build a permanent base on Mars. Hundreds of Starship to Mars is a very long term plan that may or may not transpire in the future. 

On 11/4/2025 at 3:28 PM, HiFlyer said:

Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding

 

Oh, you mean like the other tens of millions of *private* people and thousands of businesses, institutes, NGOs, etc. etc. who get govt. cash?

Why pick on Musk who at least accomplishes something amazing and worthwhile with the money?

Dave

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/google-exploring-putting-ai-data-centers-in-space-project-suncatcher-wants-to-harness-in-orbit-solar-power-to-scale-ai-compute

5 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/google-exploring-putting-ai-data-centers-in-space-project-suncatcher-wants-to-harness-in-orbit-solar-power-to-scale-ai-compute

 

An ambitious idea. And I guess with Starship having two thirds the volume of the ISS, and 200 metric tons cargo capability, it might be feasible. 

12 hours ago, martin-w said:

As mentioned, Tesla loans were paid back 9 years ahead of schedule and the tax payer profited. A good deal me thinks. SpaceX doesn't have loans, just contracts for customers, like any company. They just happen to be the biggest launch provider and cheapest, on the planet.

To me, it doesn't matter (much) that the loans were repaid, because I suspect they were at least partially repaid from the results of yet more government largess. At a certain time in history, this was probably good government in action, fostering innovation; but at some point the tail got big enough to begin wagging the dog, and at that point I am off the train.

Like many Americans, I'm pretty traditionally skeptical of government efficiency and even competence, but I distrust corporate greed and misdeeds much much more; for the stated reason (again) that until recently, the government had pretty robust checks and balances, whereas corporations historically do all they can to avoid oversight, and left alone tend to do silly things that the taxpayer is left on the hook for.

10 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Oh, you mean like the other tens of millions of *private* people and thousands of businesses, institutes, NGOs, etc. etc. who get govt. cash?

Why pick on Musk who at least accomplishes something amazing and worthwhile with the money?

Well the most obvious reason would be that Musk and companies are central to the topic

Also Musk and companies are unique cases, not only due to their wide influence and power, but due to the singular fact of the owner closing in on becoming the worlds first trillionaire if his controversial compensation package is allowed to go through.

As I said above, I get off the train when the tail gets big enough to start wagging the dog. This is not what was intended, and I see it as deeply destabilizing. At this point I would rather see the money go back to NASA, who also did amazing things, and I believe that's where the money does the most public good, not under the control of singular people.

Currently, Nasa is in the process of reviewing the exclusivity of at least one SpaceX contract, causing Musk to act out in a way only possible to one with as much accumulated power and ego as he. Others may see it differently, viewing the resulting drama as a paradigm shift in who actually leads the space program etc, but I see it as somebody who is already very close to the to-big-to-fail, or even challenge, crossroads.

I also see this as a result of the man getting on the bad side of the president (don't like that much politics in my rocket soup!) who has already stated publicly that he, at least, knows exactly where the money spigot is, and how badly and easily Musk could be hurt. I find the whole thing distasteful far beyond the travails of other companies feeding at the government though. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/in-escalating-public-feud-trump-threatens-to-cut-musks-government-contracts

 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

To me, it doesn't matter (much) that the loans were repaid, because I suspect they were at least partially repaid from the results of yet more government largess.

 

What you suspect means nothing, and they were Tesla loans, nothing to do with your speculation that SpaceX somehow got the Besxlar contract through some manner of  special treatment. SpaceX are cheap and fast, that's how they got the contract... how hard can this be. It's a fact that SpaceX are cheaper, it's a fact they are reliable, its a fact they are frequent launches... no need for any conspiracy theories when the obvious stares us in the face. SpaceX were the obvious, logical choice.... obviously! 

 

 

Quote

 

Besxar chose SpaceX as its launch provider primarily due to SpaceX's ability to offer rapid, frequent, and reliable missions at a lower cost than competitors, which is crucial for Besxar's specific need for quick, iterative testing of its in-space semiconductor manufacturing technology. 

Key reasons for the selection include:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Well the most obvious reason would be that Musk and companies are central to the topic

Also Musk and companies are unique cases, not only due to their wide influence and power, but due to the singular fact of the owner closing in on becoming the worlds first trillionaire if his controversial compensation package is allowed to go through.

 

Huh... Not relevant. What's relevant is that.... SpaceX has the ability to offer "rapid, reliable, frequent missions at lower cost". Its not rocket science, err... okay, it kind of is rocket science. You are just twisting and turning and firing off at a tangent with all manner of creative ways to avoid the fact that you mistakenly thought this chip fabrication in space stuff was a SpaceX endeavor. You didn't read the article, did you?

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

At this point I would rather see the money go back to NASA, who also did amazing things, and I believe that's where the money does the most public good,

 

You are kidding, right? You are aware of the NASA Artemis program, right? It's faced ongoing criticism and challenges. Literally billions of dollars for a single launch. It's had repeated threats of cancelation.  Some sources say a single engine costs more than the entire rocket program developed by private industry. And guess what? Its not reusable, gets scraped after one use. NASA are using companies Like Space X and Blue Origin and others... for a reason. They literally cannot do the same mission as cheaply and as fast. Using private companies saves the taxpayer money. 

 

Quote

Yes, private companies like SpaceX are making NASA's missions cheaper and faster, primarily through innovative technologies like reusable rockets and by shifting to more cost-effective business models. This shift allows NASA to purchase services instead of building everything itself, focusing on its own unique research and development goals while leveraging commercial efficiency for transport and other needs. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Currently, Nasa is in the process of reviewing the exclusivity of at least one SpaceX contract, causing Musk to act out in a way only possible to one with as much accumulated power and ego as he. Others may see it differently, viewing the resulting drama as a paradigm shift in who actually leads the space program etc,

 

SpaceX Spaceship, the HLS (Human Landing System) Variant. Which is nothing to do with who leads the space program. It's one contract in a combined mission to the Moon with NASA. 🙄

 

Are you still not going to admit that you mistakenly thought the chip fabrication in space stuff was a SpaceX endeavor, hence your "he has plenty of government funds to play with" comment? 🙂

Edited November 6, 2025Nov 6 by martin-w

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

SpaceX are cheap and fast, that's how they got the contract... how hard can this be. It's a fact that SpaceX are cheaper, it's a fact they are reliable, its a fact they are frequent launches... no need for any conspiracy theories when the obvious stares us in the face. SpaceX were the obvious, logical choice.... obviously! 

Yes, SpaceX are cheap, but so are other companies like Rocket Lab. What I find obvious, as a component of national strategy, would be policy to very aggressively foster such companies as direct standup rivals, because right now SpaceX is in such a dominant position that there might really be no other options eventually, leading to what I mentioned previously about the tail wagging the dog and too big to fail.

I thought some previous calls to actually seize SpaceX using the defense production act problematic and a bit hysterical, but also thought there was a certain logic to it if things went too far and the US became too dependent, which I think we are close to becoming..

As for conspiracy theories, I don't like them, but its not hard to believe in shadow funding for Musk, considering SpaceX keeps its ownership data secret, and there were already national security concerns regarding Chinese investors, possibly via middleman funds, adding yet another layer of obscurity as to what's going on. These concerns, as I mentioned before, would be much easier to dismiss/laugh at if the appropriate regulatory bodies had not been summarily yeeted.

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Huh... Not relevant. What's relevant is that.... SpaceX has the ability to offer "rapid, reliable, frequent missions at lower cost"

If you get to decide what's relevant in a conversation, then its already over and objectively pointless. I think its very relevant in the constellation of concerns I and many others have about about Musk and SpaceX at this point.

As far as rapid and reliable etc. sure but there are others, and without the baggage and drama. I would be literally pouring buckets of money into Blue origin, United launch alliance, Firefly Aerospaces Neutron program and more to avoid even a chance of a space monopoly.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Which is nothing to do with who leads the space program.

Think more three dimensionally. All that's happening right now is part of a worldwide constellation of connected threads that will define the trajectory of human spaceflight. SpaceX is now in a position where there are valid questions as to who is actually in charge, especially with the nominated head of Nasa being a former SpaceX test pilot.... (Yes, the guy who under oath refused to say if Elon was in the room when he was interviewed by the president; and is not only a personal friend of Musk's, he's personally bankrolling a private space development program (Polaris) through SpaceX)

Trump cancelled his nomination (after a public spat with Musk, and while being upset that Isaacson had donated money to another party) but has now abruptly renominated him after some childish back and forth between the acting head, Sean Duffy, and Musk, specifically regarding Artemis and doubts about SpaceX, during which the acting head also tangentially mentioned the defense production act in a different context.

And...... He's OUT!

During his initial nomination, Mr. Isaacson, the once-again appointee, made some cool headlines like "They Work for Us, Not the Other Way Around" that were apparently intended to address his obvious conflicts of interest but... well its a good thing there's no history of appointees saying one thing and then reversing course and doing something completely different once appointed, right?

My take is, Nasa and its funding is about to be gobbled up from the inside and become a Musk-toy, essentially an indirect SpaceX slush fund.

At that point, space, at least for the US might become pretty much a Musk-thing.

And Musk doesn't even like Artemis. He thinks the money should go to Mars instead. Congress disagrees, but when asked during his first confirmation, about holding steady on moon landings, Mr. Isaacson only replied that that was the current plan.....

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Are you still not going to admit that you mistakenly thought the chip fabrication in space stuff was a SpaceX endeavor, hence your "he has plenty of government funds to play with" comment? 🙂

Oh cool! What A nice red cape!

In actuality, before I post anything on subjects like this, I often spend quality time (probably way too much, considering that this is random internet fluff going nowhere and meaning nothing) gathering/marshalling my thoughts and data, so..... no. I initially thought so, but was corrected by my own fact and sanity checking.

Honestly, what I actually post is usually far from the bible sized tomes I assemble before cutting the heck out of them cause nobody is gonna read all that. Or even this, actually.

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Yes, SpaceX are cheap, but so are other companies like Rocket Lab

 

Rocket lab have nothing like the capability of Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is heavy lift, Falcon Heavy has even greater lift capability, its three Falcon 9's strapped together. Rocket Lab is small lift. Falcon 9 launches significantly more frequently. Falcon 9 launched over 100 times in 2024, Rocket lab only managed 16 times. Besxar needed "rapid, reliable, frequent missions at lower cost"

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

If you get to decide what's relevant in a conversation, then its already over and objectively pointless.

 

What!!! 🤣 You decided what we were talking about when you made the following false claim... "And why not? He's got unlimited government funds to play with."

Why would Elon need unlimited funds to accept funds from a customer? 😁

 

You have avoided admitting to your error despite a number of requests. You've just steered the conversation elsewhere and conjured up an admittedly creative way to save face. Again, you didn't even read the article, did you?

 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I would be literally pouring buckets of money into Blue origin, United launch alliance, Firefly Aerospaces Neutron program and more to avoid even a chance of a space monopoly.

 

Poor money into who you like... I'm still waiting for you to admit your mistake. There is only a semi-monopoly because SpaceX employ the best engineers on the planet and have raced ahead of the competition, and again, no loans, they were just fast enough, reliable enough, frequent enough with a medium, heavy and super heavy lift capability that nobody else can match, that they got the contracts. No need for your conspiracy theories. Logic dictates you consider lift capability, frequency of launches, reliability, and cost... when you do that SpaceX comes out on top. HENCE... why Besxar chose that option.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Think more three dimensionally. All that's happening right now is part of a worldwide constellation of connected threads that will define the trajectory of human spaceflight.

 

How exciting. Admitting your mistake, yet, or still using distraction tactics? 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

In actuality, before I post anything on subjects like this, I often spend quality time (probably way too much, considering that this is random internet fluff going nowhere and meaning nothing) gathering/marshalling my thoughts and data, so..... no.

 

So you did all that for 10 words. 🤣

 

Edited November 6, 2025Nov 6 by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

How exciting. Admitting your mistake, yet, or still using distraction tactics? 

I'm at the point that I didn't even read the stuff you posted above. Since this seems to be your major bugbear and there's not much I can do about it, i'm pretty much done and you can believe what you want.

 

11 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I'm at the point that I didn't even read the stuff you posted above. Since this seems to be your major bugbear and there's not much I can do about it, i'm pretty much done and you can believe what you want.

 

 

Me too. To avoid a mental breakdown.