Replies

But there is good reason to be skeptical about SpaceX’s track record, too. A closer examination of the company reveals that even its best known successes have been overstated. Given that its continued operations are sustained in large part from government subsidies, any predictions that Tesla’s success will mirror that of SpaceX should be taken with a grain of salt.

Though SpaceX has undoubtedly renewed public interest in space exploration, both the company and the media tend to overstate its accomplishments to date. Not mentioned in the triumphant pieces about the Falcon Heavy launch was the fact that Musk originally announced that it would take place in 2013 or 2014. Also conspicuously absent was Musk’s uncertainty about the viability of the launch; when asked, he joked that what would take place would either be “an exciting success or an exciting failure.” When the Falcon Heavy finally launched in February, after years of delays, columnists at both the Wall Street Journal and the American Thinker highlighted concerns that neither SpaceX nor the U.S. government would ever find much use for the rocket.

The successful Falcon Heavy launch was also enough to wipe the numerous SpaceX launch failures that preceded it from public memory. The Washington Post chronicled several of these incidents last year. In November 2017, a SpaceX engine exploded during a test at a Texas facility. Before that, in September 2016, a Falcon 9 exploded while on the launchpad during a test. And nearly a year before that, another Falcon 9 blew up just a few minutes after liftoff.

None of these incidents is damning on its own, but they do raise concerns when you consider that SpaceX is sustained by various forms of government favoritism. According to the L.A. Times, Tesla, SolarCity Corp., and SpaceX have benefited massively from government privileges, to the tune of $4.9 billion. But while Tesla and SolarCity are public and therefore regularly disclose their financials, SpaceX is privately held and thus under no obligation to report on its financial performance. Subsidies aside, SpaceX takes a substantial amount from its contracts with NASA and the U.S. Air Force, which are worth $5.5 billion.

Economists often point out that when companies are supported by taxpayer dollars, they are partially insulated from the costs of their failures. Because executives don’t bear the full risk of their ventures, they’re more likely to make decisions they might not otherwise make. It is entirely possible that the $20 million SpaceX received from Texas has led the company to pursue unprofitable ventures that in its absence would have seemed less attractive.

Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/elon_musk_and_spacex_wearing_out_their_welcome.html

Hey Redleg,
I guess I can understand what you are saying. I mean, now we all know what a HORRIBLE human being Steve Jobs was (at least if you take into account how he treated people around him on a daily basis.... and that is just for starters).
And we also now realize how Harvey Weinstein was thoroughly brilliant in producing movies as he simultaneously acted like a selfish pig towards women (even though the vast majority of women who turned on him were more than willing to “sell” their bodies to get into movie roles, etc.).
So maybe Musk will prove to be more consequential than any of those other people - as he plays his PR game and looks for new ways to get money from the US gov’t and states and cities.
But to me the most consequential people in America are the ones who helped to get Trump elected as President.
You see, even though Trump is a “deeply flawed” person, that is true of all people.
But with Trump you get someone who is working for the good of America and Americans. I am not sure you can say the same about Musk, or Zuck, or Jobs, or Bezos