Better headline: SpaceX successfully launches the biggest rocket in history.
Also, they weren't labeled as "publically funded". They were labeled as "U.S. state-affiliated media". That is untrue and is a political hit at the behest of Musk.
I'm not sure what misinformation you are referring to. It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.
Another example, from Tesla's own report submitted to the SEC in 2020:
> As part of various governmental responses to the pandemic granted to companies globally, we received certain payroll related benefits which helped to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our financial results.
This was at a time in which Musk was railing against government bailouts. Tesla never gave more details on the government handouts this particular line was referring to.
It goes on and on.
You're making a claim as well so the onus is on you just as much as me. And you can likely use Google as well as I can. Just search. It isn't hard to find. I'm not going to sit here and copy and paste links and articles all day that you can just as easily find. This is a forum, not a dissertation defense or an investigative journalism piece. Plenty has been written about this in news articles, SEC filings, and lawsuits.
> And let's not bring Tesla into this to confuse the issue.
It's not confusing the issue. It is part of the issue and was in my original comment. To be clear, the issue is that a CEO, who claims to be a supporter of free speech, of two companies, specifically SpaceX and Tesla, that have received billions in government support has intentionally, adversarially, and antagonistically mislabaled NPR as "U.S. state-affiliated media" because he is abusing Twitter to run his own fringe political agendas. The reason stated for the ban, which is not the actual reason, is barely even true, and is misleading, is that NPR is government funded.
I'm not making a claim, I'm challenging a claim. Once again don't confuse the issue.
And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX. There are thousands of people that work there and make the place tick. And they are a separate legal entity. It's not fair to throw them under the bus for anything that is happening with Musk or Tesla. I was obviously referring to SpaceX as I was talking about "services rendered".
All that's required for this argument is any moderate amount of government support for Musk's companies.
> And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX.
Musk is CEO and so-called founder of both places. They're both relevant. I don't see why you think otherwise.
The entire point being that NPR operates just as much as many entities do with respect to receiving government support and is probably the least state mouthpiece of any news organization. Yet, Musk applies bizarro logic because NPR doesn't fit into his fringe political ideology. He creates chaos in the vain of Vladislav Surkov and Trump to suit whatever thing he is trying to promote at the moment. This whole situation is hypocritical, misleading, full of false information, and childish. We're wasting time here talking about it.
Summary: NPR receives a modicum amount of government support. SpaceX and Tesla receive billions in government support. Read support as grants, subsidies, loans, contracts, etc. CEO of SpaceX and Tesla calls NPR "U.S. state-affiliated media", which has very strong and negative connotations for a new organization that are ultimately not correct from any vantage point. Elon Musk, said CEO, consistently rants about government "handouts", bailouts, support, etc. despite simultaneously being the beneficiary of these programs.
Because FCC asked private companies to put in bids. So companies responded.
Its not that SpaceX just went to the FCC and asked for money.
> It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.
These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.
Tesla received a lone for Model S production, both Ford and GM also received loans. Tesla paid it back, Ford and GM have not yet done so.
Tesla received intensive for factories, so do all large industrial facilities.
ZEV credits are a universal mechanism, not given preference to any automaker.
Same for EV Tax Credit, applies to all car maker.
Tesla, I would argue has received very little in direct subsidy. The loan guarantee was small (400M and paid back quickly).
A drop in the bucket compared to GM. Even foreign companies got access to EV tax credit.
I could do the same for SpaceX.
Yes, Musk companies receive government help. But so do all companies in these industry. Having a space company without close ties to government simply isn't happening right now. It would be more viable for Tesla, but the US government has been mucking around in the care industry for 100 years and their international competitors do so to.
The misinformation is that government picked winners and that Musk companies are successful because of these subsidies. That the success of Tesla and SpaceX are because of subsidies. These myths are often repeated.
> These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.
So, as mentioned, no they don't. This particular issue is completely independent of comparisons to other car and space companies.
If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies, the people who control those agencies, and how many tax breaks and kickbacks (a form of indirect and implicit government support) from the politicians they bankroll via donations.
You are drafting on this narrative that musk's companies are extravagant government leeches, when the truth is that they've gone the opposite direction, taking much less money from the government, avoiding cost plus contracts, and charging significantly less than competitors for services.
You're asking me to prove the sky is blue, and I'm saying to just go outside.
> You are drafting on this narrative that musk's companies are extravagant government leeches
No, I didn't say that.
You are being disingenuous here - to claim that detailing the grants and subsidies that the companies took and determining whether the sky is blue are the same category is bad faith, sorry. I'm actually personally familiar with SpaceX's finances to a degree and am not aware of any significant grants or subsidies. I'm not just just challenging you to be contrarian, I'm asking for evidence.
And I didn't say you said that, I said you are drafting off of the narrative, the same way a bike rider drafts off the rider in front of them.
> If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies
Sounds like a good idea.
That's fine, but the NPR thing was basically the entire impetus of this comment train, so that particular commentary wasn't relevant.