|
Keep debates civil. |
here is some finger pointing.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/04/israel-space-communication-spacex/
Satellite Owner Says SpaceX Owes it $50 Million or a Free Flight
by Meghan O'Dea SEPTEMBER 4, 2016, 2:27 PM EDT
E-mail Tweet Facebook Linkedin
Share icons
Israel’s Space Communication wants compensation for the Spacecom satellite that blew up last week.
Israel’s Space Communication said on Sunday it could seek $50 million or a free flight from Elon Musk’s SpaceX after a Spacecom communications satellite was destroyed last week by an explosion at SpaceX’s Florida launch site.
Officials of the Israeli company said in a conference call with reporters Sunday that Spacecom also could collect $205 million from Israel Aircraft Industries, which built the AMOS-6 satellite.
SpaceX did not immediately reply to a request Sunday morning for comment about Spacecom’s claim. The company is not public, and it has not disclosed what insurance it had for the rocket or to cover launch pad damages beyond what they were required to buy by the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees commercial U.S. launches, for liability and damage to government property.
Elon Musk Wants to Cut Tesla Spending, “At Least for the Next 4.5 Weeks”
SpaceX has more than 70 missions on its manifest, worth more than $10 billion, for commercial and government customers.
The space launch company is one of three major transportation and energy enterprises Musk leads. The others are electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc and SolarCity Corp, and Musk faces separate challenges at each of those money losing companies.
Spacecom has been hit hard in the aftermath of the Thursday explosion that destroyed the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and its payload. The Israeli company said the loss of the satellite would have a significant impact, with its equity expected to decline by $30 million to $123 million.
Spacecom shares dropped 9% on Thursday, with the explosion occurring late in the last trading day of the week. Trading in the shares was suspended on Sunday morning, and the stock plummeted another 34% when trading resumed.
For more on Tesla, watch:
In a conference call with reporters, Spacecom’s general counsel Gil Lotan said it was too early to say if the company’s planned merger with Beijing Xinwei Technology Group (600485.SS) would proceed.
Xinwei last month agreed to buy Spacecom for $285 million, saying the deal was contingent on the successful launch and operation of Spacecom’s Amos-6 satellite.
“We hope to continue fruitful communications with the prospective buyer,” Lotan said.
Amos-6 was to be used by a number of key clients, including Facebook and Eutelsat Communications which leased the satellite’s broadband services to expand internet access in Africa. Both firms are pursuing other options, the companies said in separate statements after Thursday’s accident.
What SpaceX’s Rocket Explosion Means for Elon Musk
The cause of the accident is under investigation. Neither SpaceX, nor the FAA which is overseeing the investigation, have said how much damage the explosion caused at SpaceX’s primary launch site at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
SpaceX said on Friday that it would shift flights to a second launch site in Florida, which is nearing completion and which was last used to launch NASA’s space shuttles.
Thursday’s accident, which occurred as the company was fueling its rocket as part of a routine prelaunch test firing, was the second failed mission for Musk’s space company in 14 months. In June 2015, a Falcon 9 rocket exploded about two minutes after liftoff from Florida, destroying a load of cargo headed to the International Space Station.
SpaceX returned to flight in December and since then has flown nine times, all successfully. It was scheduled to fly for the 29th time on Saturday. SpaceX declined to comment about what impact Thursday’s accident would have on its schedule.
|
|
|
On September 03 2016 13:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:
The government, the Air Force, NASA, are launching things whether or not SpaceX offers a competitive product. And I believe more than half of SpaceX launches are private/commercial.
according to this 85% of their money comes from NASA. NASA is far and away SpaceX's #1 customer. the # of launches is not as important as how much money each launch generates in revenue. if 4 launches generate $1 million from ABC private company and 1 launch generates $30 million from NASA it does not matter that ABC company is the customer for 80% of SpaceX launches. Revenue is what matters. So even if more than half of SpaceX launches are "private" it does not matter. What matters is how much revenue is generated. the final line in the article i posted pretty much sums up my thoughts.. “Sending thousands to colonize Mars may just have to be put on the back burner until he can send three people to ISS.”
100% of their revenue could be from government sources, that wouldn't make NASA a charity. (Since one of your earlier articles counted for $1.3b in Nevada tax incentives for Tesla over the course of 20 years as part of $4.9b in "subsidies" I'd want to see a primary source about revenue anyway.) Why? Because at this very moment Boeing's commercial crew contract is worth more and Orbital Sciences's commercial resupply contract is worth more. The idea that NASA is somehow propping up SpaceX specifically, that doesn't add up when other companies get more to do less.
And remember it's government favoritism (the shuttle and then ULA) that got us here in the first place. Does anyone want to go back to those days?
|
On September 06 2016 02:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 13:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 03 2016 07:01 oBlade wrote:
The government, the Air Force, NASA, are launching things whether or not SpaceX offers a competitive product. And I believe more than half of SpaceX launches are private/commercial.
according to this 85% of their money comes from NASA. NASA is far and away SpaceX's #1 customer. the # of launches is not as important as how much money each launch generates in revenue. if 4 launches generate $1 million from ABC private company and 1 launch generates $30 million from NASA it does not matter that ABC company is the customer for 80% of SpaceX launches. Revenue is what matters. So even if more than half of SpaceX launches are "private" it does not matter. What matters is how much revenue is generated. the final line in the article i posted pretty much sums up my thoughts.. “Sending thousands to colonize Mars may just have to be put on the back burner until he can send three people to ISS.” 100% of their revenue could be from government sources, that wouldn't make NASA a charity. (Since one of your earlier articles counted for $1.3b in Nevada tax incentives for Tesla over the course of 20 years as part of $4.9b in "subsidies" I'd want to see a primary source about revenue anyway.) Why? Because at this very moment Boeing's commercial crew contract is worth more and Orbital Sciences's commercial resupply contract is worth more. The idea that NASA is somehow propping up SpaceX specifically, that doesn't add up when other companies get more to do less. And remember it's government favoritism (the shuttle and then ULA) that got us here in the first place. Does anyone want to go back to those days?
This is no different than those days, just Musk also gets to line his pockets and ego on top.
|
On September 06 2016 02:09 oBlade wrote:
And remember it's government favoritism (the shuttle and then ULA) that got us here in the first place. Does anyone want to go back to those days?
False Dilemma.
i'm criticizing Musk since i favour the 1982 funding model because its the only alterative.
if they need to put a satellite into orbit just do it without the extra billions in Elon Musk pet science projects and experimental hardware.
none of this impacts me directly though because i'm not a US tax payer. i'm about 90% satisfied with how the Canadian government is spending money via CSA; i'm happy with how the liberals have tied the spending to very specific practical projects that produce an return on their investment/spending as soon as the project succeeds. i'm happy with the liberals decreasing spending on pie-in-the-sky BS. i'd prefer it were zero.. but the amount of whining would be politically untenable.
|
Does NASA have a better option to fly cargo to ISS? Or are you just complaining that NASA sends shit into space and spends your precious money? AFAIK they use SpaceX because it's the cheapest among US companies. And they want to fly using at least two options anyway.
|
stop "integrating" research into future pie-in-the-sky plans with basic aerospace operations that have been done for 50+ years. if i were a US taxpayer that's what i'd be pushing for. as a canadian tax payer i'm satisified with the liberals decisions on space research and tech.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 06 2016 04:04 arbiter_md wrote:
Does NASA have a better option to fly cargo to ISS? Or are you just complaining that NASA sends shit into space and spends your precious money? AFAIK they use SpaceX because it's the cheapest among US companies. And they want to fly using at least two options anyway.
Sadly the Obama administration has mostly decided that space is expensive and it's better to delegate to private companies rather than give NASA the means to make their own craft. So the options are indeed limited at the moment, but the situation that led to this is very much the result of deliberate policy, which I'd say was pretty poorly thought out.
|
On September 06 2016 04:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 04:04 arbiter_md wrote:
Does NASA have a better option to fly cargo to ISS? Or are you just complaining that NASA sends shit into space and spends your precious money? AFAIK they use SpaceX because it's the cheapest among US companies. And they want to fly using at least two options anyway. Sadly the Obama administration has mostly decided that space is expensive and it's better to delegate to private companies rather than give NASA the means to make their own craft. So the options are indeed limited at the moment, but the situation that led to this is very much the result of deliberate policy, which I'd say was pretty poorly thought out.
From my perspective the idea seems very good and thought out. The problem is the amount of money needed to attain the goals, negotiations there were probably too lenient.
What they are doing is creating several aerospace companies and products predicting a future demand from the normal commercial market or foreign countries. Long term increasing revenues. The US is based on government running as few companies as possible, thus this is the result.
|
On September 06 2016 03:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 02:09 oBlade wrote:
And remember it's government favoritism (the shuttle and then ULA) that got us here in the first place. Does anyone want to go back to those days? False Dilemma. i'm criticizing Musk since i favour the 1982 funding model because its the only alterative. if they need to put a satellite into orbit just do it without the extra billions in Elon Musk pet science projects and experimental hardware. none of this impacts me directly though because i'm not a US tax payer. i'm about 90% satisfied with how the Canadian government is spending money via CSA; i'm happy with how the liberals have tied the spending to very specific practical projects that produce an return on their investment/spending as soon as the project succeeds. i'm happy with the liberals decreasing spending on pie-in-the-sky BS. i'd prefer it were zero.. but the amount of whining would be politically untenable.
The NASA contracts are valued as follows:
$1.6 billion for SpaceX commercial resupply, 12 flights
$1.9 billion for Orbital Sciences commercial resupply, 8 flights
$2.6 billion for SpaceX commercial crew, up to 6 flights
$4.2 billion for Boeing commercial crew, up to 6 flights
Where exactly are the extra billions, Jimmy?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The idea is reasonable - get companies to deal with routine missions, while leaving the government agencies to focus more on advanced work that isn't profitable, and to oversee the companies.
The result was that the US prematurely pivoted to a market-based space program that is full of charlatans sustained by government money, and completely crippled promising research programs (e.g. Constellation) and made it unable to perform essential functions (e.g. Manned missions to the ISS) during the transition.
Basically NASA downsized, with little benefit but plenty of people looking for a share of the profits.
|
On September 06 2016 04:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 03:47 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 06 2016 02:09 oBlade wrote:
And remember it's government favoritism (the shuttle and then ULA) that got us here in the first place. Does anyone want to go back to those days? False Dilemma. i'm criticizing Musk since i favour the 1982 funding model because its the only alterative. if they need to put a satellite into orbit just do it without the extra billions in Elon Musk pet science projects and experimental hardware. none of this impacts me directly though because i'm not a US tax payer. i'm about 90% satisfied with how the Canadian government is spending money via CSA; i'm happy with how the liberals have tied the spending to very specific practical projects that produce an return on their investment/spending as soon as the project succeeds. i'm happy with the liberals decreasing spending on pie-in-the-sky BS. i'd prefer it were zero.. but the amount of whining would be politically untenable. The NASA contracts are valued as follows: $1.6 billion for SpaceX commercial resupply, 12 flights $1.9 billion for Orbital Sciences commercial resupply, 8 flights $2.6 billion for SpaceX commercial crew, up to 6 flights $4.2 billion for Boeing commercial crew, up to 6 flights Where exactly are the extra billions, Jimmy?
is SpaceX legally bound to publish accurate #s on these details?
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you go back to the present and present a source that NASA is lying in order to launder money to Elon Musk? Not everything is a tinfoil issue.
|
in 5 years we'll hear how screwed up NASA's accounting was in 2016. its been going on for decades.
this is the earliest i'll go back.
http://www.gao.gov/products/AFMD-93-3
here is a 2000 rounding error. 
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2171
Here is another litany of errors.
http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2004/05/nasa-we-have-a-problem/
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/legislative/hearings/2009 hearings/6-18-09 Spoehel.pdf
"While the auditors’ reports for FY 2008
complimented NASA on its recent progress, as with prior years, they also noted NASA’s
continued inability to provide sufficient evidential support for the amounts presented in some of
the accounts in the financial statements. The reports also cited two internal control material
weaknesses, as well as certain non-compliance with regulatory requirements for financial systems
and an inability to meet certain requirements to ensure compliance with federal accounting
standards.
New Approach Developed and Implemented in FY 2008 "
Here is a beauty from 2011/2012
https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/IG-12-015.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +"NASA has limited the scope of its IPIA efforts, which in turn has minimized the
Agency’s ability to identify, report on, and recapture improper payments. Although the
Agency completed the steps required by IPIA and reported the results of its review in its
FY 2011 PAR, NASA is not fully compliant with the requirements of the Act.
Specifically, with NASA’s approval, the IPIA contractor interpreted and manipulated
disbursement data from the Agency’s accounting system to identify and group its
programs and activities. "
now when i document hundreds of accounting errors by NASA since 1992 its foolish too assume that is all there were. Its foolish to assume there were no other mistakes. there were many more errors between 1992 and 2009 than the auditors uncovered in the links i've provided. way more.
NASAs financial #s are unreliable and have been that way for decades. Note I never said any one was lying. Its not up to me to prove that. I'm stating their financial #s are wrong. A LOT. no tinfoil hat required. its a fact. when asked to comply with accounting standards NASA frequently does not comply.
is someone systematically bullshitting for their own benefit? that's someone else's torch to carry. not mine. again, i'm not american. i'm a disinterested 3rd party
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Honestly I'm not all that fond of the way Bolden has run NASA in his tenure as director. He had his rather stupid "Muslim outreach" comment however many years back which was explicitly stupid, but on top of that from what I've heard he managed to lose a lot of the friends that NASA had within Congress with how the privatization of space has gone.
|
|
|
On September 06 2016 10:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:in 5 years we'll hear how screwed up NASA's accounting was in 2016. its been going on for decades. this is the earliest i'll go back. http://www.gao.gov/products/AFMD-93-3here is a 2000 rounding error. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2171Here is another litany of errors. http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2004/05/nasa-we-have-a-problem/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/legislative/hearings/2009 hearings/6-18-09 Spoehel.pdf"While the auditors’ reports for FY 2008 complimented NASA on its recent progress, as with prior years, they also noted NASA’s continued inability to provide sufficient evidential support for the amounts presented in some of the accounts in the financial statements. The reports also cited two internal control material weaknesses, as well as certain non-compliance with regulatory requirements for financial systems and an inability to meet certain requirements to ensure compliance with federal accounting standards. New Approach Developed and Implemented in FY 2008 " Here is a beauty from 2011/2012 https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/IG-12-015.pdf+ Show Spoiler +"NASA has limited the scope of its IPIA efforts, which in turn has minimized the
Agency’s ability to identify, report on, and recapture improper payments. Although the
Agency completed the steps required by IPIA and reported the results of its review in its
FY 2011 PAR, NASA is not fully compliant with the requirements of the Act.
Specifically, with NASA’s approval, the IPIA contractor interpreted and manipulated
disbursement data from the Agency’s accounting system to identify and group its
programs and activities. " now when i document hundreds of accounting errors by NASA since 1992 its foolish too assume that is all there were. Its foolish to assume there were no other mistakes. there were many more errors between 1992 and 2009 than the auditors uncovered in the links i've provided. way more. NASAs financial #s are unreliable and have been that way for decades. Note I never said any one was lying. Its not up to me to prove that. I'm stating their financial #s are wrong. A LOT. no tinfoil hat required. its a fact. when asked to comply with accounting standards NASA frequently does not comply. is someone systematically bullshitting for their own benefit? that's someone else's torch to carry. not mine. again, i'm not american. i'm a disinterested 3rd party
This business about accounting errors at NASA is all a red herring with respect to SpaceX. Since you keep reminding us you're not a taxpayer, I'll explain it, competition in the market is hands down preferable to a ULA monopoly and $1 billion per launch for the space shuttle.
|
NASA is off in its financial #s constantly. Furthermore, they deliver lots of stuff over budget and late. NASA does a great job of playing the confused visionary lisp programmer knowing the value of everything and the cost of nothing.
NASA is an unreliable source for financial #s. Its part of NASAs culture and the culture of some of their closest working partners like the US Army. God only knows where the money is going on any US-Army/NASA project.
For the record , i take no pleasure in watching the US tax payer get ripped off. Hopefully, Space-X does a great job and saves the American tax payer lots of money. However, I subscribe to the perspective provided by LegalLord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
