>>86663829If 'government subsidies' was all it took to make things happen, they wouldn't give them to Musk, 'they' would give them to themselves - or to more 'politically reliable' patsies that they would prefer to have the status of being held as responsible for succeeding at such-and-such. They would put Shaniqua in charge instead of Musk and snap their fingers at the bank to shower her in infinity inflation dollars and wave their wands to make all the chips and rockets and artillery shells they want sprout out of the ground and thank Shaniqua for her wonderful service in making all this possible showing how stunning and brave she is...
...which is exactly what they have tried to do, of course; what they are always and already trying to do, everywhere all the time; but somehow, chips and rockets and artillery shells and property values that remain un-vandalized all mysteriously fail to sprout out of the ground when those they consider 'politically reliable' are in charge, when Shaniqua is in charge, even (and especially) when your pocketbook is footing 200% of the bill.
Might be a little something more to reality beyond just 'government subsidies' as a necessary and sufficient clause for all things that come to pass, then.
>>86663826>Was it Musk who did all this? Yes
>Or the talented people around him working for him?The world is full of rich men and powerful men who can take money from rich men who can spend money on 'talented people around them', who all fail to do what Musk does.
Just for the sake of discussion, how many people are even aware that, say, Jeff Bezos has a spaceflight company too? And he certainly has a lot more money to throw around than Musk does. And yet, it is little more than a footnote compared to what SpaceX gets done. And Bezos is certainly not the first nor the least competent man to try his hand at this quest either.
NASA itself has a budget, via garnishing from tax cattle like you, many times over greater than what SpaceX gets in revenue via creating capital and providing valuable services with it, all to accomplish a whole heaping lot of jack and diddly and squat.
'We need more funding' is both the first trick and the final cope of social cancers that are structurally incapable of actually getting anything useful done no matter how much resources they consume.
