Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

coldblade2000 t1_j7sx63v wrote

Reply to comment by funkboxing in SpaceX prepares for a massive test this week: Firing all 33 Starship engines at once by upyoars

If I have a construction company and am hired by the government to build them a warehouse, it doesn't mean the government then owns my fucking house

10

funkboxing t1_j7w89bb wrote

A functional analogy would be if you accepted government funding to research and develop a new construction process that you'd then patent.

1

coldblade2000 t1_j7w9l0y wrote

>you accepted government funding to research

It'd be nice if you actually pointed to this "research funding". I looked over and all the money SpaceX was given by NASA was "service contracts" which are fulfilled or being fulfilled, or the Commercial Crew Program. In this one, SpaceX didn't receive money in the first round. In the second, seed money was first given to a few companies like BlueOrigin, Boeing and SpaceX to develop technologies for crewed vehicles. In SpaceX's case, their proposal was making their ALREADY EXISTING Dragon capsule human-rated, and finishing its abort system. The Falcon 9 had already flown various resupply missions to the ISS by then. The rest of their funding was NASA paying SpaceX to render services, or specifically making changes to SpaceX's vehicles for NASA's purposes

2

funkboxing t1_j7wclov wrote

I guess if you don't consider paying for services yet to be developed as funding research, then yeah- I suppose that didn't happen.

0

Bensemus t1_j8flh1j wrote

It's not that simple. Blue Origin had issues in the HLS contract because they tried to avoid NASA's R&D sharing requirements. NASA allows some stuff to be reserved as trade secrets but not everything. Accepting NASA money means you need to share technology with NASA.

1