11–17 of 17 posts
Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
>"SpaceX is not asking to recoup past expenses, but also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely and send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable," Musk wrote on Twitter on Friday.
The anti-Musk sentiment is reaching ludicrous levels.
Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
From the article: >"SpaceX is not asking to recoup past expenses, but also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely and send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable," Musk wrote on Twitter on Friday. The anti-Musk sentiment is reaching ludicrous levels.
Absolutely incredible to make a big deal about "donating" all this stuff, and then decide what you actually want is a big fat Pentagon contract.
From the article: >"SpaceX is not asking to recoup past expenses, but also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely and send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable," Musk wrote on Twitter on Friday. The anti-Musk sentiment is reaching ludicrous levels.
Musk has provided $80 million in Starlink services for free - is your claim that he was supposed to continue this indefinitely?
He explicitly mentions not asking the Pentagon to recoup the $80 million, but to fund the continuing donations of Starlink - how is he intending to profit with this proposal financially, as you imply?
I also did not see him "make a big deal" about his Starlink donations.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/03/12/spacex-seeks-16-bi...
I guess that kicked it all off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it reasonable to be able to extract any revenue from Ukraine during a war? If not, then there is no loss of revenue. There is also no increased operational costs - the constellation is up there already, and replacements need to be sent up from time to time, regardless of whether they fly over Ukraine or not and regardless of whether they keep their radios on while doing so. The operating cost of a satellite conste…
It is not reasonable to be able to extract services and hardware for any/no cost from a private business just because they built something that could be used. AFAIK that'd only be possible in a limited way if the US itself was at war. Why should SpaceX have to provide services and hardware for operational costs only, while Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, etc can keep their profits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not reasonable to be able to extract services and hardware for any/no cost from a private business just because they built something that could be used. AFAIK that'd only be possible in a limited way if the US itself was at war. Why should SpaceX have to provide services and hardware for operational costs only, while Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, etc can keep their profits?
If there was no expectation of profit, why did they send it in the first place?
I also donated money to Ukraine, do I have to keep sending more money because of it? No, I don't, that's entirely up to me, and my operational costs are nobody's business.