This is the american way. What is surprising to me is that nobody is upset about this. United states presents itself as bastion of freedom and lean gov with minimum taxes. Yet the taxes are comparably pretty high and the gov money seems to go only up to rich companies and individuals who pretend like this money doesn't exist.

I'm not sure that America presents itself as a "bastion of...lean government with minimum taxes". It's so obviously not true that I'd like to see any statement from the US government in front of International forums or through diplomatic channels in that regard. So if the government is presenting itself this way consistently, I'd like to see where this presentation is taking place (vs promoting liberal values in abstract).

However, reduction of taxes and government intervention is a common talking point in internal politics. All things considered, the US has done a better job than, let's say, Europe and Asia in keeping the government out of economic affairs. No sane American libertarian would say, though, that the government has been successful at being "lean with minimum taxes", however it's doing better than most other major countries.

Having lived abroad and personally knowing many people living across the world, I can say that keeping taxes "low-ish" and the market "free-ish" is rarely a topic of conversation in the mainstream political debate outside the US.

It is presented like this in popular culture. At least from my consumption of it. I am not even sure you can say US gov is less involved in economic affairs than the govs of the rest of the world. The taxpayer money has to go somewhere and in other countries it seems to go more towards infrastructure, social causes, healthcare. In US it goes where? Defense and business development? So they are probably more involved in economic affairs.

It's true that in europe lower taxes are not a topic. Nobody really expects to pay less taxes. They expect better services and guarantees.

Nobody is upset because nobody is aware (this is hyperbole; obviously some people are aware and upset). But from my time in the states, it is very clear how effective US propaganda is. Working Americans don't realise they are paying a huge amount in taxes, and believe they can't have nice things like healthcare and retirement.

> But the taxpayer is still paying for about 80% of each rocket that explodes.

[Citation needed]

The only support NASA has given SpaceX for Starship is the HLS contract[1]. And that is a firm, fixed-price milestone based contract. NASA doesn't pay for any failures there.

---

1. Technically not true - there is a very minor fuel transfer demonstration contract. But that, too, only pays out on success.

Even accounting for exploded rockets (which make up a minority of SpaceX's 234 launches), I'd argue it's still a better deal for the taxpayer than cathedral-style rocket programs which will cost taxpayers even more despite launching a fraction as often and producing data of minimal usefulness due to the lack of new ground being tread.

While I think that that the setup around SpaceX is better than etc format we have done before, I don't think it is much less of a "cathedral" model. Really the only changes in that model are that now there is a second "cathedral" (SpaceX) next to the other one (United Launch Services), and that "cathedral" is managed a bit differently (less direct government/service-buyer control). Both are controlled top-down.

It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9), or sub-orbital payloads. Those are different spaces.

> It is nice that there are other players around this space (Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, etc...), but all of them are currently aiming at much smaller payloads (than Falcon 9)

Of SpaceX's future competitors, almost all of them are aiming at larger payloads than Falcon 9.

* Vulcan: larger or smaller depending on how many SRBs

* New Glenn: larger

* Terran R: larger

* Neutron: smaller

Perhaps my choice of terminology was wrong… when I said "cathedral style" I was intending to reference extremely expensive long-tail projects that aim for perfection on the first go, similar to SLS — a generational masterpiece, much like a cathedral, as opposed to a cheaper, quicker, more iterative approach that aims to be useful while growing out of its early stage limitations.

This is literally just wrong. This is literally publicly available data:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...

The government is paying half. And that only for the specialized Moon Lander version. And it requires SpaceX to do a whole lot of things to.

Government pay nothing for the infrastructure SpaceX developed, for the Raptor engine they have developed over the last decade and so on.

This 80% number is complete nonsense.

If you want to make grand statements, at least do a minimal amount of research.

Edit: And in case you are talking about Falcon 9 the claim is even more wrong.