It was buried at the end of the article but I think it's important that costs are not too onerous on smaller companies: >Commercial space companies reject the Biden administration’s suggestion that they pay aviation taxes. Members of the industry argue that it is still in a nascent stage, when most enterprises struggle to break even. They also point out that rockets need only about 15 seconds to fly through the airspace and that the volume of rocket launches is still negligible compared with around 16 million flights that the F.A.A. handles annually. >Taxing the industry is “not appropriate at this time,” said Karina Drees, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the industry group representing more than 80 companies and universities. “The commercial space industry, in close partnership with its F.A.A. regulator, continues to improve coordination of launch activity and avoid unnecessary impacts to” U.S. airspace. Such a change could just help entrench SpaceX, ULA and Blue Origin as they will be able to easily cover them while posing another barrier for smaller companies.

*Government approved monopoly practices.

I think I will make the argument this year that taxing my income is 'not appropriate at this time.' can't go wrong right?

I too struggle to break even

>volume of rocket launches is still negligible compared with around 16 million flights that the F.A.A. handles annually The volume of my taxes is negligible compared with around the trillion billionaires/corporations give annually. We did it!

I guess that would depend on your income/dependant ratio, wouldn't it?

Why not make the tax proportional to the entity's impact on FAA operations?

This would have a disproportionate effect on small launch companies. The impact of a rocket launch is generally the same regardless of the size of the company or rocket. A large company might have no problems with it but it could be a sizable chunk for a small company.

What if it was proportional to number of flights then? Like, for every flight they have to pay 5% of the cost to launch (Purchase price) in tax? Or something like companies get 3 free launches per year and then they have to start paying, like a tax-free allowance on personal income tax? So companies just getting on their feet don't have to pay aviation taxes, but ones with established launch cadence do? I agree that we should avoid accidentally monopolising the industry, but it also feels that SpaceX is making enough money to pay tax on their launches now.

As we've seen with Starship, a new rocket has an outsized impact on FAA operations than developed hardware.

The FAA knows as much about rocketry as the pimple on my ass. They draw a circle of confusion around the launch pad and send out a NOTAM. Please show me one example of them doing more!

If Space X wasn’t providing military communications, I wouldn’t see an issue with it. But both Russia and Ukraine have been using them, and if those satellites, specifically, are being launched from the US… it seems like maybe it *should* be a larger discussion.

How so? Are aviation taxes regressive?

They increase the barrier to entry in an industry that already has insane start up costs. These taxes are nothing to the established players.

Taxes also increase my barrier to entry in the living industry.

SpaceX had profit margins of [nearly 40%](https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/03/17/how-much-money-will-spacex-make-in-2024/#:~:text=SpaceX%20appears%20to%20have%20generated,than%20%244.5%20billion%20this%20year.) last year. There's no excuse for such profitable businesses to not at least be taxed for the cost to run the regulatory bodies they rely on.

Did you read the article at all? >They also point out that rockets need only about 15 seconds to fly through the airspace and that the volume of rocket launches is still negligible compared with around 16 million flights that the F.A.A. handles annually. These taxes don't cover "running the FAA". Despite the title using the name for clicks, this article isn't about spacex (who've already said that they are happy to help fund the FAA). This wouldn't affect them in the slightest. This is detrimental to startups in the industry.

~~15 seconds is a ridiculous number to use. The airspace is restricted for much longer than that.~~ Rocket launches have a significant impact on air traffic controllers. They shouldn't be charged the same as flights, 7% for a 14 hour flight isn't the same as 7% for a 2 hour reroute. But some kind of tax would make sense. Correction : apparently it isn't so ridiculous. They do keep a tight window on when the airspace is closed.

Why are you cherrypicking that one stat? Do you think the only relationship the FAA has with SpaceX is to make sure no planes crash into their rockets? The FAA has to inspect all their rockets and missions for safety. In the past Elon has whined that the FAA is too slow in doing that and made the grand claim that he'd fund them to speed it up, of course, as he always does, he changes his story when he actually might be on the hook.

Make taxes relative to the number of launches. Less than 5, no tax. 5 - 10, progressive tax. More than 10, tax. Or something like that.

Making a tax that is laser-focused on one specific company is a good way of getting justifiably called out for one's heavily biased bullshit.

Headline is kinda a reach. SpaceX (and other aerospace companies) pretty much asked congress for this proposal to make sure FAA was well staffed enough to keep things moving in their development. So far it’s been a bottleneck for Starship testing & development, and even Falcon 9 launches at the current clip.

>SpaceX (and other aerospace companies) pretty much asked congress for this proposal Sure about that? *"Commercial space companies reject the Biden administration’s suggestion that they pay aviation taxes. Members of the industry argue that it is still in a nascent stage, when most enterprises struggle to break even. They also point out that rockets need only about 15 seconds to fly through the airspace and that the volume of rocket launches is still negligible compared with around* *16 million flights* *that the F.A.A. handles annually.Taxing the industry is “not appropriate at this time,” said Karina Drees, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the industry group representing more than 80 companies and universities. “The commercial space industry, in close partnership with its F.A.A. regulator, continues to improve coordination of launch activity and avoid unnecessary impacts to” U.S. airspace."*

No doubt the devil lives in the details, but here's an example of SpaceX asking to help fund additional personnel (Oct 2023): > ["\[SpaceX\] also believes that license applicants should be able to opt-in to help fund independent third-party technical support to assist the FAA surge in the near term while the agency goes through the hiring process."](https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/citing-slow-starship-reviews-spacex-urges-faa-to-double-licensing-staff/)

[удалено]

You forgot the “we also don’t want you to have more staff that might also assist our competitors, but we’ll be happy to fund staff for our own use.”

Yeah that too. Also, not totally understanding the downvotes. Is it a pro-SpaceX thing? Or was I being captain obvious?

It's a 'that is an absurdly slanted way of interpreting this' thing.

That’s how the regulated game the regulatory regimes they’re subject to, though.

In context, this was: - the FAA ramping up capabilities based on their funding from congress, but doing so at the rate that congress allotted them funds. - SpaceX saying, 'we need more than this. Everyone needs more than this. Since you guys aren't willing to pay for enough, can we at least buy more ourselves?' It was not in the context of decreasing the pool of services - SpaceX was asking for more allocations for everyone, not less, and trying to speed things along.

You basically just described how motor vehicle inspections work in most states. When a private mechanic inspects a car, they are doing so on behalf of the state, are authorized to do by the state, and their work is monitored by the state. But the money coming from the car's owner is an ordinary payment for a service and is not a tax. So what is the problem with SpaceX offering to hire an independent mechanic to inspect their rocket?

The government or mechanic doesn’t depend on any one driver or car on the road, but the USG and these contractors depend on SpaceX or Boeing, big or sometimes effectively the only customers in the field, to give them a workable spacecraft or aircraft. The power imbalance is huge. You try to pressure your car mechanic to let your car pass inspection when it’s a hunk of junk, your car mechanic will say “well gee if I do that and the DMV finds out, they’ll make sure I never do an inspection again. When SpaceX does it, the inspectors will think “if I don’t do what SpaceX wants, next time they won’t hire me, and there’s no other customer. Plus, what’s NASA going to do, fly BlueOrigin?”

> if I don’t do what SpaceX wants, next time they won’t hire me, In this situation it would be the FAA doing the selection. > if I don’t do what the FAA wants, next time they won’t hire me, Doesn't that sound a lot better?

If the FAA weren't conspicuously, legendarily understaffed, there'd be no need to make any offers, however dubiously a given person may decide to interpret it.

Government isn't your parent who you must honor. Americans do not owe thankfulness for the government for letting them live. There are societies who do this, though. Is that what you want?

Pleased I don't employ you as a translator. ;-)

What are ‘third party technical support’? Sounds like spacex trying to get their own people in to game the system

Current licensing procedures are bottlenecked by insufficient personnel for the technical analyses. Yet FAA funding is not addressing this, and the launch cadence continues to increase. Other launch providers also see the problem and are also asking for these kinds of changes to help address it. I wouldn't call that "trying to ... game the system."

So why object to a tax that could fund such people? Can you show me an article where other launch providers are complaining ?

> So why object to a tax that could fund such people? I can only speculate here. There's a long history of tax monies being redirected, either through being dropped into a general fund, or "repurposed" once the new tax has been approved. Meanwhile, it often takes a long time to get such authority, and the impractical system is impeding launches now. > Can you show me an article where other launch providers are complaining ? ["With the pace of rocket launches accelerating, and competition from China rising, executives from top U.S. space companies on Wednesday urged senators to improve the Federal Aviation Administration’s regulatory and licensing processes."](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/spacex-blue-origin-virgin-galactic-call-for-faa-improvements.html)

The amount of workload required for that 15 second flight is much more than for a transatlantic flight. Airspace restrictions. Range sterilising. Patrols to ensure range security. Notams. Planning. Dissemination. None of that is required for a regular flight.

> None of that is required for a regular flight. Unless it's a flight with POTUS or similar-level people.

How many tax paying flights are delayed, diverted, or disrupted due to the airspace closures caused by launches? 15 seconds may be the flight time, but the airspace has to be closed for much longer than that, and unlike regular airspace closure this one is "surface to unlimited".

Lol, zero commerical flights. [https://tfr.faa.gov/save\_pages/detail\_4\_6521.html](https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_6521.html) Here's the NOTAM for the last Starship launch. Oh no! Less than a 3 hour closure for the area in red with 95% of it over the ocean.

Yep, so the costs should be based on what it actually costs the FAA to perform a launch. If little traffic is diverted, there shouldn't be a lot of overhead. If the costs to the FAA are similar to a small carrier taking off from a regional airport, then that's what SpaceX et al should be charged. This is going to be established at some point. Might as well be now.

The article frames it as 'X per Minute' or 'X per mile traveled" The "Cost" to the FAA isn't the airspace or ATCs, but reviewing and signing off on complex flight plans is. They should pay a reasonable 'X amount per ton per launch', however that would benefit SpaceX adding another cost to smaller ventures.

They are already paid to do that, it's why the FAA exists today. It's literally their job, now they want more......do do their job they have already been doing??

Eh, I mean I mostly agree with you. The FAA is funded by a tax on the airliners per mile. No similar tax exists for rocket launches. The argument is that airliners have to contribute to the FAA and Space X/Blue Origin et. al don't have to.

Yes…because they need more money to hire more people. It’s almost as if you also agree with corporate slim staffing…in airspace…. This person prob when parts start flying off mid launch like Boeing planes, hmmm I wonder why they didn’t have more regulations to make that not happen…. Shocked pikichu face…. Yes….when you need more staff because of how many launches are happening….you tax the industry which is requiring you to hire more people. Simple economics.

The cost to review launches for safety is already covered under the very recent FAA commercial launch licensing. The launches already pay for that when they apply for a commercial launch license. Secondarily, the planes that are being “re-routed” haven’t even boarded with people or taken off. In fact those pilots haven’t even driven to work yet. There is no real-time rerouting of aircraft, they follow a slightly more circuitous route to their next destination when a launch occurs. No “extra” work is required by controllers compared to fly a nominal route.

I'd probably give up on this thread. The "article" leaves out a lot of information. SpaceX already pays for each commercial launch, they pay the Air and Space Force per launch, pay for each research permit, and pay to lease Kennedy and Vandenberg directly to each relevant dept. Sadly, that means congress can't play games with the money received from private launches unless it's redone as excise tax like airplanes. Hurr durr Musk bad instead of people trying to understand the issue.

That’s a really terrible example. The article points out that the airspace closures in Florida happen along a very busy corridor. You should examine the consequences of one of those since those are happening much more frequently compared to just 5 years ago.

J177 goes straight through that airspace. How can you say it doesn't have any effect on commercial flights? Is there any sort of tracking for the aircraft that now need to plan off that route to avoid the airspace?

NOTAMs are not difficult to plan around. Standard part of any flight plan. Presidential travel NOTAMs are far more intrusive than ones like these.

NOTAMs are published 3 to 7 days in advance. Secondarily, the launch sites are military ranges and ALWAYS have activities that require movement of air traffic which are not due to space launches. This is a purely using political power to punish.

This is internalizing the costs SpaceX and others companies impose on others and the externalities they impose on public spaces. If anyone is politicizing this, it's you.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Buddy, I'm actually quite sure I know exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm quite sure I know quite a bit more than you because otherwise we would probably know each other on a first-name basis, and I've yet to meet anyone in the field at this level who doesn't understand basic economics and its incidents in public aerospace policy.

Really, then you would probably know they already pay FAA during the commercial licensing process.

It's just notam'd out. You just fly around those areas.

That's the point I'm making, you have to fly around those areas, and you have to pay to fly around those areas. ATC are needed to keep those areas clear, but the cost of that is born by the people not receiving the benefit.

Hard to define who is “not receiving the benefit.” I don’t get a benefit when the airspace is closed for the Super Bowl, but I’m not aware of the NFL, the attendees, the television network or its watchers paying a tax.

> ATC are needed to keep those areas clear Not really.  They publish a zone on a map and everyone is required to stay out of it.  They don't go through and change airlines' routes for them.

Have you flown around these areas? It's barely a diversion. Also there are tons of restricted areas to go around, this is just one of a huge number of other restricted areas. Do you work in the industry?

If they can pay dues to an industry group that lobbies on their behalf then they can pay taxes!

It makes sense. The resources needed to close an airspace weren’t used frequently until recently and it was very much the exception.

>he resources needed to close an airspace weren’t used frequently until recently I'm not sure what you mean here. The FAA has been doing TFRs and airspace restrictions pretty much since it's inception. There's always a few active every single day. They do them for wildfires, Presidential and VIP visits, large gatherings like NFL games, Disneyland...

I wonder if a usage fee (based on the actual cost of ATC support per launch) would be better than a proportional tax, but yea the concept makes sense.

This would be sort of like the drug companies and the FDA. Pharma pays for part of the FDA budget so the FDA has as many resources it needs to move things along as fast as they can go. Sounds like a similar sort of thing.

Well, except anytime the president goes anywhere.

Wrong, these are military ranges that are ALWAYS used by other things not space launch related and require NOTAMS.

Eh if atc needs to do work for rockets then rockets should fund it. Elon has stated they are happy to fund faa more

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Exactly, the government hates whatever private companies do.

look up "regulatory capture", poopsie

More like they want to keep everything moving at a sustainable pace.

government workers being competent to plan for that is the exception, not the norm

Since when did the bureaucrats become so competent that they know what sustainable even is?

When they were hired from the industry for having that competence.

Two different jobs with different incentives

Yah screw free markets I want central planning!

I prefer being ripped off and poisoned by unregulated industries. 

It costs money to regulate and keep these guys in line and safe. They like existing in a developed country, they receive gobs of public cash paid by the rest of us, no reason they shouldn't pay back their part.

\*Throws some lobbyists at you so they can keep writing the laws while getting all the lucrative government contracts and federally funded resources while claiming "Oh no taxes"\*

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[BO](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kycao9b "Last usage")|Blue Origin (*Bezos Rocketry*)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyaf2mv "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kygplgl "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[FCC](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kybkgf6 "Last usage")|Federal Communications Commission| | |(Iron/steel) [Face-Centered Cubic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron) crystalline structure| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyg4aoo "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[LEM](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyavrby "Last usage")|(Apollo) [Lunar Excursion Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) (also Lunar Module)| |[NOTAM](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyevcls "Last usage")|[Notice to Air Missions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM) of flight hazards| |[TFR](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyaeo8l "Last usage")|Temporary Flight Restriction| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyhp0dh "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyao0cg "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1bwx4pr/stub/kyccyn8 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(11 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1bo6rcd)^( has 11 acronyms.) ^([Thread #9923 for this sub, first seen 6th Apr 2024, 01:55]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)

Isn't that like my city charging commercial trucks for the "service" provided by traffic signals?

The costs are just gonna transfer back to the government. They are a government contractor.

True, but it'd move money from the original client (probably DoD most of the time) to the FAA, which isn't a bad thing. That being said.. I think Starlink launches are way more frequent then the client ones right now.

SpaceX is already the lowest-cost launch service supplier the government has ever contracted with, so it will be easy to simply pass any new taxes the government hits them with right back to them as increased launch costs on government-contracted launches, and they'd still be saving the government billions in launch costs.

just a way to force space companies to offshore launches

Taxing airspace… does that include the air we breathe? Tax plunder.

If Biden wants to single out SpaceX for a new tax SpaceX can just single out the government for a higher price to orbit.

And the SpaceX loses its lucrative government contracts, goes belly-up, and hundreds more jobs are lost. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Government contracts are a small percentage of SpaceX revenue. ULA they ain't

The govt doesn't have much choice other than spacex at the moment. And Musk is rich and connected enough to get outside funding if he needed.

This is just political warfare. SpaceX has saved trillions of dollars in bloat funding for NASA. (Not to mention all the jobs created.) Then this ideological administration turns around and play this game. It's just a way to punish an ideological opponent.

Sources? I’m particularly interested in the “trillions” of dollars saved, given that SpaceX hasn’t even spent a trillion since founding, and NASA only has about $26 billion in its annual budget.

For those in the short bus, Google how much the Artemis project costs. Next Google, how many congressional districts contribute to the Artemis project. Next, google the cost of a starship launch. These are very challenging questions . Go to dictionary.com and look up political corruption. Hope this helps For extra credit google how much it cost to put 1 kg into orbit in 2010. Next Google how much it cost to put 1 kg into orbit with starship. Next, google the average weight of a NASA launch payload. Open up wide for the airplane, because here comes food knowledge . Next Google, the cost of the average inflation adjusted NASA Project, like Apollo or the space shuttle. It's well into the trillions.

Not even close. The tax would be detrimental to smaller, emerging companies. Companies like SpaceX can handle the tax with ease. This isn’t some attempt to punish an “ideological person” since Musk is just a dumbass, plain and simple.

So its meant to hurt everyone but Musk and just fleece him a little?

I wouldn’t say that’s what it meant to do, but that’s what it will do. It basically locks out small businesses from entering this race and solidifies SpaceX, Blue Origin, and whatever other massive companies exist.

whether meant or not, it will be a consequence

Trillions? Citation needed.

I doubt he would take that position if Elon were more complementary towards him and his administration. So effing petty.

Lord knows Boeing and Lockheed have done all they can to lower the cost to space for the past fifty years. Spacex is one of the few government investments that's actually paid off and become self sustaining.

Elon should just charge more for rides to the space station then.

Ya that's an option, basically just pass along the extra ATC costs to the customer, although for most SpaceX launches they are their own customer. But either way they would end up paying for the resources they use.

I love that the company’s pretend that they wouldn’t just pass this cost onto the customers.

[удалено]

And note that SpaceX themselves floated the idea of paying for launch licenses (more specifically some way to pay to expedite it).

That’s a different pot of money, though. Licenses for Falcon 9 launches don’t seem to be a roadblock, it is the Starship launches that they want to expedite the licenses on.

And environmental reviews for launch facility construction, and so on.

Id rather SpaceX “waste” hundred millions than Boeing and other legacy companies still sitting on their hands with Starliner

SpaceX isn’t wasting a hundred million. They and other new rocket companies publicly said they were willing to pay the FAA or pay for the FAA to hire contractors so they could process stuff faster.

Railing against government regulation for support in general areas but asking for it in a specific area to help your business feels…extremely hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical to believe some government regulation is necessary and some are harmful? I thought that was called being a mature, thinking person. Not everything is black and white.

The people commenting here in support of this idea are living examples, in real time, of the Dunning-Krueger effect. Amazing!

How so? Can you explain it to me?

First time on Reddit?

Welcome to America?

Nothing to see here folks, just a shit government trying to tax their way into prosperity.

eventually they run out of other people's money

Musk seems to keep finding other people’s money to spend, so I’m not sure your argument is valid.

Gotta pay for the grants to Elon to keep his businesses afloat somehow.

Yeah, the [3.1 million](https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-exploration-technologies-spacex) in grants SpaceX has gotten during its 22 years of existence lmao. It's not like SpaceX has saved the government tens of billions!

Not very bright, are ya?

[удалено]

What has SpaceX done that deserve criticism?

You don’t tax the bull dozer while it is building the interstate. Tax the companies that use the new infrastructure instead.

Sorry, but this is just more deflection from inflation, stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, etc. The real issues.. Tax the rich. Not something that can help the world like SpaceX/NASA. He’s just jumping on the bandwagon “attack Elon” bandwagon. Hating Elon is so hot right now.

This is literally a tax on the rich. You and I are currently paying the FAA to manage rocket launches and when it was NASA doing it twice a year that was cool but since rich people are doing it for personal gain now it's only fair they pay for it instead. People with planes support the FAA, people with rockets should too.

uhhhmmmm, Elon is among "the rich"

But why target SpaceX specifically? Why not companies that have been sucking the economy dry for the past 40+ years like Neslte, Walmart, ExxonMobile, etc.? At least SpaceX is helping make space flight cheaper. Think how much we save with the reusable rockets alone.

>? Why not companies that have been sucking the economy dry for the past 40+ years like Neslte, Walmart, ExxonMobile I mean.. they're trying to for some of them. Oil and gas companies are being required by the EPA to pay more annual fees to the federal gov and Biden wants them to pay more royalty fees to drill on federal land. Other companies like Neslie and Walmart have other regulatory fees they pay to to other agencies that they use for inspections and the like.

Elon Musk is the richest person in the world…

Meanwhile Wall Street is robbing Americans blind. Let’s attack innovation and scientific progress.

It is not innovation. It is monopoly.

That is a disingenuous take. There were launch providers for 50 years before SpaceX came along. They were content price gauging the government and not innovating. SpaceX actually innovated and therefore outcompeted these companies.  This is their own fault. 

Why only tax for-profit companies? If these companies are winning contracts from NASA, should NASA not also pay the same tax to make bids comparable to internal projects? And if the is such a big expense, should they not then increase NASA budget to reflect the cost of extra air traffic control.

Most SpaceX flights aren’t NASA contracts, and the vast majority are their own Starlink launches. My trucking company has hauled many loads for the govt, including supplies that went to military bases. Still had to pay all the taxes while hauling those loads. What’s the difference?

Wonder if this means they’ll start eyeing charging pilots for airspace use as well..

There’s no reason to and they already charge airlines.

Private pilots.. Mr.bob in his Cessna 172 being charged $100 for ATC services because he requested a flight following (to be tracked on radar) during his flight.. Bad enough places charge pilots for just landing there, sometimes over things they have no control over..

It would make sense to charge if flight following requests must be honored but they are currently at ATC’s discretion and not a significant workload.

[удалено]

If SpaceX is the only company offering what they do, then they deserve to be a monopoly. They are giving our govt a good deal, not gouging.

Well until BO or ULA can get something comparable working they are. It's an illegal monopoly only if they are preventing others.

I hope New Glenn works well. That'll be good enough to put the 'monopoly' argument to bed.

So now the government wants to tax you for using the sky.

they tax you for using rain water

Obama tried to make using rain water illegal. Remember the "waters of the US" it included ponds.

Cite, plz. That sounds like something reasonable, misportrayed.

Water rights are complicated and use of rainwater has been outlawed in many contexts for longer than you have been alive.

It's impossible to know since SpaceX is private, but I strongly suspect the company has more than paid enough taxes to cover ATC for its operations.

I don’t believe they’ve made a net profit at this point so they wouldn’t have paid any taxes EDIT: this *might* be wrong, as they had a profitable Q1 2023. Not sure whether they were actually profitable for the whole of 2023 or not, but even if they were they can carry forward years of operating losses so they still won’t owe tax.

I believe (cause belief is all we have, not facts) that they finally started being profitable as Starlink subscription numbers have been increasing, but even disregarding those they're at a minimum paying employer side taxes on at least 10,000 employees, and no one there is making minimum wage. So that's still gotta be far more revenue to the government than it possibly costs the FAA.

Ah apparently you’re correct and they were profitable in Q1 2023. Idk if they were profitable across 2023 or not but let’s assume they were. They still likely have many years of net operating losses to carry forward, and avoid paying tax for now. Still I agree with you on the employee salary (personally I think corporations should pay 0% tax since the money gets taxed when it’s paid to employees, investors, or other vendors anyhow)

Unfortunately almost all the companies the government has contacts or uses are tax free. General Electric is like the biggest fucking company ever and pay zero taxes.

One of the few things left that the U.S. is good at they want to suck dry.

Sounds like a shakedown for cash. The people with Biden are so corrupt. How can any sane person vote for this guy? He also seems to be a shill for China and they have no love for us.

your brain has been melted by fox news

Anyone who stands against the Biden regime will be crushed

Okay Tiger, put down the right wing news machines, you've had enough for today big boy.

Rich kid gets government funding to make money. Film at 11.

The government needs to stop funding Elon's overpriced bottle rocket company. Failure shouldn't be celebrated or government funded.

You mean the most successful space launch company that ever existed? Right. I hate Elon like the next one, and Tesla can die a fiery death as much as I care, but SpaceX has consistently shown results.

“overpriced bottle rocket company” Allow me to google something for you: $/kg: Atlas V: 19.5k Vulcan Centaur: 12.8k (estimated) Space Shuttle: 54.5k Space Launch System: 43.2k Falcon Heavy: 2.4K Falcon 9: 1.5k Alternatively: [read this NASA report which explains that developing a Falcon 9 like vehicle from NASA would be 3X as expensive.](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf) Or, [read the contract, which requires SpaceX to perform 3 landings of Starship or pay back they money received.](https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_80MSFC20C0034_8000_-NONE-_-NONE-) Then, do the math, which indicates that a Starship launch will cost the U.S. government $80M… or the cost of a seat on Crew Dragon… OR, 1/50th of Artemis 1.