H. R. 4346: The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022(commerce.senate.gov)
commerce.senate.gov
H. R. 4346: The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2022/7/view-the-chips-legislation
85 comments
> the federal government wants to give these chip companies a bunch of money as long as they pinky promise to uphold the requirements of the bargain?
This mischaracterizes the bill. There are a bunch of programs [1], ranging from funding the National Science Foundation to this thing [2]. (Much of the bill is a tax credit, which involves the government forking over no money up front.)
If you're concerned about grants, the Commerce Department is soliciting input for the coming rule making process [3][4].
[1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1201E1CA-73CB...
[2] https://sam.gov/opp/656b39ff64ec4d4fa47ff9820d1c554b/view
[3] https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2022/01/commerc...
[4] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/24/2022-01...
This mischaracterizes the bill. There are a bunch of programs [1], ranging from funding the National Science Foundation to this thing [2]. (Much of the bill is a tax credit, which involves the government forking over no money up front.)
If you're concerned about grants, the Commerce Department is soliciting input for the coming rule making process [3][4].
[1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1201E1CA-73CB...
[2] https://sam.gov/opp/656b39ff64ec4d4fa47ff9820d1c554b/view
[3] https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2022/01/commerc...
[4] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/24/2022-01...
I understand that there's a lot of other things in the bill; I'm not trying to dismiss that. But I think the big thing front and center is the desire of the government to bring chip manufacturing back to the states. That's what's driving the majority of the bill, it seems.
I love the idea of funding universities for prototyping and discovering new technologies, but the tech developed needs to be open to all, not locked behind a patent owned by MIT.
I don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front. At the end of the day, the company reaps that benefit at the expense of our taxes.
I'll have to check out links 3 and 4 and see about sending in my comments, thank you.
I love the idea of funding universities for prototyping and discovering new technologies, but the tech developed needs to be open to all, not locked behind a patent owned by MIT.
I don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front. At the end of the day, the company reaps that benefit at the expense of our taxes.
I'll have to check out links 3 and 4 and see about sending in my comments, thank you.
> the tech developed needs to be open to all, not locked behind a patent owned by MIT
You would like it to be. It doesn’t need to be. In this case, that line would have tanked the bill.
> don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front
You don’t see the difference between buying something with a mail-in coupon and being given the cash up front to buy it?
You would like it to be. It doesn’t need to be. In this case, that line would have tanked the bill.
> don't see any functional difference in tax credits vs money up front
You don’t see the difference between buying something with a mail-in coupon and being given the cash up front to buy it?
The government has an implicit return on investment for the entire economy, through the power to levy taxes. Why should the government own stock in specific companies? The only likely outcome for that route is the government playing favorites even more so than at present
Why should tax dollars be sent to a private company without anything but a promise in exchange? The promise of "jobs" isn't enough, as evidenced by just about every single other time that these programs (including the tax cuts) happen. Further, how are we going to hold these companies accountable for their promise? What comes to mind immediately is when we gave telecoms a bunch of wire up rural America, and they purchased and consolidated the cell providers instead.
If we just write them a check, they'll do whatever they want with it. They need to be held accountable, and ownership percentage is a way to do that.
Alternatively, the gov could take this money, start up a corporation of their own, and make their own fab. The language in part of this bill is that they are trying to ensure that older tech and DoD stuff is made in house. So let's make it in house.
We don't necessarily need to say "we're buying intel or nvidia", but we can make the money available to any company in exchange for the ownership percentage. That eliminates the "playing favorites" issue, I would think.
If we just write them a check, they'll do whatever they want with it. They need to be held accountable, and ownership percentage is a way to do that.
Alternatively, the gov could take this money, start up a corporation of their own, and make their own fab. The language in part of this bill is that they are trying to ensure that older tech and DoD stuff is made in house. So let's make it in house.
We don't necessarily need to say "we're buying intel or nvidia", but we can make the money available to any company in exchange for the ownership percentage. That eliminates the "playing favorites" issue, I would think.
Let's say Intel takes the deal and trades some ownership percentage for some funds to build more fabs. Suddenly the US government has a multi-billion dollar reason to provide political support for whatever is good for Intel. It's inherently favorable to incumbents who have the market share to make a favorable deal, regardless of whether or not those incumbents are best able to build world-class fabs.
The government has plenty of demand-side tools to on-shore development without hurting competition or playing favorites with large incumbents. The DoD and DoE are massive semiconductor purchasers and have a lot of leverage in the market who can adjust their procurement strategies to promote American interests. That's not entirely without the opportunity for corruption and grift either, but at least there's more accountability.
I mean, I think we basically agree that handouts to large semiconductor companies without anything in return is a bad idea.
The government has plenty of demand-side tools to on-shore development without hurting competition or playing favorites with large incumbents. The DoD and DoE are massive semiconductor purchasers and have a lot of leverage in the market who can adjust their procurement strategies to promote American interests. That's not entirely without the opportunity for corruption and grift either, but at least there's more accountability.
I mean, I think we basically agree that handouts to large semiconductor companies without anything in return is a bad idea.
> Suddenly the US government has a multi-billion dollar reason to provide political support for whatever is good for Intel.
That's one of the reasons we're doing this in the first place. National security is in the mix as well. What would actually change [edit: beyond citizens gaining ownership and some say in what happens]?
That's one of the reasons we're doing this in the first place. National security is in the mix as well. What would actually change [edit: beyond citizens gaining ownership and some say in what happens]?
If we just write them a check, they'll do whatever they want with it. They need to be held accountable, and ownership percentage is a way to do that.
You could also just consider the grants to be loans that never need to be paid back as long as some set of concrete requirements is met by the company.
You could also just consider the grants to be loans that never need to be paid back as long as some set of concrete requirements is met by the company.
I would find this acceptable as well. As long as it's an actual loan, not like the PPP "loans".
Maybe, but it worked out really well last time we did this. I say the government ended up with a tremendous ROI.
https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/history-lesson-the-198...
What about the safeguards, which are in place, makes you uneasy?
https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/history-lesson-the-198...
What about the safeguards, which are in place, makes you uneasy?
> without anything but a promise in exchange?
What are you basing this on?
What are you basing this on?
I don't see any language around how we're going to recover those funds, if they are not spent in ways that align with the requirements laid out in the bill. Did I miss that section? It is a pretty big bill.
I do see a section that would allow the suspension of new funds, if it's found that these companies aren't upholding the agreement. I don't think suspension of new funds is sufficient.
I do see a section that would allow the suspension of new funds, if it's found that these companies aren't upholding the agreement. I don't think suspension of new funds is sufficient.
> don't see any language around how we're going to recover those funds, if they are not spent in ways that align with the requirements laid out in the bill
Implementation is left to the agencies. We're only seeing the Congress appropriating money. Contract specifics are being developed.
Implementation is left to the agencies. We're only seeing the Congress appropriating money. Contract specifics are being developed.
IfI had to guess, previous behavior by telecoms, banks, and airline companies.
The federal government previously gave the telecom monopolists billions to build out nationwide fiber-optic internet infrastructure... and they just took the money and ran.
I mean, when the US government gives out money for student loans, the loan may be on very favorable terms, but it still expects repayment. It's only in business where we hand out money and don't expect it to ever be paid back.
I would agree that student loans shouldn't be that way either, but, we shouldn't be handing out money upfront without guarantees that the incentivized behavior will actually happen - the two things that come to mind are the 90's fiber rollout and the Foxconn subsidies in wisconsin, both of which the company took the money and then never actually built the infrastructure. If there are going to be outright subsidies, they certainly need to be contingent on meeting milestones, and not just "pretty please build a plant, here's a big check to encourage you but no strings attached".
Think about how the US did the auto bailouts as well - we got a big chunk of equity that we eventually unwound on favorable terms, but we didn't just write a check and be done either. Same thing, maybe if TSMC wants a big grant for expansion, maybe the US should get a big chunk of equity (at guaranteed and favorable terms) and then if milestones are met the equity is again wound down at favorable terms such that the benefit of the "favorable terms" on both sides amounts to the subsidy.
I would agree that student loans shouldn't be that way either, but, we shouldn't be handing out money upfront without guarantees that the incentivized behavior will actually happen - the two things that come to mind are the 90's fiber rollout and the Foxconn subsidies in wisconsin, both of which the company took the money and then never actually built the infrastructure. If there are going to be outright subsidies, they certainly need to be contingent on meeting milestones, and not just "pretty please build a plant, here's a big check to encourage you but no strings attached".
Think about how the US did the auto bailouts as well - we got a big chunk of equity that we eventually unwound on favorable terms, but we didn't just write a check and be done either. Same thing, maybe if TSMC wants a big grant for expansion, maybe the US should get a big chunk of equity (at guaranteed and favorable terms) and then if milestones are met the equity is again wound down at favorable terms such that the benefit of the "favorable terms" on both sides amounts to the subsidy.
As I understand it, even though the Foxconn deal was ill-conceived and wasted tax payer money via planning for the deal and funding foolish road projects, the deal does have milestones built in that resulted in not receiving the credit for at least the first few years. I also think the amounts in the deal have also been further diminished after failing to meet the original milestones.
That said, I was looking into it today and it looks like they have actually been meeting some sort of revised hiring target recently [1]. I have heard from some peers that the jobs they are hiring for are basically make-work jobs, but the deal doesn't care what they accomplish -- only how many "jobs" they create.
It's still shady crap which wasted tax payer money (not to mention abused eminent domain), but I don't think in any way involved a big check with no strings attached.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin
That said, I was looking into it today and it looks like they have actually been meeting some sort of revised hiring target recently [1]. I have heard from some peers that the jobs they are hiring for are basically make-work jobs, but the deal doesn't care what they accomplish -- only how many "jobs" they create.
It's still shady crap which wasted tax payer money (not to mention abused eminent domain), but I don't think in any way involved a big check with no strings attached.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin
I want more than shares. Shares are meaningless when the rest of the shareholders vote to close the factories anyways when the profitable tax breaks end.
Partial ownership of the physical facilities and a say in the conditions therein then they can have the money.
Partial ownership of the physical facilities and a say in the conditions therein then they can have the money.
This bill has a ton of what looks like awesome elements inside it, I encourage folks to peruse the summary to explore a little bit. One part that people here may find exciting is the fusion research funding:
> Sec. 10105. Fusion Energy Research. Subsection (a) amends section 307 of the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 18645) by authorizing $50,000,000 per year for FY 2023 through FY 2027 for research and development of fusion materials. It extends the authorization for inertial fusion research and development, alternative and enabling concepts, and the milestone-based development program through FY 2027. It authorizes the establishment of at least two national teams to develop conceptual designs and technology roadmaps for a pilot fusion plant, and authorizes $35,000,000 for FY 2023; $50,000,000 for FY 2024; $65,000,000 for FY 2025; $80,000,000 for FY 2026; and $80,000,000 for FY 2027 for these activities. It directs the Secretary to establish a high-performance computation collaborative research program and an associated innovation center in high-performance computing for fusion. It directs the construction of the Material Plasma Exposure Experiment including $21,895,000 for FY 2023 and $3,800,000 for FY 2024 to carry out the project. The subsection also authorizes an upgrade to the Matter in Extreme Conditions endstation at the Linac Coherent Light Source.
> Sec. 10105. Fusion Energy Research. Subsection (a) amends section 307 of the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 18645) by authorizing $50,000,000 per year for FY 2023 through FY 2027 for research and development of fusion materials. It extends the authorization for inertial fusion research and development, alternative and enabling concepts, and the milestone-based development program through FY 2027. It authorizes the establishment of at least two national teams to develop conceptual designs and technology roadmaps for a pilot fusion plant, and authorizes $35,000,000 for FY 2023; $50,000,000 for FY 2024; $65,000,000 for FY 2025; $80,000,000 for FY 2026; and $80,000,000 for FY 2027 for these activities. It directs the Secretary to establish a high-performance computation collaborative research program and an associated innovation center in high-performance computing for fusion. It directs the construction of the Material Plasma Exposure Experiment including $21,895,000 for FY 2023 and $3,800,000 for FY 2024 to carry out the project. The subsection also authorizes an upgrade to the Matter in Extreme Conditions endstation at the Linac Coherent Light Source.
What I’d like is that the teams be rewarded with significant monetary renumeration if they achieve a milestone and curtail the subcontracting disease that permeates government purchasing.
> teams be rewarded with significant monetary renumeration if they achieve a milestone and curtail the subcontracting disease that permeates government purchasing
This has a poor track record for basic research and complex technologies. The Ansari XPRIZE recipient’s SpaceShipOne is a prime example.
This has a poor track record for basic research and complex technologies. The Ansari XPRIZE recipient’s SpaceShipOne is a prime example.
DARPA Grand Challenges worked well. Created Velodyne Lidar and the team that became Waymo among others.
These sorts of challenges work great for engineering problems where a little bit of money and a lot of sweat is all that is required to figure something out.
Fusion research is not that- it needs very large equipment investments for decades for even the most trivial experiments.
If we had tried to get to the moon with the same model we'd still be waiting!
Fusion research is not that- it needs very large equipment investments for decades for even the most trivial experiments.
If we had tried to get to the moon with the same model we'd still be waiting!
Self driving is a little bit of money and a lot of sweat? Umm... I don't think I've ever seen such a major understatement.
The DARPA challenge kicked off a many many billions of dollars arms race of private capital and we're only just starting to see a trickle of self driving cars on the road some 18 years later. Not to mention meaningful R&D advancements in AI, sensing software algorithms, HW sensing capabilities, etc that have seen applications outside of self driving.
The DARPA challenge kicked off a many many billions of dollars arms race of private capital and we're only just starting to see a trickle of self driving cars on the road some 18 years later. Not to mention meaningful R&D advancements in AI, sensing software algorithms, HW sensing capabilities, etc that have seen applications outside of self driving.
> engineering problems
This is what is holding fusion from commercial viability.
Give me a modern tokamak with 75 years of known dynamics, increase the size and magnetic field (i.e. bring high temp superconducting wires to market).
At the very least you get something as a consolation prize that has real uses vs. decades of wacky research ideas that more than likely will go nowhere.
IMO thinking of fusion as needing a "silver bullet" to viability is one of the major issues. Everyone wants the sexy new reactor concept, but nobody wants to be improving the boring donut design that's on the edge of practicality.
This is what is holding fusion from commercial viability.
Give me a modern tokamak with 75 years of known dynamics, increase the size and magnetic field (i.e. bring high temp superconducting wires to market).
At the very least you get something as a consolation prize that has real uses vs. decades of wacky research ideas that more than likely will go nowhere.
IMO thinking of fusion as needing a "silver bullet" to viability is one of the major issues. Everyone wants the sexy new reactor concept, but nobody wants to be improving the boring donut design that's on the edge of practicality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
“It will be the world's largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment and the largest experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor.”
Does the $3.9B spent on ITER not count?
https://www.science.org/content/article/cost-skyrockets-unit...
“It will be the world's largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment and the largest experimental tokamak nuclear fusion reactor.”
Does the $3.9B spent on ITER not count?
https://www.science.org/content/article/cost-skyrockets-unit...
$80 Billion was spent between 2014 and 2017 on R&D of autonomous vehicles [1]. That's 12 Billion / year (& numbers from a while back - I'm sure investment has kept going). The US government spends ~18 Billion on the entire DOE, the majority of which appears to be keeping facilities running / maintenance (even though it classifies all of that as R&D) [2]. Fusion saw about ~4.7 Billion in funding in 2022 [3].
Orders of magnitude matter and fission / fusion R&D has been criminally underfunded for decades.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/gauging-investment-in-sel...
[2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/our-budget
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-report-private-inves...
Orders of magnitude matter and fission / fusion R&D has been criminally underfunded for decades.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/gauging-investment-in-sel...
[2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/our-budget
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-fusion-report-private-inves...
To be fair, a decent part of the current model for getting to the Moon does involve milestone based payments, with the general idea being that it's cheaper, more efficient and has fewer bad incentives than just endlessly funding until the desired outcome is achieved. IIRC pretty much everything in Artemis besides SLS+Orion is using a milestone based funding model (the lander, the space station, the various research orbiters and landers that started launching this year).
> DARPA Grand Challenges worked well
Agreed. But the dollar amounts were small. And in many cases, every qualifying team received a grant.
Agreed. But the dollar amounts were small. And in many cases, every qualifying team received a grant.
I believe most of the grant money was conditional on meeting significant intermediate milestones.
I think NASA's commercial cargo and crew programs were another good example, leading to the SpaceX Dragon and Orbital Cygnus. Of course, the Boeing Starliner's been having issues, but that's why competition is important.
What was the issue with the Ansari XPRIZE? I’m not aware of any controversy about it or the winner.
I’m super happy to see these things, and some money is better than no money, but judging by how much my lab spends per year, $50M/yr isn’t going to get them very far. And we do consumer electronics.
This gem was front and centre: "The language would also re-affirm that the purchase of stocks and dividends are not an eligible use of CHIPS funds as determined by the eligible use of funds already required under the FY21 NDAA."
I looked, but couldn't find when this started becoming a thing. How has this not been common boilerplate for any and all government grants/loans/investments?
I looked, but couldn't find when this started becoming a thing. How has this not been common boilerplate for any and all government grants/loans/investments?
I don't think this will make a difference. Money is fungible. If my operating expenses are $5B, and I'm getting $1B from the CHIPS Act, I'll simply apply that $1B to my operations, giving me $1B from the $5B to use for buybacks.
Or more likely, I'll use $0.5B for buybacks and use the remaining $0.5B for operations. This way I get to do more buybacks while still utilizing the government money for accomplishing more than I could without it.
Or more likely, I'll use $0.5B for buybacks and use the remaining $0.5B for operations. This way I get to do more buybacks while still utilizing the government money for accomplishing more than I could without it.
Any entity taking CHIPS money should be precluded from having any buybacks precisely for this reason.
At least amongst a certain subgroup of the US, there's been a lot of backlash against "privatizing profit and socializing losses" (or lemon socialism). Many people pointed fingers at airlines needing a bailout in 2020 even though they had bought back shares for a decade. I guess the US is just very against the idea of equity-based bailouts (i.e. US govt owning a portion of the airlines).
There’s a weird rider in here that requires NASA to launch SLS multiple times per year once crewed launches start. Which is a huge rate increase from that currently planned for Artemis. https://youtu.be/U1j8WJQu_RQ
Edit - sorry, annual launches.
Edit - sorry, annual launches.
SLS should be cancelled but politicians want to keep the jobs (from the space shuttle program)
Why SLS should be cancelled?
Presumably because it is prohibitively expensive and less capable than competitor spacecraft (SpaceX)
Can you please elaborate on this more? What are the major differences between SLS and SpaceX?
Edit: This turned into a bit of a rant, so the short version would just be that SLS is too expensive even compared to existing rockets, let alone compared to the bleeding edge of rocket technology.
SLS is not reusable, each unit requires several years of lead time to produce (so any mission on it needs to be planned years in advance), the engines were designed for reuse (part of why they're some of the most expensive engines ever built) yet are thrown away after each flight. The upgraded mobile launch tower for the upgraded SLS version has also already cost hundreds of millions without anything being built, and the current launch tower, which would only be used 2-3 times already cost $1B despite being a modified Space Shuttle tower.
Furthermore, the SRBs make the vibration environment so bad they have to make screens in Orion flicker in sync with vibrations for them to be readable. Europa Clipper would've cost an extra $1B to make it robust enough for SLS (as Congress was initially pressuring them to do), it was enough justification to just go with a Falcon Heavy instead.
It's extremely telling that these orders for SLS aren't coming from NASA requiring them for certain missions, but rather Congress legislating that NASA must use SLS. For example, a few months ago Congress was trying to require that from 2030 onwards, NASA fly SLS for cargo at least once a year. However, even ignoring Starship for now, SLS is $2B per launch and is extremely unlikely to have that drop by much. The upgraded version is expected to be able to carry ~130t to Low Earth Orbit. Falcon Heavy can carry 63t to LEO at a cost of $90M per launch. On the extremely pessimistic end of price estimates for Vulcan Centaur, it can do 27t to LEO for $200M. Thus it's much cheaper to do multiple flights of either of the two than to do a single SLS launch.
Then on top of that, Orion itself is too heavy to get to the surface of the Moon and back anyway and a Lunar variant of Starship was the only lander which best met the requirements and which NASA could afford, so the program still relies on Starship being successful. Starship has pretty much none of the issues of SLS, it's much cheaper (it'd honestly be hard for any rocket to be as expensive as SLS is turning out to be), reusable, doesn't have the vibration issues of SLS by virtue of being fully liquid fueled (although this also isn't an issue on Vulcan Centaur, which does use some small SRBs) and is meant to refuel in space, significantly expanding its capabilities.
SLS is in a bad spot compared to even other non-SpaceX rockets owing to the potential of in-space refueling. Congressman Shelby had previously banned mention of 'depot' in relation to space exploration (threatening to outright cancel the entire space technology program if they were brought up) because of how bad they would be for SLS's future. ULA had also done a study and proposal for an orbital fuel depot in 2011, due to which Boeing tried to get the physicist who was leading the project fired because of the risk to SLS. As a result, Vulcan Centaur's upper stage is effectively the same stage as was proposed in 2011 but without refueling. Comically the word depot was even censored out in NASA's final statement on the selection of Starship for the HLS contract.
To refer back to the price comparison, upgraded SLS can do 48t to the Moon. But if you can refuel in LEO, you have the option of launching up to 63t with Falcon Heavy or 45t with New Glenn, then launching a transfer stage and fueling it up with another launch or two, allowing you to get the Lunar payload capability of SLS at close to a tenth of the cost.
Private companies can see that the approach of the gigantic expensive one-time use rocket is not going to scale up, which is why pretty much every company is working on reuse and mission extension capabilities like orbital refueling.
SLS is not reusable, each unit requires several years of lead time to produce (so any mission on it needs to be planned years in advance), the engines were designed for reuse (part of why they're some of the most expensive engines ever built) yet are thrown away after each flight. The upgraded mobile launch tower for the upgraded SLS version has also already cost hundreds of millions without anything being built, and the current launch tower, which would only be used 2-3 times already cost $1B despite being a modified Space Shuttle tower.
Furthermore, the SRBs make the vibration environment so bad they have to make screens in Orion flicker in sync with vibrations for them to be readable. Europa Clipper would've cost an extra $1B to make it robust enough for SLS (as Congress was initially pressuring them to do), it was enough justification to just go with a Falcon Heavy instead.
It's extremely telling that these orders for SLS aren't coming from NASA requiring them for certain missions, but rather Congress legislating that NASA must use SLS. For example, a few months ago Congress was trying to require that from 2030 onwards, NASA fly SLS for cargo at least once a year. However, even ignoring Starship for now, SLS is $2B per launch and is extremely unlikely to have that drop by much. The upgraded version is expected to be able to carry ~130t to Low Earth Orbit. Falcon Heavy can carry 63t to LEO at a cost of $90M per launch. On the extremely pessimistic end of price estimates for Vulcan Centaur, it can do 27t to LEO for $200M. Thus it's much cheaper to do multiple flights of either of the two than to do a single SLS launch.
Then on top of that, Orion itself is too heavy to get to the surface of the Moon and back anyway and a Lunar variant of Starship was the only lander which best met the requirements and which NASA could afford, so the program still relies on Starship being successful. Starship has pretty much none of the issues of SLS, it's much cheaper (it'd honestly be hard for any rocket to be as expensive as SLS is turning out to be), reusable, doesn't have the vibration issues of SLS by virtue of being fully liquid fueled (although this also isn't an issue on Vulcan Centaur, which does use some small SRBs) and is meant to refuel in space, significantly expanding its capabilities.
SLS is in a bad spot compared to even other non-SpaceX rockets owing to the potential of in-space refueling. Congressman Shelby had previously banned mention of 'depot' in relation to space exploration (threatening to outright cancel the entire space technology program if they were brought up) because of how bad they would be for SLS's future. ULA had also done a study and proposal for an orbital fuel depot in 2011, due to which Boeing tried to get the physicist who was leading the project fired because of the risk to SLS. As a result, Vulcan Centaur's upper stage is effectively the same stage as was proposed in 2011 but without refueling. Comically the word depot was even censored out in NASA's final statement on the selection of Starship for the HLS contract.
To refer back to the price comparison, upgraded SLS can do 48t to the Moon. But if you can refuel in LEO, you have the option of launching up to 63t with Falcon Heavy or 45t with New Glenn, then launching a transfer stage and fueling it up with another launch or two, allowing you to get the Lunar payload capability of SLS at close to a tenth of the cost.
Private companies can see that the approach of the gigantic expensive one-time use rocket is not going to scale up, which is why pretty much every company is working on reuse and mission extension capabilities like orbital refueling.
For starters, I don't think SLS has even gotten off the ground yet, as in literally.
[deleted]
Meanwhile in another corner of the world , a city called Pune is making similar efforts albeit on a much smaller scale ($22 Bn) -
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/vedanta-group-foxconn-to...
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/vedanta-group-foxconn-to...
There is a Division C 'SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ADDRESS THREATS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES' rider in there - sort of strange. They allocate $10.3M to increase the security of the supreme court. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of the bill.
I bet you someone from the red states saw that one guy trying to off Kavagnaugh and said they'd only sign on to CHIPS in exchange for better security funding for SCOTUS. The majority gets their chip fab funding and the holdout rep gets to brag about protecting SCOTUS from "liberal extremists" or whatever. This is a trade.
One thing people misunderstand about Congress is that it is primarily a negotiating body. That's why bills have so many unrelated provisions in them - these are not just laws, they are contracts between lawmakers. International treaties work the same way, too. Merely getting program Y or Z into a bill containing program X means that it's a package deal now. Either it all passes or it all fails, and the reps that pushed for Y or Z now have to vote for X, too.
(This is vaguely related to the reason why the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If you could just sign X while vetoing Y and Z, that'd be like striking the data caps out of your cable contract and then suing Comcast for breach of a contract they never signed.)
One thing people misunderstand about Congress is that it is primarily a negotiating body. That's why bills have so many unrelated provisions in them - these are not just laws, they are contracts between lawmakers. International treaties work the same way, too. Merely getting program Y or Z into a bill containing program X means that it's a package deal now. Either it all passes or it all fails, and the reps that pushed for Y or Z now have to vote for X, too.
(This is vaguely related to the reason why the line-item veto is unconstitutional. If you could just sign X while vetoing Y and Z, that'd be like striking the data caps out of your cable contract and then suing Comcast for breach of a contract they never signed.)
Yes, but one correction to your red states thing: it's not a red vs blue thing -- the Democrats in charge wanted that in the bill, for better or worse.
(Personally, I think security should be out of pocket for the justices. They have the money! They have a lifetime job even if their wives participate in treason! AOC gets worse shit and less protection on a daily basis, but by all means let's armor up the people doing their best to move us to a fascist theocracy.)
(Personally, I think security should be out of pocket for the justices. They have the money! They have a lifetime job even if their wives participate in treason! AOC gets worse shit and less protection on a daily basis, but by all means let's armor up the people doing their best to move us to a fascist theocracy.)
Republicans are upset that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (a Democrat) recently stripped provisions from the bill that would prevent its stimulus dollars from flowing towards China:
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-stripped-se...
Only conservative outlets are reporting this, and they’re not completely reliable. Then again, sometimes they scoop major stories. I don’t know whether this one’s real or overblown. Maybe someone with more info can fill in here.
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-stripped-se...
Only conservative outlets are reporting this, and they’re not completely reliable. Then again, sometimes they scoop major stories. I don’t know whether this one’s real or overblown. Maybe someone with more info can fill in here.
Asking because I would genuinely love to know. But how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy? China for good and bad is basically the worlds factory and even if a product is made in the US, chances are some of its components or raw materials came from China, so essentially to my untrained perspective seems impossible.
> how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy?
The point of this bill is to begin deconstructing this aspect of the globalized economy.
The point of this bill is to begin deconstructing this aspect of the globalized economy.
I understand that is the intent, but again, seems unfeasible and more then likely, impossible. So again - how does one enforce this?
> how does one enforce this?
You’re asking how the U.S. government is supposed to enforce its contracts?
You’re asking how the U.S. government is supposed to enforce its contracts?
I don't see anything in the old act like that. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3933/BILLS-116s3933is.pd...
And the new act contains way more anti-China language and provisions than the old act. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84...
The problem is, these right-wing "news" sites never cite their sources. They could easily have linked to a version of the bill saying "they removed lines 40-44" and that's the problem. But they don't. Because it's not about news, it's about fake outrage.
And the new act contains way more anti-China language and provisions than the old act. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84...
The problem is, these right-wing "news" sites never cite their sources. They could easily have linked to a version of the bill saying "they removed lines 40-44" and that's the problem. But they don't. Because it's not about news, it's about fake outrage.
Here are a couple links to a source for you. It is the second of the three amendments purposed in the first link. You can click on the amendment to see the actual text of it.
The second link should link you to the video of Rubio in session talking about how the amendment was killed.
Rubio's site is the first google result for "democrats block amendment to keep china from receiving chips funds".
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
The second link should link you to the video of Rubio in session talking about how the amendment was killed.
Rubio's site is the first google result for "democrats block amendment to keep china from receiving chips funds".
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
This is not at all what those right wing "news" articles are talking about.
For one thing, this is Rubio. Wrong senator.
Another thing, did you read his amendment?
This is again, nonsense posturing by people disinterested in the truth. Read his amendment vs the original. The original literally says the Secretary of Defense decides what legacy semiconductors are which aren't protected by the act. His amendment makes congress play a role in that decision in addition to the Secretary. That's it.
It adds no meaningful protections. Unless you think the Secretary of Defense is a Chinese spy.
For one thing, this is Rubio. Wrong senator.
Another thing, did you read his amendment?
This is again, nonsense posturing by people disinterested in the truth. Read his amendment vs the original. The original literally says the Secretary of Defense decides what legacy semiconductors are which aren't protected by the act. His amendment makes congress play a role in that decision in addition to the Secretary. That's it.
It adds no meaningful protections. Unless you think the Secretary of Defense is a Chinese spy.
Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective. Also seems it push the bill from being focused on tech R&D and to more of a general economic stimulus.
I may be misunderstanding. The only research I’ve done on this is to read the article you linked.
I may be misunderstanding. The only research I’ve done on this is to read the article you linked.
>Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective.
The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.
The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.
>they’re not completely reliable.
Indeed. Caveat emptor.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/
Indeed. Caveat emptor.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/
The upshot of biased news sources is that they are extremely strongly motivated to find any stories that corroborate their world view. Nine times out of ten that leads to reductive propagandist journalism, but every once in a while they stumble upon something that mainstream outlets hadn't bothered to look that deep for.
For instance, I'd not expect a far left outlet to look into misdeeds of Bernie Sanders, and I'd not expect a far right outlet to look into misconduct by Trump.
As long as you call a spade a spade and don't pretend things are objective in their presentation, there can be a lot to gain from even super skewed journalism.
For instance, I'd not expect a far left outlet to look into misdeeds of Bernie Sanders, and I'd not expect a far right outlet to look into misconduct by Trump.
As long as you call a spade a spade and don't pretend things are objective in their presentation, there can be a lot to gain from even super skewed journalism.
That's not how it works in practice, though. Right-wing sources are known to simply make stuff up to fit their worldview.
Your example is problematic, because the left is willing to hold its leaders accountable and the right simply isn't. If Bernie is discovered to have ever harassed a woman, he'd have to resign in disgrace.
With that background, you have to start with the assumption that the right wing site is making things up and find a reliable source that isn't itself sourcing only from the right wing media universe, as the mainstream media is sometimes known to do.
Your example is problematic, because the left is willing to hold its leaders accountable and the right simply isn't. If Bernie is discovered to have ever harassed a woman, he'd have to resign in disgrace.
With that background, you have to start with the assumption that the right wing site is making things up and find a reliable source that isn't itself sourcing only from the right wing media universe, as the mainstream media is sometimes known to do.
Predators and power politics know no party. I guess I'm old, but I still remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_an...
And this headline from 2015:
https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-impe...
In fact the Clinton-Epstein relationship didn't "imperil Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects" at all, because none of the major networks reported on it. An ABC reporter had the full story including the Clinton connection as early as 2015, but was told to quash it:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught...
When Biden leaves office I'm sure we'll be allowed hear more about him, just as it's now become OK to discuss Clinton and Epstein on the mainstream left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_an...
And this headline from 2015:
https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-impe...
In fact the Clinton-Epstein relationship didn't "imperil Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects" at all, because none of the major networks reported on it. An ABC reporter had the full story including the Clinton connection as early as 2015, but was told to quash it:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught...
When Biden leaves office I'm sure we'll be allowed hear more about him, just as it's now become OK to discuss Clinton and Epstein on the mainstream left.
> left is willing to hold its leaders accountable
Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
What's the language that was allegedly removed?
Ugh. This wouldn't have done anything for the current (but almost over) chip shortage because it doesn't pay chip makers to maintain excess capacity. I agree that there are risks with TSMC and China, but TSMC factories in any western-allied country (Japan, Mexico, Germany) would meet the strategic goals. This is just political grandstanding because it's easy to sell the idea that if we build it here, there won't be a shortage, and it makes it look like politicians are doing something before an election.
The CHIPS act is one of the many, US will do more to re-vamp the supply chains. Slowly but surely the Trans-Pacific trade will be replaced with North American Industrial powerhouse - but before that we have to endure a deep recession and a shitty decade of inflation.
How come there is a huge divide in the House [1] but the Senate passed it with unanimous vote (all 100 senators voted Yes).
[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2021/h239
What's going on?
[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2021/h239
What's going on?
This is the stripped down version of the USICA/Competes act that has been languishing for the last year and a bit. The republicans on the house side did not support those prior bills either, so presumably that continues here. The senate was lukewarm with the prior bills whereas they support this stripped down version better.
The House is incredibly partisan and there seems to be a strategy of bloc voting.
It would be interesting to see a tabulation of the voting patterns on Dem-sponsored bills vs Rep-sponsored ones.
It would be interesting to see a tabulation of the voting patterns on Dem-sponsored bills vs Rep-sponsored ones.
Disappointing that the SBIR/STTR programs are not reauthorized in this legislation. The program expires in 2 months and certain Republicans seem hell-bent on letting it die.
With rules in the last decade to admit hedge fund ownership, the SBIR/STTR program now poorly supports small businesses. It'd be nice to see the program lapse, the funds could better support other activities.
The funds are already there. It's not an additional amount, but just a % of the overall agencies budget.
I also personally don't have an issue with the VC fund ownership rules but my industry (biotech) necessitates it more than maybe others.
I also personally don't have an issue with the VC fund ownership rules but my industry (biotech) necessitates it more than maybe others.
Except that substantial VC investment is seen as a strong signal by NSF that they should fund.
The makes me angry. We're capitalist to a fault as a country. This bill just further entrenches the US government as a consumer. If this actually was critical infrastructure there should be joint or full ownership of chip foundries by the US. No, this bill just allows the companies to pocket a bunch of money, release some press articles, and a few years after the fabs are built they'll be shutdown by the companies for profit reasons and chips production will shift back to being fully produced overseas by lower paid workers. Cue the next supply crunch in 20-40 years with us giving the industry even more money.
Can’t wait to see how much Nancy Pelosi made on her call options.
Her husband exercised a bunch of NVIDIA options a few weeks ago, although I don't know how much they'll benefit from this.
Seeing as how NVIDIA doesn't actually manufacture semiconductors, it doesn't seem like they stand to benefit at all.
>Seeing as how NVIDIA doesn't actually manufacture semiconductors
They don't fabricate, but they do design quite a lot of them, and are even moving into the ARM CPU arena.
They don't fabricate, but they do design quite a lot of them, and are even moving into the ARM CPU arena.
Yes, but the bill is subsidies for actual manufacturing and fabrication companies.
superb to see state interventionism like this in the US - for too long the 'free hand' of the market has held sway - turns out it was an ideological blocker for national progress and the long term security of the state.
We should, at the very least, get some ownership of these companies in return for our investment, like any other private investor might.
I'm all for investing in these sorts of programs to bring manufacturing back to the US, but not like this.