this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024
838 points (93.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5153 readers
2003 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like you're comparing SpaceX to Elons promises, not against the rest of the space industry. They're still much better than all the rest, even if they don't quite meet Elons promises.
How is it so much better than SLS/Artemis?
Even ignoring all the other aspects of one working and the other not; The big one is even with the musk grift the cost to taxpayers is orders of magnitude different.
SLS is Over US$2 billion excluding development (estimate) per launch. While Space X just upped their cost estimates in 2022 to $67 million per launch.
You are not comparing apples to apples though. How much did SpaceX's cost to develop?
SLS cost to develop so far: US$23.8 billion nominal
Falcon 9 cost to develop ~~so far~~ (note this was for falcon 9 1.0)(estimate): US$300 million
Once again, not even close.
For more fun I started to look at some of the other development costs of Space X rockets.
Starship (the big spender) : $5 billion to $10 billion
Falcon Heavy : Over $500 Million
Falcon 9 : $300 Million
Falcon 1: $100 Million
Like I dislike the kirkland brand Dr.evil as much as the next dood, but I think boeing might just have a spending issue.
Speaking of Kirkland Brand Dr. Evil, how much has Blue Origin spent in its non highly publicized efforts to develop the New Glenn?
From what I can find At least $2.5 billion. So maybe kirkland branded Dr. Evil (musk) is better at spending then Temu Dr. Evil.
You must not be from around Seattle.
Kirkland is basically a suburb of Seattle.
If anything Bezos/Amazon, which started around Seattle and now basically owns an entire section of the city, is Kirkland Brand.
Blue Origin has most of their facilities in the Seattle area as well.
Its the Costco store brand, not really relating it to a city in a foreign nation. But the reason bazos is Temu brand is just since its funny. Feel free to call them brand Dr. evils though.
...Costco, ie the Kirkland Brand, started in Kirkland WA, a suburb of Seattle.
You are from another country though, so I can't have expected you would know, it just pains me as I am from Seattle and am constantly astounded by Americans who think they know things about the region and very obviously do not.
Like, if there was any real PNW people, they'd read what I've written above and argue about how Kirkland is its own city, or, its really a suburb of Bellevue, etc.
To use another PNW saying:
Well, whatever, nevermind.
Well I did call him the Giant Tiger Dr. Evil but no one got the reference.
You're not arguing in good faith. First of all, that's what NASA paid, not the total development cost. Way, way more of the costs were paid by investor money. Secondly, falcon 9 is not the nearest equivalent to SLS - that's starship. There's a huge, huge difference.
If it's not tax payer money, then who gives a fuck. You are declaring apples to oranges then doing the same god damned thing.
You can't say SpaceX does things better and cheaper if you aren't looking at the whole picture. Yes, SpaceX is largely privately funded, and estimates are that they're only recently turning a profit, and at that it's because of billions in Starlink revenue.
Likely a great deal for the government, for sure, of they can get someone else to pay the development costs. But don't imply that the big primes are to expensive or are too bloated if you aren't going to compare actual costs.
So you are arguing that cost plus has been the way to go?
When clearly Boeing's performance has shown that they've been sucking at the tax payer teat for decades.
Meanwhile SpaceX took on the risk of the development cost without using the tax payer as a bottomless ATM. They did it quicker AND cheaper.
So yes, they have done it WORLDS better and you are a fucking idiot to argue otherwise.
Musk aside (yes the man has proved himself to to be another narcissistic moron with more money than sense), but SpaceX did highlight the gluttony of the what the space industry has become.
You CANNOT argue that any program can come close to SpaceX.
You make a comment about that one program, (moon-whatever) that got cancelled, and while that sucks, it was because priorities changed. Both sides admitted to it and you are using it falsely as some sort of earmark of failure of the overall program.
Yet you say the other guy is arguing in bad faith.
Fuck Elon Musk, but you are kind of a douche too, to downplay what those engineers have done. They literally turned the industry upside down and here you are, talking shit.
What the fuck have you done?
The one area of technology that SpaceX has really contributed is landing a booster. Oh, and load balancing across such a large number of engines, too. Most of the other stuff is things NASA has been doing for many decades, without nearly the number of failures and exploded hardware.
Their business model is what turned the industry upside down. Putting tens of billions of private money into something is going to do that. But now that Russia isn't competing for astronaut launches, SpaceX is increasing the launch price. It's way too early to say they aren't going to be sucking off that government teat.
I am arguing in good faith, this is what I could find on the prices (and since this is a private (not publicly traded) company I do take it with a grain of salt). I think you might have a bit more emotionally tied up in this then you are willing to admit.
Totally willing to admit that I get pissed off seeing people say that SpaceX does things so much better and cheaper and then not compare actual costs. We didn't know their actual costs because they're a private company and they don't have to say, but it's clearly in the billions.
Yes, it is clearly in the billions. I also get angry that Boeing, Northrop Grumman (the $50k for a hammer people) and the like keep getting a free pass wasting truck loads of money without delivering.
Are you serious? Most observers shake their head at SLS. Best result for everyone on its maiden flight would have been blowing up at Max-Q. Then congress could admit it's a failure and move on.
A big part of that is money. The competition is either less wealthy Musks or notoriously underfunded government agencies.
Are you saying SpaceX is selling launches at a loss? I don't think musk is paying for SpaceX launches with Tesla money.
Not necessarily, although I wouldn't be too surprised, scientific endeavors tend to operate at a loss. I'm just saying that Musk's funding gave SpaceX a jumpstart on the competition. Someone like NASA isn't going to be able to keep up when their budget is consistently getting cut and Musk is rolling around in more money than anyone could ever spend.
So then if you want to move that goalpost again at least move it to a comparison that makes sense. SpaceX and Blue Origin are both Billionaire funded launch providers. Even though SpaceX now operates from their launch sales.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin has a complete lack of real world launch vehicles to send viable payloads. The best they've shown is a handful of tourism rides on New Shepard. And massive delays on the new engines for New Glenn and other rockets, which are finally starting to be delivered to customers massively delayed, but still no New Glenn rocket anywhere near being launched.
Do they really need to? Vulcan seems like it will be a fine rocket. And the vulcan engine is the same as new glenn engine
Edit: Okay well it seems New Glenn is planned to be a lot more powerful, containing 7 BE-4's rather than 2 for Vulcan.
Musk is SpaceX.
He's the frontman, even if Shotwell is the CEO now she's made some of the absurd claims I've referenced.
And SpaceX as a company, its developed products, fall laughably short of its promises, of its marketing.
The rest of the Space industry, generally, is no where near as bombastic and obviously full of shit, instead preferring to develop and operate without grandiose media/public performances.
There is a saying in business: Under-Promise, Over-Perform, or Over-Deliver.
SpaceX does the opposite of this.
Yeah but that doesn't mean SpaceX isn't a fantastic rocket company. Why is over promising an issue? It's still fantastically cheap and capable. You aren't buying rocket launches, and the people who are are looking at the current performance, not future projections.
Like it or not, the industry would still be worse off without the idiotic claims. The idiotic claims pushed the industry forward. You want to make a bulleted list of all the things you dislike or you perceive as failures and drawbacks, fine, go ahead. There are just as many positive bullet lists that could be made.
Ah yes, 'I lied and the industry got better, I should do more of it'
Or one could interpret them as fraudulent claims for the purpose of soliciting funding, you know, like Full Self Driving.
The fucking fanboys are high on Elon's farts...
It literally doesn't matter though: everyone and their mother are buying falcon 9 or heavy launches. SpaceX accounts for almost 90% of the world's launched upmass. They are simply the cheapest most reliable option out there and it is not close. The only reason not to fly on a SpaceX rocket is national security or wanting to keep your own domestic launch industry alive.
That saying does not seem to belong to business.