1y ago

Outstanding idea.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

166 comments

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?
  
  Blue Origin
  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
  <insert what ever>
  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.

166 comments