ondono t1_j0mp8g5 wrote
Reply to comment by GaLaXY_N7 in SpaceX, Blue Origin Executives Tapped as US Space Council Advisers by Soupjoe5
But they don’t have the flashy Spacex marketing with everyone celebrating two boosters landing in parallel, and the video cutting before people realize it’s just a marketing stunt that saved 0 dollars.
-Darkmyth_ t1_j0mrbra wrote
Can you explain how reusing rockets rather than just tossing them in an ocean is "just a marketing stunt"? Not only is it more sustainable, less wasteful it also saves money and reduces turn around time for launches.
ondono t1_j0mryz4 wrote
> Can you explain how reusing rockets rather than just tossing them in an ocean is “just a marketing stunt”?
Simple, if refurbishing those boosters costs more than new boosters, recovering them is just a cool stunt.
EDIT: Don’t worry about the downvotes, I’m totally aware that being even remotely critical of Elon Musk gets you downvoted to hell on this sub.
-Darkmyth_ t1_j0n3ojs wrote
But it doesn't cost more, so it's not a stunt.
trollmylove t1_j0n060a wrote
We're talking about SpaceX not the shuttle ;)
Allnamestaken69 t1_j0nyidf wrote
You can’t be this delusional? It’s one thing to dislike a man but to rewrite reality to the point that you discredit SpaceX achievements in this way is hilarious.
Adeldor t1_j0mvujp wrote
> ... it’s just a marketing stunt that saved 0 dollars.
According to Musk, the marginal cost of launching a used Falcon 9 (ie, used booster and fairings) is around $15 million. Apparently, refurbishing the booster costs just $250,000. Based on these numbers, there's no longer any reasonable argument saying reuse is not cost effective.
ondono t1_j0mywwo wrote
According to Musk we all have tesla robotaxis that pay themselves and crewed missions to mars launch in less than 2 years.
Curiously, if you average what SpaceX charges in government + commercial launches, you get a number that’s a bit higher than the rest of it’s competitors. Almost as if certain claims of price dumping hold water!
Adeldor t1_j0n4el1 wrote
Can you provide a credible reference for your assertion that reuse saves SpaceX 0 dollars?
krackastix t1_j0n3r4n wrote
You are ignorant, spacex isnt theranos lmao
ondono t1_j0ndjqm wrote
I didn’t said they’re Theranos, I said SpaceX to this day isn’t saving any costs on reusable boosters, and it’s price reduction is suspiciously consistent with price dumping (charging NASA up to 4x the rated price, and using that money to subsidize their commercial launches).
This wouldn’t be even be a first for SpaceX, that used NASAs money to buy SolarCity’s “Solar Bonds”, and then got their money back when Tesla acquired SolarCity.
krackastix t1_j0nghxx wrote
Either way that makes zero mathmatical sense considering what they charge nasa and private companies per lb per launch.
ondono t1_j0orsaw wrote
NASA pays way more than the stated rate, in some cases ridiculously more.
Just look up the deals and do the numbers.
toodroot t1_j0os1t6 wrote
They do not, and it would be illegal if they did. NASA and Space Force require additional mission assurance paperwork, which SpaceX charges extra for. Sometimes they buy an extended fairing, which costs extra. But you can point to some cases, like Europa Clipper, where the contract amount is quite close to SpaceX's announced commercial price.
Halo+PPE was a lot more, but it it requires an extended fairing.
Also, check out IXPE.
toodroot t1_j0nf3be wrote
Still going down the usual list of talking points, I see.
Edit: spelling
toodroot t1_j0nddh8 wrote
> Curiously, if you average what SpaceX charges in government + commercial launches, you get a number that’s a bit higher than the rest of it’s [sic] competitors.
This is actually known to be false.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments