Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ondono t1_j0mywwo wrote

Reply to comment by Adeldor in SpaceX, Blue Origin Executives Tapped as US Space Council Advisers by Soupjoe5

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!

−2

Adeldor t1_j0n4el1 wrote

Can you provide a credible reference for your assertion that reuse saves SpaceX 0 dollars?

8

krackastix t1_j0n3r4n wrote

You are ignorant, spacex isnt theranos lmao

5

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.

2

krackastix t1_j0nghxx wrote

Either way that makes zero mathmatical sense considering what they charge nasa and private companies per lb per launch.

8

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.

0

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.

4

ondono t1_j0os5mw wrote

Those are some amazing fairings if they increase the cost by more than 50%!

0

toodroot t1_j0osdof wrote

Development is expensive, and no doubt NASA wants a lot of oversight for a new piece of hardware.

3

toodroot t1_j0nf3be wrote

Still going down the usual list of talking points, I see.

Edit: spelling

4

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.

5