Who else has a reusable rocket, in any form?
The supposedly reusable space shuttle, which had the deep pockets of government, did 135 launches…over 30 years, to the tune of about $200 billion.
“SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were on the order of US$300 million.[40] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used”
Space shuttle was nearly seven HUNDRED times greater cost. NASA admitted Falcon would’ve cost 100x more if they’d developed it, so I’m gonna say a real cost would’ve been 1000x more (like the shuttle), because we know how good governmental agencies are at exceeding budgets.
So throw money at it, eh? Like NASA? Because what SpaceX has done (apply private-sector, finance-controlled, Agile project management to spaceflight), resulted in a cost that’s at worst ten PERCENT of NASA, in 1/30th of the time, without killing anyone, unlike NASA and it’s crony companies.
Fuck Boeing, Northrop, GD, etc. Those bastards have had their time stealing from us and killing highly trained astronauts, just to pillage from the government. There’s no excuse for the failures they’ve had.
Player2@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Right now they’re actually doing more launches with less money and waste, but hate on I guess
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
let’s be honest though - they’re launching starlinks at a loss on the hope of future returns.
It’s not profitable like an external customer would be. And the more I think about starlink’s future implications the more I think the whole thing should be nationalized by the US government like TOR: let anyone connect to the internet, especially in areas under attack.
And also, swarm the sats against launching icbms if needed :D
Player2@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Starlink is definitely at a loss right now. Despite this, Falcon 9 launch costs are significantly lower for actual customers as well, and the reuse factor cannot be ignored