4 ms·

True, they are different. The biggest difference is this: SpaceX target cost per person to Mars: $0.2M Govt target: $10000M (estimated) While SpaceX may not

by marze 10y ago

True, they are different. The biggest difference is this: SpaceX target cost per person to Mars: $0.2M Govt target: $10000M (estimated) While SpaceX may not reach their target, one can't help but notice factor of 50000 difference.

dogma1138 10y ago
How about SpaceX becoming certified for human transport with it's current and next generation rocket before we talk about 500000 factor difference with it's 3rd (or Nth gen rocket)? SpaceX's reusability is brilliant but it's currently not considerably cheaper than ULA, if you count the fact that the a lower end Atlas V rocket launch costs about 100M and it's currently a more reliable system than the Dragon. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-at-space-symposium-details-launch-costs/ http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-...
- marze 10y ago
  SpaceX has years to work before they miss their first person on Mars timeframe estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are late, or over budget. But I'd be very surprised if they are 10000 times over budget. But I'd be even more surprised if the govt program was 20% under budget. Or if it ever made it to Mars, actually.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    SpaceX will be late for sure: Musk likes setting out aggressive timescales
- Retric 10y ago
  No they cost 164M. There is a contact covering 64 million per launch and an additional 100M cost per launch making the actual cost 164M. Which is two and a half times what a Falcon V launch costs before any possible reusability is included. It's like calling a 5 year car lease cheap after putting in a 20k down payment and ignoring that as a monthly cost. PS: There is something to be said for reliability. But, if your satellite costs less than 500M and Space X had a 20% failure rate that's still generally a better deal.
exDM69 10y ago
SpaceX's target cost is talking about a long-term goal when the R&D costs are amortized by the number of launches. Ie. talking about the costs in 2040 (earliest) when they've had about 10 years of experience of regular Mars flights. Pretty sure that their costs for sending the first few humans to Mars are on similar orders of magnitude to Govt plans. What they outlined in their presentation was a long-term vision. We should be comparing to their "Red Dragon" efforts.
lmm 10y ago
I've got a launch system in my backyard with a target cost per person to mars of $4, that's a factor of 50000 better than SpaceX. Where do I pick up my legion of internet fans? SpaceX has done great stuff but they also have a history of overpromising and underdelivering. Falcon Heavy was supposedly going to launch last year. Right now they don't even have a rocket that's cleared for flight. I wish them well but talk is cheap; let's judge them on what they've actually done.

by marze 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

How about SpaceX becoming certified for human transport with it's current and next generation rocket before we talk about 500000 factor difference with it's 3rd (or Nth gen rocket)? SpaceX's reusability is brilliant but it's currently not considerably cheaper than ULA, if you count the fact that the a lower end Atlas V rocket launch costs about 100M and it's currently a more reliable system than the Dragon. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-at-space-symposium-details-launch-costs/ http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/ula-fires-back-at-spacex-...

marze 10y ago
SpaceX has years to work before they miss their first person on Mars timeframe estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if they are late, or over budget. But I'd be very surprised if they are 10000 times over budget. But I'd be even more surprised if the govt program was 20% under budget. Or if it ever made it to Mars, actually.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  SpaceX will be late for sure: Musk likes setting out aggressive timescales
Retric 10y ago
No they cost 164M. There is a contact covering 64 million per launch and an additional 100M cost per launch making the actual cost 164M. Which is two and a half times what a Falcon V launch costs before any possible reusability is included. It's like calling a 5 year car lease cheap after putting in a 20k down payment and ignoring that as a monthly cost. PS: There is something to be said for reliability. But, if your satellite costs less than 500M and Space X had a 20% failure rate that's still generally a better deal.

exDM69 10y ago

SpaceX's target cost is talking about a long-term goal when the R&D costs are amortized by the number of launches. Ie. talking about the costs in 2040 (earliest) when they've had about 10 years of experience of regular Mars flights. Pretty sure that their costs for sending the first few humans to Mars are on similar orders of magnitude to Govt plans. What they outlined in their presentation was a long-term vision. We should be comparing to their "Red Dragon" efforts.

lmm 10y ago

I've got a launch system in my backyard with a target cost per person to mars of $4, that's a factor of 50000 better than SpaceX. Where do I pick up my legion of internet fans? SpaceX has done great stuff but they also have a history of overpromising and underdelivering. Falcon Heavy was supposedly going to launch last year. Right now they don't even have a rocket that's cleared for flight. I wish them well but talk is cheap; let's judge them on what they've actually done.