11 ms·

Why the US can beat China: The Facts about SpaceX Costs

259 points by cwan 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago
That 300Million figure to develop Falcon 9 seems stunningly low. Fascinating stuff.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I've always wondered why rocket development should be nearly as expensive as NASA makes it sound. It's mostly a plumbing problem, surely -- pump the fuel to the right place and let it burn. I'm sure there are a few added complexities, but the tricky bits were all figured out decades ago.
  - dman 15y ago
    Winning the world 100m is just about running faster. A Nobel prize is won if you think just a little bit harder... Pushing the envelope has always been heroically hard and always will be.
    - rwmj 15y ago
      SpaceX aren't pushing any envelopes. They're just doing what has already been done for decades, but for a lower price. Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about replying? There are only 3 clauses above, so you can just say which one of those clauses is wrong and why.
      - erikpukinskis 15y ago
        Usain Bolt isn't pushing any envelopes. He's just doing what has already been done for decades, but at a higher speed.
        hugh3 15y ago
        Entirely true. Not sure of the relevance. Seriously though, SpaceX isn't Usain Bolt, it's... Fabio Cerruti (of Italy, fifth-place getter in the first heat of the men's 100m at the 2008 Olympics). He ran 100m in 10.49 seconds, which is very impressive, but nothing that hasn't been done before. OK, enough athletics analogies.
        erikpukinskis 15y ago
        Sorry if it wasn't clear. To my understanding, "pushing the envelope" means just going a little bit further than anyone else has gone before. You obviously have a different definition.
      - schwabacher 15y ago
        So, if they are doing what has been done before for a lower price, then they are pushing the price/performance envelope? The second two clauses contradict the first..
      - dman 15y ago
        Do you consider the IBM PC something that pushed the envelope? Sometimes disrupting an industry by making its products available at a dramatically lower cost is just as much a push to the envelope in the real world as a new discovery. (Other examples include firms like 23andme etc)
        rwmj 15y ago
        Look at the comment I was replying to[1]. The author of that comment was using "pushing the envelope" to mean running faster in the 100m dash or winning a Nobel prize. Disrupting an industry, as SpaceX are doing, is extremely worthwhile, but no one has ever argued that the IBM PC was some sort of breakthrough in computing, or represented progress in programming techniques (quite the opposite in fact, it was cheap and took many shortcuts, resulting in the horrible situation we have in computing today). [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2523927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2523927
        pg 15y ago
        At the time, the IBM PC was very impressive compared to the other microcomputers available.
        bane 15y ago
        I wonder if we'll look back at this a few years from now and say, "At the time, the iPad was very impressive compared to the other tablets available."
        Someone 15y ago
        The way I remember it, the main thing it had going for it was that 'IBM' tag. Its graphics were worse than that of the 4 year old Apple II, its speed was only a little higher (certainly way of from what the 1:4.77 clock speed ratio would make you think; both ran at around 1 MIPS). Yes, it handled more than 64k RAM and was 16 bit-ish, but very impressive? Not in my memory.
        15y ago
      - Alex3917 15y ago
        "SpaceX aren't pushing any envelopes. They're just doing what has already been done for decades, but for a lower price." Logical fallacy. The fact that the differences in output are only quantitatively different doesn't mean that the differences in process aren't qualitatively different.
      - pbreit 15y ago
        1. Yes, it is pushing envelopes. 2. Never been done by private industry. 3. Radically lower price.
        arethuza 15y ago
        Arianespace is a private company (admittedly with some government shareholders, but EADs is also a large shareholder) and it has been operating commercially since 1980 having done hundreds of launches: http://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp http://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp
  - philh 15y ago
    It's also a risk-mitigation problem: making sure that nothing goes wrong with the solution to the plumbing problem. NASA probably isn't optimally cost-effective, but I suspect that eats more money than the plumbing problem itself does.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    The difference is that most plumbing problems result in nothing worse than loss of property and even truly egregious disasters might not make even the local news. Plumbing problems with manned rockets can result in deaths which are almost always international news.
    - mturmon 15y ago
      Yes, and such failures are interpreted as a direct readout on our national technological capability and international prestige. It's nonsense to read so much into it, but that's how it works.
  - Dove 15y ago
    Hey, now. Rockets have gimbals and nozzles and aerodynamic considerations. Rocket Science may not be as tough as NASA makes it out to be, but it definately involves advanced math and control systems and stuff like that. Calling it as a plumbing problem is like calling software engineering a typing problem.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 15y ago
I'm glad that SpaceX is so concerned with cost. It is sometimes hard for a company to stay focused on that when they get a government contract. As for the rest, I would imagine when robots get good enough, then the incentive to use cheap labor in China drops and factories in the US become more economically viable.
- mousa 15y ago
  It's nice that we have freer enterprise and I'm happy to see SpaceX doing well, but China is pivoting hard. It's not a zero-sum game so it doesn't really matter who wins but they're not planning on being just the manufacturers forever. We have freer markets, but they have a big edge too in that they value education a lot more, especially now with the one child policy.
  - tel 15y ago
    I'm going to keep that line in hand for the next 20 years: "China is pivoting hard". Anyone who's thinking of them as merely cheap labor for much longer is going to be very surprised.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    I'm not sure valuing education is enough. Japan didn't pass the US and it surely valued education more than the US. It is the combination of virtues and the chaos of individuals that allows the US to work. If the US gets its debt under control, I don't really see the "win" being China's. China is chaos adverse.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 15y ago
      China has a significant population advantage and the US has a huge physical and social infrastructure advantage, but who is on top nominally is far less important than avoiding a Russia or Japan style collapse. The US and China are both having issues with letting their well connected elites fail. Taking risks is good for society but trying to get state support for risk taking causes huge market inefficiency and eventual failure. PS: The specific US issues like healthcare, ridiculous military spending, and debt are still easily fixable as are China's corruption and Pollution issues the problem is forcing people who benefit and influence the current system to suffer. EX: Removing the mortgage interest subsidy would be a huge long term boon to the US but good luck getting that passed.
bcl 15y ago
SpaceX gives me hope that we can become a space-faring nation once again. The added bonus is that it is private industry doing it, not the behemoth bureaucracy that NASA has become.
jmarbach 15y ago
This is an inspiring mark of American spirit that has seemed to escape our minds amidst international business pressures. I'm grateful that we have hardworking leaders such as Elon who take risks when others won't, and are dedicated to living their dreams.
mixmax 15y ago
Although it's a bit of an apple to oranges comparison Copenhagen suborbitals are on the trajectory to launching a human into space in around three years time. In a months time they'll have their first testflight from Bornholm in the baltic sea. They're doing this whole thing based on nothing but sponsors and goodwill. Their budget is around $8000 a month - orders of magnitude lower than spacex. They also built the worlds largest homemade submarine btw. Until now they've developed solid rocket boosters, parachutes, recovery programs, astrouanut survival and cockpit, etc. etc. and have not run into major problems yet. Some links: Website: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com Static test of solid rocket booster (110.000 HP): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=relat... TEDx talk by Christian Von Bengtson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9oGxNNGd0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9oGxNNGd0 All their technology is open source by the way. Shameless plug: These guys survive on donations, and a few months ago I helped start a support organization to help them survive economicvally. It's $20 a month to be a member, and we really need more members so we can get these guys into space. If you feel this is a worthy cause and want to join send me an e-mail (it's in my profile). Our website is http://raketvenner.dk/ http://raketvenner.dk/ (currently only in Danish...)
- pdelgallego 15y ago
  Are you guys developing any kind of software? I am a web developer, so I don't know much about C, but I am sure a lot of people here can help if you put a repository.
  - mixmax 15y ago
    We (the support organization) only do financial and moral support :-) But Copenhagen Suborbitals is pretty software heavy - uplinks, sensors, communications, ballistics, etc. require a lot of software. They're extremely busy right now preparing for the June launch, but I'll try to talk to them whether this would be a good idea. It seems like it to me, although safety might be an issue if you have someone "unknown" developing mission critical stuff. Thanks for the idea!
lostbit 15y ago
Fine. This is definitely good news. It proves a company is doing a great job, it gives hope and inspiration to other business try to be innovative and bring back the American spirit. But what will happen to space programs if American economy goes into a harder crisis? People will probably vote not to launch anything, not to look at the sky, but to spend money on land issues instead. My big concern is regarding the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That could bring many succesfull companies down, specially those on American markets only. China can be a big issue to America if it starts no to believe in dollar currency anymore. In this context, beating China on innovation at Space programs might not mean Americans won.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
erikpukinskis 15y ago
COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs. If the "right conditions" include having Elon Musk as CEO, then "proven" is probably a reasonable word.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  Exactly. Don't get me wrong, this article is extremely inspirational. But I doubt if there are more than a couple dozen people in America talented enough to pull this off. And, similarly, the vast majority of people in the government aren't capable of recognizing who the people this talented are, or if they are then they are unable to act on it.
jmtame 15y ago
I didn't see this before, but the SpaceX office tour is pretty awesome: http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=26 http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=26
olalonde 15y ago
I don't want to sound too pessimistic but the trend in China is towards more free market capitalism whereas the opposite is happening in the US. Of course, trends can change and China is still far behind in terms of economic liberty.
Symmetry 15y ago
An illuminating anecdote: A while ago my friend from work was at an base where SpaceX would be launching from. However, during the launch an anomaly was discovered and the countdown was suspended. At this point all the Air Force people went home, since they were used to this sort of thing taking a week to sort out, but the SpaceX people quickly isolated the problem and the launch only ended up being delayed an hour.
VB6_Foreverr 15y ago
That blog post is written in such an unpretentious way. Space travel with feet firmly planted on the ground
breathesalt 15y ago
"Beat" China? Why not work together?
- IsaacL 15y ago
  Working together on commercial space technology is good. But space technology also has military uses, in which case both China and the US have strategic reasons for being competitive. Example: a few years ago China decommissioned one of its weather satellites by firing a rocket at it from Earth. Some speculated this new technology could be used to wipe out the USA's anti-nuclear system, leaving it vulnerable to an attack.
- timsally 15y ago
  Because as much as we'd like to pretend otherwise, there are significant ideological differences between the US and China. China just enacted a 3 month ban on all spy dramas on TV [1] and I'm about go home and watch Casino Royal with a bottle of scotch [2]. And as JFK says, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. [3]. This may seem nationalistic to you, but I think JFK is right. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-China.html?_r=1&ref=china http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-China.... [2] Citation not needed. [3] http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm
- dev_jim 15y ago
  Exactly. It's not a zero-sum game. China getting better economically is good for the U.S. and vice versa. Anyone who thinks differently needs to take ECON101.
spartanfan10 15y ago
Though I really don't like the idea of an "Us vs. Them" mentality in global development (it's been commented many times that this is not a zero sum game, there doesn't have to be winners and losers like in football), this article is inspiring. Congrats to Elon and SpaceX on their wonderful innovation.
adnam 15y ago
It's funny, but this is the opposite of what happened during the 1950s space race. Russia, having less cash to spend, contracted work out various bidders, whereas america established the massively centralized NASA.
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  And Russia killed and maimed hundreds in their pell-mell race to the moon. So it was cost-effective and politically expedient, sure. But there are towns still expunged from Russian maps that were blighted by that irresponsible program.

259 points by cwan 15y ago

burgerbrain 15y ago

That 300Million figure to develop Falcon 9 seems stunningly low. Fascinating stuff.

hugh3 15y ago
I've always wondered why rocket development should be nearly as expensive as NASA makes it sound. It's mostly a plumbing problem, surely -- pump the fuel to the right place and let it burn. I'm sure there are a few added complexities, but the tricky bits were all figured out decades ago.
- dman 15y ago
  Winning the world 100m is just about running faster. A Nobel prize is won if you think just a little bit harder... Pushing the envelope has always been heroically hard and always will be.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    SpaceX aren't pushing any envelopes. They're just doing what has already been done for decades, but for a lower price. Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about replying? There are only 3 clauses above, so you can just say which one of those clauses is wrong and why.
    - erikpukinskis 15y ago
      Usain Bolt isn't pushing any envelopes. He's just doing what has already been done for decades, but at a higher speed.
      - hugh3 15y ago
        Entirely true. Not sure of the relevance. Seriously though, SpaceX isn't Usain Bolt, it's... Fabio Cerruti (of Italy, fifth-place getter in the first heat of the men's 100m at the 2008 Olympics). He ran 100m in 10.49 seconds, which is very impressive, but nothing that hasn't been done before. OK, enough athletics analogies.
        erikpukinskis 15y ago
        Sorry if it wasn't clear. To my understanding, "pushing the envelope" means just going a little bit further than anyone else has gone before. You obviously have a different definition.
    - schwabacher 15y ago
      So, if they are doing what has been done before for a lower price, then they are pushing the price/performance envelope? The second two clauses contradict the first..
    - dman 15y ago
      Do you consider the IBM PC something that pushed the envelope? Sometimes disrupting an industry by making its products available at a dramatically lower cost is just as much a push to the envelope in the real world as a new discovery. (Other examples include firms like 23andme etc)
      - rwmj 15y ago
        Look at the comment I was replying to[1]. The author of that comment was using "pushing the envelope" to mean running faster in the 100m dash or winning a Nobel prize. Disrupting an industry, as SpaceX are doing, is extremely worthwhile, but no one has ever argued that the IBM PC was some sort of breakthrough in computing, or represented progress in programming techniques (quite the opposite in fact, it was cheap and took many shortcuts, resulting in the horrible situation we have in computing today). [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2523927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2523927
        pg 15y ago
        At the time, the IBM PC was very impressive compared to the other microcomputers available.
        bane 15y ago
        I wonder if we'll look back at this a few years from now and say, "At the time, the iPad was very impressive compared to the other tablets available."
        Someone 15y ago
        The way I remember it, the main thing it had going for it was that 'IBM' tag. Its graphics were worse than that of the 4 year old Apple II, its speed was only a little higher (certainly way of from what the 1:4.77 clock speed ratio would make you think; both ran at around 1 MIPS). Yes, it handled more than 64k RAM and was 16 bit-ish, but very impressive? Not in my memory.
        15y ago
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      "SpaceX aren't pushing any envelopes. They're just doing what has already been done for decades, but for a lower price." Logical fallacy. The fact that the differences in output are only quantitatively different doesn't mean that the differences in process aren't qualitatively different.
    - pbreit 15y ago
      1. Yes, it is pushing envelopes. 2. Never been done by private industry. 3. Radically lower price.
      - arethuza 15y ago
        Arianespace is a private company (admittedly with some government shareholders, but EADs is also a large shareholder) and it has been operating commercially since 1980 having done hundreds of launches: http://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp http://www.arianespace.com/index/index.asp
- philh 15y ago
  It's also a risk-mitigation problem: making sure that nothing goes wrong with the solution to the plumbing problem. NASA probably isn't optimally cost-effective, but I suspect that eats more money than the plumbing problem itself does.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  The difference is that most plumbing problems result in nothing worse than loss of property and even truly egregious disasters might not make even the local news. Plumbing problems with manned rockets can result in deaths which are almost always international news.
  - mturmon 15y ago
    Yes, and such failures are interpreted as a direct readout on our national technological capability and international prestige. It's nonsense to read so much into it, but that's how it works.
- Dove 15y ago
  Hey, now. Rockets have gimbals and nozzles and aerodynamic considerations. Rocket Science may not be as tough as NASA makes it out to be, but it definately involves advanced math and control systems and stuff like that. Calling it as a plumbing problem is like calling software engineering a typing problem.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 15y ago

I'm glad that SpaceX is so concerned with cost. It is sometimes hard for a company to stay focused on that when they get a government contract. As for the rest, I would imagine when robots get good enough, then the incentive to use cheap labor in China drops and factories in the US become more economically viable.

mousa 15y ago
It's nice that we have freer enterprise and I'm happy to see SpaceX doing well, but China is pivoting hard. It's not a zero-sum game so it doesn't really matter who wins but they're not planning on being just the manufacturers forever. We have freer markets, but they have a big edge too in that they value education a lot more, especially now with the one child policy.
- tel 15y ago
  I'm going to keep that line in hand for the next 20 years: "China is pivoting hard". Anyone who's thinking of them as merely cheap labor for much longer is going to be very surprised.
- protomyth 15y ago
  I'm not sure valuing education is enough. Japan didn't pass the US and it surely valued education more than the US. It is the combination of virtues and the chaos of individuals that allows the US to work. If the US gets its debt under control, I don't really see the "win" being China's. China is chaos adverse.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 15y ago
    China has a significant population advantage and the US has a huge physical and social infrastructure advantage, but who is on top nominally is far less important than avoiding a Russia or Japan style collapse. The US and China are both having issues with letting their well connected elites fail. Taking risks is good for society but trying to get state support for risk taking causes huge market inefficiency and eventual failure. PS: The specific US issues like healthcare, ridiculous military spending, and debt are still easily fixable as are China's corruption and Pollution issues the problem is forcing people who benefit and influence the current system to suffer. EX: Removing the mortgage interest subsidy would be a huge long term boon to the US but good luck getting that passed.

bcl 15y ago

SpaceX gives me hope that we can become a space-faring nation once again. The added bonus is that it is private industry doing it, not the behemoth bureaucracy that NASA has become.

jmarbach 15y ago

This is an inspiring mark of American spirit that has seemed to escape our minds amidst international business pressures. I'm grateful that we have hardworking leaders such as Elon who take risks when others won't, and are dedicated to living their dreams.

mixmax 15y ago

Although it's a bit of an apple to oranges comparison Copenhagen suborbitals are on the trajectory to launching a human into space in around three years time. In a months time they'll have their first testflight from Bornholm in the baltic sea. They're doing this whole thing based on nothing but sponsors and goodwill. Their budget is around $8000 a month - orders of magnitude lower than spacex. They also built the worlds largest homemade submarine btw. Until now they've developed solid rocket boosters, parachutes, recovery programs, astrouanut survival and cockpit, etc. etc. and have not run into major problems yet. Some links: Website: http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com Static test of solid rocket booster (110.000 HP): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=relat... TEDx talk by Christian Von Bengtson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9oGxNNGd0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9oGxNNGd0 All their technology is open source by the way. Shameless plug: These guys survive on donations, and a few months ago I helped start a support organization to help them survive economicvally. It's $20 a month to be a member, and we really need more members so we can get these guys into space. If you feel this is a worthy cause and want to join send me an e-mail (it's in my profile). Our website is http://raketvenner.dk/ http://raketvenner.dk/ (currently only in Danish...)

pdelgallego 15y ago
Are you guys developing any kind of software? I am a web developer, so I don't know much about C, but I am sure a lot of people here can help if you put a repository.
- mixmax 15y ago
  We (the support organization) only do financial and moral support :-) But Copenhagen Suborbitals is pretty software heavy - uplinks, sensors, communications, ballistics, etc. require a lot of software. They're extremely busy right now preparing for the June launch, but I'll try to talk to them whether this would be a good idea. It seems like it to me, although safety might be an issue if you have someone "unknown" developing mission critical stuff. Thanks for the idea!

lostbit 15y ago

Fine. This is definitely good news. It proves a company is doing a great job, it gives hope and inspiration to other business try to be innovative and bring back the American spirit. But what will happen to space programs if American economy goes into a harder crisis? People will probably vote not to launch anything, not to look at the sky, but to spend money on land issues instead. My big concern is regarding the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That could bring many succesfull companies down, specially those on American markets only. China can be a big issue to America if it starts no to believe in dollar currency anymore. In this context, beating China on innovation at Space programs might not mean Americans won.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

erikpukinskis 15y ago

COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs. If the "right conditions" include having Elon Musk as CEO, then "proven" is probably a reasonable word.

Alex3917 15y ago
Exactly. Don't get me wrong, this article is extremely inspirational. But I doubt if there are more than a couple dozen people in America talented enough to pull this off. And, similarly, the vast majority of people in the government aren't capable of recognizing who the people this talented are, or if they are then they are unable to act on it.

jmtame 15y ago

I didn't see this before, but the SpaceX office tour is pretty awesome: http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=26 http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=26

olalonde 15y ago

I don't want to sound too pessimistic but the trend in China is towards more free market capitalism whereas the opposite is happening in the US. Of course, trends can change and China is still far behind in terms of economic liberty.

Symmetry 15y ago

An illuminating anecdote: A while ago my friend from work was at an base where SpaceX would be launching from. However, during the launch an anomaly was discovered and the countdown was suspended. At this point all the Air Force people went home, since they were used to this sort of thing taking a week to sort out, but the SpaceX people quickly isolated the problem and the launch only ended up being delayed an hour.

VB6_Foreverr 15y ago

That blog post is written in such an unpretentious way. Space travel with feet firmly planted on the ground

breathesalt 15y ago

"Beat" China? Why not work together?

IsaacL 15y ago
Working together on commercial space technology is good. But space technology also has military uses, in which case both China and the US have strategic reasons for being competitive. Example: a few years ago China decommissioned one of its weather satellites by firing a rocket at it from Earth. Some speculated this new technology could be used to wipe out the USA's anti-nuclear system, leaving it vulnerable to an attack.
timsally 15y ago
Because as much as we'd like to pretend otherwise, there are significant ideological differences between the US and China. China just enacted a 3 month ban on all spy dramas on TV [1] and I'm about go home and watch Casino Royal with a bottle of scotch [2]. And as JFK says, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. [3]. This may seem nationalistic to you, but I think JFK is right. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-China.html?_r=1&ref=china http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-China.... [2] Citation not needed. [3] http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm
dev_jim 15y ago
Exactly. It's not a zero-sum game. China getting better economically is good for the U.S. and vice versa. Anyone who thinks differently needs to take ECON101.

spartanfan10 15y ago

Though I really don't like the idea of an "Us vs. Them" mentality in global development (it's been commented many times that this is not a zero sum game, there doesn't have to be winners and losers like in football), this article is inspiring. Congrats to Elon and SpaceX on their wonderful innovation.

adnam 15y ago

It's funny, but this is the opposite of what happened during the 1950s space race. Russia, having less cash to spend, contracted work out various bidders, whereas america established the massively centralized NASA.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
And Russia killed and maimed hundreds in their pell-mell race to the moon. So it was cost-effective and politically expedient, sure. But there are towns still expunged from Russian maps that were blighted by that irresponsible program.