4 ms·

The Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I

The Space Shuttle was reusable (with massive refurbishing after each flight) but given that'd it cost significantly more than a non-reusable rocket per pound I think the point stands. SpaceX managed to make a financially viable reusable rocket.

thelean12 6y ago
> I think the point stands No it doesn't. The person was trying to say SpaceX > NASA. Many people here are trying to shit on the other side as if they have a real point. They're both doing cool and useful things and they're both really really good at what they do.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I'm not trying to say that SpaceX is better than NASA. I am responding to the point that NASA has done things that SpaceX hasn't (e.g. landing on other celestial bodies) by pointing out that SpaceX has done things NASA hasn't (e.g. SpaceX rockets land and can be reused). I don't think it makes sense to talk about which is better unless there is some specific metric that can be measured so a conclusion could be reached. I am encouraged though that SpaceX has a trajectory that will allow greater access to space. By bringing the cost of space travel down, I expect we will get a lot more of it. NASA (and other governmental space programs) started the initiative, but I think SpaceX is continuing it marvelously.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.
Daho0n 6y ago
They really didn't. SpaceX is not cheaper than the shuttle no matter how many times it gets repeated. That SpaceX fudges the numbers so it is hard to compare doesn't make it true. In reality SpaceX is more expensive than not only the shuttle but also their own projections. Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU
- tristanb 6y ago
  you're wrong. That video is a bunch of crud
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    And I'm sure you believe that US and foreign competitors of SpaceX who says the same thing are just spewing PR, right? It was a random video. The message is not wrong. Being snippy doesn't change facts.
    - shazmosushi 6y ago
      The Thunderf00t video is wrong, see my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4
- Nekhrimah 6y ago
  > Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU I watched the first 90 seconds of this. On the cost of re-usability of a falcon 9 point, the figures are shown as from Wikipedia. So 1) not a primary source. 2) fails to calculate the percentage correctly between $62m and $50m as "around 10%". It's almost 20% on those figures. 3) and most importantly, those numbers are the cost to the customer, not SpaceX's internal cost. As they have no current competition in rocket re-usability, they are able to recoup the R&D cost for developing this technology. I don't think I'll bother watching the rest of the video.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Yeah, they are certainly not launching so many Starlinks at the same price they charge to the customers. A very big benefit having your own partially reusable rocket (especially as long as no one other has one yet).

thelean12 6y ago

> I think the point stands No it doesn't. The person was trying to say SpaceX > NASA. Many people here are trying to shit on the other side as if they have a real point. They're both doing cool and useful things and they're both really really good at what they do.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I'm not trying to say that SpaceX is better than NASA. I am responding to the point that NASA has done things that SpaceX hasn't (e.g. landing on other celestial bodies) by pointing out that SpaceX has done things NASA hasn't (e.g. SpaceX rockets land and can be reused). I don't think it makes sense to talk about which is better unless there is some specific metric that can be measured so a conclusion could be reached. I am encouraged though that SpaceX has a trajectory that will allow greater access to space. By bringing the cost of space travel down, I expect we will get a lot more of it. NASA (and other governmental space programs) started the initiative, but I think SpaceX is continuing it marvelously.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  I'm not saying SpaceX isn't doing good but the price has gone up per (re)launch, not down as projected, so at the moment of it were possible to buy a trip to space for a few tourists it would be cheaper on a shuttle.

Daho0n 6y ago

They really didn't. SpaceX is not cheaper than the shuttle no matter how many times it gets repeated. That SpaceX fudges the numbers so it is hard to compare doesn't make it true. In reality SpaceX is more expensive than not only the shuttle but also their own projections. Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU

tristanb 6y ago
you're wrong. That video is a bunch of crud
- Daho0n 6y ago
  And I'm sure you believe that US and foreign competitors of SpaceX who says the same thing are just spewing PR, right? It was a random video. The message is not wrong. Being snippy doesn't change facts.
  - shazmosushi 6y ago
    The Thunderf00t video is wrong, see my video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o4UrS9OS4
Nekhrimah 6y ago
> Here's a breakdown: https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU I watched the first 90 seconds of this. On the cost of re-usability of a falcon 9 point, the figures are shown as from Wikipedia. So 1) not a primary source. 2) fails to calculate the percentage correctly between $62m and $50m as "around 10%". It's almost 20% on those figures. 3) and most importantly, those numbers are the cost to the customer, not SpaceX's internal cost. As they have no current competition in rocket re-usability, they are able to recoup the R&D cost for developing this technology. I don't think I'll bother watching the rest of the video.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Yeah, they are certainly not launching so many Starlinks at the same price they charge to the customers. A very big benefit having your own partially reusable rocket (especially as long as no one other has one yet).