3 ms·

Oh, yes. Don't get me wrong -- it's over! I don't disagree with you either, it's another example of how misplaced development priorities can look like winning

Oh, yes. Don't get me wrong -- it's over! I don't disagree with you either, it's another example of how misplaced development priorities can look like winning big until the handkerchief reveals a fat, dead rabbit. edit: the rabbit stinks, too.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Eh, I disagree. Soviet rockets are really exceptional to such a level that, for the task of for example putting people into the ISS, they are so cheap that making the rocket isn't even the most expensive part. These numbers are from 2-3 years ago, total launch cost is 4 billion rubles, while the cost of a Soyuz FG is 0.9 billion rubles. So the rocket is actually less than 25% of the cost of the launch, which is why Soyuz will for the foreseeable future be more efficient at its task than any rocket, reusable or not (!!!) So as a product intended to fulfill a task, the Soyuz is actually the result of much better engineering decisions and really engineering and manufacturing in general than anything else. Because it's performance here is launch reliability, where it's #1 and can launch in conditions the SpaceX craft can't, as well as cost, where it is still lower and will be lower than anything else for over 50 years.
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  Really interesting, thanks for the insight. Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electronics and whatnot produced every year, but I often wondered why the Space Shuttle was still the thing we used "to go into space". I learned about RAMJET/SCRAMJET, doted on Star Trek warp drives and fantasized about teleportation, I kind of never questioned that rocket lift technology might have just reached some newtonian limits. I've certainly never considered the total cost of launches and the reliability or weather considerations. A 25% cost reduction from vehicle recovery sounds great, but I've read "Eccentric Orbits" and am now considering there are many additional factors in these programs. I don't know very much about launch economics, especially since there is clearly much to consider. Thanks for the perspective.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The best way to look at it, IMHO, is from the demand side. Q: Why has space technology remained fairly stagnant? A: Because the economic demand to fund improvements hasn't existed. We look at the market and say "But all those satellites! Surely they could pay for it." But that's underestimating (a) the cost of development (HUGE! And there's a low-quantity of launches to amortize over) & (b) the value of incremental improvement (negligible, as most current customers aren't cost sensitive). That's SpaceX's real genius. Reusability isn't a competitive advantage unless it coincides with increased demand. Demand which they themselves seeded via the StarLink constellation.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Eh, I disagree. Soviet rockets are really exceptional to such a level that, for the task of for example putting people into the ISS, they are so cheap that making the rocket isn't even the most expensive part. These numbers are from 2-3 years ago, total launch cost is 4 billion rubles, while the cost of a Soyuz FG is 0.9 billion rubles. So the rocket is actually less than 25% of the cost of the launch, which is why Soyuz will for the foreseeable future be more efficient at its task than any rocket, reusable or not (!!!) So as a product intended to fulfill a task, the Soyuz is actually the result of much better engineering decisions and really engineering and manufacturing in general than anything else. Because it's performance here is launch reliability, where it's #1 and can launch in conditions the SpaceX craft can't, as well as cost, where it is still lower and will be lower than anything else for over 50 years.

cartoonworld 5y ago
Really interesting, thanks for the insight. Since I was a boy, I had wondered why we hadn't improved our launch vehicles, I saw new cars and planes and electronics and whatnot produced every year, but I often wondered why the Space Shuttle was still the thing we used "to go into space". I learned about RAMJET/SCRAMJET, doted on Star Trek warp drives and fantasized about teleportation, I kind of never questioned that rocket lift technology might have just reached some newtonian limits. I've certainly never considered the total cost of launches and the reliability or weather considerations. A 25% cost reduction from vehicle recovery sounds great, but I've read "Eccentric Orbits" and am now considering there are many additional factors in these programs. I don't know very much about launch economics, especially since there is clearly much to consider. Thanks for the perspective.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The best way to look at it, IMHO, is from the demand side. Q: Why has space technology remained fairly stagnant? A: Because the economic demand to fund improvements hasn't existed. We look at the market and say "But all those satellites! Surely they could pay for it." But that's underestimating (a) the cost of development (HUGE! And there's a low-quantity of launches to amortize over) & (b) the value of incremental improvement (negligible, as most current customers aren't cost sensitive). That's SpaceX's real genius. Reusability isn't a competitive advantage unless it coincides with increased demand. Demand which they themselves seeded via the StarLink constellation.