4 ms·

does spacex actually do things cheaply? or do they do things at a loss because they can and say its cheap? is it possible to even know. cant help but be suspici

by tayo42 4y ago

does spacex actually do things cheaply? or do they do things at a loss because they can and say its cheap? is it possible to even know. cant help but be suspicious lol

yreg 4y ago
Well fuel, staff, etc. is relatively cheap compared to the cost of the rocket and we know for a fact that they can easily refly boosters many times. So unless their rockets cost an order of magnitude more to build then the competitors' they should be able to launch with low costs to themselves.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They spend on fuel, expended upper-stage rocket, and maybe fairings? Do they retrieve fairings? I know they had a boat to chase and catch them, and gave that up. They could make them float, with a beacon, and drive out and get them, and wash the salt off. I would think so, but back when they still chased them, I was viciously downvoted for suggesting that would be cheaper.
  - mwint 4y ago
    Yes, they’re regularly using recovered fairings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_fairing_recovery_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_fairing_recovery_prog...
panick21_ 4y ago
Where is that money comming from? If you look at their history ad raises its simple not possible for them to lose money on everything. They raised a lot of money but that is not that much considering the mega projects of Starlink and Starship. The idea that they could also lose money on everything else just doesnt add up. Also investors have insight into financials, what sane investors would give them money for Starship if the were losing money on Flacon flights.
- tayo42 4y ago
  Investing in things that lose money isn't insane. They lose money until there's no competition left then raise prices. Like Uber was doing
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    I'm sorry but are you familiar with the space industry? Because it simply doesn't make sense. Their competition is Europe, China, India. They will not simply stop building rockets because SpaceX is cheap. In fact the opposite, all of them have massively increased their spending to also lower prices. In addition, in the US, NASA and DoD will always support multiple providers. And in addition to that the Bezos money pissing is not gone stop if SpaceX lowers prices. So on the face of it that plan would be utter insanity. Literal stupidity beyond believe. No investor who spent even 5min looking at the Space industry would invest in SpaceX if they thought that was their strategy. And again, they simple didn't get anywhere close to enough investment to run their core business at a loss AND at the same time make massive investments. It simply doesn't add up. They only got large billions in investment once they had proven the feasibility of lowering launch cost threw re-usability. No expert in the field is now questioning this.
    - tayo42 4y ago
      Why is a US company that sells it services too the is govt competing with whole countries? Their competitors would be the existing companies like Boeing. If you out compete them then they shut down and there's no US companies left That's nice you think it's stupid but other companies have ran at a loss subsidized by investments There's articles from 2018 saying their leaked documents show a loss
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Every country to some extent has its own market. In the US market SpaceX competes with ULA and by now many others. However no matter how low prices go, the military and NASA will ALWAYS give contract to at least 2 companies. And also support the other companies. Its LITERALLY impossible for SpaceX to capture the US market. I don't know what you don't understand. ITS LITERALLY A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE DOD TO SOURCE FROM MULTIPLE COMPANIES. SpaceX could be free and other companies will still exist in the US. In the international market (sometimes called free bid) however they are competing against all those I listed. And non of those are gone give up. > That's nice you think it's stupid but other companies have ran at a loss subsidized by investments Yes ok I agree that it exists. But simply because that strategy exists doesn't mean you can just supply it to every company ever who lowers prices. And for SpaceX its simple not possible. It doesn't make sense. Literally no sense. And the number don't add up. If you look at how much SpaceX has raised, it just does not add up if you also assume the launch Falcon 9 at a loss. > There's articles from 2018 saying their leaked documents show a loss Yes of course because at that point they were in major development of major, major capital projects like Starship and Starlink. It was also before they got the money for the human flight from NASA, another major capital project. And of course since then they have come a very, very long way in terms perfecting re-usability and operational efficiency and you can see that in their numbers. It seems that you just somehow want to believe this despite not a single expert on the industry believing this is true. Despite you not having a shred of evidence to support it. And despite it being a strategy that makes absolutely no sense what so ever in the launch industry. Arianespace accused them of the same thing as early as 2014 if I remember correctly and even then they were getting laughed at because even then, before re-usability its was a dumb take. Not even Arianespace now still claims this is true.

by tayo42 4y ago

does spacex actually do things cheaply? or do they do things at a loss because they can and say its cheap? is it possible to even know. cant help but be suspicious lol

yreg 4y ago

Well fuel, staff, etc. is relatively cheap compared to the cost of the rocket and we know for a fact that they can easily refly boosters many times. So unless their rockets cost an order of magnitude more to build then the competitors' they should be able to launch with low costs to themselves.

ncmncm 4y ago
They spend on fuel, expended upper-stage rocket, and maybe fairings? Do they retrieve fairings? I know they had a boat to chase and catch them, and gave that up. They could make them float, with a beacon, and drive out and get them, and wash the salt off. I would think so, but back when they still chased them, I was viciously downvoted for suggesting that would be cheaper.
- mwint 4y ago
  Yes, they’re regularly using recovered fairings. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_fairing_recovery_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_fairing_recovery_prog...

panick21_ 4y ago

Where is that money comming from? If you look at their history ad raises its simple not possible for them to lose money on everything. They raised a lot of money but that is not that much considering the mega projects of Starlink and Starship. The idea that they could also lose money on everything else just doesnt add up. Also investors have insight into financials, what sane investors would give them money for Starship if the were losing money on Flacon flights.

tayo42 4y ago
Investing in things that lose money isn't insane. They lose money until there's no competition left then raise prices. Like Uber was doing
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I'm sorry but are you familiar with the space industry? Because it simply doesn't make sense. Their competition is Europe, China, India. They will not simply stop building rockets because SpaceX is cheap. In fact the opposite, all of them have massively increased their spending to also lower prices. In addition, in the US, NASA and DoD will always support multiple providers. And in addition to that the Bezos money pissing is not gone stop if SpaceX lowers prices. So on the face of it that plan would be utter insanity. Literal stupidity beyond believe. No investor who spent even 5min looking at the Space industry would invest in SpaceX if they thought that was their strategy. And again, they simple didn't get anywhere close to enough investment to run their core business at a loss AND at the same time make massive investments. It simply doesn't add up. They only got large billions in investment once they had proven the feasibility of lowering launch cost threw re-usability. No expert in the field is now questioning this.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    Why is a US company that sells it services too the is govt competing with whole countries? Their competitors would be the existing companies like Boeing. If you out compete them then they shut down and there's no US companies left That's nice you think it's stupid but other companies have ran at a loss subsidized by investments There's articles from 2018 saying their leaked documents show a loss
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Every country to some extent has its own market. In the US market SpaceX competes with ULA and by now many others. However no matter how low prices go, the military and NASA will ALWAYS give contract to at least 2 companies. And also support the other companies. Its LITERALLY impossible for SpaceX to capture the US market. I don't know what you don't understand. ITS LITERALLY A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE DOD TO SOURCE FROM MULTIPLE COMPANIES. SpaceX could be free and other companies will still exist in the US. In the international market (sometimes called free bid) however they are competing against all those I listed. And non of those are gone give up. > That's nice you think it's stupid but other companies have ran at a loss subsidized by investments Yes ok I agree that it exists. But simply because that strategy exists doesn't mean you can just supply it to every company ever who lowers prices. And for SpaceX its simple not possible. It doesn't make sense. Literally no sense. And the number don't add up. If you look at how much SpaceX has raised, it just does not add up if you also assume the launch Falcon 9 at a loss. > There's articles from 2018 saying their leaked documents show a loss Yes of course because at that point they were in major development of major, major capital projects like Starship and Starlink. It was also before they got the money for the human flight from NASA, another major capital project. And of course since then they have come a very, very long way in terms perfecting re-usability and operational efficiency and you can see that in their numbers. It seems that you just somehow want to believe this despite not a single expert on the industry believing this is true. Despite you not having a shred of evidence to support it. And despite it being a strategy that makes absolutely no sense what so ever in the launch industry. Arianespace accused them of the same thing as early as 2014 if I remember correctly and even then they were getting laughed at because even then, before re-usability its was a dumb take. Not even Arianespace now still claims this is true.