4 ms·

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

by 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.
- tayo42 4y ago
  you just want me to take your word for it instead? despite you having no proof too? lol

by tayo42 4y ago

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.

tayo42 4y ago
you just want me to take your word for it instead? despite you having no proof too? lol