7 ms·

> "The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million which includes all the development costs

> "The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon." Wow. Facebook could have started an entire space program for less money than they spent on Instagram.

rytis 14y ago
Sad, isn't it? Just shows where the priorities are these days...
- nickik 14y ago
  The priorities where always the same, its all about ROI. It always has been.
lolcraft 14y ago
And they would've had bigger profits and a solid business model, as well!
huggyface 14y ago
That really is a goosebump-inducing reframing of many recent valuations.
dude_abides 14y ago
That reminds me of this classic tweet: Your mobile phone has more computing power than all of NASA in 1969. NASA launched a man to the moon. We launch a bird into pigs. Instagram or omgpop or space travel, its all about priorities.
- harrylove 14y ago
  The status update, for reference: https://twitter.com/#!/svenningsen/status/144111724923076608 https://twitter.com/#!/svenningsen/status/144111724923076608
nirvana 14y ago
Or from another perspective, the entire cost of SpaceX's history to develop all these technologies is less than a SINGLE launch of the Shuttle by NASA.
- natep 14y ago
  Where did you find that information about per-launch costs of the shuttle? Another post here claims this data hasn't been released. Edit: so it seems $1.2-$1.5 billion is the accepted figure from outside analysis, but I don't see how this is possible. With a total budget of $7.2 billion in 1985, I don't see how they paid for $10.8 billion in launches.
  - pranjalv123 14y ago
    It's more like $15bn inflation adjusted (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
    - natep 14y ago
      Ah, thanks. I was looking at the wrong column. If the $1.5 billion figure is also inflation-adjusted, then it's feasible.
- mitchty 14y ago
  Does SpaceX's cost include the original research costs that NASA incurred by actually researching the underlying principles the Dragon rockets use? I think people are underestimating the costs NASA incurred by being first. Take the X15 for example, its first test flights were without its planned engine because nobody up until that point had ever built a throttleable rocket engine. Now its well known how to build them and what not to do. I'm not saying NASA is efficient, but direct numerical comparisons like these unnecessarily distort the various differences in history between the two. The shuttles many deficiencies are rather well documented as well. And it, now had, features that the Dragon rockets don't serve such as the obvious recovery of space payloads for example.
larrys 14y ago
"Facebook could have started an entire space program for less money than they spent on Instagram" Space-x spent cash. Facebook bought Instagram primarily with stock.
- brianobush 14y ago
  I think he was referring to value, not liquidity.
  - larrys 14y ago
    I think it was pretty clear - "less money than they spent on Instagram" "money". Facebook didn't spend that in cash or most likely anywhere near that. Now if Space-x had invested 1% of their market and done this, the comparison would be fair.
  - alanbyrne 14y ago
    I was.
angersock 14y ago
Here, let's do better. Apple has something like $100bn in cash reserves. Like, cash on hand (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/19/100-billion-apple http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/19/100-bill...). Think about that.
corford 14y ago
That's beautiful. I'm going to bookmark your comment for use when the next inevitable "are we in a tech bubble or not?" thread appears.
yukyukyuk 14y ago
Not really. 1) Facebook spent $300mil in cash on Instagram and traded $700mil worth of FB stock. You cannot pay for a space program with FB stock. 2) You need Elon Musk to turn < $1bil into a space program. Without him, you are up shit creek without a paddle, and Elon Musk does not work for FB. 3) FB would have to convince its investors that FB would be uniquely equipped to execute the mission, and that it would be worth the distraction and resource cost. So basically FB would put everything that it now does on hold to start a space program. Now, you could reply "But Bill Gates has billions, why didn't he do it?" Again, Bill Gates is not Elon Musk, and he is already doing plenty of amazing things with his money. You have to convince Bill Gates to spend his time and energy on such a project.
kamaal 14y ago
This is indeed a very sad reflection of our priorities at this time. We don't act unless we absolutely have to. I mean problems like disease cure, poverty and hunger eradication, space colonization can be solved with that kind of money on hand. This is also what I think of Aliens too! We talk of super intelligent aliens who would have colonized space.That would have never happened, because just like us, they might have wasted their money, energy and resources on photo sharing apps and putting birds in pigs instead of doing some real stuff that actually matters.
barrkel 14y ago
No. Facebook could have taken the risk of trying to develop a space program, with a potential cost less than the price for Instagram. Before it began, there was no guarantee that SpaceX would be successful, or that it would only cost $800 million in expenditures. And on the flip side, I expect the current value of SpaceX is higher than $1 billion. Extreme example of how risk distorts price: if I buy a lottery ticket for $1 and win $1 million, does that mean that some guy who bought a soda for the same money could have done the same instead of buying the soda? Was the money spent on the soda wasted? Elon took a risk, and appears to have won quite a position.

rytis 14y ago

Sad, isn't it? Just shows where the priorities are these days...

nickik 14y ago
The priorities where always the same, its all about ROI. It always has been.

lolcraft 14y ago

And they would've had bigger profits and a solid business model, as well!

huggyface 14y ago

That really is a goosebump-inducing reframing of many recent valuations.

dude_abides 14y ago

That reminds me of this classic tweet: Your mobile phone has more computing power than all of NASA in 1969. NASA launched a man to the moon. We launch a bird into pigs. Instagram or omgpop or space travel, its all about priorities.

harrylove 14y ago
The status update, for reference: https://twitter.com/#!/svenningsen/status/144111724923076608 https://twitter.com/#!/svenningsen/status/144111724923076608

nirvana 14y ago

Or from another perspective, the entire cost of SpaceX's history to develop all these technologies is less than a SINGLE launch of the Shuttle by NASA.

natep 14y ago
Where did you find that information about per-launch costs of the shuttle? Another post here claims this data hasn't been released. Edit: so it seems $1.2-$1.5 billion is the accepted figure from outside analysis, but I don't see how this is possible. With a total budget of $7.2 billion in 1985, I don't see how they paid for $10.8 billion in launches.
- pranjalv123 14y ago
  It's more like $15bn inflation adjusted (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
  - natep 14y ago
    Ah, thanks. I was looking at the wrong column. If the $1.5 billion figure is also inflation-adjusted, then it's feasible.
mitchty 14y ago
Does SpaceX's cost include the original research costs that NASA incurred by actually researching the underlying principles the Dragon rockets use? I think people are underestimating the costs NASA incurred by being first. Take the X15 for example, its first test flights were without its planned engine because nobody up until that point had ever built a throttleable rocket engine. Now its well known how to build them and what not to do. I'm not saying NASA is efficient, but direct numerical comparisons like these unnecessarily distort the various differences in history between the two. The shuttles many deficiencies are rather well documented as well. And it, now had, features that the Dragon rockets don't serve such as the obvious recovery of space payloads for example.

larrys 14y ago

"Facebook could have started an entire space program for less money than they spent on Instagram" Space-x spent cash. Facebook bought Instagram primarily with stock.

brianobush 14y ago
I think he was referring to value, not liquidity.
- larrys 14y ago
  I think it was pretty clear - "less money than they spent on Instagram" "money". Facebook didn't spend that in cash or most likely anywhere near that. Now if Space-x had invested 1% of their market and done this, the comparison would be fair.
- alanbyrne 14y ago
  I was.

angersock 14y ago

Here, let's do better. Apple has something like $100bn in cash reserves. Like, cash on hand (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/19/100-billion-apple http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/19/100-bill...). Think about that.

corford 14y ago

That's beautiful. I'm going to bookmark your comment for use when the next inevitable "are we in a tech bubble or not?" thread appears.

yukyukyuk 14y ago

Not really. 1) Facebook spent $300mil in cash on Instagram and traded $700mil worth of FB stock. You cannot pay for a space program with FB stock. 2) You need Elon Musk to turn < $1bil into a space program. Without him, you are up shit creek without a paddle, and Elon Musk does not work for FB. 3) FB would have to convince its investors that FB would be uniquely equipped to execute the mission, and that it would be worth the distraction and resource cost. So basically FB would put everything that it now does on hold to start a space program. Now, you could reply "But Bill Gates has billions, why didn't he do it?" Again, Bill Gates is not Elon Musk, and he is already doing plenty of amazing things with his money. You have to convince Bill Gates to spend his time and energy on such a project.

kamaal 14y ago

This is indeed a very sad reflection of our priorities at this time. We don't act unless we absolutely have to. I mean problems like disease cure, poverty and hunger eradication, space colonization can be solved with that kind of money on hand. This is also what I think of Aliens too! We talk of super intelligent aliens who would have colonized space.That would have never happened, because just like us, they might have wasted their money, energy and resources on photo sharing apps and putting birds in pigs instead of doing some real stuff that actually matters.

barrkel 14y ago

No. Facebook could have taken the risk of trying to develop a space program, with a potential cost less than the price for Instagram. Before it began, there was no guarantee that SpaceX would be successful, or that it would only cost $800 million in expenditures. And on the flip side, I expect the current value of SpaceX is higher than $1 billion. Extreme example of how risk distorts price: if I buy a lottery ticket for $1 and win $1 million, does that mean that some guy who bought a soda for the same money could have done the same instead of buying the soda? Was the money spent on the soda wasted? Elon took a risk, and appears to have won quite a position.