5 ms·

"More than $2.5 billion." and "need to be capitalised to the tune of $100 billion." This is about how much the Apollo program cost[1]. If they get some smart e

by Rhapso 14y ago

"More than $2.5 billion." and "need to be capitalised to the tune of $100 billion." This is about how much the Apollo program cost[1]. If they get some smart engineers and listen to them, I expect they will find ways we never conceived of to save money. These cost numbers are perfectly achievable over the time-frame they are discussing, and if SpaceX is showing us anything it is that when you take the government out of production, you can chop at least a digit off this type of price. [1] Lafleur, Claude (2010-03-08). "Costs of US piloted programs". The Space Review. Retrieved February 18, 2012.

cma 14y ago
SpaceX benefited enormously from free access to Government designs, and through a propped up market for their product--Government.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Yes, but their cost structure shows that, once the initial research has been done, there is tremendous savings in getting government and government contractors out of the launch business. propped up market for their product--Government Platinum group metal prices will fall, but there will be a market, since they have industrial uses. When Aluminum went from being a rare novelty to an industrially produced material, the price per unit plummeted, but the market volume skyrocketed. The same thing happened to steel. Also, once mining gets going, SpaceX will have many more private sector customers.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Surely these guys could get the same access to those government designs, and the market for what they want to sell is already entirely proven.
- jerf 14y ago
  The core of this argument is to try to demonstrate that the government is somehow necessary. It once was, assuming for the sake of argument that Apollo was desirable and necessary. But the fact is that regardless of the past, what SpaceX is doing now, NASA can not do now for anything like the same price. If NASA is doing the propping and still can't do it at the same price, that's still not a win in their column. Look, just face up to it. The free market we have right now is doing something the government we have right now can't. It's not like this proves very much on its own.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by Rhapso 14y ago

cma 14y ago

SpaceX benefited enormously from free access to Government designs, and through a propped up market for their product--Government.

stcredzero 14y ago
Yes, but their cost structure shows that, once the initial research has been done, there is tremendous savings in getting government and government contractors out of the launch business. propped up market for their product--Government Platinum group metal prices will fall, but there will be a market, since they have industrial uses. When Aluminum went from being a rare novelty to an industrially produced material, the price per unit plummeted, but the market volume skyrocketed. The same thing happened to steel. Also, once mining gets going, SpaceX will have many more private sector customers.
mikeash 14y ago
Surely these guys could get the same access to those government designs, and the market for what they want to sell is already entirely proven.
jerf 14y ago
The core of this argument is to try to demonstrate that the government is somehow necessary. It once was, assuming for the sake of argument that Apollo was desirable and necessary. But the fact is that regardless of the past, what SpaceX is doing now, NASA can not do now for anything like the same price. If NASA is doing the propping and still can't do it at the same price, that's still not a win in their column. Look, just face up to it. The free market we have right now is doing something the government we have right now can't. It's not like this proves very much on its own.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]