4 ms·

only one problem with that narrative.... SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing.... Its a repeat of the space shuttle argument...which failed d

only one problem with that narrative.... SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing.... Its a repeat of the space shuttle argument...which failed dramatically bigger in both costs and human deaths.

schiffern 2y ago
>the same exact cost overruns Tell me when SpaceX had to repeat an entire ISS test flight on their own dime because the first one was such a disaster? Boeing charged twice as much as SpaceX,[1] but at the time it was justified because Boeing was considered the "safe" option. How times change! [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-financial-losses-on-starliner-commercial-crew-program/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...
Nevermark 2y ago
> SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing Numbers? Boeing's partially accounted for cost overruns are quite hard to read. Their meter needs a pause button. Anyway, the relevant issue is net cost. SpaceX is currently going deeply negative unbounded. I.e. net profitable for customer launches.
glzone1 2y ago
Except crew dragon is half the price and has flown repeatedly. SpaceX absolutely has had lots of test failures - they've probably blown up more rockets then many recent players - but their cadence is super quick, and their cost per item far far lower and they seem to be able to fix stuff.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Do we actually know, as fact, that SpaceX is making a profit on these flights?
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    The current contract charges NASA about $280 million per Crew Dragon mission. The F9 costs SpaceX about $20 million to launch, so as long as refurbishing a Dragon costs less than $260 million dollars, yes, SpaceX is making a profit on these flights.
  - jtriangle 2y ago
    Somebody does, but it's a private company, so, private books, so the general public doesn't know. You can do some napkin math and guess that their flights for NASA are profitable, along with all the other commercial work they do. We don't know if SpaceX as a whole is profitable, but, I'd assume it's not given how heavily they're into R&D at this point. What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development if their cost per kg is actually realized.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Right, so the point was all this handwaviness about how bloated Boeing's costs are in this space are just wild guesses at what SpaceX's might be. For all anyone actually knows, Elon is willing to lose a ton per launch just to gain mindshare, kill the competition, and become the only game in town. You know, the Amazon playbook. For all anyone knows, the Boeing quotes are reasonable and SpaceX's are unsustainable. Nobody actually knows... yet so many are willing to confidently assert SpaceX is obviously cheaper. > What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development This is a space race. The day when SpaceX no longer needs to spend "crazy amounts of money on development" may never actually come.
      - hrunt 2y ago
        What we do know is that SpaceX was able to deliver the requirements 4 years (and counting) earlier than Boeing. And they continue to deliver. Yeah, they could be losing money hand over fist, but at the very least they delivered.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        We have two facts to contradict this. 1. Being a viable sustainable business is a requirement for some of SpaceX's NASA and the Space Force's contracts. NASA & the Space Force have access to SpaceX's books and SpaceX has passed these audits. 2. SpaceX has very obviously been spending many billions to build Starlink and Starship and to pay >14,000 employess. SpaceX has not raised significant money for over 18 months, nor have previous raises been enough to cover their fairly obvious expenditures. That money is coming from somewhere, and process of elimination says "profits".
- rst 2y ago
  Also, some of this is accounted for by a difference in development philosophy. The typical NASA project tests finished designs to make sure that they'll work. SpaceX frequently (currently for Starship) tests half-finished designs because they want to know how they will fail, for future revision. (Example: between starship flight tests 1 and 2, the whole staging method changed; forward fins are being relocate on Starship starting, I think launch after next to reduce heating in reentry, etc.) They do tests on production vehicles too, e.g. the static fires that precede just about every launch, but those aren't directly comparable to the stuff they deliberately blow up to see how that happens.
  - teamonkey 2y ago
    In an ideal world NASA would also do this (see the Apollo program). The optics of a government program ‘failing’ are so spectacularly bad they simply cannot afford to do this.
DennisP 2y ago
Since SpaceX is a private company, neither of us knows how much SpaceX spent internally on their fixed-price contract. What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. NASA paid SpaceX the originally agreed amount of $3.1 billion for six flights, and SpaceX seems happy to continue the arrangement. Boeing has spent $6.7 billion so far. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-financial-losses-on-starliner-commercial-crew-program/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...
- asadotzler 2y ago
  >Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. 9 times so far, and it'll be 10 times in about a month.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    …knock on wood…
- TMWNN 2y ago
  >What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. More detail for others: SpaceX and Boeing each signed contracts as part of the Commercial Crew program for six operational manned missions. After SpaceX fulfilled its six, NASA awarded another contract for eight more. Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development. The current Starliner flight in abeyance at ISS is a pre-operational manned test mission (SpaceX's equivalent was done in May 2020). In other words, Boeing has not yet begun its six operational missions!
Diederich 2y ago
> SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing.... Why do you believe this is the case?
asadotzler 2y ago
No they have not. SpaceX received fixed price contracts at lower prices than Boeing's and then delivered on those contracts, ferrying 7 full crews and one test crew to and from ISS with an 8th full crew about to return and a 9th soon launching, all with no additional charges. Boeing has charged hundreds of millions above and beyond the fixed price contract and has yet to deliver and return astronauts from ISS on a single completed mission.

schiffern 2y ago

>the same exact cost overruns Tell me when SpaceX had to repeat an entire ISS test flight on their own dime because the first one was such a disaster? Boeing charged twice as much as SpaceX,[1] but at the time it was justified because Boeing was considered the "safe" option. How times change! [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-financial-losses-on-starliner-commercial-crew-program/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...

Nevermark 2y ago

> SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing Numbers? Boeing's partially accounted for cost overruns are quite hard to read. Their meter needs a pause button. Anyway, the relevant issue is net cost. SpaceX is currently going deeply negative unbounded. I.e. net profitable for customer launches.

glzone1 2y ago

Except crew dragon is half the price and has flown repeatedly. SpaceX absolutely has had lots of test failures - they've probably blown up more rockets then many recent players - but their cadence is super quick, and their cost per item far far lower and they seem to be able to fix stuff.

Alupis 2y ago
Do we actually know, as fact, that SpaceX is making a profit on these flights?
- asadotzler 2y ago
  The current contract charges NASA about $280 million per Crew Dragon mission. The F9 costs SpaceX about $20 million to launch, so as long as refurbishing a Dragon costs less than $260 million dollars, yes, SpaceX is making a profit on these flights.
- jtriangle 2y ago
  Somebody does, but it's a private company, so, private books, so the general public doesn't know. You can do some napkin math and guess that their flights for NASA are profitable, along with all the other commercial work they do. We don't know if SpaceX as a whole is profitable, but, I'd assume it's not given how heavily they're into R&D at this point. What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development if their cost per kg is actually realized.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Right, so the point was all this handwaviness about how bloated Boeing's costs are in this space are just wild guesses at what SpaceX's might be. For all anyone actually knows, Elon is willing to lose a ton per launch just to gain mindshare, kill the competition, and become the only game in town. You know, the Amazon playbook. For all anyone knows, the Boeing quotes are reasonable and SpaceX's are unsustainable. Nobody actually knows... yet so many are willing to confidently assert SpaceX is obviously cheaper. > What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development This is a space race. The day when SpaceX no longer needs to spend "crazy amounts of money on development" may never actually come.
    - hrunt 2y ago
      What we do know is that SpaceX was able to deliver the requirements 4 years (and counting) earlier than Boeing. And they continue to deliver. Yeah, they could be losing money hand over fist, but at the very least they delivered.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      We have two facts to contradict this. 1. Being a viable sustainable business is a requirement for some of SpaceX's NASA and the Space Force's contracts. NASA & the Space Force have access to SpaceX's books and SpaceX has passed these audits. 2. SpaceX has very obviously been spending many billions to build Starlink and Starship and to pay >14,000 employess. SpaceX has not raised significant money for over 18 months, nor have previous raises been enough to cover their fairly obvious expenditures. That money is coming from somewhere, and process of elimination says "profits".
rst 2y ago
Also, some of this is accounted for by a difference in development philosophy. The typical NASA project tests finished designs to make sure that they'll work. SpaceX frequently (currently for Starship) tests half-finished designs because they want to know how they will fail, for future revision. (Example: between starship flight tests 1 and 2, the whole staging method changed; forward fins are being relocate on Starship starting, I think launch after next to reduce heating in reentry, etc.) They do tests on production vehicles too, e.g. the static fires that precede just about every launch, but those aren't directly comparable to the stuff they deliberately blow up to see how that happens.
- teamonkey 2y ago
  In an ideal world NASA would also do this (see the Apollo program). The optics of a government program ‘failing’ are so spectacularly bad they simply cannot afford to do this.

DennisP 2y ago

Since SpaceX is a private company, neither of us knows how much SpaceX spent internally on their fixed-price contract. What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. NASA paid SpaceX the originally agreed amount of $3.1 billion for six flights, and SpaceX seems happy to continue the arrangement. Boeing has spent $6.7 billion so far. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-financial-losses-on-starliner-commercial-crew-program/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...

asadotzler 2y ago
>Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. 9 times so far, and it'll be 10 times in about a month.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  …knock on wood…
TMWNN 2y ago
>What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times. More detail for others: SpaceX and Boeing each signed contracts as part of the Commercial Crew program for six operational manned missions. After SpaceX fulfilled its six, NASA awarded another contract for eight more. Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development. The current Starliner flight in abeyance at ISS is a pre-operational manned test mission (SpaceX's equivalent was done in May 2020). In other words, Boeing has not yet begun its six operational missions!

Diederich 2y ago

> SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing.... Why do you believe this is the case?

asadotzler 2y ago

No they have not. SpaceX received fixed price contracts at lower prices than Boeing's and then delivered on those contracts, ferrying 7 full crews and one test crew to and from ISS with an 8th full crew about to return and a 9th soon launching, all with no additional charges. Boeing has charged hundreds of millions above and beyond the fixed price contract and has yet to deliver and return astronauts from ISS on a single completed mission.