3 ms·

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn. The parent comment pointed out that spac

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn. The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on. My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D

b112 1y ago
Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada. How many billions was that? This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant. What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.
- motorest 1y ago
  > This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant. Not really. You're not talking about technology. You're debating the economics behind it. You're seeing naive fanboys praising SpaceX's costs for the likes of Starship by comparing them to the cost of the SaturnV project, arriving at the simplistic conclusion that Starship is cheaper. This is like comparing your cheap Android phone as being far cheaper than a 1950s UNIVAC. And when the silliness of this specious reasoning is called out, your reaction is to downplay it as "not really relevant"?
  - b112 1y ago
    Read the comment I'm replying to. Now read mine. That said, you're upset that I said comparing costs isn't relevant? Isn't that the case you're making right now, that the costs cannot be compared, therefore aren't relevant in this discussion? My tact on non-relevance, is that saying "it was built on another program's tech!" is not relevant, because everything meets that criterion. For example, as I said, the Saturn was built on decades of German research, including war time research during WWII, into rockets. Saturn's US development costs were a fraction of overall rocket research done by the Germans! So if upthread is going to argue "but it's all built on the Saturn, and free knowledge!", then the same argument can be carried further back, thus negating this argument. Why? Because it makes the Saturn cost trillions.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - supermatt 1y ago
      > costs cannot be compared Thats the whole point for this entire thread. Pointing out that you CANT compare the costs of spaceX with NASA because spaceX is building on NASAs (and others) achievements. Maybe you need to go back and reread this entire thread rather than suggesting others do so.
      - b112 1y ago
        And I'm negating that, because the "built on" argument makes no sense for the reasons specified. Simultaneously, I am also using my same logic to argue that you cannot compare costs due to my reasoning. I agreeing with the point (you can't compare costs) while disagreeing as to why.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        supermatt 1y ago
        Well there are many reasons as to why - i just gave a single example. I don't see why you don't think prior knowledge has any value, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
        b112 1y ago
        I never even hinted that prior knowledge has no value. Not once. Instead, I said it is an impossible thing to compare, for everything is built upon another. In fact, everything is built upon a myriad of other things. Really, both the Heavy and the Saturn cost about the same. That's because they both depend upon the entire sum of human knowledge and research, to be built. A billion trillion trillion trillion in today's dollars of knowledge gained and experience honed, over millions of years. So what if one cost a billion trillion trillion trillion, and another cost a billion trillion trillion trillion + a few billion more. The difference is meaningless, and not even worth considering. And then there's the whole "how much is new" argument, and there's new knowledge aplenty thanks to SpaceX. I really don't get these arguments. People seem to really love to denigrate the effort, the excellent results. It's beyond bizarre. And worse, mock because test flights, expected to possibly go sideways, do? So weird. "Hi, I'm going to see if this will work. It'll probably explode. But if it does, I'll learn something" <boom> hahaha it exploded you suck I don't get it.
  - Teever 1y ago
    So it sounds like we should be comparing Starship and Heavy to SLS?
- supermatt 1y ago
  Because in NASAs case it was "the stuff that came before" + 200b (or whatever the fantasy figure truly is). Its unfair to say spaceX did what NASA did on a smaller budget (which is what the comment that kicked off this thread implied) because they DIDNT do what NASA did, and instead got "the stuff that came before" + "the stuff that NASA spent 200b on" + "the stuff from other sources that also cost billions" + the 15b that they actually spent to get where they are. How can you disagree with that? You may think this discussion is silly - but its DIRECTLY as a response to someone implying that spaceX are achieving what NASA did with less money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227

b112 1y ago

Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada. How many billions was that? This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant. What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.

motorest 1y ago
> This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant. Not really. You're not talking about technology. You're debating the economics behind it. You're seeing naive fanboys praising SpaceX's costs for the likes of Starship by comparing them to the cost of the SaturnV project, arriving at the simplistic conclusion that Starship is cheaper. This is like comparing your cheap Android phone as being far cheaper than a 1950s UNIVAC. And when the silliness of this specious reasoning is called out, your reaction is to downplay it as "not really relevant"?
- b112 1y ago
  Read the comment I'm replying to. Now read mine. That said, you're upset that I said comparing costs isn't relevant? Isn't that the case you're making right now, that the costs cannot be compared, therefore aren't relevant in this discussion? My tact on non-relevance, is that saying "it was built on another program's tech!" is not relevant, because everything meets that criterion. For example, as I said, the Saturn was built on decades of German research, including war time research during WWII, into rockets. Saturn's US development costs were a fraction of overall rocket research done by the Germans! So if upthread is going to argue "but it's all built on the Saturn, and free knowledge!", then the same argument can be carried further back, thus negating this argument. Why? Because it makes the Saturn cost trillions.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - supermatt 1y ago
    > costs cannot be compared Thats the whole point for this entire thread. Pointing out that you CANT compare the costs of spaceX with NASA because spaceX is building on NASAs (and others) achievements. Maybe you need to go back and reread this entire thread rather than suggesting others do so.
    - b112 1y ago
      And I'm negating that, because the "built on" argument makes no sense for the reasons specified. Simultaneously, I am also using my same logic to argue that you cannot compare costs due to my reasoning. I agreeing with the point (you can't compare costs) while disagreeing as to why.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - supermatt 1y ago
        Well there are many reasons as to why - i just gave a single example. I don't see why you don't think prior knowledge has any value, but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
        b112 1y ago
        I never even hinted that prior knowledge has no value. Not once. Instead, I said it is an impossible thing to compare, for everything is built upon another. In fact, everything is built upon a myriad of other things. Really, both the Heavy and the Saturn cost about the same. That's because they both depend upon the entire sum of human knowledge and research, to be built. A billion trillion trillion trillion in today's dollars of knowledge gained and experience honed, over millions of years. So what if one cost a billion trillion trillion trillion, and another cost a billion trillion trillion trillion + a few billion more. The difference is meaningless, and not even worth considering. And then there's the whole "how much is new" argument, and there's new knowledge aplenty thanks to SpaceX. I really don't get these arguments. People seem to really love to denigrate the effort, the excellent results. It's beyond bizarre. And worse, mock because test flights, expected to possibly go sideways, do? So weird. "Hi, I'm going to see if this will work. It'll probably explode. But if it does, I'll learn something" <boom> hahaha it exploded you suck I don't get it.
- Teever 1y ago
  So it sounds like we should be comparing Starship and Heavy to SLS?
supermatt 1y ago
Because in NASAs case it was "the stuff that came before" + 200b (or whatever the fantasy figure truly is). Its unfair to say spaceX did what NASA did on a smaller budget (which is what the comment that kicked off this thread implied) because they DIDNT do what NASA did, and instead got "the stuff that came before" + "the stuff that NASA spent 200b on" + "the stuff from other sources that also cost billions" + the 15b that they actually spent to get where they are. How can you disagree with that? You may think this discussion is silly - but its DIRECTLY as a response to someone implying that spaceX are achieving what NASA did with less money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44316227