3 ms·
> What could be more compelling than reducing launch costs by 90%? You, ah, might be overselling that a bit. An Ariane 5 (20 tonnes to LEO) launch cost about 1
by rsynnott 1y ago
> What could be more compelling than reducing launch costs by 90%?
You, ah, might be overselling that a bit. An Ariane 5 (20 tonnes to LEO) launch cost about 150 million at the time it was discontinued (launch costs for the new ones are murky as they've only launched a couple of payloads so far). A Proton launch (similar size) costs $65m. Atlas V Heavy (18 tonnes) costs $110-$190m. A Falcon 9 reusable launch (17 tonnes) costs $70m.
Like, it's _cheaper_, but nowhere even remotely close to 90%.
> Regenerative braking was a crucial enabling technology.
Indeed! Given that it was invented in 1886, tho, I'm not sure what it has to do with Tesla. Apparently the first electric car with automatic regenerative braking was in 1967. The first really successful mass-market example would probably be the Toyota Prius (at least for cars; it's shown up in trams for a long, long time). The Leaf, of course, also had regenerative braking.
> Too bad they didn't take the world by storm like Tesla did.
Again, you're _really_ mostly talking about America. They're a little under 10% of the BEV market in Europe, about 5% in China. They were the best selling manufacturer in Europe for a couple of years, but were never enormously dominant.
- WalterBright 1y agoIf everyone else did it before and better, why was Tesla such a breakout success?
- queenkjuul 1y agoThe leaf was also a breakout success, you're just pretending it wasn't
- WalterBright 1y agoThe investors in Tesla think otherwise. The Leaf is nothing like Tesla, as Tesla's success has shown.
- WalterBright 1y ago"Falcon 9’s price per pound to orbit is roughly $2,700, while NASA’s SLS is a whopping $70,000." https://www.technowize.com/how-much-does-a-spacex-rocket-cost-falcon-9-vs-nasas-bill/ https://www.technowize.com/how-much-does-a-spacex-rocket-cos...
- rsynnott 1y agoThe SLS is not a commercial launch vehicle, and does not in any way serve the same role as the Falcon 9. If you need to launch payloads that big, it is essentially the only game in town for now. In any case the launch cost estimates for SLS are pretty handwavey and incorporate a lot of r&d. The Falcon 9 is clearly not 90% cheaper than launch vehicles of a similar role, ie ~20 tonne commercial launchers.
- WalterBright 1y agoSee: https://impulso.space/tools/blog/posts/sls-and-starship https://impulso.space/tools/blog/posts/sls-and-starship Again, 10% of the cost.
- rsynnott 1y agoThat's never had a successful real-payload orbital launch, and its figures should be treated with even more suspicion than Ariane 6's. If and when someone can pay for a launch with a defined time scale for 10% of the real cost of SLS, then, sure, okay. Until then, it's marketing.