5 ms·

Can you go into more detail? You're clearly assigning costs to SpaceX that go beyond the invoice price.

by xhkkffbf 2mo ago

asdff 2mo ago
Those costs are baked into the invoice price.
- inemesitaffia 2mo ago
  Sometimes you can buy cheaper than build. Many launchers in several countries, SpaceX is the cheapest in its sector.
  - asdff 2mo ago
    This is only true if spacex is losing money on everything they build. They aren't, so no, buying is not cheaper than building.
    - inemesitaffia 2mo ago
      There's competition. So there's already evidence. Don't forget NASA has its traditionally built vehicle SpaceX also has benefits from its volume. So yes, if you buy in bulk and you'll get it cheaper. Pretty sure NASA isn't making its planes either even though it does aeronautics. It doesn't make Satellites even though it has earth observation people. We've heard accusations SpaceX is getting government subsidies, losing VC money, but they opened the books and their cost advantage is ridiculous. Don't think NASA is building a vehicle like Falcon 9 for $20 million per launch operationally in ten years.
      - asdff 2mo ago
        People are getting hung up on how spacex reached that cost and how yes, it took innovation, iteration, and whatever else. I'm not denying that. What I am denying is that you needed to make musk the richest man on earth to achieve this. That you needed to go to ipo. That it needed to give a dime to any initial investors. All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost. Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees.
        panick21_ 2mo ago
        Funny how people how hate Musk always reach for the 'but Gwynne Shotwell' nonsense. Gwynne Shotwell was incredibly frustrated with the aerospace industry. So frustrated that she thought about leaving the industry. She didn't see any chance the industry and NASA as it existed to make progress. That's exactly why she left and went to a company that tried to be different and break the mold. And guess what, without the government contracting strategy, such a company could have never arisen and never challenged general wisdom. > All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost. You should consider reading Road to Serfdom by Hayek. That explain to some extend why the people who 'would magically fix everything' don't actually end up on top of bureaucratic hierarchies. Shotwell stomp on peoples necks hard core business attitude would not be considered a positive at JPL and she wouldn't be in that position. Its not that kind of organization. And Musk insisted on hiring all the people personally. Putting them threw interviews and evaluating them. So the whole idea of 'Shotwell and the exact same people', is delusional. Team building itself is one of the most challenging things for a project. Musk hand picked all the top team leaders, Shotwell, Mueller, Königsman and so on. Why don't you just argue that if NASA had just had the Falcon 9, then they could launch it for cheap. That's about as reasonable. She wouldn't have had a team at JPL, let alone the freedom to develop a project like Falcon 1 or 9. The team certainty wouldn't be the same because they wouldn't be out of the box professionals and a bunch of young go getters from universities. And of course you are ignoring that Musk was the one that pushed for reputability at all costs. Basically everybody in the industry said he was wrong and it was a dumb idea. Specially inside NASA and Arianespace. Also its pretty bold to talk about JPL when the just monumentally fucked up bigger then they ever have in their history with Mars Sample return. A project so catastrophically managed that literally every single person would have been fired if they were at SpaceX. Just as Musk did with the whole Starlink leadership team. But again, there is a reason this isn't happening at JPL. So in summary: - JPL would never get to money to do such a project for many reasons - JPL would never put Shotwell as her focus was business development (let alone Musk) - Shotwell wouldn't have had the vision that Musk has (as she herself said, her focus when talking to Musk was making sure that the rocket being developed was something she could sell) - JPL wouldn't ever have run the project the way SpaceX had because they have process around how to do things - JPL wouldn't ever have hired the same group of engineers because of the way the do hiring. - JPL couldn't ever run procurement and supplier relation the way SpaceX did because of government regulations about contracting So no, Shotwell and the same team at JPL wouldn't have created Falcon 9. Let alone would such a team ever have existed. You are literally just writing fan fiction. > Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees. You are seeing the forest and missing that its growing from the earth.

Can you go into more detail? You're clearly assigning costs to SpaceX that go beyond the invoice price.

asdff 2mo ago

Those costs are baked into the invoice price.

inemesitaffia 2mo ago
Sometimes you can buy cheaper than build. Many launchers in several countries, SpaceX is the cheapest in its sector.
- asdff 2mo ago
  This is only true if spacex is losing money on everything they build. They aren't, so no, buying is not cheaper than building.
  - inemesitaffia 2mo ago
    There's competition. So there's already evidence. Don't forget NASA has its traditionally built vehicle SpaceX also has benefits from its volume. So yes, if you buy in bulk and you'll get it cheaper. Pretty sure NASA isn't making its planes either even though it does aeronautics. It doesn't make Satellites even though it has earth observation people. We've heard accusations SpaceX is getting government subsidies, losing VC money, but they opened the books and their cost advantage is ridiculous. Don't think NASA is building a vehicle like Falcon 9 for $20 million per launch operationally in ten years.
    - asdff 2mo ago
      People are getting hung up on how spacex reached that cost and how yes, it took innovation, iteration, and whatever else. I'm not denying that. What I am denying is that you needed to make musk the richest man on earth to achieve this. That you needed to go to ipo. That it needed to give a dime to any initial investors. All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost. Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees.
      - panick21_ 2mo ago
        Funny how people how hate Musk always reach for the 'but Gwynne Shotwell' nonsense. Gwynne Shotwell was incredibly frustrated with the aerospace industry. So frustrated that she thought about leaving the industry. She didn't see any chance the industry and NASA as it existed to make progress. That's exactly why she left and went to a company that tried to be different and break the mold. And guess what, without the government contracting strategy, such a company could have never arisen and never challenged general wisdom. > All I am saying is in another universe, Gwynne Shotwell could have ran a kickass team at JPL with the exact same people doing the exact same thing and delivering the exact same rocket for even lower cost. You should consider reading Road to Serfdom by Hayek. That explain to some extend why the people who 'would magically fix everything' don't actually end up on top of bureaucratic hierarchies. Shotwell stomp on peoples necks hard core business attitude would not be considered a positive at JPL and she wouldn't be in that position. Its not that kind of organization. And Musk insisted on hiring all the people personally. Putting them threw interviews and evaluating them. So the whole idea of 'Shotwell and the exact same people', is delusional. Team building itself is one of the most challenging things for a project. Musk hand picked all the top team leaders, Shotwell, Mueller, Königsman and so on. Why don't you just argue that if NASA had just had the Falcon 9, then they could launch it for cheap. That's about as reasonable. She wouldn't have had a team at JPL, let alone the freedom to develop a project like Falcon 1 or 9. The team certainty wouldn't be the same because they wouldn't be out of the box professionals and a bunch of young go getters from universities. And of course you are ignoring that Musk was the one that pushed for reputability at all costs. Basically everybody in the industry said he was wrong and it was a dumb idea. Specially inside NASA and Arianespace. Also its pretty bold to talk about JPL when the just monumentally fucked up bigger then they ever have in their history with Mars Sample return. A project so catastrophically managed that literally every single person would have been fired if they were at SpaceX. Just as Musk did with the whole Starlink leadership team. But again, there is a reason this isn't happening at JPL. So in summary: - JPL would never get to money to do such a project for many reasons - JPL would never put Shotwell as her focus was business development (let alone Musk) - Shotwell wouldn't have had the vision that Musk has (as she herself said, her focus when talking to Musk was making sure that the rocket being developed was something she could sell) - JPL wouldn't ever have run the project the way SpaceX had because they have process around how to do things - JPL wouldn't ever have hired the same group of engineers because of the way the do hiring. - JPL couldn't ever run procurement and supplier relation the way SpaceX did because of government regulations about contracting So no, Shotwell and the same team at JPL wouldn't have created Falcon 9. Let alone would such a team ever have existed. You are literally just writing fan fiction. > Profittaking was not necessary for any of this is all I am suggesting. Shame all the replies pushing back on me in my other comment thread on this are missing the forest for the trees. You are seeing the forest and missing that its growing from the earth.