4 ms·

So your argument is that NASA, by virtue of being a government entity unburdened from profit seeking, could launch 18 rockets for less than $1.6B total or $88 m

So your argument is that NASA, by virtue of being a government entity unburdened from profit seeking, could launch 18 rockets for less than $1.6B total or $88 million per launch?

asdff 2mo ago
Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality. But theoretically there is no reason they couldn’t. If someone in a certain office snapped their fingers they could nationalize spacex for example and remove profitability requirements while preserving institutional knowledge and team structure. Just musk will no longer be the richest man on the planet.
- LaffertyDev 2mo ago
  This is now an argument I can start to get behind. There isn't a need for profit seeking or "dollar optimization" and I fully subscribe to the argument that the government can just "do things". I likewise fully subscribe to the argument that the ability for the government to just "do things" has been eroded over time systematically. But, like, that's divergent from "This SpaceX contract is pure grift" that OP was not so subtly implying.
- sinuhe69 2mo ago
  When has NASA got even close to that number of dollar per kilo payload in its long history? AFAIK, never.
  - asdff 2mo ago
    So what? I'm guessing spacex can be even lower dollar per kilo if they didn't have to make profit. That is my whole point. People are missing that point and going "well nasa doesn't have the talent blabla" that just misses this point entirely. Profit is a cost. You can never convince me profit is not a cost.
    - panick21_ 2mo ago
      What do you think happens to this profit? Where does it go? > You can never convince me profit is not a cost. It is a cost, but with the cost you are getting something. And NASA (the US) as it happens literally got the best deal maybe in human history. The US was literally sucking in space, their rockets were shit. Their human launch was shit. All their major space project were going to utter and complete shit and were literally an intersectional embarrassment. And btw the companies were still making profit, never in its history did NASA not primary work threw independent companies. Then they bought things from SpaceX and yes SpaceX made some profit. That encouraged the largest ever investment surge into space industry. SpaceX used the profit to build a reusable rocket revolutionizing rockets and the US went from doing like 0% of the global commercial launch to like 80%. Because that lowered cost many new in space ideas became possible. And US companies have taken that opportunity the best. Where in GEO launches the US was in tough competition against Europe and China. In LEO US is utterly dominated. In addition to that a whole new crop of rocket launchers were designed. Many of the people designing them only got into the field because of SpaceX. The location of SpaceX head quarter now sits in the most successful aerospace cluster in the world. The US went from not making the best engine to making the most and the best engines in the world. Let alone all the new companies trying everything they can think of. Space based solar to increase sat power. Platinum mining. And so many other things. The US military profits form that too, cheaper then all global competitors. Allowing it to launch even more. And thanks to all competition in the launch market, some switched to hypersonics. Giving the military hypersonic test platforms they didn't have to develop themselves. Let alone all the crazy startups that pop up because they can find venture money. Sorry that nobody takes you seriously when you complain about SpaceX making profit on launches when that very profit is what allowed for the US to go from being stagnate in space to being the unquestionable juggernaut all while the government was paying less then they had ever paid in their whole history. Unless you can explain, how this would have happened, without allowing SpaceX some profit, go ahead.
      - rayiner 2mo ago
        We were paying Russia to send U.S. astronauts to the ISS!
      - 2mo ago
- silveraxe93 2mo ago
  Practically, that's exactly what Chavez did. Where did that lead?
  - asdff 2mo ago
    Not sure, you cited one of the most popular surnames in latin america.
  - panick21_ 2mo ago
    To be fair, oil nationalization and nationalization of incredibly advanced technology companies are not the same thing. See Norway as for what's possible if you do resource nationalization correctly. But of course they do understand that and the primary nationalized the resources, and have a model where the nationalized company bids for that resource against private companies as well.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  > Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality That’s like saying “theoretically you could get to space by flapping your wings”—you just need to ignore inconvenient laws of physics. Economics describes forces of the real world, you cannot just wave them away.
  - asdff 2mo ago
    This has nothing to do with my point and I think you know that.
    - rayiner 2mo ago
      Yes it does. You’re trying to draw an artificial distinction between what’s possible “theoretically” and “in practice” that depends on removing basic economic understandings from “theory.”
      - asdff 2mo ago
        You equated nationalizing spacex to flapping ones wings to get to outer space...
        rayiner 2mo ago
        No, I said that ignoring the second order effects of nationalizing SpaceX is like flapping your wings to get to outer space. SpaceX drove the cost of launch far below what NASA and its contractors had achieved. They wouldn't have bothered to invest in doing that if they were going to get nationalized. After you nationalize SpaceX, nobody is going to make that investment in the future. Those are the second-order effects. The point is that you have to account for those second order effects even in theory. The consequences that arise from those effects isn't some conflict between theory and practice. It's a defect in the theory itself, because the theory ignores relevant variables.
mrloopex 2mo ago
Why are you willingly refusing to look at the entire cost of SpaceX to the US economy and subsequently the taxpayers? THAT is 20x the cost of NASA. Easily.
- rayiner 2mo ago
  How do you compute that?

So your argument is that NASA, by virtue of being a government entity unburdened from profit seeking, could launch 18 rockets for less than $1.6B total or $88 million per launch?

asdff 2mo ago

Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality. But theoretically there is no reason they couldn’t. If someone in a certain office snapped their fingers they could nationalize spacex for example and remove profitability requirements while preserving institutional knowledge and team structure. Just musk will no longer be the richest man on the planet.

LaffertyDev 2mo ago
This is now an argument I can start to get behind. There isn't a need for profit seeking or "dollar optimization" and I fully subscribe to the argument that the government can just "do things". I likewise fully subscribe to the argument that the ability for the government to just "do things" has been eroded over time systematically. But, like, that's divergent from "This SpaceX contract is pure grift" that OP was not so subtly implying.
sinuhe69 2mo ago
When has NASA got even close to that number of dollar per kilo payload in its long history? AFAIK, never.
- asdff 2mo ago
  So what? I'm guessing spacex can be even lower dollar per kilo if they didn't have to make profit. That is my whole point. People are missing that point and going "well nasa doesn't have the talent blabla" that just misses this point entirely. Profit is a cost. You can never convince me profit is not a cost.
  - panick21_ 2mo ago
    What do you think happens to this profit? Where does it go? > You can never convince me profit is not a cost. It is a cost, but with the cost you are getting something. And NASA (the US) as it happens literally got the best deal maybe in human history. The US was literally sucking in space, their rockets were shit. Their human launch was shit. All their major space project were going to utter and complete shit and were literally an intersectional embarrassment. And btw the companies were still making profit, never in its history did NASA not primary work threw independent companies. Then they bought things from SpaceX and yes SpaceX made some profit. That encouraged the largest ever investment surge into space industry. SpaceX used the profit to build a reusable rocket revolutionizing rockets and the US went from doing like 0% of the global commercial launch to like 80%. Because that lowered cost many new in space ideas became possible. And US companies have taken that opportunity the best. Where in GEO launches the US was in tough competition against Europe and China. In LEO US is utterly dominated. In addition to that a whole new crop of rocket launchers were designed. Many of the people designing them only got into the field because of SpaceX. The location of SpaceX head quarter now sits in the most successful aerospace cluster in the world. The US went from not making the best engine to making the most and the best engines in the world. Let alone all the new companies trying everything they can think of. Space based solar to increase sat power. Platinum mining. And so many other things. The US military profits form that too, cheaper then all global competitors. Allowing it to launch even more. And thanks to all competition in the launch market, some switched to hypersonics. Giving the military hypersonic test platforms they didn't have to develop themselves. Let alone all the crazy startups that pop up because they can find venture money. Sorry that nobody takes you seriously when you complain about SpaceX making profit on launches when that very profit is what allowed for the US to go from being stagnate in space to being the unquestionable juggernaut all while the government was paying less then they had ever paid in their whole history. Unless you can explain, how this would have happened, without allowing SpaceX some profit, go ahead.
    - rayiner 2mo ago
      We were paying Russia to send U.S. astronauts to the ISS!
    - 2mo ago
silveraxe93 2mo ago
Practically, that's exactly what Chavez did. Where did that lead?
- asdff 2mo ago
  Not sure, you cited one of the most popular surnames in latin america.
- panick21_ 2mo ago
  To be fair, oil nationalization and nationalization of incredibly advanced technology companies are not the same thing. See Norway as for what's possible if you do resource nationalization correctly. But of course they do understand that and the primary nationalized the resources, and have a model where the nationalized company bids for that resource against private companies as well.
rayiner 2mo ago
> Theoretically, absolutely. Of course it gets messy in reality That’s like saying “theoretically you could get to space by flapping your wings”—you just need to ignore inconvenient laws of physics. Economics describes forces of the real world, you cannot just wave them away.
- asdff 2mo ago
  This has nothing to do with my point and I think you know that.
  - rayiner 2mo ago
    Yes it does. You’re trying to draw an artificial distinction between what’s possible “theoretically” and “in practice” that depends on removing basic economic understandings from “theory.”
    - asdff 2mo ago
      You equated nationalizing spacex to flapping ones wings to get to outer space...
      - rayiner 2mo ago
        No, I said that ignoring the second order effects of nationalizing SpaceX is like flapping your wings to get to outer space. SpaceX drove the cost of launch far below what NASA and its contractors had achieved. They wouldn't have bothered to invest in doing that if they were going to get nationalized. After you nationalize SpaceX, nobody is going to make that investment in the future. Those are the second-order effects. The point is that you have to account for those second order effects even in theory. The consequences that arise from those effects isn't some conflict between theory and practice. It's a defect in the theory itself, because the theory ignores relevant variables.

mrloopex 2mo ago

Why are you willingly refusing to look at the entire cost of SpaceX to the US economy and subsequently the taxpayers? THAT is 20x the cost of NASA. Easily.

rayiner 2mo ago
How do you compute that?