Comment by AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world on Outstanding idea.

How is it so much better than SLS/Artemis?

Are you serious? Most observers shake their head at SLS. Best result for everyone on its maiden flight would have been blowing up at Max-Q. Then congress could admit it’s a failure and move on.

Even ignoring all the other aspects of one working and the other not; The big one is even with the musk grift the cost to taxpayers is orders of magnitude different.

SLS is Over US$2 billion excluding development (estimate) per launch. While Space X just upped their cost estimates in 2022 to $67 million per launch.

You are not comparing apples to apples though. How much did SpaceX’s cost to develop?

SLS cost to develop so far: US$23.8 billion nominal

Falcon 9 cost to develop ~~so far~~ (note this was for falcon 9 1.0)(estimate): US$300 million

Once again, not even close.

You’re not arguing in good faith. First of all, that’s what NASA paid, not the total development cost. Way, way more of the costs were paid by investor money. Secondly, falcon 9 is not the nearest equivalent to SLS - that’s starship. There’s a huge, huge difference.

I am arguing in good faith, this is what I could find on the prices (and since this is a private (not publicly traded) company I do take it with a grain of salt). I think you might have a bit more emotionally tied up in this then you are willing to admit.

Totally willing to admit that I get pissed off seeing people say that SpaceX does things so much better and cheaper and then not compare actual costs. We didn’t know their actual costs because they’re a private company and they don’t have to say, but it’s clearly in the billions.

If it’s not tax payer money, then who gives a fuck. You are declaring apples to oranges then doing the same god damned thing.

You can’t say SpaceX does things better and cheaper if you aren’t looking at the whole picture. Yes, SpaceX is largely privately funded, and estimates are that they’re only recently turning a profit, and at that it’s because of billions in Starlink revenue.

Likely a great deal for the government, for sure, of they can get someone else to pay the development costs. But don’t imply that the big primes are to expensive or are too bloated if you aren’t going to compare actual costs.

For more fun I started to look at some of the other development costs of Space X rockets.

Starship (the big spender) : $5 billion to $10 billion

Falcon Heavy : Over $500 Million

Falcon 9 : $300 Million

Falcon 1: $100 Million

Like I dislike the kirkland brand Dr.evil as much as the next dood, but I think boeing might just have a spending issue.

Speaking of Kirkland Brand Dr. Evil, how much has Blue Origin spent in its non highly publicized efforts to develop the New Glenn?

Blue Origin

From what I can find At least $2.5 billion. So maybe kirkland branded Dr. Evil (musk) is better at spending then Temu Dr. Evil.

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Outstanding idea.(lemmy.world)

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators