Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#11

Post by asdff »

LaffertyDev wrote: post #9
mrloopex wrote: post #8

Due to subsidies and investment fraud and subsidized tax breaks to 1% shareholders this will cost the US 10x more than if NASA just did it. People like to say nasa was a bloated waste of money, but thinking beyond k=1 it is obvious privatization costs even more in the long run.

Your argument is that NASA could launch 18 rockets for ~$160 million total or ~8.8 million per launch? Or is your argument that the "real" cost of this $1.6B SpaceX / Space Force contract is in fact closer to ~$16B or ~$160B after accounting for tax subsidies and investment fraud?

It is a for profit company. Therefore profit margin must be achieved. What is profit margin but waste? Government is allowed to actually run at cost or under cost. Contracting with for profit entities therefore makes no sense, other than to further the profit of those entities.

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#12

Post by asdff »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #10
mrloopex wrote: post #8

Due to subsidies and investment fraud and subsidized tax breaks to 1% shareholders this will cost the US 10x more than if NASA just did it. People like to say nasa was a bloated waste of money, but thinking beyond k=1 it is obvious privatization costs even more in the long run.

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

Those costs are baked into the invoice price.

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#13

Post by panick21_ »

mrloopex wrote: post #8

Due to subsidies and investment fraud and subsidized tax breaks to 1% shareholders this will cost the US 10x more than if NASA just did it. People like to say nasa was a bloated waste of money, but thinking beyond k=1 it is obvious privatization costs even more in the long run.

What is this nonsense argument? Can you share more then one sentence about this?

NASA own analysis suggest that Falcon 9 development (just the initial nonreusable) version would have cost 10x as much (and that is with their estimation methods that often are wrong by 2-3x).

Do you also think NASA should build its own cars and planes to move around? Should they make their own spoons too?

What is your evidence that NASA could make things cheaper, or that they would be cheaper if NASA had tried to do it themselves.

We don't even have to base it on the study NASA did, they did develop the Ares 1 rocket during the same time when SpaceX developed Falcon 9. And NASA rocket cost many times what Falcon 9 cost and had little prospect of becoming much cheaper anytime soon and when canceled wasn't finish developing despite being based on existing well understood technology. In fact, only a complete redevelopment of the rocket from the ground up had any chance to ever match Falcon 9.

So we have both a theoretical study and a practical example that SpaceX Falcon 9 is vastly cheaper by an almost unimaginable large amount. And that is even before SpaceX on its own dime and on its own investment developed re-usability. And that made things even cheaper.

So can you please outline a realistic history where either now or in the next 20 years NASA would be cheaper then Falcon 9. Please assume the same amount of funding for the relevant project.

If you want to make the argument that somehow in 2050 it would be cheaper, I don't think you will win many people over with that logic.

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#14

Post by krisroadruck »

asdff wrote: post #11
LaffertyDev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that NASA could launch 18 rockets for ~$160 million total or ~8.8 million per launch? Or is your argument that the "real" cost of this $1.6B SpaceX / Space Force contract is in fact closer to ~$16B or ~$160B after accounting for tax subsidies and investment fraud?

It is a for profit company. Therefore profit margin must be achieved. What is profit margin but waste? Government is allowed to actually run at cost or under cost. Contracting with for profit entities therefore makes no sense, other than to further the profit of those entities.

Brother the government just labels "profit" differently. Most people would call it grift, pork, or "inefficiency". Government waste dwarfs private sector waste by orders of magnitude. The utopia where governments efficiently and wisely put our tax dollars to their best use doesn't exist, never has, and likely never will.

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#15

Post by panick21_ »

ulfw wrote: post #2

LOLLLL yea... The stink of endless corruption in the new US of A Surely is completely unrelated to Musk throwing money behind electing the people who give him these contracts. https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-stink-of-musk

They are literally the only option, the other options are strongly delayed and even when they come online they will have a large backlog and missing launch infrastructure.

What do you want them to do, you magic to launch the sats?

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#18

Post by LaffertyDev »

asdff wrote: post #11
LaffertyDev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that NASA could launch 18 rockets for ~$160 million total or ~8.8 million per launch? Or is your argument that the "real" cost of this $1.6B SpaceX / Space Force contract is in fact closer to ~$16B or ~$160B after accounting for tax subsidies and investment fraud?

It is a for profit company. Therefore profit margin must be achieved. What is profit margin but waste? Government is allowed to actually run at cost or under cost. Contracting with for profit entities therefore makes no sense, other than to further the profit of those entities.

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?

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#19

Post by asdff »

LaffertyDev wrote: post #18
asdff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a for profit company. Therefore profit margin must be achieved. What is profit margin but waste? Government is allowed to actually run at cost or under cost. Contracting with for profit entities therefore makes no sense, other than to further the profit of those entities.

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?

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.

Re: SpaceX wins $1.6B Space Force contract for 18 Falcon 9 launches

#20

Post by asdff »

krisroadruck wrote: post #14
asdff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a for profit company. Therefore profit margin must be achieved. What is profit margin but waste? Government is allowed to actually run at cost or under cost. Contracting with for profit entities therefore makes no sense, other than to further the profit of those entities.

Brother the government just labels "profit" differently. Most people would call it grift, pork, or "inefficiency". Government waste dwarfs private sector waste by orders of magnitude. The utopia where governments efficiently and wisely put our tax dollars to their best use doesn't exist, never has, and likely never will.

Mostly because government today pays out the nose for contracted labor rates as doing anything in house has been blown apart by free market reaganists over the years.
Post reply on HN