51–60 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The soviet union, the only non-capitalist country ever to have a technology comparable to ours, was really fucking inefficient. E.g. Soviets had 50% higher CO2 output per ton of steel than the U.S. due to poor energy efficiency.
There was a time when american steel was inefficiently made too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with my point and I think you know that.
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.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a time when american steel was inefficiently made too.
These figures are comparing steel making in two highly industrialized countries at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes you can buy cheaper than build. Many launchers in several countries, SpaceX is the cheapest in its sector.
This is only true if spacex is losing money on everything they build. They aren't, so no, buying is not cheaper than building.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never existed in this industry.
So what? If you needed precedence for everything to happen, nothing new would ever happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true if spacex is losing money on everything they build. They aren't, so no, buying is not cheaper than building.
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, los…
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.
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.
>What is profit margin but waste? Compensation for the risks taken and opportunity cost lost by doing this instead of something else. Are you serious? I suggest you re-evaluate your priors because you're spouting things that demonstrate a severe lack of consideration for 1st, 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? If you needed precedence for everything to happen, nothing new would ever happen.
People talk about the industry like there was a time the government built it's rockets, then SpaceX stole money that was meant for NASA and now NASA can't build rockets anymore.
This thread is evidence of the decline in comment quality on this board.
The way you hurl stones from a glass house it kinda just sounds like you disagree and are upset.