undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmotorest11mo ago0 comments

> for up to 0.8% US GDP per year. Today that would be $200B/year, pure spent. Where is Space X today is making, ie. it has a revenue, $15B/year.

The likes of SpaceX are reporting costs in the range of $15B/year because NASA front loaded the cost of trailblazing launch technology half a century ago, with the technology available half a century ago.

Let's not fool ourselves into believing the likes of SpaceX are reinventing the wheel.

Also, those $15B are buying a fraction of the capabilities of SaturnV, and while SaturnV was proven effective and reliable 50 years ago, here we are discussing yet another "anomaly". Perhaps half these "anomalies" wouldn't exist if they weren't lean'ed into existence?

0 comments

Zobat11mo ago

To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then. In 2024 SpaceX had 134 launches, we're far into the Space Shuttle program before Nasa had made that in total.

I wonder what "tons of payload to orbit" vs "dollars budget" would look like for Saturn era NASA vs Current SpaceX.

No doubt they're standing on the shoulders of giants, but let's not forget that they've helped transform the "go to space"-business.

motorestOP11mo ago

> To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then.

That's like comparing how many containers Maersk moves today with how much sea cargo was moved back in the age of discovery.

Also, Saturn V worked and fulfilled it's mission, whereas Starship blows up.

ghxst11mo ago

Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of. I love the Saturn V but I don't think this is a fair comparison. Just because your software didn't compile first try doesn't mean it's bad. Those two vehicles fundamentally have different approaches to development and that's fine.

motorestOP11mo ago

> Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of.

Then you will agree that comparing an unproven launcher which seems to be far far away from being able to fulfill a similar role is a very silly endeavour, let alone talk about it as a vast improvement which just so happens to blow up.

1 more reply

lmm11mo ago

Apollo had plenty of failures during testing, including one that killed three astronauts.

tekla11mo ago

> Saturn V worked

Its impressive how ignorant HN is about how many failures the S5 had during testing, falling for cold war propoganda at full speed

V9911mo ago

Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.

But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.

There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...

Aeolun11mo ago

I’m sure if the government gives SpaceX 200B a year to build a more reliable starship they can do it without blowing them up.

dotancohen11mo ago

Actually, this version 2 of Starship was explicitly designed for lower the dry mass of the vehicle. It seems like SpaceX is exploring the lower limit on acceptable mass, and thus strength, of the Starship. This is a development program, after all.

piva0011mo ago

This comparison doesn't make sense, the USD 200B/year was to invent the capabilities, do trailblazing work on something that needed to be proven even feasible as a concept, to do fundamental/foundational work, not to productionalise technology.

I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.

1 more reply

supermatt11mo ago

> NASA front loaded the cost

Not even just NASA. SpaceX are building on technologies that originated from both sides of the iron curtain (and beyond)

schiffern11mo ago

Heck, fundamentally it's building on Iron Age technology, which is thousands of years old.

How far back is the "start" of history in this telling, and (more importantly) why?

varjag11mo ago

It's not unreasonable to suggest that most of specifically rocket and spacefaring technology SpaceX uses now was introduced by someone else. Their main achievement is reusability and adjacent technical solutions.

supermatt11mo ago

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn.

The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on.

My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D

b11211mo ago

Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada.

How many billions was that?

This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.

What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.

2 more replies

DoesntMatter2211mo ago

What a ridiculous point of view.Do you know how many anamolies nasa had on the way to make the Saturn 5? Orders of magnitudes more blow ups than Space x has ever had

m4rtink11mo ago

Not to mention the comparable Soviet N1 rocket never launching successfully before being canceled.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

Zobat11mo ago

I wonder what "tons of payload to orbit" vs "dollars budget" would look like for Saturn era NASA vs Current SpaceX.

No doubt they're standing on the shoulders of giants, but let's not forget that they've helped transform the "go to space"-business.

motorestOP11mo ago

> To be fair, they're also doing launches at a pace NASA could only have dreamed of back then.

That's like comparing how many containers Maersk moves today with how much sea cargo was moved back in the age of discovery.

Also, Saturn V worked and fulfilled it's mission, whereas Starship blows up.

ghxst11mo ago

motorestOP11mo ago

> Starship hasn't had a mission yet that I'm aware of.

1 more reply

lmm11mo ago

Apollo had plenty of failures during testing, including one that killed three astronauts.

tekla11mo ago

> Saturn V worked

Its impressive how ignorant HN is about how many failures the S5 had during testing, falling for cold war propoganda at full speed

V9911mo ago

Testing on the ground and problems with what most people would call the payload (Apollo 1 & 13), sure.

But we're comparing to SpaceX launches. Plenty of Raptor engines have blown up on the ground too.

There were 13 Saturn V's launched and all of them basically performed their mission (Apollo 6 being a bit of an exception) with 0 rapid unplanned disassemblies...

Aeolun11mo ago

I’m sure if the government gives SpaceX 200B a year to build a more reliable starship they can do it without blowing them up.

dotancohen11mo ago

piva0011mo ago

I'd expect SpaceX to do much more now than NASA in the 60s if granted USD 200B/year, considering they are already standing on the shoulders of giants.

1 more reply

supermatt11mo ago

> NASA front loaded the cost

Not even just NASA. SpaceX are building on technologies that originated from both sides of the iron curtain (and beyond)

schiffern11mo ago

Heck, fundamentally it's building on Iron Age technology, which is thousands of years old.

How far back is the "start" of history in this telling, and (more importantly) why?

varjag11mo ago

supermatt11mo ago

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The grandparent comment was pointing out that it cost NASA 200bn, and spaceX 15bn.

The parent comment pointed out that spaceX are actually saving money because they already got what nasa spent 200bn on.

My comment pointed out that they aren't just saving money by using NASAs tech, but tech from the Soviet Union as well - suggesting that their savings are far beyond just 200bn R&D

b11211mo ago

Not sure about parent poster, but to be fair NASA built on German WWII rocket/missile development, and Canadian know how after the collapse of Avro Canada.

How many billions was that?

This sort of "they're just building on" talk is weird to me, and not really relevant.

What SpaceX has accomplished is astonishing, and no belittling of their accomplishments should be tolerated.

2 more replies

DoesntMatter2211mo ago

What a ridiculous point of view.Do you know how many anamolies nasa had on the way to make the Saturn 5? Orders of magnitudes more blow ups than Space x has ever had

m4rtink11mo ago

Not to mention the comparable Soviet N1 rocket never launching successfully before being canceled.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse