Not really relevant.
The correct metric to make the comparison on is the fully amortized cost to the government per launch. The government doesn't pay for SpaceX's facilities or development - all of those costs are rolled into the launch price. But that's not true of SLS.
I don't know why you're so obsessed with cost. The only thing that matters when it comes to commercial providers is price. And SpaceX, (as far as I can tell) stands alone among the medium-heavy lift providers by providing a price directly on their website.
Of course, for government launches the government typically wants extra services, which does boost the prices different levels for different missions (I think the Europa Clipper mission is particularly expensive for example). But all of those missions are competitively bid, and SpaceX tends to be the low price bidder, so those extra fees seem like they're probably pretty reasonable.
https://spacenews.com/starlink-may-account-for-up-to-40-of-s...
The documents WSJ viewed are for SpaceX as a whole, not "SpaceX's launcher division". Even if the launcher division charged the Starlink division 9000 megazillion dollars per launch, that would be exactly balanced by the Starlink division having to book 9000 megazillion dollars of expense per launch.
Again, according to the documents WSJ viewed, SpaceX overall has achieved profitability. That's a major accomplishment given it being by far the lowest-cost launch provider in the world.
I don't think you understood what I wrote. GP claimed "SpaceX is profitable, so they're not pricing below cost", but the bulk of SpaceX's revenue can be attributed to the company owner transferring his money around.
Your comment is so far off it reads as something outputted by a poor machine learning model.
My point is that even if SpaceX books Starlink launches as revenue,[1] it would still have to be accounted for as an expense on Starlink's side, so SpaceX's overall bottom line would not change. If SpaceX's confidential internal financials show that SpaceX has achieved profitability then, yes, that indicates that SpaceX is not pricing its launches below cost.
>Your comment is so far off it reads as something outputted by a poor machine learning model.
Sorry, not my fault that you can't comprehend the fact that revenue can't come out of nowhere. It has to always be balanced by expense, and this isn't some magic way for Musk to generate "fake profits".
[1] A fairly common business practice, in and of itself. When an Apple employee receives a new Apple computer for use at work, that computer is booked as revenue for Apple; after all, Apple is acting as a customer for a product, albeit its own. The division that employee works for in turns records the price of that computer as an expense. The revenue amount is going to be lower than what an outside customer would pay—basically, Apple as seller will charge Apple as customer zero markup—but some revenue will be recorded all the same.
1. As far as I know, no one has presented any evidence that SpaceX sells Falcon 9/H launches for less than cost. ArianeSpace used to really talk up this point, but even they've mostly given up.
2. I'm not really sure why it matters. If SpaceX can sell for less than cost at their current volume, well... good for the tax payers - we're getting a deal.
> Elon loves to do this btw.
Really? I thought Tesla was known for it's high margins? I don't think any of Elon's other businesses are public.
At the cost of killing all other competitors and letting SpaceX monopolize so we are stuck with whatever quotes from SpaceX?
1. Are you suggesting that SpaceX will bankrupt Japan (HIII), India (GSLV/PSLV), and Europe (Ariane 6)? That seems unlikely to me.
2. There's very little evidence that SpaceX will jack up prices when they're a monopoly. I mean, they're a defacto monopoly right now with ULA transitioning to Vulcan, and ArianeGroup transitioning to Ariane 6. And their prices haven't budged.
3. The DoD (as part of NSSL) and NASA work very hard to split large contracts between multiple launch providers - effectively ensuring that there is no monopoly in US medium-heavy launch providers.
If anything SpaceX has lead to an explosive increase in competition.
This can and is considered predatory pricing, which is a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.
SpaceX has shown these numbers to investors and have received money on good valuation. If not even there core buissness was profitable why would anybody invest in Starship?
The argument that SpaceX subsudizes their launch prices is just a nonsense argument that doesnt hold up to study.
These companies will lose billions for years with this single intention.
The true cost minus the listed price adjusted for years of interest and extremely high VCreturns are all useful numbers to know because that adjusted by a risk multiple will tell you how much wealth the investors are expecting the monopolization to transfer from the taxpayer to their pockets.
1. SpaceX will never have a monopoly over launch because it's competing with lots of governments who will never give up their rocket programs. ArianeGroup, Japan/Mitsubishi, Russia, China, and India all have active launch programs (although Russia and China are isolated right now).
2. There are a truly stupid number of startups trying to compete for a slice of the launch pie. Most of them are in the small-lift launch segment for some reason, even though it's probably impossible to run a profitable rocket launch business in that segment of the market. But there are enough companies that aspire to launch larger rockets that SpaceX needs to be on its toes.
Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Relativity are probably the main future competitors to SpaceX. And both Rocket Lab and Relativity have talked up prices that are equal to or lower than what SpaceX is currently offering.
3. The DoD and NASA are actively working to prevent SpaceX from forming a monopoly in the US market.
This whole discussion is centered around cost. The only argument presented in favor of paying SpaceX for launches is launch cost.
If it wasn't for costx why would an org like NASA even consider delegating a critical part of their mission to a third party?
Its just a convieniant attack on SpaceX because they are private. It has no bases in reality.
I disagree. The whole theme of these corporate worship sessions is to praise how efficient they are, and how inefficient everything in comparison.
Claiming that these corporations are free to lie and omit expenses from their reporting to appear efficient goes directly against their supposed superiority.
> The correct metric to make the comparison on is the fully amortized cost to the government per launch.
Not really. The goal is to assess if a government institution meets it's goals in a fiscally responsible and efficient way.
The main goal of NASA is to "Expand human knowledge through new scientific discoveries." This involves all aspects of rocket science. The likes of SpaceX were only possible because NASA invested in research which SpaceX took advantage to design its production services.
Another goal of NASA is to "Address national challenges and catalyze economic growth." This also covers creating and funding demand for skilled high-tech professionals in places where there would otherwise be none. This also contributes to create opportunities in a workforce to support and develop highly specialized and experienced engineers, the likes of which can then transfer their knowledge and experience to the likes of SpaceX. Take, for example, SpaceX's own Gwynne Shotwell, who started her career in aerospace by working in government contracts for the Space Shuttle.
It's perfectly ok to argue that a government can and should buy services from private companies. It's awfully disingenuous to misrepresent both the private companies' offerings and alleged efficiency and the actual roles and responsibilities of government institutions like NASA.
Is SLS even certified to carry people into space yet?
It better be because Artemis-II will have people aboard Orion.
SLS was on the schedule to launch humans several years ago. However, failing to qualify means that NASA can NOT ask them to launch a human
> The SLS was created by an act of Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–267, in which NASA was directed to create a system for launching payloads and crew into space that would replace the capabilities lost with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.
SLS was "asked" 13 years ago to launch humans, and we are still waiting for that to happen.
10 flights with humans so far and more planned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2
10 missions
A crewed mission to the ISS every 6 months plus a handful of commercials.
Your numbers are way off.
I think this was an xkcd.
So in total if you split your vehicle up and assemble it in orbit you can launch one that's almost 5x the size for the same price. Maybe more like 3x + extra engineering overhead costs for the orbital assembly, but still much more bang for the buck. The lunar gateway is planned to be a station anyway so those costs will have to be paid regardless.
Thus far, SLS has only done once what Falcon does on the regular: Launch a payload into orbit
The figures are easy to compare as well. Just include these factors in your comparison! Even if we don't know exactly what those factors are, we can make a ballpark estimate the total difference and add that as a percentage to spaceX's final figure.
The idea that things can't be compared because they are different is nonsense. When things are different is the only time comparisons are meaningful to make!
They have quite different fairing capacities, in a playfield that does not scale linearly.
It is like saying that the Boeing 737 is cheaper than the 777, and we can compare them because they were both designed to fly people in the sky.
You can't compare SpaceX's figures to NASA because NASA has many, many more reporting obligations than SpaceX.
Every report on Falcon 9 costs has made this mistake forever. SpaceX does not release their full costs. What numbers we have for them are PR releases. Meanwhile, NASA's budgets are public and comprehensive, and they have legal parameters on what they have to include in their statements about costs that SpaceX does not have.