NASA just splurges money. The private sector is far better when it comes to money.

> The private sector is far better when it comes to money.

I've heard this a lot, but I've worked for BigCos and it seems like all they do is spend money, often superfluously. I've seen BigCos spend large quantities money on support contracts every year that haven't been used in more than a decade, or sending people on business trips across the country so they can dial into a meeting, or buying loads of equipment that sits dormant in warehouses for years and then is eventually sold off for pennies on the dollar.

I'm not convinced that they're better than the government with money allocation, I think they're just better at telling people they are.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

q3k 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

... as we can tell by whatever the everloving fuck is going on with this press release.

	▲	farresito 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not talking specifically about SpaceX, although historically the cost of their rockets have been much lower than NASA. I'm being much more general. The public sector doesn't have the same incentives that private companies have, whether it's rockets or any other technology. It's sad, but it's the truth.

▲

etchalon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We have absolutely no way of gauging this until after SpaceX goes public.

▲

terminalshort 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

SpaceX can use the same booster 30 times. NASAs new rocket can use it one time. We don't need to see financial statements to figure this one out.

▲

luke5441 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't be too sure. Depends on NASAs mission profiles and a lot of factors. Falcon heavy can bring 26.7t to GTO in expendable mode and only 8t in reusable mode. Reusable cost of Falcon is US$97 million vs US$150 million expendable.

How much does it cost to develop and maintain the reusability? Is it worth the trade-offs in lower tons to orbit due to more weight? Is it worth it adjusting the payload into smaller units, including developing things like refueling in LEO?

Idk, I'm not on the inside doing those calculations...

	▲	trothamel 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		SpaceX tends to expend cores they've gotten significant use out of, rather than new ones - so the core would have been "paid off" by then.

▲

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And nasal didn't build the new rocket! They have paid Boeing 93 BILLION to design and manufacture it.

▲

DarmokJalad1701 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[Absolutely](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/spacex-generated-ab...), [no way](https://payloadspace.com/estimating-spacexs-2024-revenue/), indeed.

	▲	etchalon 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Everything is estimated. If you want to trust estimates and "best-guesses", neat.