Is SpaceX Finished?

>>8817134
Typical short-term mindset. This is exactly why mankind is doomed to fail. If anything, only SpaceX can save us now.

>>8817134
gubmint subsidies

>>8817135
>literally zero argument
hmmm...

>>8817141
Alright, how about this?

>SpaceX has really dug themselves into a hole here. How will they even recover?
They will launch 140 flights.

>>8817143
This.

There is a reason Elon wants to go for "reuse within 24 hours"

Sell the tech for even more

>>8817141
>literally zero reading comprehension
He's telling you to look to the long term you thick shit. They're willing to take a bit of a hit now in order to provide some top notch shit in the future.
>but muh monies nao!
fuck off

>>8817134
>>$1,000,000,000 to develop reusable technology
>>one BILLION dollars
Sauce?

>>8817159
SES 10 presser

File: Drevil_million_dollars.jpg (8KB, 300x318px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x318px

>>8817159

They want to do 140 flights within the next few years

NASA spends over 1 billion a year on a rocket that won't fly

>>8817134
>1 billion is a lot

Is this the 1970s?

Also, are you not familiar with how R&D works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

NASA's budget for this year is 19.5 billion.

Google is also backing SpaceX

>>8817134
>Is SpaceX Finished? they invested a lot into reusable rockets they can launch a lot of and now they have to launch a lot of them to recoup the cost!
>what IDIOTS

>>8817134
1.000.000.000 = one thousand million
1.000.000.000.000 = one billion

You're welcome, inferior ameritrash.

>>8817134
Guess we should just keep using disposable proton rockets bought surplus from Ukraine.

>>8817564
>literally the worst naming system

fuck off eurocuck a billiard is a ball not a number

>no money for free college
>spent one fucking billion on fireworks

Humanity is retardred.

>>8817564
Nah, that's senseless faggotry right up there with imperial measurements. Powers of three or nothing.

>>8817134
Yes, developing the technology was very expensive. However, they are cash positive and making money so it's not like they ruined themselves by doing this, they just made relatively very little profit. The thing is that this opens them up to dominate the entire industry. The most important thing here from a business sense isn't even the savings from reuse, but the time they save by not building a new first stage after every launch. Reuse allows them to launch at a pace that far outstrips their competitors and for a lower price. Nobody will even be able to compete with them for years.

>>8817564
>one thousand million
*milliard

>>8817587
>waah waah pay for my liberal arts degree waah

The money spent on developing reusability went into the pockets of employees and skilled workers, literally the people who have already gone to school. Would you rather everyone be able to go to school but have no companies around that want to hire them for their skills?

>>8817662

Education and quality of life are more important than macho muh moonwalk stunts.

Space is inherently worthless beyond it's value in the dick measuring contest cold war style.

>>8817672
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

>>8817649
>milliard

This so much. We have a perfectly good name for it, why must Americans use a different, already-in-use name for it instead?

I hate Americans so god dam much.

>>8817672
I bet you study biology or some other shit tier science

>>8817787
I'm a physicist but even I recognize moon missions for what they are: expensive show offs.

>>8817886
So what about the scientific research exercised on every mission? That doesn't have any value?

>>8817134
>>even at 10% profit per flight, it will take them 140 flights to remake their reuse development money
they are at over 30percent profit. some exec called their numbers "balance sheet porn"

Why do brainlets love spaceX?

>>8817134
Asteroid mining.

>>8817564
>not calling it 10^9

>>8817134
Russia overcharges by a long way for the soyuz. It may be that they undercut Space X by a modest amount.

>>8817564
....what?

>>8817564
>million
>1 000 000
>bi-million
>1 000 000 000
>not 1 000 000 000 000

yea nice logic

>>8818782
meant for
>>8817589

>>8817511
don't bother anon, OP is probably a faggot that creams himself over nvidia's ~1.2 billion a year in r&d for better videogames and intel's ~9-12 billion for fucking slightly faster processors.

>>8817672
>space is literally worthless except for the trillions of dollars of rare metals floating around in the asteroid belt waiting for us to send them pancaking down into siberia

>>8817134
>$1,000,000,000 to develop reusable technology
>one BILLION dollars
Why are you pretending these numbers have any meaning? Big banks get bailed out with trillions of dollars by the common people, no one goes to jail and the wheel keeps turning like business as usual, nothing changes and even more destructive monetary policies are applied.

Look up quantitative easing for example. ECB has been buying various government bonds and obligations for 60-80 billion euros monthly for several years. In early 2016 they included corporate bonds to the program aswell.

Modern FIAT era banking is literally just magic tricks and obfuscation to keep the system running. Central banks are at an almighty god-like position and have unlimited wealth at their disposal as long as they can keep up the suspension of disbelief.

If and when the people who control central bank policies start giving a shit about space travel, it will be glorious... as it stands it is not worth investing in, current chemical rockets will never get us anywhere.

>>8817672
>Education and quality of life

>What are GPS satellites, communications satellites, weather satellites, etc

>>8820159
>Bumping a shitty thread 13 hours after the last post.

Don't be that guy, anon. No one likes that guy.

>>8817564
That's a trillion

>>8817134
>>even at 10% profit per flight, it will take them 140 flights to remake their reuse development money
Assuming that's true, at 24 flights per year, that's recovered in 6 years.

Ariane 5 has been flying for over 20 years. Proton and Soyuz for over half a century each. Atlas V and Delta IV for over a dozen years.

...and if what this guy says is true, it's recovered in 2 years:
>>8818159
>they are at over 30percent profit.

The claim that they're only going to make 10% profit on $70 million launches after getting reusability working isn't credible. That would be a slim margin if it were flying as an expendable.

>>8817134
>development cost of a thing
vs
>cost of use of already developed thing
You massive arrangement of wood for tinder.

>>8817587
>money spent is burnt into our sun
You need more than normal education, buddy

>>8817710
get wrecked commie

>>8817564
Literally retarded

>>8817564
Britbong reporting in to say you're retarded and that naming convention sucks balls.

>>8817564
Impeccable nomenclature my fellow eurorich

Every 10 year old knows that a billion is a million millions.
Its called Long scale, for our long dicks
Anglos are just jelly because our billion is bigger

File: image.png (70KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x447px

>>8817155

>>8822102
>Anglos are just jelly because our billion is bigger

The English use the same long scale you utter mong. It's only our "special" friends in America who can't count.

>>8817134
>$1,000,000,000
wwttf one trillion dollars???