undefined | Better HN

0 pointstrhway1y ago0 comments

>Saturn V did in a single launch with 1969 technology,

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.

>Perhaps web development is not the only thing that is susceptible to bloat.

similarly - web dev today can be done on $300 laptop by any schmuck. Even simple programming back then required a computer which cost a lot, and it was an almost academic activity.

0 comments

16 comments · 5 top-level

motorest1y ago· 6 in thread

> 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?

Zobat1y 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.

motorest1y 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.

4 more replies

supermatt1y 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)

schiffern1y 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?

2 more replies

DoesntMatter221y 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

m4rtink1y ago

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

supermatt1y ago· 2 in thread

Sure, but spacex are building on the shoulders of what came before. Easy to save 200bn on research and development if someone else has already paid for it and shares the results for free.

inglor_cz1y ago

This is true, but also a bit trivial to observe. Even the Primitive Technology channel, which usually starts with mud and clay, builds on knowledge of other people.

The value added is interesting. For example, both the Merlin and the Raptor family of engines. These are some fine engines, and they are remarkably cheap and reusable.

supermatt1y ago

oh sure, no doubt - and the universe before that, etc. but here the baseline set by the comment i responded to was "whatever nasa spent 200b on".

s1artibartfast1y ago· 2 in thread

% GDP isn't an inflation adjustment.

0.8% US GDP in 1969 would be about 8B/yr today. Very different answer

trhwayOP1y ago

US GDP 2024 is $29T. Thus 0.8% is $230B.

s1artibartfast1y ago

Expense scales with inflation, not GDP, which is the point.

hliyan1y ago· 1 in thread

This seems off. According to this: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo (or in more detail: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z... )

Total lunar effort from 1960-1973, adjusted for 2024 USD: $326 billion

Launch vehicle costs (Saturn V): $113 billion

I think this is what should be compared against the total Starship program cost starting from 2020 until such time it completes 6 lunar landings (not counting SLS or other costs).

Or, for the year that Starship actually lands on the moon, compare against the Saturn V launch vehicle costs for 1969, inflation adjusted: $5.9 billion. See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z...

dzhiurgis1y ago

Single Starship stack is <$100m so they are less than 1% in.

jve1y ago

I love this quote from Gwynne Shotwell when asked how they achieved that no government has: "The first is that we're kind of standing on the shoulders of giants."

Source: https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?si=RHZ8lWFYKrd7qQhy&t=321

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

16 comments · 5 top-level

motorest1y ago· 6 in thread

> 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.

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

Zobat1y 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.

motorest1y 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.

4 more replies

supermatt1y 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)

schiffern1y 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?

2 more replies

DoesntMatter221y 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

m4rtink1y ago

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

supermatt1y ago· 2 in thread

Sure, but spacex are building on the shoulders of what came before. Easy to save 200bn on research and development if someone else has already paid for it and shares the results for free.

inglor_cz1y ago

This is true, but also a bit trivial to observe. Even the Primitive Technology channel, which usually starts with mud and clay, builds on knowledge of other people.

The value added is interesting. For example, both the Merlin and the Raptor family of engines. These are some fine engines, and they are remarkably cheap and reusable.

supermatt1y ago

oh sure, no doubt - and the universe before that, etc. but here the baseline set by the comment i responded to was "whatever nasa spent 200b on".

s1artibartfast1y ago· 2 in thread

% GDP isn't an inflation adjustment.

0.8% US GDP in 1969 would be about 8B/yr today. Very different answer

trhwayOP1y ago

US GDP 2024 is $29T. Thus 0.8% is $230B.

s1artibartfast1y ago

Expense scales with inflation, not GDP, which is the point.

hliyan1y ago· 1 in thread

This seems off. According to this: https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo (or in more detail: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTKMekJW9F8Z... )

Total lunar effort from 1960-1973, adjusted for 2024 USD: $326 billion

Launch vehicle costs (Saturn V): $113 billion

I think this is what should be compared against the total Starship program cost starting from 2020 until such time it completes 6 lunar landings (not counting SLS or other costs).

dzhiurgis1y ago

Single Starship stack is <$100m so they are less than 1% in.

jve1y ago

I love this quote from Gwynne Shotwell when asked how they achieved that no government has: "The first is that we're kind of standing on the shoulders of giants."

Source: https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?si=RHZ8lWFYKrd7qQhy&t=321

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse