
Why the US can beat China: The Facts about SpaceX Costs - cwan
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
======
mixmax
Although it's a bit of an apple to oranges comparison Copenhagen suborbitals
are on the trajectory to launching a human into space in around three years
time. In a months time they'll have their first testflight from Bornholm in
the baltic sea. They're doing this whole thing based on nothing but sponsors
and goodwill. Their budget is around $8000 a month - orders of magnitude lower
than spacex. They also built the worlds largest homemade submarine btw.

Until now they've developed solid rocket boosters, parachutes, recovery
programs, astrouanut survival and cockpit, etc. etc. and have not run into
major problems yet.

Some links:

Website: <http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com>

Static test of solid rocket booster (110.000 HP):
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_xjGOJRws&feature=related)

TEDx talk by Christian Von Bengtson:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua9oGxNNGd0>

All their technology is open source by the way.

 _Shameless plug:_ These guys survive on donations, and a few months ago I
helped start a support organization to help them survive economicvally. It's
$20 a month to be a member, and we really need more members so we can get
these guys into space. If you feel this is a worthy cause and want to join
send me an e-mail (it's in my profile). Our website is
<http://raketvenner.dk/> (currently only in Danish...)

~~~
pdelgallego
Are you guys developing any kind of software?

I am a web developer, so I don't know much about C, but I am sure a lot of
people here can help if you put a repository.

~~~
sukuriant
Just a head's up. If there are human lives involved and at risk based on
software development, it is incredibly, incredibly important that the software
go through the highest possible level of testing, including every possible
codepath, every input partition, everything. If it crashes midflight due to a
bug, there's about nothing you can do about it. And people will die.

Remember that when you're considering developing mission critical software. It
is the most dangerous sort of software to write, and needs aggressively
comprehensive testing.

~~~
count
I mean this in the most positive fashion possbile, so please don't take it as
just snarky assholism:

It's that kind of thinking that would have prevented most of human achievement
in the last few hundred years. If the people signing up to ride this open
source rocket into space are aware of the risks, then let them take them. That
doesn't mean don't put any care and testing into things, but don't turn into
NASA when trying to innovate.

~~~
potatolicious
There's a difference between a risk-taking pioneering spirit, and needless
stupidity.

There's also a difference between accepting the inherent dangers of primitive
spaceflight, and being cavalier with people's lives.

------
Symmetry
An illuminating anecdote:

A while ago my friend from work was at an base where SpaceX would be launching
from. However, during the launch an anomaly was discovered and the countdown
was suspended. At this point all the Air Force people went home, since they
were used to this sort of thing taking a week to sort out, but the SpaceX
people quickly isolated the problem and the launch only ended up being delayed
an hour.

------
protomyth
I'm glad that SpaceX is so concerned with cost. It is sometimes hard for a
company to stay focused on that when they get a government contract.

As for the rest, I would imagine when robots get good enough, then the
incentive to use cheap labor in China drops and factories in the US become
more economically viable.

~~~
pradocchia
I have often wondered whether free trade of goods has retarded the development
of more sophisticated automation & robotics. What technology advancements have
we missed out on when it's been cheaper to move manufacturing to China, rather
than make capital investments at home?

Note that any decision to off-shore is distorted by a) limits to the free
movement of labor and b) currency manipulation. So at the margin, you might
replace an efficient domestic operation w/ an inefficient foreign process, and
make up the difference in currency and labor cost arbitrage. In such cases,
free trade of goods alone has a detrimental effect on technological progress.
Or at least that's the speculation.

~~~
Dove
I don't mind. Sending manufacturing jobs overseas raises the standard of
living there and introduces technology and industry to the region. The folks
doing those jobs won't be stuck at that income level forever.

I think my standard of living is pretty good. If I could have super robots
next decade, or I could have them in three decades after conditions around the
globe have equalized a bit . . . well, I don't mind the wait.

~~~
pradocchia
True, it's probably better to forgo a degree of technological progress in some
areas while the rest of the world catches up. And as it does, technological
progress will still occur, just in different areas, like energy,
transportation and computers. Health too, maybe.

Actually, I have no idea what industries will respond to growing prosperity w/
higher capital investment in technology--at the moment it seems to be
computers, but I don't know how far to project that into the future. I know
some people project it off to a singularity. Time will tell!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I imagine the responders here are not blue-collar. So its easy to say "I don't
mind that guy's job going overseas, it appeals to my liberal philosophy".
While they lose their house, we feel warm inside.

~~~
Dove
Yeah, nobody _ever_ outsources technical work. ;)

I don't think anyone is ever entitled to work, whatever the industry.
Especially if someone else wants to do the same work for cheaper -- be it with
a machine or in another country.

If you tell me someone lost their job and is having a hard time supporting
their family, I do feel compassion. But the tool I reach for is charity, not a
free job.

It's not like there's a shortage of opportunity. If your skillset doesn't
support your desired income -- especially if you find yourself unemployed --
go get some new skills. Whether it's reading a book about PHP or learning to
repair refrigerators at the local community college, someone can pivot in a
few months' time. (I wish this were more of an expected fallback; it seems
like simple common sense to me.)

In the mean time, the rest of us have cheaper products, and are that much
richer.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It might be possible to reach that goal without rapid destabilizing change.
Some folks don't retrain as easy as us, and have a real hard time when we
change society as fast and often as we do.

~~~
Dove
You know, I would normally let this sort of argument go, but you've stepped on
a pet peeve of mine and it's been a while since it got some fresh air.

I dislike arguments that focus on a particular consequence producing a
particular strain of human misery, and dare the reader to disagree at the risk
of being cold-hearted. I find the argument inappropriately personal --
focusing as it does on the virtue and piety of the person. But mainly I find
it . . . well, myopic. Near-sighted.

Take the outsourcing we're discussing. The suffering of the fellow who loses
his job and maybe his house and has to move back in with his parents is one
piece of the equation. The other piece is his counterpart in China who lives
in worse conditions, and wants to work hard to improve life for him and his
family, but lacks the opportunity.

And then there's the cheaper product itself. There's the company that makes
more money, which affects its shareholders and stock prices, which in
aggregate affects people's retirement accounts. Perhaps one of _them_ is in
danger of losing a house? And then there are the customers, who can now afford
the cheaper product, or who can afford more other things because it _is_
cheaper. Perhaps one of _them_ is in a tight situation, too?

And that doesn't even include tertiary effects. Perhaps this cheaper product
is used as a component for something else new. Perhaps a whole new technology
becomes feasible now. Perhaps it changes the _world_. Where does _that_ fit in
the equation?

That's why the argument strikes me as myopic. Our notional blue collar worker
may indeed _be_ miserable, but who is to say his misery outweighs everyone
else's? Why is he special? In fact, I find the reasoning to be kind of . . .
maybe not exactly racist, but kind of people-ist in some way or another. I'm
sorry for the guy, but I don't feel his concerns ought to trump anyone else's.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to figure out the impact of decisions on
people at large. But I am definitely saying to have respect for how
incalculable it can be, and to at least think in terms of all the people you
can see right off will be affected -- and not just one class of them.

I'm also saying to use the right tool for the job. As a rule of thumb, I like
industry to make _progress_ , and charity to _relieve suffering_. Not that
there aren't exceptions -- I myself am advocating the establishment of
industry in a region as a way to improve conditions, and I certainly see the
value of non-profit research.

But usually I don't want the wires crossed. If you're worried about the
suffering of folks who have lost jobs and are having trouble making ends meet,
the right approach seems to me to start or assist a foundation that helps
those sorts of folks financially and educationally (or whatever). Limiting the
help to, say, textile manufacturing workers, and having the help come in the
form of keeping their jobs at the expense of jobs for folks in other regions,
and ignoring an economic opportunity and possibly retarding progress in
general . . .

. . . well, that seems to me really inefficient. And kind of morally dubious,
too.

------
erikpukinskis
_COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized
contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems
on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical
industry-standard costs._

If the "right conditions" include having Elon Musk as CEO, then "proven" is
probably a reasonable word.

~~~
Alex3917
Exactly. Don't get me wrong, this article is extremely inspirational. But I
doubt if there are more than a couple dozen people in America talented enough
to pull this off. And, similarly, the vast majority of people in the
government aren't capable of recognizing who the people this talented are, or
if they are then they are unable to act on it.

------
bcl
SpaceX gives me hope that we can become a space-faring nation once again. The
added bonus is that it is private industry doing it, not the behemoth
bureaucracy that NASA has become.

------
olalonde
I don't want to sound too pessimistic but the trend in China is towards more
free market capitalism whereas the opposite is happening in the US. Of course,
trends can change and China is still far behind in terms of economic liberty.

------
burgerbrain
That 300Million figure to develop Falcon 9 seems stunningly low. Fascinating
stuff.

~~~
hugh3
I've always wondered why rocket development _should_ be nearly as expensive as
NASA makes it sound. It's mostly a plumbing problem, surely -- pump the fuel
to the right place and let it burn. I'm sure there are a few added
complexities, but the tricky bits were all figured out decades ago.

~~~
dman
Winning the world 100m is just about running faster. A Nobel prize is won if
you think just a little bit harder... Pushing the envelope has always been
heroically hard and always will be.

~~~
rwmj
SpaceX aren't pushing any envelopes. They're just doing what has already been
done for decades, but for a lower price.

Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about replying? There are only 3 clauses
above, so you can just say which one of those clauses is wrong and why.

~~~
dman
Do you consider the IBM PC something that pushed the envelope? Sometimes
disrupting an industry by making its products available at a dramatically
lower cost is just as much a push to the envelope in the real world as a new
discovery. (Other examples include firms like 23andme etc)

~~~
rwmj
Look at the comment I was replying to[1]. The author of that comment was using
"pushing the envelope" to mean running faster in the 100m dash or winning a
Nobel prize. Disrupting an industry, as SpaceX are doing, is extremely
worthwhile, but no one has ever argued that the IBM PC was some sort of
breakthrough in computing, or represented progress in programming techniques
(quite the opposite in fact, it was cheap and took many shortcuts, resulting
in the horrible situation we have in computing today).

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2523927>

~~~
pg
At the time, the IBM PC was very impressive compared to the other
microcomputers available.

~~~
Someone
The way I remember it, the main thing it had going for it was that 'IBM' tag.

Its graphics were worse than that of the 4 year old Apple II, its speed was
only a little higher (certainly way of from what the 1:4.77 clock speed ratio
would make you think; both ran at around 1 MIPS).

Yes, it handled more than 64k RAM and was 16 bit-ish, but very impressive? Not
in my memory.

~~~
maxharris
The original 5150 PC had a wonderful keyboard. We'd consider it very heavy and
loud today (each key had a spring beneath it, and made a very audible click
when pressed), but compared to the other keyboards at the time, it was easily
the best.

------
adnam
It's funny, but this is the _opposite_ of what happened during the 1950s space
race. Russia, having less cash to spend, contracted work out various bidders,
whereas america established the massively centralized NASA.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
And Russia killed and maimed hundreds in their pell-mell race to the moon. So
it was cost-effective and politically expedient, sure. But there are towns
still expunged from Russian maps that were blighted by that irresponsible
program.

------
spartanfan10
Though I really don't like the idea of an "Us vs. Them" mentality in global
development (it's been commented many times that this is not a zero sum game,
there doesn't have to be winners and losers like in football), this article is
inspiring. Congrats to Elon and SpaceX on their wonderful innovation.

------
jmarbach
This is an inspiring mark of American spirit that has seemed to escape our
minds amidst international business pressures. I'm grateful that we have
hardworking leaders such as Elon who take risks when others won't, and are
dedicated to living their dreams.

------
jmtame
I didn't see this before, but the SpaceX office tour is pretty awesome:
<http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=26>

------
breathesalt
"Beat" China? Why not work together?

~~~
timsally
Because as much as we'd like to pretend otherwise, there are significant
ideological differences between the US and China. China just enacted a 3 month
ban on all spy dramas on TV [1] and I'm about go home and watch Casino Royal
with a bottle of scotch [2]. And as JFK says, _our leadership in science and
in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as
well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries,
to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading
space-faring nation._ [3]. This may seem nationalistic to you, but I think JFK
is right.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-
China....](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06briefs-
China.html?_r=1&ref=china)

[2] Citation not needed.

[3] <http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm>

------
lostbit
Fine. This is definitely good news. It proves a company is doing a great job,
it gives hope and inspiration to other business try to be innovative and bring
back the American spirit. But what will happen to space programs if American
economy goes into a harder crisis? People will probably vote not to launch
anything, not to look at the sky, but to spend money on land issues instead.
My big concern is regarding the end of the dollar as the world's reserve
currency. That could bring many succesfull companies down, specially those on
American markets only. China can be a big issue to America if it starts no to
believe in dollar currency anymore. In this context, beating China on
innovation at Space programs might not mean Americans won.

------
VB6_Foreverr
That blog post is written in such an unpretentious way. Space travel with feet
firmly planted on the ground

