Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the point is that the 400-to-100 figure is not Apples to Apples. Imagine 20 years from now SpaceX' ITS has failed to finance and their Falcon Heavy is a loss leader because too few payloads need it and the rest has moved on to a new rocket. This is like the USGov paying them a few billions a year to keep Falcon Heavy around because it's the only rocket with some specific capabilities. IMO depending on the specifics this is not so unreasonable. It's still great that SpaceX has achieved a factor of 2 improvement already for the base price compared to ULA, which doesn't yet include reusability, but one shouldn't overstate how much ahead they are.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact