this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
127 points (87.1% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
6041 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the dollars per kilo fallacy. A favorite of people that don't understand the industry but want to repeat the things Musk tells them to. Fantastic. We're already on page two of the script. Now, go ahead and tell me how SpaceX invented something that already existed for decades.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How would you propose measuring launch costs?

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You could start off with actual mission costs, launch support costs, and what missions need to be met. For example, this is why Star Shit is such a moronic idea when Falcon could perform all its launch needs.

Are you about to tell me that a 747 is always cheaper than a Cessna? Is that the next argument in your script, or do we have to skip a couple pages before you bring that one out?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

No, I was going to say that the launch support costs and mission needs are also more capable with falcon 9 than soyuz.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Starship is actually planned to be better on all those fronts than falcon 9. Cheaper per launch, less support costs, more capable and flexible system, etc. There might be some small use case where falcon 9 is still superior, but it will be pretty small if starship works.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, I now know how little you know. Congratulations tipping your hand here, because truly these are the words of someone that's a fan of Musk and has zero serious thoughts about space. Jeff Bell would be beside himself reading what you've written. Back to the Zubrin books with you.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's guaranteed nothing I could say would make you leave your religion of musk lies. So, I'll pass. Reality is available for you any time you want to try it out, though.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You've not actually said anything or given any evidence other than generally waving towards that Russia is cheaper, but have not clarified at all. If you know some secret sauce, I'd be happy to hear it. But you so far have stayed miles away from anything remotely close to solid evidence.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing you work at a competitor as a parking lot attendant or something? Because saying Star Shit is going to be better than Falcon is utterly hysterical.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nope. Anyway, evidence or references would be nice.