Hacker News Reader

Comment by sen | Hacker News Reader

Considering the Bezos/Branson debacle, I think it's easy for people to get lost in the "This is just another billionaire paying to go to space" thing... and it is, but that's a small part of it. The passengers themselves are basically unimportant compared to the bigger picture.

Who cares if the passengers are some random billionaire and a group of people carefully chosen purely as a publicity stunt, let him have his attention/marketing that he gets on the side of paying for this trip... the real story is the actual actions that happened:

This is the first time a group of civilians have gone into (proper orbital) space on a re-usable launch system as paying tourists.

This is a MASSIVE moment for space travel in general, and has absolutely proven that SpaceX is onto something really special here with their systems and people.

View on HN

Agree. The challenges are still real in that with enough of these you'll lose people (just like you do in airplanes occasionally) but this is a pretty significant moment. I haven't seen any mention of any "science" they are going to do which was a late add to the qualification list for astronaut, and it was really apparent the difference between having access to the NASA deep space network vs not having that access. Once Starlink is a bit more populated the access to the NASA DSN should not be a problem.

The other interesting thing to note is that SpaceX needed to use pad 39A for this but they are actively building a launch facility in Boca Chica. So this will force the issue of launch air traffic control which appears fairly primitive given that the US only has 2 launch locations.

And finally there is the whole, 3 days in orbit vs the 3 minutes of free fall that Virgin and Blue Origin offer. Certainly there is an interesting value proposition there. I don't know if it covers the $62M which is the 'cost to LEO' that SpaceX nominally charges. Let's say it did, then a tourist flight with a ticket price of $20M[1] each would have a nominal gross margin of nearly 30% suggests a pretty viable business model.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos#:~:text=Roscosmos%20....

We don't know the public price of Inspiration4, but the $62m list price of Falcon 9 does not include Crew Dragon, which is a substantially more expensive vehicle to operate.

Is this the right way to think about flight pricing given that the vehicles are not expendable?

SpaceX doesn't sell the vehicles, they sell the launch services. From an external perspective it's still a cost per launch. From an internal perspective they launch enough that it amortizes nicely as a cost per launch.

This doesn't seem a long-term take. Historically pricing was based on vehicle cost because the vehicles were expended. With reusable vehicles the companies can make a handsome margin well above launch cost (and covering the fixed up front research) that is much lower price than vehicle cost. In the same vein that an Uber ride costs a bit less than buying a car. This isn't idle speculation; SpaceX has already made clear target $/kg pricing for Mars delivery that incorporate vigorous reuse.

True, although NASA paid for Crew Dragon but not for the refurbishment to fly it again. The news channels were stating "$200M" for the whole thing and I don't find that particularly credible.

I reminded one of my adult children that when I was their age I paid nearly $5,000 for a computer that had specs that were not even close to one that you can buy for $35 today. Perhaps more comparable air travel became 10x cheaper over the first 40 years.

The thing that excites me most about this is that Congress isn't the one funding this work[1]. As a result SpaceX is motivated to make it more economical and more efficient. What I read about as a kid in the 70's about moon bases and orbital hotels, SpaceX is actually on a path to make real. I only hope that before I die I can ride into orbit.

[1] Yes they buy launch services from SpaceX, but they have been buying such services for decades, SpaceX was the first company that decided to be commercial rocket company from the start, AFAICT.

> I haven't seen any mention of any "science" they are going to do

Apparently they will be researching human body fluid distribution in microgravity using ultrasound.

I learned this from the Livestream.

> So this will force the issue of launch air traffic control which appears fairly primitive given that the US only has 2 launch locations.

It's at least three, is it not? Vandenberg, Wallops, the Cape?

Edit: there's also Kodiak.

True, I always seem to ignore wallops. Adding a civilian run launch facility is new though.

I think its meaningful that the first one of these wasn't "a billionaire and his three friends."

I also like the fundraising component, such as auctioning one of the seats via charitable lottery and deliberately choosing a peds cancer survivor.

What bezos and Branson have created so far are just expensive “space” suborbital rollercoasters for rich tourists.

Musk created multi-day orbital space journeys going further out than any human has gone in many decades.

We didn't have to wait a year to know that SpaceX is onto somethng really special. Comparing Crew Dragon with Soyuz, another vehicle used to give space tourists their ride, we can see that SpaceX is two or even three generations ahead. Selling tickets to Earth orbit with Dragon was just a matter of time.

What is really interesting is that if Dragon may fly beyond the Moon. That would be a completely outstandig feat for SpaceX.

Absolutely, very special. And the US's tried & tested (& one of its closest) mates, Australia, is becoming increasingly involved in the space of "space". :)

We've finally realized it's very important, & have setup systems similar to what exists in the US. Hopefully there'll be more & increasingly tighter collaboration, as the decades pass.

Honestly my eyes glaze over whenever someone compares spacex or it's founder to virgin galactic or blue origin or their founders. Spacex is currently working on their second generation reusable, autonomous space launch system and vehicle. Their first one is already in heavy use. The other two companies are just playgrounds for their founders to spend money on to pretend to be visionary. Elon Musk and Spacex are serious about space, the other two are not, comparing them is silly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com