zlacker

[return to "xAI joins SpaceX"]
1. eduard+tq[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:31:30
>>g-mork+(OP)
From the Big Short (movie)

Jared Vennett (narration): "In the years that followed, hundreds of bankers and rating agency's executives went to jail. The SEC was completely overhauled, and Congress had no choice but to break up the big banks and regulate the mortgage and derivatives industries."

"Just kidding. Banks took the money the American people gave them, and they used it to pay themselves huge bonuses, and lobby the Congress to kill big reform. And then they blamed immigrants and poor people, and this time even teachers."

◧◩
2. Fogest+Ku[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:50:47
>>eduard+tq
I feel like without adding some commentary with these quotes this comment lacks enough info to see how it relates to the linked article.
◧◩◪
3. crysta+pw[view] [source] 2026-02-02 23:58:09
>>Fogest+Ku
Because this move is entirely financial engineering to hide losses just like the roll up of X in to xAI.

None of this has anything to do with business or innovation. Do you not immediately see that? Most of my friends reaction to this news was that this is so obvious it's almost funny (or actually it is funny, since most were laughing as they read the headline).

I'm curious how you could not understand the relevance of the quote unless you were aggressively trying to not understanding it.

◧◩◪◨
4. senect+Ny[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:10:28
>>crysta+pw
yeah, I am not a huge fan of Musk, but this move is just going to bring down arguably the only decent thing he's produced.

Leave SpaceX alone you child. Gwynne has it in excellent hands.. find some other way to pay for your juvenile brainfarts.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. tialar+VB[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:30:25
>>senect+Ny
Although I'm sure SpaceX would be a non-trivial loss, the most important idea - their truly reusable rocket -- is proven to the point where other people are assuming they should do that to make rockets, it's like if Benz' company goes bankrupt in 1899. In that universe the Mercedes probably never happens but the automobile idea is already a done deal.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. fluori+tD[view] [source] 2026-02-03 00:41:04
>>tialar+VB
What do you mean? SpaceX didn't invent the reusable rocket, and my understanding is that Falcon 9 is still not significantly more economical than disposable rockets, and that the main reason it's attractive is that it's not Soyuz-2.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. ghc+tI[view] [source] 2026-02-03 01:13:11
>>fluori+tD
I found that surprising, so I looked on Wikipedia.

Soyuz-2 capacity to LEO: 8,600KG

Falcon 9 capacity to LEO: 22,800KG when expended, 17,500KG when not.

Soyuz-2 Cost to Launch: $35 Million

New Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $70 Million

Used Falcon 9 Cost to Launch: $50 Million (cost to SpaceX: ~$25 Million)

Soyuz-2 cost per KG: $4000 (data from 2018)

New Falcon 9 cost per KG: $964 when expended, $1250 when not.

Use Falcon 9 coster per KG to Customer: $893 when expended, $690 when not

So realistically, Falcon 9 is roughly 20-30% the price per KG when new, and dropping to a minimum of 17.25% of the price when used.

Plus you get a larger diameter payload fairing and the ability to launch a payload up to 4X the size.

I'm pretty sure that even used as an expendable rocket, 1/4 the price per KG (if you need the capacity) is a pretty significant improvement. Now I understand why satellite ride-shares are so popular!

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. rogerr+GI[view] [source] 2026-02-03 01:14:52
>>ghc+tI
Plus, the Falcon launch cadence is infinitely better than Soyuz 2. 2025:

Soyuz-2: 12 launches

Falcon 9: 165!

[go to top]