zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
SpaceX is too big to fail. It's important for national security.

I wonder if Elon wants to tangle all his businesses into SpaceX so they are all kept afloat by SpaceX's importance.

>>Button+C4
Why? Let it fail. Bring back NASA.

>>outsid+Pg
NASA just splurges money. The private sector is far better when it comes to money.

>>farres+Ij
We have absolutely no way of gauging this until after SpaceX goes public.

>>etchal+Qn
SpaceX can use the same booster 30 times. NASAs new rocket can use it one time. We don't need to see financial statements to figure this one out.

>>termin+ip
I wouldn't be too sure. Depends on NASAs mission profiles and a lot of factors. Falcon heavy can bring 26.7t to GTO in expendable mode and only 8t in reusable mode. Reusable cost of Falcon is US$97 million vs US$150 million expendable.

How much does it cost to develop and maintain the reusability? Is it worth the trade-offs in lower tons to orbit due to more weight? Is it worth it adjusting the payload into smaller units, including developing things like refueling in LEO?

Idk, I'm not on the inside doing those calculations...

>>luke54+5s
SpaceX tends to expend cores they've gotten significant use out of, rather than new ones - so the core would have been "paid off" by then.