only one problem with that narrative....
SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing....
Its a repeat of the space shuttle argument...which failed dramatically bigger in both costs and human deaths.
SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing....
Its a repeat of the space shuttle argument...which failed dramatically bigger in both costs and human deaths.
What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen times.
NASA paid SpaceX the originally agreed amount of $3.1 billion for six flights, and SpaceX seems happy to continue the arrangement. Boeing has spent $6.7 billion so far.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...
9 times so far, and it'll be 10 times in about a month.
More detail for others: SpaceX and Boeing each signed contracts as part of the Commercial Crew program for six operational manned missions. After SpaceX fulfilled its six, NASA awarded another contract for eight more. Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.
The current Starliner flight in abeyance at ISS is a pre-operational manned test mission (SpaceX's equivalent was done in May 2020). In other words, Boeing has not yet begun its six operational missions!
Tell me when SpaceX had to repeat an entire ISS test flight on their own dime because the first one was such a disaster?
Boeing charged twice as much as SpaceX,[1] but at the time it was justified because Boeing was considered the "safe" option. How times change!
[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-f...
SpaceX received fixed price contracts at lower prices than Boeing's and then delivered on those contracts, ferrying 7 full crews and one test crew to and from ISS with an 8th full crew about to return and a 9th soon launching, all with no additional charges.
Boeing has charged hundreds of millions above and beyond the fixed price contract and has yet to deliver and return astronauts from ISS on a single completed mission.
SpaceX absolutely has had lots of test failures - they've probably blown up more rockets then many recent players - but their cadence is super quick, and their cost per item far far lower and they seem to be able to fix stuff.
You can do some napkin math and guess that their flights for NASA are profitable, along with all the other commercial work they do. We don't know if SpaceX as a whole is profitable, but, I'd assume it's not given how heavily they're into R&D at this point. What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development if their cost per kg is actually realized.
For all anyone actually knows, Elon is willing to lose a ton per launch just to gain mindshare, kill the competition, and become the only game in town. You know, the Amazon playbook.
For all anyone knows, the Boeing quotes are reasonable and SpaceX's are unsustainable. Nobody actually knows... yet so many are willing to confidently assert SpaceX is obviously cheaper.
> What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on development
This is a space race. The day when SpaceX no longer needs to spend "crazy amounts of money on development" may never actually come.
1. Being a viable sustainable business is a requirement for some of SpaceX's NASA and the Space Force's contracts. NASA & the Space Force have access to SpaceX's books and SpaceX has passed these audits.
2. SpaceX has very obviously been spending many billions to build Starlink and Starship and to pay >14,000 employess. SpaceX has not raised significant money for over 18 months, nor have previous raises been enough to cover their fairly obvious expenditures. That money is coming from somewhere, and process of elimination says "profits".
Now, that may just have been the case for IT infra, but, their impression was that at very least their facility had a blank check and costs didn't really matter.
Ironically, they left after getting a promotion while stiffing them on a raise. That, understandably, didn't sit well with them in the light of the rest of the situation.
They do tests on production vehicles too, e.g. the static fires that precede just about every launch, but those aren't directly comparable to the stuff they deliberately blow up to see how that happens.
Why do you believe this is the case?
Numbers?
Boeing's partially accounted for cost overruns are quite hard to read. Their meter needs a pause button.
Anyway, the relevant issue is net cost. SpaceX is currently going deeply negative unbounded. I.e. net profitable for customer launches.