[avmich]

> this will be the most inexpensive option

Why do you think so? Russians are charging a steep price because of their monopoly, but it doesn't mean they have similarly high costs. As soon as a competitor surfaces, they can reduce the price. Do you think SpaceX will be able to compete on price? Why?

[toomuchtodo]

> Why do you think so? Russians are charging a steep price because of their monopoly, but it doesn't mean they have similarly high costs. As soon as a competitor surfaces, they can reduce the price. Do you think SpaceX will be able to compete on price? Why?

They built their platform from scratch. The Russians are using 1960s tech still.

It also helps SpaceX that Russia is always threatening to embargo exports of their rocket motors. Better to have a homegrown supplier versus being dependent on Vlad.

[avmich]

> They built their platform from scratch.

Yes, but SpaceX makes rather different ship from scratch. Crew Dragon should be nicer to ride than Soyuz - more space, better aerodynamics. But better qualities don't mean less price.

> The Russians are using 1960s tech still.

Yes, but that makes some tech more flight-proven and amortized over time. Like rockets - Soyuz and Proton are old, but quite inexpensive (albeit with reliability issues lately). At the same time, lots of internals of Soyuz were changed.

> It also helps SpaceX that Russia is always threatening to embargo exports of their rocket motors.

Fully agree here. But that's not quite economical issue.

[andygates]

Reusability: the first stage is designed to be reuseable, the capsule is designed to be reuseable. The Russians, like everyone else, throw their rockets away.