[spwa4]

I explained why SpaceX is a bad deal for the US government. They have strategic reasons why they cannot be limited to SpaceX. Hence anything "saved" by a SpaceX launch is illusory: they can choose to pay for SLS ... or they can choose to pay for SLS AND for SpaceX.

Which number will be bigger? The price of SpaceX launches doesn't even matter. Or in economic lingo: SpaceX launches aren't that much cheaper to the marginal cost of SLS, which is what matters.

EVERY private space launch company beats SLS on price. Nothing special about SpaceX on that front. Who has the cheapest launch cost? This might be a surprise, but Russia does (about 50 million dollars). Yes Falcon can carry more and is more modern, but all rockets are different (and they do have big ones too), but you want cheapest? Russia is currently unbeatable, mostly because they do close to zero development at this point. Obviously, you can see the problem with using Russia too.

[stetrain]

> They have strategic reasons why they cannot be limited to SpaceX. Hence anything "saved" by a SpaceX launch is illusory: they can choose to pay for SLS ... or they can choose to pay for SLS AND for SpaceX.

There are other options than SpaceX and SLS. And SLS is not designed or destined to launch the majority of US government payloads as an alternative to SLS.

SpaceX's primary market competitors are ULA and Blue Origin. The US govt can continue to fund competition even if the SLS program goes way.

[spwa4]

Ok, I don't fully agree, but it's beside the point ... that makes all government money spent on SpaceX worthless (because it cannot replace money that has to be spent)

Think of it like buying a car ... after you've already signed the contract to buy a new car. The contract signing means that all money spent on cars afterwards is money wasted, because you will have to complete the contract regardless. Likewise, buying a rocket from SpaceX does not let the government avoid spending on SLS.

[stetrain]

> that makes all government money spent on SpaceX worthless

I don't follow your logic. I think you're conflating two very different things, the US government launch market and the Artemis lunar program.

The US government previously paid ULA as the sole provider for many launch services. (Well, before that it was Boeing and Lockheed but they consolidated into ULA).

Since SpaceX became a competitive provider, the US government has had a choice on new contracts between ULA and SpaceX in competitive bids. SpaceX has won many contracts by being cheaper than ULA, and ULA has dropped their own prices to be more competitive to SpaceX.

That is real savings on US government launches through competition. There's no 20 year committed car loan on all future rocket launches that the US government is already paying for these services.

SLS isn't really part of the picture for the vast majority of these launches that SpaceX is winning contracts on. SLS is being built for upcoming lunar missions only at this point, as part of the Artemis program.

SpaceX's existing Artemis contract is to provide a lander to work alongside the SLS rocket and Orion, not as a replacement for SLS. Without SpaceX's lander there will be no way for astronauts to get from lunar orbit to the surface for the initial planned landing missions.

But treating SLS solely as money already committed to be spent is a sunk cost fallacy. The SLS continues to cost billions per launch even if you ignore all of the development costs up until this point. It can also only launch once every year or two.

A mission architecture based on competitive bids from multiple service providers (ULA, Blue Origin, and SpaceX) will almost certainly cost less going forward and allow an increased flight rate.