[somenameforme]

Falcon Heavy reusable is the most $ efficient system at around $1500 $/kg. The Space Shuttle costs were $54,000 $/kg. If you want to nitpick that that's "only" a 97% cost reduction instead of a 99%... well that's the sort of good faith debate I've come to expect from the aforementioned vocal minority in any topic related to Elon, and with all the class you've already demonstrated in your post.

[Veserv]

Why are you deceptively bringing up the Space Shuttle? That was never intended to be a serious cost-effective launch vehicle. Also, why are you deceptively talking about 97% and 99% like the difference between 30x and 100x is not a factor of 3?

The Ariane 5, first launching in 2003 which is 7 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~150 M$ in 2015 with a payload to LEO of ~16,000 kg for a cost of 10,000 $/kg. The Soyuz-2, first launching in 2004 which is 6 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~35 M$ with a payload to LEO of ~8,000 kg for a cost of ~4,500 $/kg.

The truth is 3-6% of your claim of 100x cost improvement.

[somenameforme]

Because the Space Shuttle is what SpaceX replaced. A 97% discount relative to that is what SpaceX has managed, after a commercial profit margin. 99% is 2 orders of magnitude. So you're here bickering over 2% with all the class that one would expect.

[Veserv]

No it did not. Nobody launched their commercial satellites on Space Shuttles. Soyuz, Atlas, Proton, Delta, Long March, Ariane; those are commercial launch vehicles. Even considering crewed missions we can look to ISS crew missions which were half Soyuz missions and then entirely Soyuz missions between 2009-2020.

And again, you do not seem to understand how percentages work. If I have a thing that costs 1,000 $ and I find a 99% cost reduction it is now 10 $. A 97% cost reduction means it is 30 $. That is a 3x difference. The difference between 1% and 3% is a factor of 3x. That is half of a order of magnitude right there and here you are claiming it is small.

So you are wrong on history, wrong on comparables, and wrong on math to defend a man who runs a company that is legally, and I quote a actual legal decision: a "greviously reprehensible... grossly racist workplace"[1]. But, you know, racism man good because he slightly lowered the cost of cruise ship internet I guess.

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06... Page 31.

[somenameforme]

You're engaging in some wild freak out mental gymnastics here. Seriously, just read your paragraph about me not understanding percents, and tell me you don't get hard-core Chewbacca Defense [1] vibes. It seriously reads not only like satire, but pretty good satire! You just need to add a QED to the end. lol

And don't trust flatterbots to argue for you. They hallucinate regularly and just make you look more absurd. The Space Shuttle was flying crewed missions to the ISS until 2011. The reason they stopped is because the Space Shuttle had been retired and commercial crew began, which was ultimately won by SpaceX. Well SpaceX and Boeing in an overt act of insiderism, but Boeing is still - 15 years later - trying to figure out how this whole space thingy works.

The alternatives you mention were never commercially viable against SpaceX. All not only cost multiple times more but come with significantly worse reliability records as well as lacking the payload capacity of something like Falcon Heavy for those missions that require it. And when you look at things like the Soyuz, the sticker price doesn't matter so much as the price companies were obligated to pay. They offered cheap internal launches, and charged dramatically higher rates for foreign launchers - including NASA. By the end NASA was paying $90mil/seat.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV6NoNkDGsU

[Veserv]

Yes, you clearly do not understand how percentages work given that you continue to argue that the difference between 30x and 100x is just "2%".

You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was using crew rotation missions to highlight that not just commercial satellite launches, but also one of the other important class of missions, crew rotation, also regularly used alternatives to the Space Shuttle disproving your point that the Space Shuttle had some sort of magical monopoly on launches and thus the only alternative to compare against.

You were the one arguing that alternatives cost over 100x more than SpaceX. Even deceptively comparing against the Space Shuttle you were still off by a factor of 3x and comparing against actual competitors your claim is off by a factor of 16x-30x. Your claim is egregiously wrong. Continuing to argue it means you are either completely ignorant or utterly biased or both. I am done here.

[somenameforme]

I said that the difference between a 99% saving and a 97% was 2%. You're the one engaging in freak out mental gymnastics to try to turn that into 'ACTUAAAALLLY... that's like a 300% difference and the proof is that Elon kicked my dog.'

And no, I obviously know you're just grabbing nonsense from your flatterbot of choice. The tell tale is being easily confused on basic points, making rather nonsensical statements, being oddly precise about irrelevant esoteric details, and then finding yourself in a situation where you're left trying to recombobulate it all back into something sensical, which you're not quite succeeding at. Your post above is borderline incoherent, even moreso than the 97% to 99% = 300% nonsense.