Well, despite its owner, SpaceX is actually doing cool and useful stuff. Nobody else bothered with the reusable rocket thing until they made it happen. Starship is on the way to becoming the world’s first 100% reusable orbital transport system, propulsively landing the second stage as well as the first. Soon as they get those toasty melty flaps figured out.
I actually prefer NASA to focus on science engineering. There’s a need for private launch capabilities anyway and this way NASA can focus on what they do best.
The airspace is a public asset though. Letting capitalists exploit it for profit isn’t going to end well, if the rest of the environment is anything to go by.
NASA farms these out to outside companies to build anyway, as seen with the latest Boeing space fiasco, so I don’t necessarily believe this to be true. These defense contractors seem to be interested in little more than milking the US government for all they’re worth.
What is SpaceX spending on R&D? From what I’ve read, Starship is estimated to cost $10B for development and their R&D budget for 2023 was $1.5B. If NASA was going to build something similar themselves, they’ve had nearly 70 years and hundreds of billions to accomplish it.
In reality their budget goes toward companies like Boeing, Northrop Grummon, and Lockheed Martin, who then pocket it and build substandard equipment. This is all public information so I can’t imagine why people are downvoting other than being extremely emotional for some inexplicable reason.
NASA doesn’t have effective control of their budget anymore. Congress holds the purse strings and uses them like a harness
NASA gets funding to do something - like go to the moon, or track CO2 emissions. But it comes with strings - sometimes you have to build a certain component in a certain congressional district, sometimes Congress chooses the design you have to use
It’s a problem of politics and corruption. When the public supports NASA, they have more autonomy. When NASA gets a blank check, they do more with it - reusable rockets aren’t a new idea, and when they cancelled the shuttle program NASA had brain drain. Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla
In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17]Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.
So your claim that
Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla
conflicts with wikipedia’s history of the company.
You are omitting the lede. Public appetite for failure on tax payer funds is near zero. That increases time, complexity, and cost for launches (with or without humans aboard).
Which can be a failure in itself when you spend 10 years and tens of billions building something “perfectly” only for it to break on its maiden voyage. That makes you wonder what was the point of doing everything so methodically when they could have taken a more efficient and iterative approach.
I’m not saying it’s a good system, but one that exists due to the nature of the funding. Those external pressures (especially when it gets political) just don’t allow for the same amount of mistakes.
Remember, SpaceX was one failed launch away from bankruptcy.
SpaceX broke the decades-long practice of costs-plus contracts for lump sum contracts from DOD. DOD wanted to offer them the same costs-plus contract style they give to other defense contractors and SpaceX turned that down and demanded lump sum on delivery.
People forget Musk isn’t actually technically smart, he’s just good at buying into and investing in already good ideas using money he got by playing the capital machine (and his parents south africa money).
He didn’t found PayPal; he merged another company with them and capitalized on their already good idea.
He didn’t found Tesla, he invested in them and then drove the original founders out.
He did admittedly create SpaceX, but only by bringing on good engineers from the start after failing to buy ICBM’s from Russia. Yes, he tried that… spaceX has been successful only because he gave them the runway to let engineers work right.
The cult of personality is insane, he’s just another average investor bro who got lucky in the crazy growth of the 90’s/00s.
It’s more than that - he failed to create PayPal so his group bought a competitor, he didn’t found Tesla or spaceX - he claimed he did, then reached settlements with the actual founders to not contest his claims. He did start the boring company. It didn’t get off the ground because he can’t build a team
Thats right in Paypal and Tesla’s cases, he bought them and then gave himself the title of founder, but he did actually found SpaceX. Per wiki:
In early 2001, Elon Musk met Robert Zubrin and donated US$100,000 to his Mars Society, joining its board of directors for a short time.[11]: 30–31 He gave a plenary talk at their fourth convention where he announced Mars Oasis, a project to land a greenhouse and grow plants on Mars.[12][13] Musk initially attempted to acquire a Dnepr intercontinental ballistic missile for the project through Russian contacts from Jim Cantrell.[14]
Musk then returned with his team a second time to Moscow this time bringing Michael Griffin as well, but found the Russians increasingly unreceptive.[15][16] On the flight home Musk announced he could start a company to build the affordable rockets they needed instead.[16] By applying vertical integration,[15] using inexpensive commercial off-the-shelf components when possible,[16] and adopting the modular approach of modern software engineering, Musk believed SpaceX could significantly cut launch cost.[16]
In early 2002, Elon Musk started to look for staff for his company, soon to be named SpaceX. Musk approached five people for the initial positions at the fledgling company, including Michael Griffin, who declined the position of Chief Engineer,[17] Jim Cantrell and John Garvey (Cantrell and Garvey would later found the company Vector Launch), rocket engineer Tom Mueller, and Chris Thompson.[18][19] SpaceX was first headquartered in a warehouse in El Segundo, California. Early SpaceX employees, such as Tom Mueller (CTO), Gwynne Shotwell (COO), and Chris Thompson (VP of Operations), came from neighboring TRW and Boeing corporations. By November 2005, the company had 160 employees.[20] Musk personally interviewed and approved all of SpaceX’s early employees.[21]
Musk isn’t managing SpaceX… and why would the government do such a terrible job? Or is this one of those libertarian “government is always bad” things? Because NASA has a pretty good track record.
Musk is a fucking anti American liability. How the fuck does he have access to military contracts
Money
Well, despite its owner, SpaceX is actually doing cool and useful stuff. Nobody else bothered with the reusable rocket thing until they made it happen. Starship is on the way to becoming the world’s first 100% reusable orbital transport system, propulsively landing the second stage as well as the first. Soon as they get those toasty melty flaps figured out.
It just sucks that he’s in control of it.
Maybe NASA would have bothered if its funding hadn’t been cut again and again and again…
I actually prefer NASA to focus on science engineering. There’s a need for private launch capabilities anyway and this way NASA can focus on what they do best.
What’s the need for private launch capabilities? Private = capitalist. I don’t see much good in capitalist ventures.
Because there’s a need for private satellites? Should NASA use limited resources for that?
The airspace is a public asset though. Letting capitalists exploit it for profit isn’t going to end well, if the rest of the environment is anything to go by.
NASA farms these out to outside companies to build anyway, as seen with the latest Boeing space fiasco, so I don’t necessarily believe this to be true. These defense contractors seem to be interested in little more than milking the US government for all they’re worth.
Sure, because they don’t have any budget themselves…
They have a $25B yearly budget.
What is SpaceX spending on R&D? From what I’ve read, Starship is estimated to cost $10B for development and their R&D budget for 2023 was $1.5B. If NASA was going to build something similar themselves, they’ve had nearly 70 years and hundreds of billions to accomplish it.
In reality their budget goes toward companies like Boeing, Northrop Grummon, and Lockheed Martin, who then pocket it and build substandard equipment. This is all public information so I can’t imagine why people are downvoting other than being extremely emotional for some inexplicable reason.
NASA doesn’t have effective control of their budget anymore. Congress holds the purse strings and uses them like a harness
NASA gets funding to do something - like go to the moon, or track CO2 emissions. But it comes with strings - sometimes you have to build a certain component in a certain congressional district, sometimes Congress chooses the design you have to use
It’s a problem of politics and corruption. When the public supports NASA, they have more autonomy. When NASA gets a blank check, they do more with it - reusable rockets aren’t a new idea, and when they cancelled the shuttle program NASA had brain drain. Some of those people founded spaceX - Elon didn’t start it, he came in when they were getting off the ground, just like with Tesla
From wikipedia:
So your claim that
conflicts with wikipedia’s history of the company.
You are omitting the lede. Public appetite for failure on tax payer funds is near zero. That increases time, complexity, and cost for launches (with or without humans aboard).
Which can be a failure in itself when you spend 10 years and tens of billions building something “perfectly” only for it to break on its maiden voyage. That makes you wonder what was the point of doing everything so methodically when they could have taken a more efficient and iterative approach.
I’m not saying it’s a good system, but one that exists due to the nature of the funding. Those external pressures (especially when it gets political) just don’t allow for the same amount of mistakes.
Remember, SpaceX was one failed launch away from bankruptcy.
What spacecraft do you think they built themselves, without big contractors doing mos5 of the work…?
SpaceX broke the decades-long practice of costs-plus contracts for lump sum contracts from DOD. DOD wanted to offer them the same costs-plus contract style they give to other defense contractors and SpaceX turned that down and demanded lump sum on delivery.
People forget Musk isn’t actually technically smart, he’s just good at buying into and investing in already good ideas using money he got by playing the capital machine (and his parents south africa money).
He didn’t found PayPal; he merged another company with them and capitalized on their already good idea.
He didn’t found Tesla, he invested in them and then drove the original founders out.
He did admittedly create SpaceX, but only by bringing on good engineers from the start after failing to buy ICBM’s from Russia. Yes, he tried that… spaceX has been successful only because he gave them the runway to let engineers work right.
The cult of personality is insane, he’s just another average investor bro who got lucky in the crazy growth of the 90’s/00s.
Tres comas, indeed.
A glorious Silicon Valley reference.
It’s more than that - he failed to create PayPal so his group bought a competitor, he didn’t found Tesla or spaceX - he claimed he did, then reached settlements with the actual founders to not contest his claims. He did start the boring company. It didn’t get off the ground because he can’t build a team
Thats right in Paypal and Tesla’s cases, he bought them and then gave himself the title of founder, but he did actually found SpaceX. Per wiki:
Sure would be too bad if someone decided to federalize SpaceX… sure would…
Oh yes. Surely the federal government could manage it better than Musk. Think of the progress we could have if NASA were running SpaceX instead.
Musk isn’t managing SpaceX… and why would the government do such a terrible job? Or is this one of those libertarian “government is always bad” things? Because NASA has a pretty good track record.
I’m hoping reusables becomes so standard Musks company isn’t needed anymore.
But that’ll be a long ways off. I agree SpaceX basically revitalized the industry.
Money
asks the same question ☞ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/26/elon-musk-us-national-security
No one’s assassinated him yet 🤷♂️
Money