5 ms·

Does anyone hate SpaceX?

by endtime 10y ago

williwu 10y ago
Jeff Bezos?
withdavidli 10y ago
other defense contractors
bobsil1 10y ago
Martians
legulere 10y ago
Environmentalists
- AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
  Why?
michaelbuckbee 10y ago
There was that 60 Minutes piece that had astronauts criticizing SpaceX harshly enough to make Elon Musk cry. https://youtu.be/8P8UKBAOfGo https://youtu.be/8P8UKBAOfGo
- oneloop 10y ago
  I had seen this, but I guess I was so taken aback at seeing Elon Musk's reaction that that I missed another interesting aspect. The American astronauts are calling out against the "commercialization of space". The same astronauts that were used as a propaganda tools against the communists.
  - moomin 10y ago
    So they're pro-imperialism but anti-capitalism. As far as I'm concerned, the Jury's still out on whether SpaceX is actually doing anything interesting. I mean, lifting things into orbit at cheaper rates is useful, but there's no evidence of anything game-changing yet.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Getting first stages of rockets that completed actual missions both in LEO and GTO to land safely both on ground and on water doesn't count as game-changing?
      - DasIch 10y ago
        Landing the first stage is impressive but actually useful only in so far as it allows you to reuse it. SpaceX has yet to show that they can actually reuse the first stage. It will take longer still to show that they can do it reliably. Let's skip a few steps and assume they've achieved that. That's an important innovation, it changes the economics, will allow SpaceX to drop prices and potentially grow the market substantially. All of that would be amazing and a huge achievement but it would not push the frontier, it only brings in money that can be used for projects that do that. I would argue that for this reason it's not game-changing, it's incremental progress that enables further innovation that could be game-changing.
    - oneloop 10y ago
      From the history of business it seems to me that many/most of the great innovations are making things a lot cheaper and convenient. Cars weren't transformational when only a few rich people could afford them. So depending on how successful SpaceX is at "lighting things into orbit cheaper", yes, I think they might actually be doing something interesting.
      - moomin 10y ago
        The responses here are pretty much on the money, but just to expand on my original remark: yes, you're right that just achieving their goals might be transformative. However, that would require someone to come up with a use for the tech that is outside of what's already being achieved. SpaceX's _goals_ are nowhere near the level of tech required to have a sustainable human presence anywhere other than earth, or even put more interesting objects on other planets. And to date we're still talking about costs out of the reach of many nations, never mind companies. Don't get me wrong, what they're doing is hugely impressive and the nerd in me thinks it's amazing. But making a difference in a way that (to go back up the chain) gets people upset? I don't think SpaceX has got close to that.
- mhurron 10y ago
  > harshly enough to make Elon Musk cry. Which itself was probably a marketing ploy to try and portray Musk as doing things out of the kindness of his heart.
- baldfat 10y ago
  To be fair it was an Anti-Obama stances more then an anti-SpaceX stance. This summons up most issues: The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
neuronexmachina 10y ago
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) has been a vocal opponent of SpaceX in Congress for quite some time. Example from 2010: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/04/spacexs_elon_musk_sen_richard.html http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/04/spacexs_elon_musk_sen_ri...
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Would be this the same Richard Shelby who has Boeing Co. as one of his top 5 contributors. Boeing of course been one of the partners in ULA a direct SpaceX competitor[0]. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009920 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000... What's sad is that they don't even pretend anymore, it's absolutely and completely blatant and rigged.
cpach 10y ago
I don’t hate it, but it does actually rank pretty low amongst projects I care about. I just don’t find it that interesting.

Does anyone hate SpaceX?

by endtime 10y ago

Does anyone hate SpaceX?

williwu 10y ago

Jeff Bezos?

withdavidli 10y ago

other defense contractors

bobsil1 10y ago

Martians

legulere 10y ago

Environmentalists

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
Why?

michaelbuckbee 10y ago

There was that 60 Minutes piece that had astronauts criticizing SpaceX harshly enough to make Elon Musk cry. https://youtu.be/8P8UKBAOfGo https://youtu.be/8P8UKBAOfGo

oneloop 10y ago
I had seen this, but I guess I was so taken aback at seeing Elon Musk's reaction that that I missed another interesting aspect. The American astronauts are calling out against the "commercialization of space". The same astronauts that were used as a propaganda tools against the communists.
- moomin 10y ago
  So they're pro-imperialism but anti-capitalism. As far as I'm concerned, the Jury's still out on whether SpaceX is actually doing anything interesting. I mean, lifting things into orbit at cheaper rates is useful, but there's no evidence of anything game-changing yet.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Getting first stages of rockets that completed actual missions both in LEO and GTO to land safely both on ground and on water doesn't count as game-changing?
    - DasIch 10y ago
      Landing the first stage is impressive but actually useful only in so far as it allows you to reuse it. SpaceX has yet to show that they can actually reuse the first stage. It will take longer still to show that they can do it reliably. Let's skip a few steps and assume they've achieved that. That's an important innovation, it changes the economics, will allow SpaceX to drop prices and potentially grow the market substantially. All of that would be amazing and a huge achievement but it would not push the frontier, it only brings in money that can be used for projects that do that. I would argue that for this reason it's not game-changing, it's incremental progress that enables further innovation that could be game-changing.
  - oneloop 10y ago
    From the history of business it seems to me that many/most of the great innovations are making things a lot cheaper and convenient. Cars weren't transformational when only a few rich people could afford them. So depending on how successful SpaceX is at "lighting things into orbit cheaper", yes, I think they might actually be doing something interesting.
    - moomin 10y ago
      The responses here are pretty much on the money, but just to expand on my original remark: yes, you're right that just achieving their goals might be transformative. However, that would require someone to come up with a use for the tech that is outside of what's already being achieved. SpaceX's _goals_ are nowhere near the level of tech required to have a sustainable human presence anywhere other than earth, or even put more interesting objects on other planets. And to date we're still talking about costs out of the reach of many nations, never mind companies. Don't get me wrong, what they're doing is hugely impressive and the nerd in me thinks it's amazing. But making a difference in a way that (to go back up the chain) gets people upset? I don't think SpaceX has got close to that.
mhurron 10y ago
> harshly enough to make Elon Musk cry. Which itself was probably a marketing ploy to try and portray Musk as doing things out of the kindness of his heart.
baldfat 10y ago
To be fair it was an Anti-Obama stances more then an anti-SpaceX stance. This summons up most issues: The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

neuronexmachina 10y ago

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) has been a vocal opponent of SpaceX in Congress for quite some time. Example from 2010: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/04/spacexs_elon_musk_sen_richard.html http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/04/spacexs_elon_musk_sen_ri...

noir_lord 10y ago
Would be this the same Richard Shelby who has Boeing Co. as one of his top 5 contributors. Boeing of course been one of the partners in ULA a direct SpaceX competitor[0]. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009920 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000... What's sad is that they don't even pretend anymore, it's absolutely and completely blatant and rigged.

cpach 10y ago

I don’t hate it, but it does actually rank pretty low amongst projects I care about. I just don’t find it that interesting.