6 ms·

I do find this to be actually legendary. At a target rate of about one per month, he is set to produce stainless steel, rapidly reusable, 150-ton-capable Mars t

I do find this to be actually legendary. At a target rate of about one per month, he is set to produce stainless steel, rapidly reusable, 150-ton-capable Mars transports. And is doing this using currently "about 5%" of the resources of his own commercially built satellite launch company, grown from scratch in a decade or so and out-performing every other nations satellite launch programs - by a large margin. His presentation is noticeably a little self-concious, but not so much as to obscure his enjoyment to be standing in front of the first massive shimmering yet wielded and dented together rocket ship, which is due to demonstrate lift off and landing in a month or so.

lettergram 7y ago
I had the same thoughts watching that.m - it’s been 17 years, but the company is amazing. Each rocket contains as much pressurized space as the ISS. I do however think the “rapid reusability” thing is going to be a challenge. He mentioned 20 flights a day for the booster and 6 (or so) for the starships. I expect 1 per day tops, still exceedingly impressive, but once one of these blow up (or hopefully before) they’ll have heavy pre-flight inspections. Starting off id hope for heavy inspections, then following a period of no error inspections could be reduced.
aiyodev 7y ago
Let's hope Musk can produce something other than investment theater.
- grey-area 7y ago
  He has, at multiple companies.
- tdy721 7y ago
  Go watch the landing fail reel, or Crew Dragon blow up. I guess you’re on team Starliner goes first? An electric car in solar orbit? He’s actually trying to conquer space! Go stink on the Solar City deal, but leave the rockets alone. He produced a real working reusable ICBM booster!
  - sgt101 7y ago
    ICBMs can't be reusable. Due to thermonuclear evaporation issues.
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      You could always try to land the boosters. It's only the payload that evaporates along with the target.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Only the reentry vehicles die. Everything else putting it up there can live again.
      - stretch_goals 7y ago
        To do what? The world has ended...
- nickik 7y ago
  Because reusable rockets are not enough to impress this guy
- trianglem 7y ago
  This is an asinine comment in light of the many tangible things he has achieved.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I'm amazed that people can make such statements despite all the videos of the Falcon re-entering the atmosphere and landing straight
- rocqua 7y ago
  On tesla, sure. SpaceX is private though, and seems like it'll stay that way.
jillesvangurp 7y ago
I think he's beating even his own expectations with SpaceX. This company is just wildly successful in reaching seemingly impossible goals that they keep setting for themselves. I think it mainly shows just how ineffective and inept the established players have become. The companies and organizations that got us to the moon 50 years ago still exist but seem to have lost a lot of their ability to get things done. Now that other countries are landing on the moon, the pressure is on to deliver the next persons to the moon and ultimately to Mars. Working backwards from that goal and the goal of going to Mars, Elon Musk has done what Nasa has not been able to get done for decades at a fraction of the budget they've consumed not getting there; or even deciding to go there. Better still, he's turned that into a profitable company.
- icebraining 7y ago
  One of the crucial factors in getting SpaceX going and becoming profitable was and is the funding from that budget you're talking about. NASA and SpaceX are not in competition, they have different goals; getting the private industry to produce cheaper rockets so that NASA can spend more on the actual space exploration (69 ongoing missions!) is one they are achieving with these bets on SpaceX.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  > I think it mainly shows just how ineffective and inept the established players have become. The companies and organizations that got us to the moon 50 years ago still exist but seem to have lost a lot of their ability to get things done. This is assuming the moon landing's objective was space exploration. If instead you think of that as a gigantic muscle flexing and chest thumping intimidation exercise, that ultimately led to the USSR's losing the arms race and the Cold War, then it was a very efficient allocation of resources.
- stretch_goals 7y ago
  > seemingly impossible goals that they keep setting for themselves John Carmack made this point on the JRE podcast when talking about his failed Armadillo Aerospace, that a rocket company needs to have outrageous goals, otherwise you'll waste ten years accomplishing nothing (think Amazon Blue Origin).
ianai 7y ago
I’m impressed by all this. I was apprehensive about the direction NASA took after they EOL’d their shuttles. I’ve also been suspicious of Musk’s Tesla being able to enter the automotive industry. But it seems like we can see the light at the end of this transition to commercial space flight.
bentona 7y ago
Agreed. There are software companies that can't get iteration down to less than a month and this guy is going to do with rocket ships - absolutely amazing.

lettergram 7y ago

I had the same thoughts watching that.m - it’s been 17 years, but the company is amazing. Each rocket contains as much pressurized space as the ISS. I do however think the “rapid reusability” thing is going to be a challenge. He mentioned 20 flights a day for the booster and 6 (or so) for the starships. I expect 1 per day tops, still exceedingly impressive, but once one of these blow up (or hopefully before) they’ll have heavy pre-flight inspections. Starting off id hope for heavy inspections, then following a period of no error inspections could be reduced.

aiyodev 7y ago

Let's hope Musk can produce something other than investment theater.

grey-area 7y ago
He has, at multiple companies.
tdy721 7y ago
Go watch the landing fail reel, or Crew Dragon blow up. I guess you’re on team Starliner goes first? An electric car in solar orbit? He’s actually trying to conquer space! Go stink on the Solar City deal, but leave the rockets alone. He produced a real working reusable ICBM booster!
- sgt101 7y ago
  ICBMs can't be reusable. Due to thermonuclear evaporation issues.
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    You could always try to land the boosters. It's only the payload that evaporates along with the target.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Only the reentry vehicles die. Everything else putting it up there can live again.
    - stretch_goals 7y ago
      To do what? The world has ended...
nickik 7y ago
Because reusable rockets are not enough to impress this guy
trianglem 7y ago
This is an asinine comment in light of the many tangible things he has achieved.
puranjay 7y ago
I'm amazed that people can make such statements despite all the videos of the Falcon re-entering the atmosphere and landing straight
rocqua 7y ago
On tesla, sure. SpaceX is private though, and seems like it'll stay that way.

jillesvangurp 7y ago

I think he's beating even his own expectations with SpaceX. This company is just wildly successful in reaching seemingly impossible goals that they keep setting for themselves. I think it mainly shows just how ineffective and inept the established players have become. The companies and organizations that got us to the moon 50 years ago still exist but seem to have lost a lot of their ability to get things done. Now that other countries are landing on the moon, the pressure is on to deliver the next persons to the moon and ultimately to Mars. Working backwards from that goal and the goal of going to Mars, Elon Musk has done what Nasa has not been able to get done for decades at a fraction of the budget they've consumed not getting there; or even deciding to go there. Better still, he's turned that into a profitable company.

icebraining 7y ago
One of the crucial factors in getting SpaceX going and becoming profitable was and is the funding from that budget you're talking about. NASA and SpaceX are not in competition, they have different goals; getting the private industry to produce cheaper rockets so that NASA can spend more on the actual space exploration (69 ongoing missions!) is one they are achieving with these bets on SpaceX.
credit_guy 7y ago
> I think it mainly shows just how ineffective and inept the established players have become. The companies and organizations that got us to the moon 50 years ago still exist but seem to have lost a lot of their ability to get things done. This is assuming the moon landing's objective was space exploration. If instead you think of that as a gigantic muscle flexing and chest thumping intimidation exercise, that ultimately led to the USSR's losing the arms race and the Cold War, then it was a very efficient allocation of resources.
stretch_goals 7y ago
> seemingly impossible goals that they keep setting for themselves John Carmack made this point on the JRE podcast when talking about his failed Armadillo Aerospace, that a rocket company needs to have outrageous goals, otherwise you'll waste ten years accomplishing nothing (think Amazon Blue Origin).

ianai 7y ago

I’m impressed by all this. I was apprehensive about the direction NASA took after they EOL’d their shuttles. I’ve also been suspicious of Musk’s Tesla being able to enter the automotive industry. But it seems like we can see the light at the end of this transition to commercial space flight.

bentona 7y ago

Agreed. There are software companies that can't get iteration down to less than a month and this guy is going to do with rocket ships - absolutely amazing.