4 ms·

>You are directly repeating the propaganda Arianespace and Russia has been pushing about SpaceX since the beginning. I would honestly advice you to rethink this

>You are directly repeating the propaganda Arianespace and Russia has been pushing about SpaceX since the beginning. I would honestly advice you to rethink this before repeating stuff that is pushed by lots of Russian government channels. What a crazy accusation to make. I can't have an opinion about the business model of a company lest some doofus accuses me of what? Being a russian bot? Spreading DANGEROUS ideas? Jesus Christ. Get a handle on yourself. I have no doubt Russians are not objective observers here. SpaceX is a competitor so the criticism they level has to be seen through that lens ... but ... their criticism will have a kernel of truth. On the other side, because of Musk's cult of personality (and don't misunderstood, I like Musk), his companies don't necessarily get the same level of scrutiny either. Are you sure you're looking at it objectively? I'm not a 'space guy'. I watched video by Thunderf00t where he made some credible points against some of the claims SpaceX makes [1] especially around cost savings of reusability. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU

nickik 6y ago
I'm not saying you are russian bot, I'm saying governments and companies that don't like SpaceX have spread a lot of misinformation and people pick them up as facts. I didn't say these ideas were dangerous, just wrong. SpaceX became commercially dominate when they were had less government money then Orbital, ULA or Arianespace. That is simple fact. For these companies like Arianespace to have the odacity to complain that SpaceX get financed by government contract while they literally got a check for Ariane 6 that is larger then all development money received by SpaceX for Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon 1, Cargo Dragon (2), Crew Dragon. Not to mention that the money for Ariane 6 is just for that rocket, the individual engines have been government financed with separate budgets for far longer. The Vinci for example has been funded with government money since 2003. Is just insane cognitive dissonance for them to claim foul. > their criticism will have a kernel of truth It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid. You can just go threw the time progression on the competitors about SpaceX since 2010, first they claimed their prices were not achievable and they would go bankrupt, then they had to much backlog and they couldn't achieve high launch rates, then it was that they couldn't land rockets, then it was that they couldn't actually reuse them, then it was they can't reuse them economically, then it was that while maybe each reuse was economical overall it was not economical because there are not enough launches overall. The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft. Likely this year SpaceX will launch closer to 70% of global payload to Orbit. Their strategy has clearly paid of and allowed them to do thing that were considered impossible not long ago. Thunderf00t is basically a well known troll that has zero credibility among space fans. He loves to make wide ranging conclusion on very little evidence, lots of extrapolation and even more characterization of the discussion, arguing against straw-men. If you are gone talk about the 'Cult of Musk', Thunderf00t is the opposite basically the pope of the 'Cult of Anti-Musk', he made a career of making videos about how every Musk is wrong about everything.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft. Again, I'm not arguing that SpaceX isn't capable of ferrying people or cargo into orbit, or that they don't have a viable business, or that they are not leaders in this market segment. That's all fine. I have no issues with Musk or SpaceX. I like seeing American companies succeeding. But perhaps Musk should dial down the hyperbole. >It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid But reusability isn't a panacea for cost savings. There are real challenges with reusable rockets. This is where Thunderf00t does a real good job explaining the issues because they aren't space-specific, but rather the problem derives from first principles of Newtonian mechanics (https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU?t=891 https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU?t=891) namely, you have to carry the fuel for return, which severely cuts into the amount of payload you can take up. Also, maintenance is expensive. But the issues are there. Tory Bruno, the CEO of ULA lays out the challenges of reusable rockets: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_on_reusability_one_would_want_a_fleet/fnepmov/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_o... . Yes, he's a competitor, but his argument strikes me as honest and credible. So SpaceX hasn't proven the concept yet. They haven't made enough flights (and only the first stage boosters are actually reusable). The Space Shuttle is a good guide of how subtle the issues may be and it may take years to fully realize the flaws in the design or economics. Believe me, I wish them well. >If you are gone talk about the 'Cult of Musk', Thunderf00t is the opposite basically the pope of the 'Cult of Anti-Musk', he made a career of making videos about how every Musk is wrong about everything. To be fair to Thunderf00t, Musk says a lot of objectively idiotic things. So the low hanging fruit of, say, hyperloop, that Thunderf00t took much glee in trashing was kind of warranted. It's a stupid concept. SpaceX, specifically Musk and SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, also made some outrageously silly arguments around city-to-city rocket-powered transport [2] - a concept that is so idiotic I'm flabbergasted Shotwell (and Musk) would actually try to advance it seriously and also claim it would be available within 10 years. Come on man. And that's the problem with SpaceX and Musk in a nutshell, there make a lot of unfeasible aspirational claims that are taken at face-value by their devotees. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA (skip to 15m to see the claim about city-to-city rocket transport)

nickik 6y ago

I'm not saying you are russian bot, I'm saying governments and companies that don't like SpaceX have spread a lot of misinformation and people pick them up as facts. I didn't say these ideas were dangerous, just wrong. SpaceX became commercially dominate when they were had less government money then Orbital, ULA or Arianespace. That is simple fact. For these companies like Arianespace to have the odacity to complain that SpaceX get financed by government contract while they literally got a check for Ariane 6 that is larger then all development money received by SpaceX for Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon 1, Cargo Dragon (2), Crew Dragon. Not to mention that the money for Ariane 6 is just for that rocket, the individual engines have been government financed with separate budgets for far longer. The Vinci for example has been funded with government money since 2003. Is just insane cognitive dissonance for them to claim foul. > their criticism will have a kernel of truth It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid. You can just go threw the time progression on the competitors about SpaceX since 2010, first they claimed their prices were not achievable and they would go bankrupt, then they had to much backlog and they couldn't achieve high launch rates, then it was that they couldn't land rockets, then it was that they couldn't actually reuse them, then it was they can't reuse them economically, then it was that while maybe each reuse was economical overall it was not economical because there are not enough launches overall. The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft. Likely this year SpaceX will launch closer to 70% of global payload to Orbit. Their strategy has clearly paid of and allowed them to do thing that were considered impossible not long ago. Thunderf00t is basically a well known troll that has zero credibility among space fans. He loves to make wide ranging conclusion on very little evidence, lots of extrapolation and even more characterization of the discussion, arguing against straw-men. If you are gone talk about the 'Cult of Musk', Thunderf00t is the opposite basically the pope of the 'Cult of Anti-Musk', he made a career of making videos about how every Musk is wrong about everything.

macspoofing 6y ago
>The fact is SpaceX launched 50% of the global payload to Orbit, and over around 30% of all spacecraft. Again, I'm not arguing that SpaceX isn't capable of ferrying people or cargo into orbit, or that they don't have a viable business, or that they are not leaders in this market segment. That's all fine. I have no issues with Musk or SpaceX. I like seeing American companies succeeding. But perhaps Musk should dial down the hyperbole. >It my have a kernel of truth but if the 'truth' is something totally banal like 'Reusability is not a panacea.' then that doesn't actually make their arguments valid But reusability isn't a panacea for cost savings. There are real challenges with reusable rockets. This is where Thunderf00t does a real good job explaining the issues because they aren't space-specific, but rather the problem derives from first principles of Newtonian mechanics (https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU?t=891 https://youtu.be/4TxkE_oYrjU?t=891) namely, you have to carry the fuel for return, which severely cuts into the amount of payload you can take up. Also, maintenance is expensive. But the issues are there. Tory Bruno, the CEO of ULA lays out the challenges of reusable rockets: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_on_reusability_one_would_want_a_fleet/fnepmov/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ftstmv/tony_o... . Yes, he's a competitor, but his argument strikes me as honest and credible. So SpaceX hasn't proven the concept yet. They haven't made enough flights (and only the first stage boosters are actually reusable). The Space Shuttle is a good guide of how subtle the issues may be and it may take years to fully realize the flaws in the design or economics. Believe me, I wish them well. >If you are gone talk about the 'Cult of Musk', Thunderf00t is the opposite basically the pope of the 'Cult of Anti-Musk', he made a career of making videos about how every Musk is wrong about everything. To be fair to Thunderf00t, Musk says a lot of objectively idiotic things. So the low hanging fruit of, say, hyperloop, that Thunderf00t took much glee in trashing was kind of warranted. It's a stupid concept. SpaceX, specifically Musk and SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell, also made some outrageously silly arguments around city-to-city rocket-powered transport [2] - a concept that is so idiotic I'm flabbergasted Shotwell (and Musk) would actually try to advance it seriously and also claim it would be available within 10 years. Come on man. And that's the problem with SpaceX and Musk in a nutshell, there make a lot of unfeasible aspirational claims that are taken at face-value by their devotees. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dar8P3r7GYA (skip to 15m to see the claim about city-to-city rocket transport)