3 ms·
What utter nonsense. Sure the investors are willing to invest so much money into a failing company at a high evaluation because they are such idiots? > Note t
by nickik 6y ago
What utter nonsense.
Sure the investors are willing to invest so much money into a failing company at a high evaluation because they are such idiots?
> Note that there's a very small world-wide market for satellite launches, which won't pay for the above.
They are raising money for Starlink, not sat launching.
> The reusable feature of SpaceX is a business mistake, as noted by both ULA and ESA.
ESA is spending 100s of million researching re-usability and developing reusable engines, their next rocket after Ariane 6 will be reusable. Arianespace has already admitted that Ariane 6 is not competitive and have asked Europe to force all domestic launches onto Ariane 6.
ULA is military created monopoly all their rockets were built with government money and in their whole existence they were utterly non-competitive in the international launch market. Taking their word for what is the right way to compete in the international rocket market is like taking sex advice from a priest.
Fact is, ULA doesn't know how to create a re-usable rocket and the parent companies don't want to invest the money to figure it out.
> Elon Musk is a welfare queen, as all of his businesses rely on govt. handouts and rebates.
Also wrong.
- baq 6y agoULA's Atlas 5 at least has an enviable reliability record, so it isn't all bad.
- nickik 6y agoThat is true, they are reliable. But we shouldn't go overboard with that. It used to their claim to fame was 'we launch on time reliably'. The 'we launch on time' is now no longer true, they had lots of issue with that recently. Arianespace had such issues too, Ariane 5 was actually grounded for most of last year. SpaceX is a far more reliable on time to launch by now. SpaceX has insurance cost as low or lower and they are certified for all military and NASA payloads. Including bieng certified for humans before Atlas 5 was. In terms of reliability the newest version of Falcon 9 that has the human rating is rapidly approaching 100 flights and never had a failure. Even if you account for all Falcon 9 launches, their reliability is still very good. Atlas 5 recently had a shutdown of the first stage engine and only because the 2nd stage was overpowered it was able to barley compensate. Had the payload been just a little heavier it would have been a launch failure. Arianespace also had reliability issues, they recently launched a payload somewhat in the wrong direction because they had the wrong software on the rocket.