4 ms·

I truly hope not, SpaceX is a rare source of joy and enterprise in a sea of mediocrity.

by gremloni 5y ago

ralusek 5y ago
Seriously. This would be a tragedy, and I'm really hoping this is just a questionable motivation tactic.
- mrep 5y ago
  Spacex was last valued at 100 billion, musk has 263 billion dollars of tesla stock at their current valuation which he can liquidate to personally finance spacex. Zero chance they go bankrupt as long as he has that much tesla stock value.
  - itsoktocry 5y ago
    >musk has 263 billion dollars of tesla stock at their current valuation which he can liquidate to personally finance spacex. Zero chance they go bankrupt as long as he has that much tesla stock value. These points contradict each other.
    - mrep 5y ago
      As long as he doesn't do it all at once, not really. It's not like he would need all 263 billion at once and he sold 9.9 billion dollars worth this month alone [0]. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-sells-more-shares-one-billion-2021-11#:~:text=Elon%20Musk%20just%20offloaded%20another,sales%20total%20to%20%249.9%20billion&text=Since%20his%20November%206%20Twitter,the%20social%20media%20platform%20approved https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-sells-more-shares-one-b....
jimsimmons 5y ago
I don’t know. People extend their sense of endearment towards space to SpaceX as it is the best positioned company. Americans have a ton of nostalgia about the space race. Hollywood gave a lot of cool tales. A lot of emotions at play here. Take a step back and look at the technology. Sure reusable rockets are cool but still way short of what we need to make it economical at scale. People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. Even then we have a long way ahead. Maybe if there’s a breakthrough in propulsion, fuels etc that’ll give a 10x-100x efficiency improvement then we can hope for something in our lifetime. Otherwise I still see it as a niche activity. I don’t really get this “single point of failure” argument. Sure, I won’t deny that risk but it’s situated in a cosmic timescale. I don’t see it with any urgency just as I don’t see earth being swallowed by the Sun or the heat death of the universe with urgency. These are cataclysmic events.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > Sure reusable rockets are cool but still way short of what we need to make it economical at scale. That is exactly what Starship is attempting to do. > People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. They could easily be surpassed with the same amount of money. > Maybe if there’s a breakthrough in propulsion, fuels etc that’ll give a 10x-100x efficiency improvement then we can hope for something in our lifetime. Full and rapid re-usability is exactly that break-threw. There is a reason every other method of transportation is very re-usable and much cheaper. Other fuels make it more expensive, not less. Cheaper then methane is unlikely whatever it is.
  - avmich 5y ago
    >> People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. > They could easily be surpassed with the same amount of money. We're actually surpassing it every day. With the exception of manned Moon flights - largely because the lack of immediate need, and associated with that barrier of lacking specialized equipment like lunar lander - all or almost all manned and unmanned technologies are used on a substantially higher level today.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      I was referring to the moon flights. Of course I know that most of technology is much better today. I just recently did some comparison between engines of Saturn 1B and Falcon 9 for example.
  - techdragon 5y ago
    Cheapest fuel combinations from a logistics perspective, accounting for cost factors affecting shipping, handling, complexity of handling in the fuelling operations and storage inside the rocket, and cost impact on the rocket motor itself. Based on the "outsider analysis" that I performed a couple of years ago as a non-"aerospace engineer" who's way to interested in rocket engines. Leads to this: - Toxic -> Red Fuming Nitric Acid (RFNA) and pretty much any mix of liquid hydrocarbons of molecular weight / distillation fraction between Diesel and Kerosene (probably more generous than that) - Non Toxic -> Nitrous Oxide and Propane. This is of course not factoring in the price to performance ratio of the fuel choice which is why many rockets chose other combinations. This sort of math really only applies when you start thinking about things like "how expensive would it be to fuel a sea dragon sized rocket".

I truly hope not, SpaceX is a rare source of joy and enterprise in a sea of mediocrity.

ralusek 5y ago

Seriously. This would be a tragedy, and I'm really hoping this is just a questionable motivation tactic.

mrep 5y ago
Spacex was last valued at 100 billion, musk has 263 billion dollars of tesla stock at their current valuation which he can liquidate to personally finance spacex. Zero chance they go bankrupt as long as he has that much tesla stock value.
- itsoktocry 5y ago
  >musk has 263 billion dollars of tesla stock at their current valuation which he can liquidate to personally finance spacex. Zero chance they go bankrupt as long as he has that much tesla stock value. These points contradict each other.
  - mrep 5y ago
    As long as he doesn't do it all at once, not really. It's not like he would need all 263 billion at once and he sold 9.9 billion dollars worth this month alone [0]. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-sells-more-shares-one-billion-2021-11#:~:text=Elon%20Musk%20just%20offloaded%20another,sales%20total%20to%20%249.9%20billion&text=Since%20his%20November%206%20Twitter,the%20social%20media%20platform%20approved https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-sells-more-shares-one-b....

jimsimmons 5y ago

I don’t know. People extend their sense of endearment towards space to SpaceX as it is the best positioned company. Americans have a ton of nostalgia about the space race. Hollywood gave a lot of cool tales. A lot of emotions at play here. Take a step back and look at the technology. Sure reusable rockets are cool but still way short of what we need to make it economical at scale. People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. Even then we have a long way ahead. Maybe if there’s a breakthrough in propulsion, fuels etc that’ll give a 10x-100x efficiency improvement then we can hope for something in our lifetime. Otherwise I still see it as a niche activity. I don’t really get this “single point of failure” argument. Sure, I won’t deny that risk but it’s situated in a cosmic timescale. I don’t see it with any urgency just as I don’t see earth being swallowed by the Sun or the heat death of the universe with urgency. These are cataclysmic events.

panick21_ 5y ago
> Sure reusable rockets are cool but still way short of what we need to make it economical at scale. That is exactly what Starship is attempting to do. > People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. They could easily be surpassed with the same amount of money. > Maybe if there’s a breakthrough in propulsion, fuels etc that’ll give a 10x-100x efficiency improvement then we can hope for something in our lifetime. Full and rapid re-usability is exactly that break-threw. There is a reason every other method of transportation is very re-usable and much cheaper. Other fuels make it more expensive, not less. Cheaper then methane is unlikely whatever it is.
- avmich 5y ago
  >> People in 60s over achieved and it’ll be a long time before we surpass them. > They could easily be surpassed with the same amount of money. We're actually surpassing it every day. With the exception of manned Moon flights - largely because the lack of immediate need, and associated with that barrier of lacking specialized equipment like lunar lander - all or almost all manned and unmanned technologies are used on a substantially higher level today.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    I was referring to the moon flights. Of course I know that most of technology is much better today. I just recently did some comparison between engines of Saturn 1B and Falcon 9 for example.
- techdragon 5y ago
  Cheapest fuel combinations from a logistics perspective, accounting for cost factors affecting shipping, handling, complexity of handling in the fuelling operations and storage inside the rocket, and cost impact on the rocket motor itself. Based on the "outsider analysis" that I performed a couple of years ago as a non-"aerospace engineer" who's way to interested in rocket engines. Leads to this: - Toxic -> Red Fuming Nitric Acid (RFNA) and pretty much any mix of liquid hydrocarbons of molecular weight / distillation fraction between Diesel and Kerosene (probably more generous than that) - Non Toxic -> Nitrous Oxide and Propane. This is of course not factoring in the price to performance ratio of the fuel choice which is why many rockets chose other combinations. This sort of math really only applies when you start thinking about things like "how expensive would it be to fuel a sea dragon sized rocket".