6 ms·

Calling the most successful space company in history 'not a success yet' is an insane position to hold. Its not a success to have more launch payload to orbit

Calling the most successful space company in history 'not a success yet' is an insane position to hold. Its not a success to have more launch payload to orbit then double of the rest of the world combined. To return the US to human launch. Having the most reliable rocket in history. Having revolutionized both the launch and the sat industry? Launched the largest rocket in the history of the world. Not sure what those things are other then great successes. If you are referring to the idea that SpaceX isn't profitable, then I would just say that SpaceX core business is very profitable and high margin. Because it was so profitable and high margin the had many investor to double down and take an two massive projects, Starlink and Starship. Starlink just recently has turned cash flow positive. And Starship is progressing very fast, just reticently a new world record in rocket engines was achieved with Raptor 3. Calling this anything other a brilliant success is just bad faith. Also, Zip2, Paypay are successes by any metric. Boring company is not a clear cut success but its also not a failure, most people would be happy having created a company like that, in Musk terms it isn't very successful yet. Also counting two 100 billion $ business 'a success' is a bit of an understatement.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) and isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases). Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? Astronomers aren't too happy with StarLink, nor pedestrians with Tesla FSD beta being open to any driver with more money than sense. Musk's track record is heavily spotted. We can celebrate the successes together without turning a blind eye to the problems.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) So to be considered 'starting from zero' a company needs to first create its own humans in a lab? > isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases) Nobody claimed it was. > Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? Not on my right now, but it just had 200 successful missions in a row. There is a link somewhere about statical methods of reliability and Falcon 9 is on top of that list. Even by just looking at simple % probability they are on top. I don't have the link at hand but if I can find it later Ill add it. > Astronomers aren't too happy with StarLink, nor pedestrians with Tesla FSD beta being open to any driver with more money than sense. So in order t ob considered successful every single person on the plant needs to love you? > Musk's track record is heavily spotted. We can celebrate the successes together without turning a blind eye to the problems. I am not doing that. Not everything has to be perfect to consider something a success. That a ridiculous standard.
- signatoremo 3y ago
  > Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? As for SpaceX’s success streak, reaching 200 missions without losing a payload due to a rocket malfunction extends a record unparalleled in the launch business. https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/05/10/spacexs-falcon-rocket-family-reaches-200-straight-successful-missions/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/05/10/spacexs-falcon-rocket-...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mgiannopoulos 3y ago
  “ SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) and isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases). ” So a company to be declared successful should only hire college graduates and only have private clients?
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Rocket reliability. Unfortunately the website www.spacelaunchreport.com has shut down, you can find some of the data here, Falcon 9 already on top of the list. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56087.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56087.0 Since then Falcon 9 has launched many times with 100% success rate. Its really not a competition anymore.
maxerickson 3y ago
The Starship was damaged leaving the pad and blew up. Not a launch until they can definitively say that the damage leaving the pad didn't contribute to the failure. The commercial rockets are going great though.
- imtringued 3y ago
  I don't know why you are being downvoted. Launchpad related damage is not a property of the rocket. Space X has launched smaller rockets that have damaged the launch pad. So having a launchpad failure is like having the mission fail in its entirety because you can't build a better rocket to fix the problem, you need a better launchpad. What I am trying to say is that there was nothing standing in the way of a successful Starship launch. The engines were known to work. The booster was known to work. The second stage was known to work. All they did was put it together and test stage separation. This should have been the moment where it became obvious that Starship will be ready for Artemis 3. The first Starship Prototype was launched in 2019. If you assume that they started development in 2018 (Musk has proto starship slides as early as 2011), then it is actually as much behind as SLS, which had to delay its planned launch after five years.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > I don't know why you are being downvoted. Because a launch is a launch, successful or not. Claiming they are behind SLS is kind of crazy. SLS was supposed to launch in 2017 initially. SLS was a creation of a 2011 Congress Act and of course SLS did not develop any of its own engines and is reusing lots of exiting parts and infrastructure. SLS also had absolutely gigantic amount of money when eating about 2.5 billion $ a year for 10+ years and will eat much much more before its first operational flight. SpaceX in comparison was not able to spend even 1/4 for most of Starships development, by now they are getting into the billions per year but that took a while. SLS is also just a far simpler design, basically a slightly adopted Detla 4 Upper Stage, while Starship is basically highly complex new reusable upper stage design.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Of course it is 'a launch'. It just not a successful one. Its the most powerful rocket that ever launched. Period. There is really no discussion on this. Just like the N1 was the most powerful before (by thrust at least if I remember correctly) before. It also was not successful. Just getting to the point of launching a rocket like that, having 33 engines like that is a huge achievement.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Calling this anything other a brilliant success is just bad faith. No, it's not bad faith. It's having a different opinion. "Bad faith" is making disingenuous arguments to support a position you know is incorrect.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  That literally exactly what that person did. I don't believe for a second that you actually don't believe that SpaceX is a success. If SpaceX was controlled by anybody other then Musk calling it 'not a success' would be utterly ridiculous.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    You were replying to me, so I assume "that person" you're referring to is also me. Just to be clear, saying I'm arguing in bad faith is calling me a liar. That is not only a personal attack, but is quite a leap of logic. I'm not lying, I'm expressing an opinion that you disagree with. > I don't believe for a second that you actually don't believe that SpaceX is a success. It looks like SpaceX is on the path to success, but I think it's premature to say it's a success yet. But that also depends on what we each mean when we say "success". I'm talking about business success. > If SpaceX was controlled by anybody other then Musk calling it 'not a success' would be utterly ridiculous. I disagree, obviously. My opinion of SpaceX on this point would be literally no different regardless of who was in charge.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      > I'm talking about business success. They are the most successful space company ever and their core business is a huge success. Their space transport business is also a success. Its a hugely profitable success that literally dominates the industry. The only bases to say its not a success is because they decided to expand on that core business and raise money for that expansion. Are you one of those people who didn't believe Amazon was not successful because they invested in expansion as well?
- grecy 3y ago

paulryanrogers 3y ago

SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) and isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases). Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? Astronomers aren't too happy with StarLink, nor pedestrians with Tesla FSD beta being open to any driver with more money than sense. Musk's track record is heavily spotted. We can celebrate the successes together without turning a blind eye to the problems.

panick21_ 3y ago
> SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) So to be considered 'starting from zero' a company needs to first create its own humans in a lab? > isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases) Nobody claimed it was. > Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? Not on my right now, but it just had 200 successful missions in a row. There is a link somewhere about statical methods of reliability and Falcon 9 is on top of that list. Even by just looking at simple % probability they are on top. I don't have the link at hand but if I can find it later Ill add it. > Astronomers aren't too happy with StarLink, nor pedestrians with Tesla FSD beta being open to any driver with more money than sense. So in order t ob considered successful every single person on the plant needs to love you? > Musk's track record is heavily spotted. We can celebrate the successes together without turning a blind eye to the problems. I am not doing that. Not everything has to be perfect to consider something a success. That a ridiculous standard.
signatoremo 3y ago
> Got a link for the most reliable rocket ever? As for SpaceX’s success streak, reaching 200 missions without losing a payload due to a rocket malfunction extends a record unparalleled in the launch business. https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/05/10/spacexs-falcon-rocket-family-reaches-200-straight-successful-missions/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/05/10/spacexs-falcon-rocket-...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mgiannopoulos 3y ago
“ SpaceX didn't start from zero (former NASA talent) and isn't funded entirely by private industry (gov grants and leases). ” So a company to be declared successful should only hire college graduates and only have private clients?
panick21_ 3y ago
Rocket reliability. Unfortunately the website www.spacelaunchreport.com has shut down, you can find some of the data here, Falcon 9 already on top of the list. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56087.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56087.0 Since then Falcon 9 has launched many times with 100% success rate. Its really not a competition anymore.

maxerickson 3y ago

The Starship was damaged leaving the pad and blew up. Not a launch until they can definitively say that the damage leaving the pad didn't contribute to the failure. The commercial rockets are going great though.

imtringued 3y ago
I don't know why you are being downvoted. Launchpad related damage is not a property of the rocket. Space X has launched smaller rockets that have damaged the launch pad. So having a launchpad failure is like having the mission fail in its entirety because you can't build a better rocket to fix the problem, you need a better launchpad. What I am trying to say is that there was nothing standing in the way of a successful Starship launch. The engines were known to work. The booster was known to work. The second stage was known to work. All they did was put it together and test stage separation. This should have been the moment where it became obvious that Starship will be ready for Artemis 3. The first Starship Prototype was launched in 2019. If you assume that they started development in 2018 (Musk has proto starship slides as early as 2011), then it is actually as much behind as SLS, which had to delay its planned launch after five years.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > I don't know why you are being downvoted. Because a launch is a launch, successful or not. Claiming they are behind SLS is kind of crazy. SLS was supposed to launch in 2017 initially. SLS was a creation of a 2011 Congress Act and of course SLS did not develop any of its own engines and is reusing lots of exiting parts and infrastructure. SLS also had absolutely gigantic amount of money when eating about 2.5 billion $ a year for 10+ years and will eat much much more before its first operational flight. SpaceX in comparison was not able to spend even 1/4 for most of Starships development, by now they are getting into the billions per year but that took a while. SLS is also just a far simpler design, basically a slightly adopted Detla 4 Upper Stage, while Starship is basically highly complex new reusable upper stage design.
panick21_ 3y ago
Of course it is 'a launch'. It just not a successful one. Its the most powerful rocket that ever launched. Period. There is really no discussion on this. Just like the N1 was the most powerful before (by thrust at least if I remember correctly) before. It also was not successful. Just getting to the point of launching a rocket like that, having 33 engines like that is a huge achievement.

JohnFen 3y ago

> Calling this anything other a brilliant success is just bad faith. No, it's not bad faith. It's having a different opinion. "Bad faith" is making disingenuous arguments to support a position you know is incorrect.

panick21_ 3y ago
That literally exactly what that person did. I don't believe for a second that you actually don't believe that SpaceX is a success. If SpaceX was controlled by anybody other then Musk calling it 'not a success' would be utterly ridiculous.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  You were replying to me, so I assume "that person" you're referring to is also me. Just to be clear, saying I'm arguing in bad faith is calling me a liar. That is not only a personal attack, but is quite a leap of logic. I'm not lying, I'm expressing an opinion that you disagree with. > I don't believe for a second that you actually don't believe that SpaceX is a success. It looks like SpaceX is on the path to success, but I think it's premature to say it's a success yet. But that also depends on what we each mean when we say "success". I'm talking about business success. > If SpaceX was controlled by anybody other then Musk calling it 'not a success' would be utterly ridiculous. I disagree, obviously. My opinion of SpaceX on this point would be literally no different regardless of who was in charge.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > I'm talking about business success. They are the most successful space company ever and their core business is a huge success. Their space transport business is also a success. Its a hugely profitable success that literally dominates the industry. The only bases to say its not a success is because they decided to expand on that core business and raise money for that expansion. Are you one of those people who didn't believe Amazon was not successful because they invested in expansion as well?
grecy 3y ago