4 ms·

I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. Credit where credit is due, SpaceX seems to be a very well managed operation. I don't believe in provide

I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. Credit where credit is due, SpaceX seems to be a very well managed operation. I don't believe in providential people, at all. I don't know why my political beliefs are mentioned, I am not even American, I am French living in France. Starship happens because of * the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) * a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost. Say a servo motor mass produced now vs. a servo motor in 70's made in tiny batches * the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects * it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing That's not a very romantic point of view tho

zpeti 3y ago
Like it happened with... Blue Origin? Ariane Space? Electron? NASA? China? India? Russian N1 rocket? No, it didn't happen, in multiple cases without Musk, and with more funding. You are delusional in your hate of Musk.
- marmakoide 3y ago
  I say he is not a providential man, that it's a team effort, and that it's in line with current industrial needs and capacity. That is not an expression of hate, I think.
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    I'm no Musk fanboy but I think even if you have the technological capability and demand you still need someone to actually do it. I think if it wasn't Musk it would be someone similarly crazy.
signatoremo 3y ago
> I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. This is a meaningless statement. It would happen, but when? about now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? You keep saying team effort. Do you think Blue Origin or Arianne Group have less talent than SpaceX? Why do they achieve much less? > I don't believe in providential people, at all. SpaceX almost went bankrupt in 2008. Without Musk gambling with his finance to rescue the company, SpaceX would have been a footnote in the space history. It wouldn't have survived long enough to have the NASA's money. The team that they’d built would have been spread to who knows what kind of companies. > the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) So why did SLS take that long? Arianne 6? New Glenn? What about a plethora of small launchers that are still not yet widely available? > a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost Essential hardware is only a small part of a rocket program. Arianne 6 was supposed to be Europe's answer to Falcon 9, 50% cheaper than Arianne 5. Supposed to debut in 2020, it still has yet to launch. So it costs Europe tax payers est. 5b euros for a rocket that is technologically inferior to Falcon 9, lower cadence, yet more expensive to build and operate. - [1] > the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects That market didn't exist. Looks at the chart in this article about the number of objects (satellites) sent to space - [0]: The number skyrocketed after 2016, once Falcon 9 has become established. SpaceX has enabled the market, not the other way around. SpaceX just launched 1,000 tonnes of payload in 2023, four times larger than the second place (China the country). > it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing SpaceX was built 20 years ago with nothing but a vision of Mars colony. There was no pool of experienced engineers readily available back then. They are now a powerhouse and they can hire whoever they want. The question is, why there hasn’t been another Starship? [0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-... [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the...

zpeti 3y ago

Like it happened with... Blue Origin? Ariane Space? Electron? NASA? China? India? Russian N1 rocket? No, it didn't happen, in multiple cases without Musk, and with more funding. You are delusional in your hate of Musk.

marmakoide 3y ago
I say he is not a providential man, that it's a team effort, and that it's in line with current industrial needs and capacity. That is not an expression of hate, I think.
- chpatrick 3y ago
  I'm no Musk fanboy but I think even if you have the technological capability and demand you still need someone to actually do it. I think if it wasn't Musk it would be someone similarly crazy.

signatoremo 3y ago

> I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. This is a meaningless statement. It would happen, but when? about now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? You keep saying team effort. Do you think Blue Origin or Arianne Group have less talent than SpaceX? Why do they achieve much less? > I don't believe in providential people, at all. SpaceX almost went bankrupt in 2008. Without Musk gambling with his finance to rescue the company, SpaceX would have been a footnote in the space history. It wouldn't have survived long enough to have the NASA's money. The team that they’d built would have been spread to who knows what kind of companies. > the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) So why did SLS take that long? Arianne 6? New Glenn? What about a plethora of small launchers that are still not yet widely available? > a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost Essential hardware is only a small part of a rocket program. Arianne 6 was supposed to be Europe's answer to Falcon 9, 50% cheaper than Arianne 5. Supposed to debut in 2020, it still has yet to launch. So it costs Europe tax payers est. 5b euros for a rocket that is technologically inferior to Falcon 9, lower cadence, yet more expensive to build and operate. - [1] > the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects That market didn't exist. Looks at the chart in this article about the number of objects (satellites) sent to space - [0]: The number skyrocketed after 2016, once Falcon 9 has become established. SpaceX has enabled the market, not the other way around. SpaceX just launched 1,000 tonnes of payload in 2023, four times larger than the second place (China the country). > it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing SpaceX was built 20 years ago with nothing but a vision of Mars colony. There was no pool of experienced engineers readily available back then. They are now a powerhouse and they can hire whoever they want. The question is, why there hasn’t been another Starship? [0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-... [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the...