4 ms·

Space X isn't much better. Its still Musks company.

actionfromafar 1y ago
To this discussion, IMHO the important part is that he's fallen out of favor. He wasn't loyal.
qwerpy 1y ago
So, the company gets things done but the CEO is unpopular with certain crowds. Seems better than Boeing, which is bad at getting things done. At least their CEO is inoffensive, and that’s what is important?
- llbeansandrice 1y ago
  “Unpopular” is a weird way to frame “is a Nazi”.
  - boxed 1y ago
    I mean.. Werner von Braun wasn't just "sort of a Nazi if you squint real hard", but an ACTUAL Nazi. At some point you need to focus on getting the job done, and not on purity tests and struggle sessions. THAT is why the US once got to the moon, while China starved 40 million of its own people, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
    - ActorNightly 1y ago
      There is a difference between being an engineer, and being useful despite your shit views, versus being what Musk is currently.
      - boxed 1y ago
        Everyone keeps saying Musk is just handwaving and not an engineer. Why can't we make the same argument about von Braun? The proof is always handwaving, so I don't see how it's different.
        ActorNightly 1y ago
        Because if you were to go back in time and ask Von Braun actual technical questions about aerospace things, he would tell you an engineering answer. T If you were to ask Musk technical questions, he would make up shit like he has done hundreds of times in the interviews.
        boxed 1y ago
        You haven't watched the interview on Everyday Astronaut I see. You should go watch it.
        ActorNightly 1y ago
        I don't need to go watch it. Every single time this comes up, its really easy to see that he has no idea what he is talking about, or at best, he just echoing what he has been told.
        boxed 1y ago
        > I don't need to go watch it. The definition of confirmation bias right there.
        ActorNightly 1y ago
        Nope. Every single time this exact thing happens, its the same story. Musk fans/conservatives get proven wrong, get quiet for a bit, and then act like nothing happened and repeat the same bullshit again. The reason why that happens is because you don't actually listen to what he has to say. If you truly believed what he said was accurate, you would be able to repeat it, and explain why its accurate in your own words, without referencing anything he said. Instead, you are just simply an ideological fan of his, so no matter how many times he gets proven wrong, its not going to change your mind about him. Overall in general, he and all the other conservatives have done enough damage to their credibility with straight up lies that are so easily verifiable to such an extent that, its totally fine to just discredit anything the say right off the bat. The onus is on them to provide extraordinary evidence if they wanna convince people otherwise.
    - llbeansandrice 1y ago
      What? The US got to the moon ONLY bc we decided the nazis were more useful and the Soviet Union collapsed bc they didn’t make the same choice? That’s absurd. Either way, I’d personally rather today’s Nazis of all flavors to be dead. At the very least they seem a lot dumber than the old ones.
      - boxed 1y ago
        No, the US got to the moon because it cared about engineering and science more than ideology (although MacCarthyr made a good attempt at screwing that up).
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  There is gonna be a time when shit hits the fan in United States. Youll know when that is. And you should know that Musk played a large part in making that happen.
- mortarion 1y ago
  They haven't gotten anything done in regards to HLS. They can build their HLS and even launch it into orbit next year but then what? HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget. This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads and probably 20 complete stacks to even be feasible, because reuse will not help one iota. Their upper stage reuse will never pan out. Sure they will catch a few, then they will remove the engines and stick the rest in a shredder for scraps to be melted down and recycled. Elon's HLS is completely detached from reality. I won't even call it a SpaceX system because it's unlikely anyone but Elon came up with it.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    While I agree with anyone saying that Musk himself is "detached from reality", and also that the Superheavy/Starship timelines are unrealistically optimistic, given how bad basically everyone else in this sector is I have no specific reason to expect that Superheavy/Starship* will be what delays anything. Not that this actually helps with any thesis of "Yee Haw, look at Us! We're America! We're number one!" * And now I'm worrying the initials might have been deliberate on his part; hadn't even considered that before seeing your comment…
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    > HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget. >This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads The refueling ships are to be launched weeks/months in advance, one at a time. If you look at the rate of Falcon launches this is nothing out of the ordinary.
    - ActorNightly 1y ago
      Yeah and how many refuelings have they done yet?

To this discussion, IMHO the important part is that he's fallen out of favor. He wasn't loyal.

So, the company gets things done but the CEO is unpopular with certain crowds. Seems better than Boeing, which is bad at getting things done. At least their CEO is inoffensive, and that’s what is important?

llbeansandrice 1y ago
“Unpopular” is a weird way to frame “is a Nazi”.
- boxed 1y ago
  I mean.. Werner von Braun wasn't just "sort of a Nazi if you squint real hard", but an ACTUAL Nazi. At some point you need to focus on getting the job done, and not on purity tests and struggle sessions. THAT is why the US once got to the moon, while China starved 40 million of its own people, and the Soviet Union collapsed.
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    There is a difference between being an engineer, and being useful despite your shit views, versus being what Musk is currently.
    - boxed 1y ago
      Everyone keeps saying Musk is just handwaving and not an engineer. Why can't we make the same argument about von Braun? The proof is always handwaving, so I don't see how it's different.
      - ActorNightly 1y ago
        Because if you were to go back in time and ask Von Braun actual technical questions about aerospace things, he would tell you an engineering answer. T If you were to ask Musk technical questions, he would make up shit like he has done hundreds of times in the interviews.
        boxed 1y ago
        You haven't watched the interview on Everyday Astronaut I see. You should go watch it.
        ActorNightly 1y ago
        I don't need to go watch it. Every single time this comes up, its really easy to see that he has no idea what he is talking about, or at best, he just echoing what he has been told.
        boxed 1y ago
        > I don't need to go watch it. The definition of confirmation bias right there.
        ActorNightly 1y ago
        Nope. Every single time this exact thing happens, its the same story. Musk fans/conservatives get proven wrong, get quiet for a bit, and then act like nothing happened and repeat the same bullshit again. The reason why that happens is because you don't actually listen to what he has to say. If you truly believed what he said was accurate, you would be able to repeat it, and explain why its accurate in your own words, without referencing anything he said. Instead, you are just simply an ideological fan of his, so no matter how many times he gets proven wrong, its not going to change your mind about him. Overall in general, he and all the other conservatives have done enough damage to their credibility with straight up lies that are so easily verifiable to such an extent that, its totally fine to just discredit anything the say right off the bat. The onus is on them to provide extraordinary evidence if they wanna convince people otherwise.
  - llbeansandrice 1y ago
    What? The US got to the moon ONLY bc we decided the nazis were more useful and the Soviet Union collapsed bc they didn’t make the same choice? That’s absurd. Either way, I’d personally rather today’s Nazis of all flavors to be dead. At the very least they seem a lot dumber than the old ones.
    - boxed 1y ago
      No, the US got to the moon because it cared about engineering and science more than ideology (although MacCarthyr made a good attempt at screwing that up).
ActorNightly 1y ago
There is gonna be a time when shit hits the fan in United States. Youll know when that is. And you should know that Musk played a large part in making that happen.
mortarion 1y ago
They haven't gotten anything done in regards to HLS. They can build their HLS and even launch it into orbit next year but then what? HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget. This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads and probably 20 complete stacks to even be feasible, because reuse will not help one iota. Their upper stage reuse will never pan out. Sure they will catch a few, then they will remove the engines and stick the rest in a shredder for scraps to be melted down and recycled. Elon's HLS is completely detached from reality. I won't even call it a SpaceX system because it's unlikely anyone but Elon came up with it.
- ben_w 1y ago
  While I agree with anyone saying that Musk himself is "detached from reality", and also that the Superheavy/Starship timelines are unrealistically optimistic, given how bad basically everyone else in this sector is I have no specific reason to expect that Superheavy/Starship* will be what delays anything. Not that this actually helps with any thesis of "Yee Haw, look at Us! We're America! We're number one!" * And now I'm worrying the initials might have been deliberate on his part; hadn't even considered that before seeing your comment…
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  > HLS requires on-orbit refueling. Anything from 10 to 20 refueling launches will be required. Did you think it required one refueling launch? The SH+SS stack will never be reusable or reliable enough to accomplish the refueling operation in time and on budget. >This means one moon mission will require the use of 10 launch pads The refueling ships are to be launched weeks/months in advance, one at a time. If you look at the rate of Falcon launches this is nothing out of the ordinary.
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    Yeah and how many refuelings have they done yet?