16 points

Not sure why SpaceX is in this group, except “cause musk”, since they’re objectively the best rocket company out there.

The rest are obvious, but the Falcon 9 is the cheapest, and most reliable rocket.

permalink
report
reply
2 points
*

While Falcon 9 is a dependable rocket…

  1. One has never been turned around as re-usable in anywhere near 24 or 72 hours as Musk claimed they would be, fastest turn around to date is I think 3 weeks, roughly in line with faster Space Shuttle turn around times. No where near ‘rapid’.

EDIT: My turnaround times for the Space Shuttle were off, fastest was 55 days and its more like 3 months in average. The point I was attempting to illustrate, which is Rapid Reusability Is A Huge Element To Making The Cost Effectiveness Gains Promised, And SpaceX Is Still Off By An Order Of Magnitude, Over A Decade Into The Falcon Program.

  1. The cost to launch a Falcon 9 has never dropped to around 5 million dollars, as Musk claimed they would be. Even accounting for inflation, launches average around ten times the cost Musk said they would be. Musk is charging the government around 90 million per launch: Soyuz was the only option, so the Russians could overcharge a bit for ISS launches, now the Russians are not an option, and Musk is similarly overcharging.

  2. Starship/BFR is woefully behind the schedule for accomplishments that Musk claimed it would reach in his hype shows, woefully behind schedule for the NASA contract.

  3. Starship/BFR has cost taxpayers billions of dollars and so far has a proven payload capacity of 0, would require 12 to 16 launches to accomplish what a single Saturn V could do, has not demonstrated the capacity to refuel in orbit, is not human rated, and is now just being moved back to Starship 2 and 3, with Musk now claiming Starship 1 actually has half the orbital cargo capacity he has up to recently claimed it has.

  4. For comparison, the Saturn project had a development time similar to how long BFR/Starship has… never once failed, proved it could do what it needed to in 67, 7 years after development began.

(They also had computers maybe a little bit more or less powerful than a ti-83 and had to basically invent a huge chunk of computer science)

Starship/BFR development has been a shit show.

Dear Moon is cancelled.

Remember when the repulsive landing Dragon Capsule was going to land humans on Mars?

Remember when we were going to have multiple Starships starting a Martian colony by now?

SpaceX in general has gotten high on their own supply over the last 10 years and has made all sorts of lofty claims about lowering launch costs, rapid reusability, rockets for military asset deployment to anywhere on Earth, rockets as basically super fast commercial airliner travel, all of which have driven massive public hype and investor confidence, and then these claims are just forgotten about when it becomes apparent just how difficult these are to achieve, or in some cases, laughably, obviously unworkable with even a modicum of thought.

The truth of the matter, as proven by Musk’s handling of his other companies, is that Musk just says things, “We can do this now!”, when in reality he’s basically had a napkin drawing plan a month ago, calls this prototyping, and now its a month later, and he emailed somebody and said ‘Make this happen’ with no further explanation, thus the project is now in development.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Seems like you’re comparing SpaceX to Elons promises, not against the rest of the space industry. They’re still much better than all the rest, even if they don’t quite meet Elons promises.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

How is it so much better than SLS/Artemis?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

A big part of that is money. The competition is either less wealthy Musks or notoriously underfunded government agencies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Musk is SpaceX.

He’s the frontman, even if Shotwell is the CEO now she’s made some of the absurd claims I’ve referenced.

And SpaceX as a company, its developed products, fall laughably short of its promises, of its marketing.

The rest of the Space industry, generally, is no where near as bombastic and obviously full of shit, instead preferring to develop and operate without grandiose media/public performances.

There is a saying in business: Under-Promise, Over-Perform, or Over-Deliver.

SpaceX does the opposite of this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Musk is gross and SpaceX has some questionable marketing claims that you’ve identified, but I don’t see how anyone could claim that anything about the company’s products are a shitshow.

Falcon 9 has radically changed the economics of the space industry, and has no competition to force lower prices.

Starship has had a very successful testing campaign, and operates within a different development paradigm than Saturn. They’ve shown more progress on more technology in the last year than almost any rocket ever. It won’t be long before Starship has demonstrated all the capabilities you mentioned. While the price tag is large in absolute terms, it will be very cheap relative to the competition.

Dear Moon was not canceled by SpaceX, and no one who follows the industry has ever believed Musk’s timelines.

I guess I’m confused, because everything I know about Starship points towards it being one of the most incredible engineering accomplishments ever. There are lots of other problems with SpaceX’s leadership, environmental impact, and work culture, but aren’t the products inspiring?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I specifically said Starship development has been a shitshow.

I would not characterize all of SpaceX as a shit show, more like vastly under delivering compared to what was promised.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Some people just cant separate the musk from the accomplishments. Or they read headlines about costs and historical comparisons without actually thinking about how apples to oranges they are. The vitriol over musk which is well deserved has really fucked with the space industry’s image. And considering how fucked the image already was (not hated, but jaded and perceived as a waste of money), its a shame.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

3 weeks, roughly in line with faster Space Shuttle turn around times

The shortest shuttle turnaround time was 55 days. Almost three times as much as Falcon 9. The fastest post-Challenger turnaround time was 88 days, I believe. After Columbia, the fastest turnaround was around 5 months.

NASA claimed that the shuttle could achieve a turnaround time of two weeks (page IX). It looks like SpaceX is not the only one setting unrealistic timelines?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ah, an actual correction!

Thank you, I’ll edit the the original post.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They don’t have rapid reusability because it doesn’t matter to them, they have enough rockets that they can work on multiple at the same time to get the same effect

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Dear Moon is cancelled.

Looked this up. The guy says he cancelled it because it was delayed too long. Pretty much shows they didn’t have the patience needed for spaceflight in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The main issue with spacex is that they use taxpayer money to build infrastructure, research, and in many other ways fund a company who’s accomplishments will never be shared with the world unless there is a price sticker on it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

bUt aLl tHe sTaRsHiPs eXpLoDeD!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

How’s Mars? No?
Moon? No?
Anything past lower orbit? No?

Okay.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

How dare you! … use sarcasm without the /s, people are getting confused!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The Soyuz is cheaper. Roscosmos is an objectively better rocket company.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

From looking up the numbers, it seems like a soyuz launch under the cheapest circumstances can get decently cheaper than a falcon 9 launch, however, it also carries significantly less payload mass, so the actual cost per mass to orbit is lower for falcon 9, which makes the comparison a bit like comparing a van to a semi truck; if you want to move something small enough to fit in the van, without any other cargo to fill the space, then the van makes sense. But if you’re running a logistics network and have enough cargo to fill whatever vehicle you’re using, the bigger truck is going to be cheaper to use.

As far as them being a better rocket company though, Roscosmos has just been operating a group of designs that are quite ancient in terms of rockets, especially the soyuz which is an evolution on an original design that literally predates Sputnik. They’re not bad rockets per se, but Roscosmos didn’t develop them and they don’t seem to be innovating much beyond them, and so are quickly becoming out of date as more groups work on things like rocket reusability. SpaceX by contrast has been quite innovative in the space especially with regards to reuse, and has such a high capacity that one satellite constellation it owns accounts for a majority of operational satellites at the moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

…buddy…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Roscosmos hasn’t innovated anything in about 2 decades

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Roscosmos doesn’t consider clearing the launch tower to be a success. There is value in continuing to use proven technology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Muskians are having fits in the comments

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Imagine simping over a Nazi worshipper like Musk who isn’t qualified to run a McDonalds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Imma be honest, I deem Tesla successful. At start, their mission was to get EVs started up and going. And they fucking did. After showing how much can EVs achieve, they forced whole world to shift focus - they succeeded. As of what happens with the company now…I don’t care. They did hella lot of good for everyone, now they can fall off. Would prefer if Musk fucked off instead and let them cook, but eh.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I disagree. EVs needed more battery development which occurred largely independently of Tesla, and instead they just reaped the reward of other people’s labour.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Technology wise, true. But it’s not about technology. Tesla pushed for EVs to become mainstream. They made them wanted by people. Up to that, automakers ignored that tech fully, cause money was with ICE.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You can’t deny the impact that they had on propping up EVs as desireable, though. There wouldn’t be so many Teslas on the road if the opposite was true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They did a lot of good for whom? A lot of things are successful and shit, that’s not a metric.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

SpaceX has Gwynne Shotwell who actually is the reason to find SpaceX interesting. She is so powerful that she can overcome Musk’s perpetually increasingly unstable drag coefficient.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Ooh, so SpaceX is basically thanks to her

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They also socially engineered ways to keep that dipshit Musk away from the projects and sabotaging them all. “Here is a shiny sprocket that we are too dumb to figure out, need you to help us!”, and that idiot gets to play smart and leaves the real work alone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Good name.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

the expandables

permalink
report
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.5K

    Posts

  • 46K

    Comments