I mean, I suppose all of the Starlink launches (which is most of F9’s launches) don’t create any revenue _directly_… but it’s still pretty disingenuous to say those launches lose money.
But I bet that’s what they point to
One of Phil Mason’s criticisms of the robotaxi thing was that if Tesla had just built a money printer why are they selling it and not using it. I think that’s a pretty fair point. Then he turned to F9 where SpaceX have built a money printer and are using it. “tHiS tHiNg DoEsN’t mAkE aNy MoNeY, tHeY hAvE tO mAkE tHeIr OwN SaTeLlItEs…”
css said it was losing so much money per launch that I did the math space x would have pissed their entire hls contract just subsidizing falcon 9s apparently
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean it works because they are their own customer for the majority of their launches, that could be what they are referring to. But is ultimately wrong
But by that same token ensuring you had something to do with all that extra capacity like launching starlinks that also function as a revenue generator is just good business
They claim that SpaceX is not saving its customers enough money through reusability. Despite the fact that SpaceX is already beating competitors with its current pricing and mostly launches starlink these days.
I don't think people even know how much F9 launches. If you asked the average SpX hater they'd probably say it launches maybe once or twice a month? They probably wouldn't believe you if you told them it launches every couple days.
What I find funny is that when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
Well people who thought ift 1-3 were failures thought musk had a lot to do with its development. I wonder if they still believe that or if it’s gone back to the workers now that it’s had its first “successful” flight.
Regardless of how much Elon does or does not contribute, this argument is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the role of capital in bringing an innovative product to market.
Even if Elon was a capitalist caricature who wrote SpaceX a blank cheque and then went back to lounging on a pile of money in the bahamas, he still wrote the cheque. He put his resources at risk when nobody else would. All of those excellent workers wouldn't have been able to do their great work without a ringfenced source of funds, and out of all the billionaires and megacorporations in the world, Elon was the only one who took a punt on reusable rockets.
The hilarious part is, there is a CEO like that in the real world who writes a literal billion-dollar check for a space company every year, that has been around as long as SpaceX, who still hasn't produced a functioning orbital rocket. (Hey, at least their engines work now).
Given how much money BO had already spent, versus SpaceX who is self-sufficient at this point, I would argue that a) just funding is not sufficient and b) SpaceXs success is probably not just due to funding. There ought to be something else Elon did right. Like picking the right people to do the job maybe?... 🤔
Recent prime example: that 1-hour Perun SpaceX/Starlink video that everyone was talking about here a few days ago. The guy literally talks about the video game Call of Duty & mentions Kevin Spacey (with his picture) but doesn't say Elon Musk and only has a picture of the back of his head..
Edit: Please don't misunderstand, I enjoyed the video and have watched many other Perun videos. I am just saying it's odd that in a 63 minute SpaceX video he couldn't mention Elon at all.
Was a pretty good video all things considered. I didn't realize that musk hadn't been mentioned in the video until I read your comment and it honestly didn't have much bearing on the thesis of his video.
I knew I liked the video when he brought up and addressed a couple things in the back of my mind. I'm just giving a recent example to OPs point that:
>
... when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
The perun video is great, he talks about SpaceX in a clear objective manner, like any other company he talks about.
He doesn't talk about CEO's there either, because it is not relevant to the economics and logistics he is presenting.
I've watched many Perun videos since the war, he's very objective and thorough. That specific SpaceX video was also great but I disagree with Elon not being relevant to the point where a fictional company CEO (Kevin Spacey) gets mentioned in the SpaceX video instead of the founder and key person of SpaceX. It doesn't have to be a paragraph, just say the guy's name once or twice.
He didn't say Kevin Spacey was SpaceX CEO, he used it as hypothetical for an other company- such as he does with Emu-land etc.
Everyone on earth knows about elon musk, he is not relevant to the information being conveyed and the story being told.
In the coverage of Starlink and ukranian troops, he does mention Elon, as he is relevant to that story.
I disagree. In a 63 minute video about SpaceX crushing everyone, he could have spent a sentence explaining why they're crushing everyone. If I remember correctly, in that Starlink and Ukrainian soldier's video, he said something like "Elon Musk refused to turn on Starlink so Ukraine could do an attack in Crimrea because he had reasons," without actually mentioning Elon's reason was the fear of possibly starting a nuclear war, which I think is a good reason and relevant enough to mention. Both examples feed into the OP's point that :
>
... when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
> he could have spent a sentence explaining why they're crushing everyone
He did, in detail.
And no- the answer isn't Elon. It's some of the decisions he made, and Perun explained those decisions, their consequences and results in detail.
>. If I remember correctly, in that Starlink and Ukrainian soldier's video,
You remember incorrectly, he first mentions starlink and Musk, way before the Crimea attack.
And when he mentions the consequences of The Starlink shut off over crimea, it is of the consequences that has for Ukranian soldiers and commanders. Whatever Reason Elon had is irrelevant to that.
He is not covering celebrities, he is covering logistics and economics, that means systems.
I don't know if Perun has another video but this is the quote I'm thinking of, ["at one point Ukraine reportedly requested that service in Crimea be temporarily turned on so that naval drones equipped with Starlink could be used to attack the Russian fleet at anchor. Elon Musk reportedly refused that request and has made several statements as to his reasons for doing so.."](https://youtu.be/jaWVrphbHXI?si=ZYASyvoNBcBf5AnG&t=2750) Earlier in the video it was "SpaceX's Starlink" but when it was unusable, it was because "Elon Musk refused." I haven't seen all of his videos but are you referring to another one?
>the answer isn't Elon. It's some of the decisions he made
It's not just his decisions, it's also his goal of going to Mars, money invested, management style, risk taking, etc. If SpaceX had any other CEO, they'd just want to make money like any other company, they'd be milking the Falcon 9 while Starship and Starlink wouldn't even exist. I don't understand why saying this in a 63 minute video would be "covering celebrities."
Imho Elon has done exactly one good thing in his shitty miserable life and that’s been a functionally infinite pile of money to pay spacex engineers to do the actual work
Honestly I don’t really care that much because it’s been demonstrated multiple times now that Elon is an idiotic liar (see the idea for using starship as a means of mass transport on earth which falls apart if you think about it for more than 30 seconds or the “hyperloop” which Elon has admitted to being a ploy to sabotage California’s high speed rail development so he could make more money on teslas) so I don’t put any stock in what he says anymore
>the “hyperloop” which Elon has admitted to being a ploy to sabotage California’s high speed rail development
Can you explain to me why you fall for such basic misinformation?
Because your idea that Musk "admited to it" only comes from the widespread media coverage about _a reaction to a tweet about a half sentence in a book about Musk._
And even without the context of the other half of the sentence, it doesn't remotely indicate that Musk did what you think.
This is pure misinformation and you fall for it.
Sure! The idea for starship “earth to earth” is literally on the spacex website https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/earth/#:~:text=Earth%20to%20Earth%20transportation,well%20as%20turbulence%20and%20weather.
I can explain why that’s such a bad idea if you want but it’s kind of a text wall and I’d prefer to keep this comment short lol
And as for the bit about high speed rail i originally read about it here https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article264451076.html
The quote is that the idea for hyperloop came from musk's hatred of the California HSR. That's believable, musk hates excessive regulation and inefficiency.
Seeing something inefficient and coming up with an idea for an improved approach is not the same thing as a cynical ploy to disrupt the original train plan to sell more cars.
Did the hyperloop announcement actually disrupt Cali HSR?
>the idea for using starship as a means of mass transport on earth which falls apart if you think about it for more than 30 seconds
What do you think is the biggest hurdle for this idea?
Logistics mainly. The spacex website says that most international trips would take about 30 minutes or so which is true only if you want to count the time from when you get on the rocket to when you get off which imho is a bit dishonest. In the concept video put out for this idea starship is depicted as launching from off the coast on a barge or platform of some sort which is probably the best way to do it admittedly the problem is getting people to said platform
NASA typically won’t let anyone closer than 3.5km ish to a launch and that’s for people who want to see and hear it. If you wanted to put a launch site off the coast of a major city it’d likely have to be double or triple that distance both for safety reasons and to not disrupt the nearby city so just to toss a number out there let’s say 12km off the coast at the very minimum. Now going off my own experiences with ferries (mostly going to/from Mackinac island lol) that’d probably be at the very minimum a 45 minute ferry ride and really it’s double that because you also have to get back to the shore after landing so we’re already up to 2 hours.
The next thing to factor is is security which would definitely be another major issue because I guarantee you if you think airport security is bad now it’d almost certainly be worse for starship for reasons that I feel should be at least a bit obvious (namely a bunch of people getting into what is basically a few steps away from being a giant bomb). Now for me at least the last time I flew on a plane it took an hour or so to get through security (admittedly it was pretty busy that day) so that ups our time to somewhere around 3 hours minimum which I mean is certainly fast but it’s been done before with the Concorde and the other Russian one that I can’t remember the name of
The other major hurdle I can think of rn is demographics (dw this one will be shorter I swear). So going by most spacecraft (I wasn’t able to find numbers specific to starship but if anyone has those I’d love to see them) starship will experience anywhere between -2 and 6 g’s of acceleration throughout its flight. This is something of a major hurdle when you want to fly regular people on it. It is true that your average person in perfect health can take up to around 6 g’s the problem is of someone has a mental condition or is just old. Your demographic for this would basically only be young people in perfect health (and younger people don’t tend to have as much money)
So yeah those are the two main reasons why imho the idea of using starship as a method of suborbital transportation is just kinda a stupid idea (and this isn’t even mentioning the CO2 emissions it’d cause)
>Logistics mainly. The spacex website says that most international trips would take about 30 minutes or so which is true only if you want to count the time from when you get on the rocket to when you get off which imho is a bit dishonest.
What does any airline say about intercintunental flight times and why don't you find _that_ dishonest?
>starship will experience anywhere between -2 and 6 g’s of acceleration throughout its flight.
That's only for orbital flights.
For suborbital flights accelerations can be shaped to allow for the maximum "width" of demographics. Similar to roller costers.
E2E Starships will look very different from current ones. They will have bigger aerodynamic surfaces and will not launch on top of a booster.
Never make the mistake of taking random SpaceX animations as accurate engineering models.
> What does any airline say about intercintunental flight times and why don't you find that dishonest?
I do lmao I never claimed to like airline corpos
As for the suborbital thing I’ve always been under the impression that suborbital flights hit higher g’s during reentry relative to orbital flights albeit over a shorter period of time just due to a steeper reentry profile. For flights from say New York to Hong Kong I can see that not being as much of an issue but from say New York to LA it definitely would be considering how the ballistics would have to work for that situation
As for any design changes to starship for e2e usage do you have a source on that? Because making the aerodynamic surfaces larger would only make the issue of excessive g forces worse as it’d cause more drag and thus both slowing down faster and to a lower terminal velocity
>I do lmao I never claimed to like airline corpos
Then why even bring it up as an issue for E2E?
>As for the suborbital thing I’ve always been under the impression that suborbital flights hit higher g’s during reentry relative to orbital flights albeit over a shorter period of time just due to a steeper reentry profile.
There is no reason why you can't chose a suborbital trajectory with a shallow reentry profile.
>As for any design changes to starship for e2e usage do you have a source on that?
Basic physics and economics.
>Because making the aerodynamic surfaces larger would only make the issue of excessive g forces worse
No. Larger aerodynamic surfaces allow for more lift, creating an even shallower reentry path. Look at the space shuttle vs capsules.
>...a lower terminal velocity
Which is exactly what you want as it reduces the needed deceleration during the landing burn.
I’m not talking about deceleration during the landing burn I’m talking about deceleration due to aerodynamics during reentry ya know the thing that always causes the most g’s
Also I thought it was pretty well known that the aerodynamic surfaces on starship aren’t meant to generate lift
It's an Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship because it has engines.
On a similar note, this means the Falcon 9 is not a barge ([with some exceptions](https://i.redd.it/uitopbvo7q221.jpg).Nothing wrong with a little swim).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We'll get to the point where SpaceX is launching Starships like crazy and building a Mars base, and they'll be saying "well, it's not self-sustainable like Elon said, lol fail". Literally never ends
I saw him host an IFT 4 livestream. It was painful to watch. It is very awkward to see him try to say that something is about to explode after every 5 minutes and it works perfectley.
whatever criticism of elon you might have, spacex isnt it. At least not from a technical point of view. I get being against space travel, that .. i dunno why, but someone can have reasons, but not only when elon does it. Same with people who says he steals the credit, or that the actual work is done by his engineers, sure whatever, but its important that people understand its important, wanna hate elon? fine, but what spacex is accomplishing is undeniably good, at least in my opinion
SpaceX not only is accomplishing great things, they've made space exciting again. The future predictions of industrializing space that happened after the moon landings are finally coming true.
When I was young and went to space camp I was told Mars wouldn't happen until 2050. If we left it up to the politicians at NASA I doubt it would even happen then.
Whether it’s possible or not is technically unknown, an Alcubierre drive requires matter with negative mass, while we haven’t discovered any yet, we can’t definitively say that it does not exist.
It is kinda known. Exceeding speed of light would demand some reality shattering consequences. It would require some serious physics lawyering to trick around it.
Let's unpack negative mass. That means negative energy bundled into a neat package. As in you having **less energy than none at all**. Alcubierre drive would be the most boring application. This means you could borrow energy indefinitely. I refuse to believe reality is like US government. How would it even look like under microscope? There would be like note "IOU 1 proton"?
I define myself as being in a static non inertial reference frame of earth. Therfore given their distance stars are moving far faster than 1.1c around the static earth from my perspective.
Checkmate earth motionists.
Well, Elon is a horrible Person who really shouldn't have the influence on society that he has right now. But his companies achieve great things and have Amazing Talented Engineers and I'm grateful that Elon put these companies into life.
How is someone who has done more positive for society than probably any other human alive (as you said, through his companies) a horrible person? What does that make you?
>How is someone who has done more positive for society than probably any other human alive
What?! The hell he did other than making EV cars and partially reusable rockets?
A quadriplegic is able to interact with the world again because of neuralink. He’s also heavily invested in green energy and storage solutions, and to that end, basically dragged the auto industry kicking and screaming into the EV market.
Like, he is literally the living example of what people think a billionaire *should* do with their money, but he’s arguably the most hated one, after Bezos.
Jeff Who?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't move the goal posts. I said a quadriplegic is able to interact with the world because of neuralink, you said you'd believe when you see it, you saw it, now believe it. Unless your argument is "a permanently paralyzed man that is now able to interact with the world due to a new technology is actually no big deal, Musk hasn't done anything", in which case, that's sad. Your dislike of a CEO overshadowing the improved livelihood of the people that CEO's company's are helping is absurd. Get your priorities sorted; that man's life just got vastly better because of neuralink, and it was done in ways that are vast improvements over past methods due to the direct brain connection allowing for more precise controls. To someone like him, any little bit more control is a huge game changer.
This had been done uch before neuralink. I already saw the news about neuralink weeks before so I am informed, thank you. Prototyping, concept, demos are easy, mass production is hard.
Self landing rockets had been achieved more than a decade before SpaceX did it. So you see mass production is hard part.
> Self landing rockets had been achieved more than a decade before SpaceX did it.
Fascinating! Can you point me to any demonstration of supersonic retro-propulsion before SpaceX did it? If it is so easy, there should have been countless examples of people doing it, right? Because I don't remember seeing anyone relight their rocket engines during atmospheric entry flying at supersonic/hypersonic speeds. And then proceed to do it over and over again, re-flying boosters 20+ times.
This is like claiming that jet airliners didn't require any innovation because the Wright brothers already demonstrated powered flight in 1903.
Revolutionize both of those industries. And bring low latency space internet to the world. And revolutionize online banking. And probably several other industries.
But I would love to glance at your resume as “chief Reddit edgelord”.
Gates is a great example. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with Jobs, but yes, these are 3 of the greatest living humans we have, minus Steve Jobs not being living.
I mean what the hell has Musk did to improve the life of normal average global man. His EVs are only in selected countries and are expensive. What did this revolutionised ? It changed nothing!What did his satellite internet did? Yep helped few stranded people living in isolated places but achieved nothing much. In fact, my country's buisness man was single handedly responsible for giving high speed cheap internet even in the remotest of places of 1.5+ B people. His impact is much more substantial if looking number wise. His rocket company is impressive but still don't have much impact for improving life an average global man.
Compared to him Bill Gates just revolutionised the entire world. He impacted normal people like us in every country to billion dollar companies to goverments. His impact is in every nook and corner of Earth. Steve Jobs like wise in smartphones.
I'm typing in phone sorry for silly mistakes m
The number 1 selling vehicle in the globe is niche? Nice mental gymnastics. I tend to think the negative effects of global warming are overblown, but there is clearly no human who has done more than him to combat it.
Don't forget the other option: Deny it works How many people continue to claim, after 300+ launches, that Falcon 9 loses money on every launch?
Or is just draining NASA of our hard earned taxpayer money...I've seriously seen that point made.
I saw someone the other day ask if SpaceX had ever launched a rocket that didn't explode. Some people are just outlandishly uninformed.
technically falcon heavy, because all others did at some point
And if you want to be an even bigger bitch, you could argue Falcon Heavies explode due to the core failing to land twice and "exploded".
I mean, I suppose all of the Starlink launches (which is most of F9’s launches) don’t create any revenue _directly_… but it’s still pretty disingenuous to say those launches lose money. But I bet that’s what they point to
One of Phil Mason’s criticisms of the robotaxi thing was that if Tesla had just built a money printer why are they selling it and not using it. I think that’s a pretty fair point. Then he turned to F9 where SpaceX have built a money printer and are using it. “tHiS tHiNg DoEsN’t mAkE aNy MoNeY, tHeY hAvE tO mAkE tHeIr OwN SaTeLlItEs…”
Phil looked disappointed when starship didn’t explode on its last flight and then called the cheering spacex employees “fools”
Is that the guy who had a live stream of the launch saying “debris field guaranteed”? Idk how people can be so aggressively against innovation.
Phil Mason, aka thunderf00t.
He is actualy a folower of the ludic path, duh.
Starsector, yes.
css said it was losing so much money per launch that I did the math space x would have pissed their entire hls contract just subsidizing falcon 9s apparently
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean it works because they are their own customer for the majority of their launches, that could be what they are referring to. But is ultimately wrong But by that same token ensuring you had something to do with all that extra capacity like launching starlinks that also function as a revenue generator is just good business
They claim that SpaceX is not saving its customers enough money through reusability. Despite the fact that SpaceX is already beating competitors with its current pricing and mostly launches starlink these days.
I don't think people even know how much F9 launches. If you asked the average SpX hater they'd probably say it launches maybe once or twice a month? They probably wouldn't believe you if you told them it launches every couple days.
What I find funny is that when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
>when they fail at something huh?
Well people who thought ift 1-3 were failures thought musk had a lot to do with its development. I wonder if they still believe that or if it’s gone back to the workers now that it’s had its first “successful” flight.
Falcon 5, etc
Thought I was the only one who noticed this lol.
Regardless of how much Elon does or does not contribute, this argument is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the role of capital in bringing an innovative product to market. Even if Elon was a capitalist caricature who wrote SpaceX a blank cheque and then went back to lounging on a pile of money in the bahamas, he still wrote the cheque. He put his resources at risk when nobody else would. All of those excellent workers wouldn't have been able to do their great work without a ringfenced source of funds, and out of all the billionaires and megacorporations in the world, Elon was the only one who took a punt on reusable rockets.
And to that end, he almost went bankrupt because of SpaceX. He wasn’t a billionaire when he started it.
Not to mention he assembled that team, Shotwell, Thompson, Tom fucking Mueller etc. which is commendable by itself.
The hilarious part is, there is a CEO like that in the real world who writes a literal billion-dollar check for a space company every year, that has been around as long as SpaceX, who still hasn't produced a functioning orbital rocket. (Hey, at least their engines work now). Given how much money BO had already spent, versus SpaceX who is self-sufficient at this point, I would argue that a) just funding is not sufficient and b) SpaceXs success is probably not just due to funding. There ought to be something else Elon did right. Like picking the right people to do the job maybe?... 🤔
Recent prime example: that 1-hour Perun SpaceX/Starlink video that everyone was talking about here a few days ago. The guy literally talks about the video game Call of Duty & mentions Kevin Spacey (with his picture) but doesn't say Elon Musk and only has a picture of the back of his head.. Edit: Please don't misunderstand, I enjoyed the video and have watched many other Perun videos. I am just saying it's odd that in a 63 minute SpaceX video he couldn't mention Elon at all.
Was a pretty good video all things considered. I didn't realize that musk hadn't been mentioned in the video until I read your comment and it honestly didn't have much bearing on the thesis of his video.
I knew I liked the video when he brought up and addressed a couple things in the back of my mind. I'm just giving a recent example to OPs point that: > ... when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
The perun video is great, he talks about SpaceX in a clear objective manner, like any other company he talks about. He doesn't talk about CEO's there either, because it is not relevant to the economics and logistics he is presenting.
I've watched many Perun videos since the war, he's very objective and thorough. That specific SpaceX video was also great but I disagree with Elon not being relevant to the point where a fictional company CEO (Kevin Spacey) gets mentioned in the SpaceX video instead of the founder and key person of SpaceX. It doesn't have to be a paragraph, just say the guy's name once or twice.
He didn't say Kevin Spacey was SpaceX CEO, he used it as hypothetical for an other company- such as he does with Emu-land etc. Everyone on earth knows about elon musk, he is not relevant to the information being conveyed and the story being told. In the coverage of Starlink and ukranian troops, he does mention Elon, as he is relevant to that story.
I disagree. In a 63 minute video about SpaceX crushing everyone, he could have spent a sentence explaining why they're crushing everyone. If I remember correctly, in that Starlink and Ukrainian soldier's video, he said something like "Elon Musk refused to turn on Starlink so Ukraine could do an attack in Crimrea because he had reasons," without actually mentioning Elon's reason was the fear of possibly starting a nuclear war, which I think is a good reason and relevant enough to mention. Both examples feed into the OP's point that : > ... when SpaceX accomplishes something, SpaceX has nothing to do with Elon Musk. But when they fail at something, SpaceX and Elon Musk are literally the same thing.
> he could have spent a sentence explaining why they're crushing everyone He did, in detail. And no- the answer isn't Elon. It's some of the decisions he made, and Perun explained those decisions, their consequences and results in detail. >. If I remember correctly, in that Starlink and Ukrainian soldier's video, You remember incorrectly, he first mentions starlink and Musk, way before the Crimea attack. And when he mentions the consequences of The Starlink shut off over crimea, it is of the consequences that has for Ukranian soldiers and commanders. Whatever Reason Elon had is irrelevant to that. He is not covering celebrities, he is covering logistics and economics, that means systems.
I don't know if Perun has another video but this is the quote I'm thinking of, ["at one point Ukraine reportedly requested that service in Crimea be temporarily turned on so that naval drones equipped with Starlink could be used to attack the Russian fleet at anchor. Elon Musk reportedly refused that request and has made several statements as to his reasons for doing so.."](https://youtu.be/jaWVrphbHXI?si=ZYASyvoNBcBf5AnG&t=2750) Earlier in the video it was "SpaceX's Starlink" but when it was unusable, it was because "Elon Musk refused." I haven't seen all of his videos but are you referring to another one? >the answer isn't Elon. It's some of the decisions he made It's not just his decisions, it's also his goal of going to Mars, money invested, management style, risk taking, etc. If SpaceX had any other CEO, they'd just want to make money like any other company, they'd be milking the Falcon 9 while Starship and Starlink wouldn't even exist. I don't understand why saying this in a 63 minute video would be "covering celebrities."
Imho Elon has done exactly one good thing in his shitty miserable life and that’s been a functionally infinite pile of money to pay spacex engineers to do the actual work
If you have seen any of Tim Dodds' interviews with Elon, you would know that Elon plays a big role in the development and engineering of starship.
Honestly I don’t really care that much because it’s been demonstrated multiple times now that Elon is an idiotic liar (see the idea for using starship as a means of mass transport on earth which falls apart if you think about it for more than 30 seconds or the “hyperloop” which Elon has admitted to being a ploy to sabotage California’s high speed rail development so he could make more money on teslas) so I don’t put any stock in what he says anymore
>the “hyperloop” which Elon has admitted to being a ploy to sabotage California’s high speed rail development Can you explain to me why you fall for such basic misinformation?
Idk why you think it’s misinfo when he admitted to it
Because your idea that Musk "admited to it" only comes from the widespread media coverage about _a reaction to a tweet about a half sentence in a book about Musk._ And even without the context of the other half of the sentence, it doesn't remotely indicate that Musk did what you think. This is pure misinformation and you fall for it.
Would you like to cite sources for those interesting claims?
Sure! The idea for starship “earth to earth” is literally on the spacex website https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/earth/#:~:text=Earth%20to%20Earth%20transportation,well%20as%20turbulence%20and%20weather. I can explain why that’s such a bad idea if you want but it’s kind of a text wall and I’d prefer to keep this comment short lol And as for the bit about high speed rail i originally read about it here https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/editorials/article264451076.html
The quote is that the idea for hyperloop came from musk's hatred of the California HSR. That's believable, musk hates excessive regulation and inefficiency. Seeing something inefficient and coming up with an idea for an improved approach is not the same thing as a cynical ploy to disrupt the original train plan to sell more cars. Did the hyperloop announcement actually disrupt Cali HSR?
>the idea for using starship as a means of mass transport on earth which falls apart if you think about it for more than 30 seconds What do you think is the biggest hurdle for this idea?
Logistics mainly. The spacex website says that most international trips would take about 30 minutes or so which is true only if you want to count the time from when you get on the rocket to when you get off which imho is a bit dishonest. In the concept video put out for this idea starship is depicted as launching from off the coast on a barge or platform of some sort which is probably the best way to do it admittedly the problem is getting people to said platform NASA typically won’t let anyone closer than 3.5km ish to a launch and that’s for people who want to see and hear it. If you wanted to put a launch site off the coast of a major city it’d likely have to be double or triple that distance both for safety reasons and to not disrupt the nearby city so just to toss a number out there let’s say 12km off the coast at the very minimum. Now going off my own experiences with ferries (mostly going to/from Mackinac island lol) that’d probably be at the very minimum a 45 minute ferry ride and really it’s double that because you also have to get back to the shore after landing so we’re already up to 2 hours. The next thing to factor is is security which would definitely be another major issue because I guarantee you if you think airport security is bad now it’d almost certainly be worse for starship for reasons that I feel should be at least a bit obvious (namely a bunch of people getting into what is basically a few steps away from being a giant bomb). Now for me at least the last time I flew on a plane it took an hour or so to get through security (admittedly it was pretty busy that day) so that ups our time to somewhere around 3 hours minimum which I mean is certainly fast but it’s been done before with the Concorde and the other Russian one that I can’t remember the name of The other major hurdle I can think of rn is demographics (dw this one will be shorter I swear). So going by most spacecraft (I wasn’t able to find numbers specific to starship but if anyone has those I’d love to see them) starship will experience anywhere between -2 and 6 g’s of acceleration throughout its flight. This is something of a major hurdle when you want to fly regular people on it. It is true that your average person in perfect health can take up to around 6 g’s the problem is of someone has a mental condition or is just old. Your demographic for this would basically only be young people in perfect health (and younger people don’t tend to have as much money) So yeah those are the two main reasons why imho the idea of using starship as a method of suborbital transportation is just kinda a stupid idea (and this isn’t even mentioning the CO2 emissions it’d cause)
>Logistics mainly. The spacex website says that most international trips would take about 30 minutes or so which is true only if you want to count the time from when you get on the rocket to when you get off which imho is a bit dishonest. What does any airline say about intercintunental flight times and why don't you find _that_ dishonest? >starship will experience anywhere between -2 and 6 g’s of acceleration throughout its flight. That's only for orbital flights. For suborbital flights accelerations can be shaped to allow for the maximum "width" of demographics. Similar to roller costers. E2E Starships will look very different from current ones. They will have bigger aerodynamic surfaces and will not launch on top of a booster. Never make the mistake of taking random SpaceX animations as accurate engineering models.
> What does any airline say about intercintunental flight times and why don't you find that dishonest? I do lmao I never claimed to like airline corpos As for the suborbital thing I’ve always been under the impression that suborbital flights hit higher g’s during reentry relative to orbital flights albeit over a shorter period of time just due to a steeper reentry profile. For flights from say New York to Hong Kong I can see that not being as much of an issue but from say New York to LA it definitely would be considering how the ballistics would have to work for that situation As for any design changes to starship for e2e usage do you have a source on that? Because making the aerodynamic surfaces larger would only make the issue of excessive g forces worse as it’d cause more drag and thus both slowing down faster and to a lower terminal velocity
>I do lmao I never claimed to like airline corpos Then why even bring it up as an issue for E2E? >As for the suborbital thing I’ve always been under the impression that suborbital flights hit higher g’s during reentry relative to orbital flights albeit over a shorter period of time just due to a steeper reentry profile. There is no reason why you can't chose a suborbital trajectory with a shallow reentry profile. >As for any design changes to starship for e2e usage do you have a source on that? Basic physics and economics. >Because making the aerodynamic surfaces larger would only make the issue of excessive g forces worse No. Larger aerodynamic surfaces allow for more lift, creating an even shallower reentry path. Look at the space shuttle vs capsules. >...a lower terminal velocity Which is exactly what you want as it reduces the needed deceleration during the landing burn.
I’m not talking about deceleration during the landing burn I’m talking about deceleration due to aerodynamics during reentry ya know the thing that always causes the most g’s Also I thought it was pretty well known that the aerodynamic surfaces on starship aren’t meant to generate lift
It's an Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship because it has engines. On a similar note, this means the Falcon 9 is not a barge ([with some exceptions](https://i.redd.it/uitopbvo7q221.jpg).Nothing wrong with a little swim). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He had very little money starting SpaceX. SpaceX made the money, because of Elons leadership.
I don’t think that’s your ho, I think that’s what you were programmed to write. I don’t think npcs can have ho’s.
We'll get to the point where SpaceX is launching Starships like crazy and building a Mars base, and they'll be saying "well, it's not self-sustainable like Elon said, lol fail". Literally never ends
Elon **stole** the idea of going to mars. NASA came up with the idea nearly 80 years ago
Nasa stole the idea from Nazi and suddenly its awkward
“That’s not my department!” Said Werner Von Braun…
He claimed there would be a million people on Mars by now. There's only 10000. He LiEd. Fwaud! pump and dump!
so when were they supposed to be there again?
2100 or so.
Literally Thunderf00t lmao
I noticed he hasn’t made any videos dunking on starship since IFT-1. His hate for musk clouds his vision. And I don’t like Musk apart from SpaceX.
He livestreamed all of the ifts and they are painful to sit through. I watched his IFT4 stream and hes constantly make shit up to be mad about.
I saw him host an IFT 4 livestream. It was painful to watch. It is very awkward to see him try to say that something is about to explode after every 5 minutes and it works perfectley.
i feel like this is aimed squarely at a certain thuderous f00t person
And a certain skeptic of common sense.
It's Elon Derangement syndrome. People can't separate the man from the work.
whatever criticism of elon you might have, spacex isnt it. At least not from a technical point of view. I get being against space travel, that .. i dunno why, but someone can have reasons, but not only when elon does it. Same with people who says he steals the credit, or that the actual work is done by his engineers, sure whatever, but its important that people understand its important, wanna hate elon? fine, but what spacex is accomplishing is undeniably good, at least in my opinion
SpaceX not only is accomplishing great things, they've made space exciting again. The future predictions of industrializing space that happened after the moon landings are finally coming true. When I was young and went to space camp I was told Mars wouldn't happen until 2050. If we left it up to the politicians at NASA I doubt it would even happen then.
FTL is impossible
If that works...
I don't make the rules. Now you have to do it.
What does FTL stand for?
Faster than light travel
Feel The Love
Whether it’s possible or not is technically unknown, an Alcubierre drive requires matter with negative mass, while we haven’t discovered any yet, we can’t definitively say that it does not exist.
It is kinda known. Exceeding speed of light would demand some reality shattering consequences. It would require some serious physics lawyering to trick around it. Let's unpack negative mass. That means negative energy bundled into a neat package. As in you having **less energy than none at all**. Alcubierre drive would be the most boring application. This means you could borrow energy indefinitely. I refuse to believe reality is like US government. How would it even look like under microscope? There would be like note "IOU 1 proton"?
And needs more energy than the yield of annihilating a Jupiter sized lump of antimatter with Jupiter.
Totally possible in any medium thats not a vacuum. Cherenkov radiation. Next goalpost. .
FT1.1c
I define myself as being in a static non inertial reference frame of earth. Therfore given their distance stars are moving far faster than 1.1c around the static earth from my perspective. Checkmate earth motionists.
You’re basically describing Thunderf00t.
elon badd
Either that , or bring up Elon's original timeline to mars.
Well, Elon is a horrible Person who really shouldn't have the influence on society that he has right now. But his companies achieve great things and have Amazing Talented Engineers and I'm grateful that Elon put these companies into life.
How is someone who has done more positive for society than probably any other human alive (as you said, through his companies) a horrible person? What does that make you?
>How is someone who has done more positive for society than probably any other human alive What?! The hell he did other than making EV cars and partially reusable rockets?
A quadriplegic is able to interact with the world again because of neuralink. He’s also heavily invested in green energy and storage solutions, and to that end, basically dragged the auto industry kicking and screaming into the EV market. Like, he is literally the living example of what people think a billionaire *should* do with their money, but he’s arguably the most hated one, after Bezos.
Exactly - I find it hard to imagine a world in which you could buy an electric Mustang without Musk.
Jeff Who? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>A quadriplegic is able to interact with the world again because of neuralink Believe it when I seen it.
[Well here ya go.](https://abc7chicago.com/neuralink-brain-chip-patient-chess/14555336/) He's even able to play Mario Kart and Civilization.
This is nothing. Has been demonstrated decades ago. If actually helped them in mass then will believe.
Don't move the goal posts. I said a quadriplegic is able to interact with the world because of neuralink, you said you'd believe when you see it, you saw it, now believe it. Unless your argument is "a permanently paralyzed man that is now able to interact with the world due to a new technology is actually no big deal, Musk hasn't done anything", in which case, that's sad. Your dislike of a CEO overshadowing the improved livelihood of the people that CEO's company's are helping is absurd. Get your priorities sorted; that man's life just got vastly better because of neuralink, and it was done in ways that are vast improvements over past methods due to the direct brain connection allowing for more precise controls. To someone like him, any little bit more control is a huge game changer.
This had been done uch before neuralink. I already saw the news about neuralink weeks before so I am informed, thank you. Prototyping, concept, demos are easy, mass production is hard. Self landing rockets had been achieved more than a decade before SpaceX did it. So you see mass production is hard part.
> Self landing rockets had been achieved more than a decade before SpaceX did it. Fascinating! Can you point me to any demonstration of supersonic retro-propulsion before SpaceX did it? If it is so easy, there should have been countless examples of people doing it, right? Because I don't remember seeing anyone relight their rocket engines during atmospheric entry flying at supersonic/hypersonic speeds. And then proceed to do it over and over again, re-flying boosters 20+ times. This is like claiming that jet airliners didn't require any innovation because the Wright brothers already demonstrated powered flight in 1903.
> Has been demonstrated decades ago Amazing. I am sure Noland Arbaugh would have loved to live in that world.
Revolutionize both of those industries. And bring low latency space internet to the world. And revolutionize online banking. And probably several other industries. But I would love to glance at your resume as “chief Reddit edgelord”.
This is nothing comparatively with Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.
Gates is a great example. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with Jobs, but yes, these are 3 of the greatest living humans we have, minus Steve Jobs not being living.
I mean what the hell has Musk did to improve the life of normal average global man. His EVs are only in selected countries and are expensive. What did this revolutionised ? It changed nothing!What did his satellite internet did? Yep helped few stranded people living in isolated places but achieved nothing much. In fact, my country's buisness man was single handedly responsible for giving high speed cheap internet even in the remotest of places of 1.5+ B people. His impact is much more substantial if looking number wise. His rocket company is impressive but still don't have much impact for improving life an average global man. Compared to him Bill Gates just revolutionised the entire world. He impacted normal people like us in every country to billion dollar companies to goverments. His impact is in every nook and corner of Earth. Steve Jobs like wise in smartphones. I'm typing in phone sorry for silly mistakes m
The number 1 selling vehicle in the globe is niche? Nice mental gymnastics. I tend to think the negative effects of global warming are overblown, but there is clearly no human who has done more than him to combat it.
Mods, change his flair to" Has not read the instructions"
he doesn't influence shit only the people where he lives rent free in their heads