MemeX

[Anonymous No.10218808]

>booster landings failing
>falcon heavy launch was a spoof
>moon mission announcement was a spoof
>constant failure to "catch" a fairing
>begging multiple institutions for loans
>shut out of air force competition
>bfr reduced in size again, now less than half as capable as Saturn V
>bfs design thrown out again
>no full scale raptor tests
>$5 billion in federal funds spent and still zero astronauts on Dragon
>launch sales dropping dramatically
>musk is mentally falling apart
Is it over?

[Anonymous No.10218847]

>>10218808
he's done good for being a private entity.
He's proving that space can be privatized, which is big.

[Anonymous No.10218855]

>>10218847
>$5 billion in government funds
>"private"

[Anonymous No.10218959]

>>10218855
>if you get contracts from a public entity you cant be private
Well I guess there are basically no private companies then.

[Anonymous No.10218978]

>>10218847
why should it be privatized?

[Anonymous No.10218981]

>>10218847
>>10218978
The human endeavor is an ant hill. No one man is bigger than all of us.

[Anonymous No.10218983]

>>10218978
Because competition breeds innovation.

[Anonymous No.10218984]

>>10218959
Pepsico has more assets that the state of Hungary and requires essentially no public funds to run.

[Anonymous No.10218986]

>>10218983
>muh free enterprise mythos
nice to know you can regurgitate slogans

[Anonymous No.10218997]

>>10218984
Public organizations buy Pepsi, so they're receiving public money.

>>10218986
But to be clear, there's nothing wrong about that statement, is there?
I'm not saying that innovation can't occur in public organizations, you do, however, need competition to push it along.
Just take a look at the technology progression of NASA and the military through the last century. When does it thrive and when does it dry up?

[Anonymous No.10219012]

>>10218997
>Public organizations buy Pepsi, so they're receiving public money.
Like I said, essentially no public funds compared to say, SpaceX

[Anonymous No.10219028]

>>10219012
And delivering basically nothing of worth compared to say, SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.10219035]

Falcón Heavy

>spoof

[Anonymous No.10219048]

Space x was the government attempt at a front company like twitter or facecuck.

[Anonymous No.10219064]

>>10219028
Yet is somehow bigger than most nation states, despite delivering nothing of worth...

[Anonymous No.10219071]

>>10218997
competition for resources is a thing that happens between most living things
reducing something as complex as this to an ideal that you follow unconditionally is never a good idea
it wasn't a good idea when the commies did it
and it's not a good idea when we do it

[Anonymous No.10219077]

>>10219064
>despite delivering nothing of worth...

[Anonymous No.10219091]

>>10219071
I'm not saying that everything needs to be privatized, or that privatization is best in all situations.
Fact of the matter, though, is that we are at a technological point where space flight can be privatized effectively which means that innovation will overtake the public sector quickly.
There is so much more oversight and paper pushing involved in the public sector that a small change which someone like SpaceX can push out to their rocket in a couple months would take a year and cost five times as much.

We have reached a point where the skills and resources are available to the private sector such that it must makes so much more sense to have them handle the majority of the work now which the public sector provides the oversight. It's what we have done with so much else in infrastructure and other areas.

[Anonymous No.10219149]

>>10218808
>>bfr reduced in size again, now less than half as capable as Saturn V
How many times could you re-use a Saturn V?

Capability per launch is not as important as total capability over the usable lifespan of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.10219227]

>>10219149
zero.
how many times will you reuse the bfr?
N/A because it wont fucking fly.

[Anonymous No.10219251]

>>10219227
Cool. What are the lotto numbers for next week's draw?

[Anonymous No.10219267]

>>10218808
>musk is mentally falling apart
he's kept out of the headlines for months now, that's a good sign.

[Anonymous No.10219269]

>>10219267
You know what they say
No news is bad news

[Anonymous No.10219277]

>>10219269
I thought it was the opposite

[Anonymous No.10219298]

>>10219277
The opposite is true too
All news is good news

[Anonymous No.10219310]

>>10218808
>Is it over?

All of that could be true and SpaceX is still superior to any other spaceflight company or organization. So no, it is not over. Its just that standards in aerospace field, after decades of regression under government management, are so low that there is no competition to SpaceX. Maybe Blue Origin if we get lucky..

[Anonymous No.10219328]

I've read plenty of expert analysis on the whole spacex thing and I'm not impressed.

It seems all he's doing is utilizing old deprecated rocket technology like the engines who used some very primitive fuel burning technique, and through state subsidies undercutting the competition.

Other aerospace companies even in US are actually innovating rocket technology so I find it incredibly unfair how much media time elon musk is getting over this.

[Anonymous No.10219333]

>>10219328
He's undercutting them because the competition is a bloated bureaucracy drowning in their own incompetence, floated by a degenerate cost+ method of billing which amounts to government subsidies.

[Anonymous No.10219357]

>>10219328
In terms of engines, pretty fair enough.
The Merlin is a decent engine but not particularly innovative, but that's fine. The Raptor is a different beast, though.
But it's not just about the engines. It's about unit costs and the technology that is allowing landings and reusability.

[Anonymous No.10219360]

lol more comments for the mars landing celebratory macro, keep em coming boyos.

[Anonymous No.10219361]

>>10219328
You're fucking retarded. Just stop talking about topics you have no knowledge about.

[Anonymous No.10219371]

>>10219328
>I've read plenty of expert analysis

Butthurt Rogozin crying about how he cannot compete with SpaceX is not "expert analysis".

[Anonymous No.10219393]

>>10219333
This

NASA, like most government run institutions, are too risk averse

SpaceX laugh at risk because they have an autistic billionaire in the driving seat

[Anonymous No.10219407]

>>10219393
"I did the math, we thought of everything and then some, what are you talking about risk" - Elon, to his customers
"Holy shit do you think we thought of everything aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I hope it doesn't explode (but if it does think of the data)" - Elon, to himself

[Anonymous No.10219416]

Risk to human life is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Ever.

[Anonymous No.10219418]

>>10219407
That is one of the differences between OldSpace companies and SpaceX. Best way to retire risk is to launch early and launch often. Not to do yet another design review and abhor changes in the specifications. Reality is the best design reviewer. Such iterative development is central to Silicon Valley mindset and it is superior to traditional forms of development.

[Anonymous No.10219421]

>>10219418
Your rocket never exploding or crashing is a sign that you have not pushed boundaries of technology hard enough.

[Anonymous No.10219428]

>>10219416
And yet everyone drives every day.
It's CRAZY!

[Anonymous No.10219456]

>>10218978
Because governments change policies too often and are overall way too inefficient.

[Anonymous No.10219463]

>>10218855
God you're such a conservative.

[Anonymous No.10219466]

>>10219428
Driving is not the same as sticking a person to hundreds of tons of explosives with the intention of sending him to a place where there's absolutely nothing but radiation just because some billionaire finds it funny.

[Anonymous No.10219470]

>>10219466
Yeah, it's actually worse because it puts other people at risk as well.
Fucking driving man. God. It's so inhumane.

[Anonymous No.10219474]

>>10219470
Trying to equate something that benefits literally everyone to something that benefits no one but the extremely rich and the military is incredibly stupid and yet you did it.

[Anonymous No.10219475]

>>10219474
You know, I would agree with you except that
>Risk to human life is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Ever.
was said.

[Anonymous No.10219478]

>>10219474
Not sure if you are serious or a troll. The future of life is either space colonization or extinction. It is even more important than driving. Spending money on spaceflight is also one of the best use of taxpayer funding period, simply due to spin-off technologies.

Also, from a purely moral standpoint, those people freely choose to fly to space and love it, so you can fuck right off.

[Anonymous No.10219479]

Lol

[Anonymous No.10219482]

>>10219428
If driving was invented in the present, it would probably be banned as unsafe in public places. This is the state of pussification we live in these modern times.

[Anonymous No.10219494]

>>10219482
that's actually good thing
public transportation is miles better anyway murifat

[Anonymous No.10219502]

>>10219494
>public transportation is miles better
define "better"

better for whom?

[Anonymous No.10219506]

>>10219502
Probably the guys who piss in it

[Anonymous No.10219515]

>>10219478

"freely choice to fly to space"

lmao ubi is around the corner and no way are we letting rich get away

everyones staying deal with it

[Anonymous No.10219567]

>>10219371
>Rogozin
should be doing less embezzling and more work

[Anonymous No.10219596]

>>10219502
>>10219506
Americans prove once again they are a second world country
better for literally anyone except for rural retards
>faster in the city
>faster over long distances
>cheaper
>can take your bike with you for maximum flexibility
>comfy WiFi, USB charging hubs and time for reading/learning while you ride to uni
literally the only disadvantage is that there are weird people if you ride at times like 2am and that rural retards have limited access to it (which is actually a good thing)

[Anonymous No.10219600]

>>10219494
>public transportation is miles better anyway murifat

Public transport is shit anywhere outside of large cities. It will never replace individual car ownership.

t. European

[Anonymous No.10219604]

>>10219596
forgot
good things pt.2
>almost free if you are a student
>environmentally friendly
>safer
>have time to talk to frens who take the same route

[Anonymous No.10219606]

>>10219600
where in Europe are you ruralfag
this only applies to villages with a population less than 10k

[Anonymous No.10219613]

>>10219606
>this only applies to villages with a population less than 10k

No, it applies to all towns without a well developed metro system. 30k here and public transport is tedious and slow.

It turns out that you need some volume of traffic before it makes sense to create a dense transport system with fast travel and frequent arrivals/departures. It does not make sense anywhere outside large cities.

[Anonymous No.10219657]

>>10219613
I live in a 100k city without metro and public transport is perfectly fine

[Anonymous No.10219735]

>>10219064
>Hey look SpaceX is a massive engineering firm trying to make space travel possible-
>LOL WELL THEY SUCK COMPARED TO PEPSICO, WHICH DOES NOTHING BUT HOSE SUGAR WATER IN PEOPLE'S MOUTHS, BECAUSE THEY TAKE GOVERNMENT MONEY

this is why conservatives and libertarians will always be jokes

[Anonymous No.10219741]

>>10219735
There are several other companies who are doing it with practically zero government funds
>unironically defending crony capitalism

[Anonymous No.10219750]

>>10219741

Name them and they will either be

1.Nowhere near SpaceX's level of development
2.Actually, TOTALLY taking government money and you just didn't know
3.Both

>muh crony capitalism

I'll defend whatever gets fucking results

[Anonymous No.10219758]

>>10219750
>results
lmao
you're one of those people who believe Steve Jobs was a great innovator

[Anonymous No.10219772]

>>10219758
>I have no rebuttal to your current argument so I'm going to pretend you have a silly opinion about a completely unrelated subject based on absolutely zero evidence because that's easier to make fun of

P A T H E T I C

[Anonymous No.10219778]

>>10219772
name one significant result of spacex with real impact on the space indhstry

[Anonymous No.10219801]

>>10218808
Okay, I'll bite...
>booster landings failing
32 consecutive F9 landing successes. But one failed due to it not having enough ignition fluid, the other due to a small mechanical fault and it was eventually recovered anyway (if in a unorthodox manner).
>falcon heavy launch was a spoof
There's massive amounts of evidence that this isn't the case, with new side boosters being spotted on the move and 3 new launch contracts being signed this year.
>moon mission announcement was a spoof
It's too early to tell
>constant failure to "catch" a fairing
True, but it seems like they will be reusing the fairings anyway.
>begging multiple institutions for loans
I highly doubt SpaceX were begging, it's just really hard for a commercial space company to get a big loan because wallstreet isn't sure how profitable the business is yet.
>shut out of air force competition
Which is just an example of how conservative the airforce's procurement culture is, with SpaceX's BFR, being overlooked in favour of vastly inferior but less ambitious launch vehicles. What do you expect from an agency that still doesn't allow SpaceX to fly their payloads on flight-proven boosters? Which is ironic, as all the failures have occurred on new ones.
>bfr reduced in size again, now less than half as capable as Saturn V
Umm, the BFR has actually been physically enlarged in 2018 (107m to 118m) and I'd don't remember the Saturn 5 being able to do 100+ tons to LEO in a reusable configuration.
>bfs design thrown out again
True, but it's impossible to tell how much has changed or when the design change occurred due to Elon's typical vagueness.
>no full scale raptor tests
I'm pretty sure we saw one at the DearMoon presentation.
>$5 billion in federal funds spent and still zero
That's mostly NASA and congress' fault and it's not like Boeing are doing any better...
>launch sales dropping dramatically
That's just an industry problem, not one limited to SpaceX; who actually have Starlink to keep them busy.

[Anonymous No.10219811]

>>10219801
Reusability is a meme and that's why everyone is ignoring it.

Delusional muskrats going full delusional.

[Anonymous No.10219812]

>bfr reduced in size again, now less than half as capable as Saturn V

Wait what?? The Falcon Heavy is also half as capable as the Saturn V, why don't we just use that then??

[Anonymous No.10219817]

>>10219811
>>10219778

It is OK, some people also thought electricity, aeroplanes and cars were a meme. Not everyone is intelligent enough to recognize a groundbreaking technology when he sees one. Case in point, these two posters. The industry will move on regardless.

Expendable rocketry is as absurd as expendable aeroplane.

[Anonymous No.10219820]

>>10219812
It is a troll post, BFR is as capable as Saturn V even in reduced state, both when it comes to payload mass and volume, and in fact it will be orders of magnitude more capable since it will be reusable.

[Anonymous No.10219821]

>>10219812
elon needs to ride the hype and the PR of being an innovator, otherwise the cost/benefits of spacex reusability might be questioned.

[Anonymous No.10219825]

>>10219820
>it will be orders of magnitude more capable since it will be reusable.


[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10219829]

>>10219812

Because making heavy lift is difficult?

Everyone expects even further downscaling and maybe even turning it onto normal 3 stage expendable rocket.

Unless the Vulcan and whatever Blue Origin is making throws them out of business of course which is very likely.

[Anonymous No.10219832]

>>10219829
>Everyone expects even further downscaling and maybe even turning it onto normal 3 stage expendable rocket.

Literally nobody expects that you moron.

[Anonymous No.10219836]

>>10219812
It was stupid anyway because saturn v could throw dozens of tons at the Moon while the bfr is stuck in leo just like the shuttle. Doesn't even matter how much they reduce the payload it was always near zero for any place beyond the iss.

Now fanboys will say
>orbital refueling

L O L

[Anonymous No.10219837]

>>10219832
you should.

[Anonymous No.10219839]

>>10219825
>hurr durr there is a citation for everything

[Anonymous No.10219840]

>>10219836
Yes we will. Any deep space architecture without orbital refueling is absurd. That is something even ULA recognizes.

[Anonymous No.10219843]

>>10219839
i thought not.

[Anonymous No.10219844]

>>10219832

They literally dropped the only thing that could make it work and that was the light composite structure.

Without that its abysmally overweight and underpowered and even switch to hydrogen to squeeze some performance won't save it

It is DOA and the usaf already said so politely.

[Anonymous No.10219849]

>>10219844
Wrong on all points. Composite could help but BFR would be a very capable rocket even if it is made out of Al-Li. It does not depend on the composite structure. The only crucial technology that could kill BFR if it does not work is upper stage heat shielding. Everything else should be quite smooth sailing.

Also, hydrogen does not increase performance, since it has lower density and thrust. Hydrogen is mostly a meme, and doubly so for a reusable LV.

[Anonymous No.10219882]

>>10219844
>abysmally overweight
The original Atlas, a rocket so light that it couldn't even support itself without being pressurised was built using stainless steel; it could also do 1.5 stages to orbit because of this. Heavy metals don't necessarily mean heavy, which on the surface seems "counterintuitive"...

[Anonymous No.10219886]

>>10218808
Christ, Jeff, quit posting this shit. I know you have problems, but god damn lean your shit drama out of /sci/. Jeff, seriously though, if you want to outshine Elon you'll need to step up to the plate and start posting your own successes.

[Anonymous No.10219932]

why are so many people replying to this obvious bait thread? I thought this board was full of smart people.

[Anonymous No.10219936]

>>10219844
Composites are a meme and not worth the money

[Anonymous No.10219938]

>>10219932
>/sci/
>smart people

[Anonymous No.10220027]

>>10218808
But I thought capitalism was great!

Seriously, we need to give money to NASA so they can send out more robots to explore the solar system. Like Europe, check for life.

We don't need memeX companies to hunt for profit and make space into a tourism attraction and not ground for scientific research.

[Anonymous No.10220028]

>>10219932
When the SFW boards revolted against 4chan and formed their own website called "4channel" (the very website you are posting on now), the average IQ of the board posters on /sci/ went down a full 300 points.

[Anonymous No.10220048]

>>10220027
We need geological robots to look for resources that are viable enough to harvest and use. Then we need fleets of mining, & transporting robots. Then we need refineries to turn that shit into usable shit. Then we need armies of construction bots to build shit in space with those refined resources. Of course, the only things worth building are space colony infrastructure, interstellar seed/colony/generation ships, and gargantuan antennae/telescope arrays to listen to and look at the universe in hopes of finding new places to colonizes. Oh, and to create amazing weaponry to help protect out assets from any form of threat; either internal or external.

Fuck looking for life. Discoveries like that will happen in their own time. We don't have time to dick around with that shit.

[Anonymous No.10220057]

>>10220048
We have to start in the small though.

[Anonymous No.10220078]

>>10220027
Wasting more money on NASA will not help. Solar system should be dotted with robots for the $$ countless billions they already received. If you want real scientific exploration, then you must pay a private company to mass-produce and mass-launch robotic probes efficiently.

[Anonymous No.10220085]

>>10220057
Sure, just start small with the fleet of resource-finding robots. For instance, there's only a small handful of satellites, probes, and rovers in the entire system looking at shit right now. We need 100 times more than what we have. We already know a great deal just from viewing shit from here. So, we can already start building fleets of mining robots. We have the science for it we just need to build that shit. A few companies are trying, but it seems more like everyone is grant chasing and stringing out those grant bux as far as it can go.

[Anonymous No.10220119]

>>10220078
I think you over estimate the amount of resources NASA has to play with.
And I see no reason for why paying a private company would somehow be superior.

>>10220085
Hmm, what resources are you looking for though?
And the demand needs to be pretty high for this to be profitable.
Idk, sounds far, far, far into the future.

[Anonymous No.10220127]

>>10219360
How big is that file now anyways? Maybe give us a peek?

[Anonymous No.10220154]

>>10219778
Showed it to be a viable private industry, so as the industry develops prices will only continue to drop, eventually allowing for consumers to benefit. Developed different rockets, robobarge landing system and rocket reentry landing. Not to mention the infrastructure required to handle such systems. Planning to develop system to freight between planets. They are on the path to actually making space valuable to us.

[Anonymous No.10220213]

Only the government has enough financial and technological resource to support space missions.
The "private sector" has never and will never do anything beneficial to humanity.

[Anonymous No.10220398]

>>10220085
>the box is locked!
>it's robot fightin' time!

[Anonymous No.10220406]

>>10220127
He’s doing a separate one from me. Unless he’s also been collecting em for as long as myself mine is probably bigger (hueh)
The curated one will have 120 or so entires

[Anonymous No.10220445]

>>10220119
>Hmm, what resources are you looking for though?
Everything required to be self-sustaining.

>And the demand needs to be pretty high for this to be profitable.
The profit is continued existence.

>Idk, sounds far, far, far into the future.
People who are not already parents often say things like that.

[Anonymous No.10220687]

>>10220406
This has me almost as exited as the BFR launch

[Anonymous No.10221126]

>>10218978
Becouse goverments obviously don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.10221259]

>>10218847
>He's proving that space can be privatized, which is big.
He is so far from being alone in that.

[Anonymous No.10221274]

>>10218808
>Is it over?
No my darling. It has only begun!

[Anonymous No.10221358]

>>10219886
elon ghost wrote this

[Anonymous No.10221717]

>>10219812
they dropped the carbon composite tanks recently and downgraded raptor again so the usable payload is likely well below 80 tons now

[Anonymous No.10221730]

>>10219801
>32 consecutive F9 landing successes. But one failed due to it not having enough ignition fluid, the other due to a small mechanical fault
that's not what consecutive means, idiot

[Anonymous No.10222133]

>>10221717
Industry sources say more like 30 tons in refurbishable mode.

[Anonymous No.10222435]

>>10218978
I think it should combine both private and public endeavours, just like every other domain of life. That's usually what brings the greatest success.

[Anonymous No.10222461]

>>10219515
>lmao ubi
Romans had this and it only made things worse.

[Anonymous No.10222588]

>>10219149
As a spacex employee, I'd say there is an argument for both

[Anonymous No.10222641]

>>10218808

[Anonymous No.10222718]

>>10220119
>And the demand needs to be pretty high for this to be profitable.
This. There are plenty of resources on Earth that have artificially lowered supply to keep prices from plummeting (many of these are mined in Siberia and South America). In fact, a very common effect of innovation in resource extraction is a sudden plummet in stock prices, there are a number of mines that are no longer viable just because they won't turn quite as much profit as other mines.

[Anonymous No.10224024]

>>10222588
>As a spacex employee

[Anonymous No.10224037]

>>10218978
Because America, that's why.

[Anonymous No.10224042]

>>10220027
How the fuck can you think that? Profitability is literally the only thing that can get humans intos space in a big way.