• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

i know you guys are nerds and excited by space and ◊◊◊◊, but musk is not the guy. he’s just not
SpaceX may yet succeed at a lander. but Musk himself doesn't seem to have anything to offer beyond threadbare science fiction memes about the Moon. As I've said before, I believe there is an organizational structure at SpaceX that keeps it functioning despite Musk's attempts to meddle.
 
SpaceX may yet succeed at a lander. but Musk himself doesn't seem to have anything to offer beyond threadbare science fiction memes about the Moon. As I've said before, I believe there is an organizational structure at SpaceX that keeps it functioning despite Musk's attempts to meddle.
Yeah. Musk is not SpaceX and SpaceX is not Musk.
 
musk also inflates the numbers by having his other companies buy his products
Good one. Looking at the chart I see a little over 200 Cybertrucks sold to SpaceX this year. I'll concede that and reduce total number sold to ~117,100 instead of 117,300. Happy now?

Of course other automakers never inflate their sales numbers by counting pre-registered vehicles at dealerships as 'sold', right?

Tesla Cybertrucks Begin Replacing Gas Trucks at SpaceX Facilities Across Texas
The move marks the beginning of a long-anticipated effort by SpaceX to retire its internal combustion engine (ICE) support vehicles and replace them with Cybertrucks... The trucks are also being distributed at SpaceX’s Starlink factory in Bastrop. At both facilities, the Cybertrucks are expected to serve as work vehicles for engineering teams, logistics staff, and operations crews.
Wes Morrill, an engineer who worked on the Cybertruck program at Tesla, celebrated the milestone on social media.
“Love to see the ICE support fleets from Tesla and SpaceX get replaced with Cybertruck,” he wrote on X. “When we were engineering it, this was always part of the dream. Never imagined how hard the fleet photos at Starbase would go. Looking forward to more of this.”
If I was running two companies and had an opportunity to buy my own products I would - and in fact I did. It just made sense to use computers that I assembled myself. This is done all the time in private businesses and there's nothing wrong with it.
 
SpaceX may yet succeed at a lander. but Musk himself doesn't seem to have anything to offer beyond threadbare science fiction memes about the Moon. As I've said before, I believe there is an organizational structure at SpaceX that keeps it functioning despite Musk's attempts to meddle.

you think they can keep that up forever? he's taking it public to turn it into his big slush fund, he's using it to buy up other garbage companies of his too. big problems
 
Good one. Looking at the chart I see a little over 200 Cybertrucks sold to SpaceX this year. I'll concede that and reduce total number sold to ~117,100 instead of 117,300. Happy now?

Of course other automakers never inflate their sales numbers by counting pre-registered vehicles at dealerships as 'sold', right?

Tesla Cybertrucks Begin Replacing Gas Trucks at SpaceX Facilities Across Texas


If I was running two companies and had an opportunity to buy my own products I would - and in fact I did. It just made sense to use computers that I assembled myself. This is done all the time in private businesses and there's nothing wrong with it.

18% of their cybertruck sales that quarter, $100m in revenue. not nothing


anyway, when you bought your own computer did you do it through your other company and call it a sale?
 
Last edited:
you think they can keep that up forever? he's taking it public to turn it into his big slush fund, he's using it to buy up other garbage companies of his too. big problems
Musk can always meddle in the business of the company as long as he owns it. But the science of the company seems safely in the hands of others.
 
Musk can always meddle in the business of the company as long as he owns it. But the science of the company seems safely in the hands of others.
yeah, too much meddling is how that changes. tesla has been in decline for a long time, idk why spacex would be any different. he's loading it up with debt and nonsense imo
 
Ah. At last. So Blue Origin has a paper rendering too. Or is it papier-mâché?
It is supposed to be used for testing of various procedures like getting in and out of the craft. So it's probably much more than papier maché. It also tells us there is a design otherwise there would be no point in it.

Oh, and Blue Origin doesn't just have it: they had it five years ago.
 
Forever? No. Until they have a viable ship? Yes. Until they have a HLS? Probably.
NASA gave him about $3 billion to build HLS. Musk is on record as saying that each time a Starship blows up it costs SpaceX $100 million. So he's burned through the best part of a third of the contract just in launches and ignoring all the design work and engineering of support infrastructure. Can he fulfil the contract with fewer than twenty more launches? I think probably not.

I think this is why he's selling some SpaceX shares to the public. He needs quite a large injection of cash to fund development of Starship. (as well as to pay off the debts incurred by Twitter and xAI).
 
Oh, and Blue Origin doesn't just have it: they had it five years ago.
So what have they done with it since? What has SpaceX achieved in five years?

And did you already know, or did you have to go look it up?

For the record, I know when the next Starship launch is scheduled (next month)
 
Delivered a second prototype for vacuum testing, as I wrote earlier.
Oh, a second prototype? Is this one going to be launched any time soon?

Toward the specific goals of building a crewed lunar lander? Very little if anything.
The entire Starship development process is geared towards building a crewed lunar lander. The HLS isn't going to be that different that it requires an entire separate design project. SpaceX has for years been saying that Starship will be their HLS.
 
Oh, a second prototype? Is this one going to be launched any time soon?
Straw man. Launching is not the sine qua non. They are lunar lander test beds being actively tested for that purpose by the customer. This is actually the way it is typically done.

The entire Starship development process is geared towards building a crewed lunar lander.
Not from what I've seen. They're doing an excellent job of figuring out how to get it to launch satellites and land in an atmosphere. As I wrote before, they haven't addressed landing in a vacuum. They haven't addressed docking. They haven't addressed human factors.

You're trying to rewrite the problem to ask for what SpaceX is delivering for whatever its own strengths and purposes are. The requirements for a lunar lander require additional work beyond flying to LEO that SpaceX hasn't yet demonstrated having thought about, much less attempted to accomplish. Perhaps they are hoping to tack those things on at the very end of the process, but I have a lot of experience in why that almost always fails.
 
Last edited:
Straw man. Launching is not the sine qua non. They are lunar lander test beds being actively tested for that purpose by the customer. This is actually the way it is typically done.
Cool. So what Starship has achieved so far is not the sine qua non of the lunar lander, either.

Not from what I've seen. They're doing an excellent job of figuring out how to get it to launch satellites and land in an atmosphere. As I wrote before, they haven't addressed landing in a vacuum. They haven't addressed docking. They haven't addressed human factors.
They're working on getting it to actually fly first. You walk before you run.

You're trying to rewrite the problem to ask for what SpaceX is delivering for whatever its own strengths and purposes are. The requirements for a lunar lander require additional work beyond flying to LEO that SpaceX hasn't yet demonstrated having thought about, much less attempted to accomplish.
What the heck are you even talking about?

1776463855656.png

They've thought about it.

Perhaps they are hoping to tack those things on at the very end of the process, but I have a lot of experience in why that almost always fails.
Do you have some insight into their design process that I don't?
 
They're working on getting it to actually fly first. You walk before you run.
We seem to disagree on what walking versus running entails. I would argue that SpaceX is trying to run before they walk. I’ve been doing spacecraft and launch vehicle design qualification and integration for almost 30 years. But I suppose you know best.

What the heck are you even talking about?

View attachment 70510
That's a sales brochure that essentially restates the mission requirements. They don't show any evidence they've thought much about it beyond that while they've been madly chasing a reusable Starship that can launch lots of Starlink satellites. Meanwhile NASA has two Blue Origin prototypes and/or mockups in hand with which to do active testing and design validation according to the lunar lander requirements. They are on track for their missions.

I'm not saying SpaceX can't or won't pull it off. But the conventional wisdom in the industry is that they are way, way behind and following an untested path. And the notion that Blue Origin is somehow behind because they haven't physically flown anything is not really a well-founded criticism. It presumes the SpaceX model of development as the yardstick for measurement.

Do you have some insight into their design process that I don't?
Why, yes I do. I have considerable experience in both Move Fast and Break Things and in a traditional spacecraft design life cycle. MF+BT is not an especially effective way to engineer a large crewed spacecraft on a schedule and budget. Getting mockups in the customer's hands early on is a proven success factor.

Artemis III was downgraded from a lunar landing mission to an Earth orbit mission chiefly because of serious doubts that SpaceX can make a working lunar lander in time. In the revised mission timeline, SpaceX only has to demonstrate docking and human factors. The evidence seems to show Blue Origin is substantially ahead on human factors. Since the Blue Origin lander derives in part from the Cygnus spacecraft, which is in operational production and has demonstrated docking capability, I would say Blue Origin is likely to successfully demonstrate navigation and docking proficiency.
 
Last edited:
We seem to disagree on what walking versus running entails. I would argue that SpaceX is trying to run before they walk. I’ve been doing spacecraft and launch vehicle design qualification and integration for almost 30 years. But I suppose you know best.
Not at all. I just don't engage in the knee-jerk reflexive antipathy that others do. Elon is a ◊◊◊◊, yes, but SpaceX is not Elon, and Elon is not SpaceX.

That's a sales brochure that essentially restates the mission requirements. They don't show any evidence they've thought much about it beyond that while they've been madly chasing a reusable Starship that can launch lots of Starlink satellites. Meanwhile NASA has two Blue Origin prototypes and/or mockups in hand with which to do active testing and design validation according to the lunar lander requirements. They are on track for their missions.
As SpaceX is on track for its mission schedule.

I'm not saying SpaceX can't or won't pull it off. But the conventional wisdom in the industry is that they are way, way behind and following an untested path. And the notion that Blue Origin is somehow behind because they haven't physically flown anything is not really a well-founded criticism. It presumes the SpaceX model of development as the yardstick for measurement.
Well maybe the reason they're way behind is that they're following an untested path. My point about the comparison with Blue Origin is that I know what SpaceX is doing because they're in the news every time they do something. I haven't heard squat from Blue Origin in years. Does this mean that they're making great achievements and keeping them out of the news? I don't know.

Why, yes I do. I have considerable experience in both Move Fast and Break Things and in a traditional spacecraft design life cycle. MF+BT is not an especially effective way to engineer a large crewed spacecraft on a schedule and budget. Getting mockups in the customer's hands early on is a proven success factor.
And here was me thinking you were a lawyer. :) No offense intended.

Artemis III was downgraded from a lunar landing mission to an Earth orbit mission chiefly because of serious doubts that SpaceX can make a working lunar lander in time. In the revised mission timeline, SpaceX only has to demonstrate docking and human factors. The evidence seems to show Blue Origin is substantially ahead on human factors. Since the Blue Origin lander derives in part from the Cygnus spacecraft, which is in operational production and has demonstrated docking capability, I would say Blue Origin is likely to successfully demonstrate navigation and docking proficiency.
SpaceX has practical experience in human factors by way of their Dragon Crew module, which is also in regular operation right now. It's a different form factor, but surely some of the design principles can carry over?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom