Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

[JayUtah]

Not at all. I just don't engage in the knee-jerk reflexive antipathy that others do.

Just knee-jerk sympathy, apparently. I'm happy to give SpaceX credit for things they do right. But HLS isn't yet one of those things.

Elon is a ◊◊◊◊, yes, but SpaceX is not Elon, and Elon is not SpaceX.

I agree with that. That's not to say that SpaceX too is beyond criticism. I criticize Elon Musk for the things Musk does that deserve it. But I also criticize SpaceX too when it deserves it. And although you weren't the one who questioned it, I also criticize Boeing. I built my company largely on contracting to Boeing, but not since finishing the 787 contracts. I call it as I see it, not knee-jerkedly.

As SpaceX is on track for its mission schedule.

NASA disagrees.

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.

SpaceX is very good at grabbing headlines, yes. Blue Origin is delivering hardware on schedule to the customer, and doesn't need headlines for the customer to know that.

And here was me thinking you were a lawyer. No offense intended.

None taken, but I'm quite open about my professional role as an aerospace engineer and my sig advertises my nonlawyerliness.

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?

Nope.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nope.

Really? None of them?

 

[JayUtah]

Really? None of them?

Human factors are heavily dependent on the specific vehicle and mission.

 

[arthwollipot]

Human factors are heavily dependent on the specific vehicle and mission.

Yeah but surely there are some principles that can carry over.

Regardless, Starship is intended as SpaceX's HLS. Also its fuel vehicle. Also its cargo module. It's not fit for any of those purposes yet. It's a test bed. First they've got to get it to fly.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah but surely there are some principles that can carry over.

Not substantially, no. This is why Blue Origin is correct in focusing first on human factors as it relates to their nascent design while SpaceX chases headlines, clicks, and 4K ooh-aahs.

Regardless, Starship is intended as SpaceX's HLS. Also its fuel vehicle. Also its cargo module. It's not fit for any of those purposes yet.

Correct. The flown versions of Starship are utterly irrelevant to the lunar lander problem.

It's a test bed. First they've got to get it to fly.

No.

You're still focused on SpaceX's attempt to redefine the problem space as orbital and suborbital flight. It isn't, and never has been. Blue Origin is focused. SpaceX is all over the map, except for where it's supposed to be. This is why NASA took Artemis III away from them as a lunar landing.

 

[jeremyp]

So what have they done with it since? What has SpaceX achieved in five years?

See JayUtah's post

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

I had to look it up but why would that invalidate it? If I look up SpaceX's HLS, I just get renderings and a test to validate that you can use a crane as a lift (who knew?)

For the record, I know when the next Starship launch is scheduled (next month)

Do you know when they are going to deliver anything to do with HLS?

 

[jeremyp]

So what have they done with it since?

Oh and by the way, in 2021 Nasa awarded an exclusive contract to SpaceX, so Blue Origin stopped working on the lander for a while. This was in spite of the fact that SpaceX had demonstrated noting except their ability to offer a highly paid job to the Nasa administrator who selected their HLS.

 

[jeremyp]

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.


As SpaceX is on track for its mission schedule.

You're joking. The mission schedule called for SpaceX to land HLS on the Moon (unmanned) in 2024. They are years behind schedule.

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.

You haven't seen squat about SpaceX's HLS either. You've seen a shell of a rocket that contains nothing except fuel tanks and engines but you haven't seen anything to do with the vehicle that lands on the Moon except maybe its overall shape.

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?

They aren't proposing to use Dragon to land on the Moon. Dragon is not designed to land on anything except hung underneath parachutes (not useful on the Moon). It's also not designed to take off again. Its interior is not designed for extended stays on the surface of the Moon, it's designed for shuttling astronauts to and from LEO.

 

[Aridas]

Oh and by the way, in 2021 Nasa awarded an exclusive contract to SpaceX, so Blue Origin stopped working on the lander for a while. This was in spite of the fact that SpaceX had demonstrated noting except their ability to offer a highly paid job to the Nasa administrator who selected their HLS.

Which ends up as a bit of evidence for the proposition that SpaceX, under Musk's "leadership," is actually sabotaging the goal that's supposedly being worked towards as he tries to get more money diverted into his pockets.

 

[Wudang]

SpaceX is very good at grabbing headlines, yes. Blue Origin is delivering hardware on schedule to the customer, and doesn't need headlines for the customer to know that.

On a project management course many years ago, the lecturer asked what we'd heard in the news about the then recent major upgrade to St Pancras (one of London's major train stations). We all indicated "nothing". He then went on to say it was delivered successfully on time and on budget and good project management doesn't make headlines.

 

[Wudang]

You're still focused on SpaceX's attempt to redefine the problem space as orbital and suborbital flight. It isn't, and never has been. Blue Origin is focused. SpaceX is all over the map, except for where it's supposed to be. This is why NASA took Artemis III away from them as a lunar landing.

Quoted for emphasis. This is a beloved tactic of politicians, PR and their ilk.

 

[Darat]

I should really call it the MRDF: the Musk reality distortion field - he is excellent at making people think he and his companies are well ahead of the rest, even though he and his companies are often years behind the leaders.

 

[jadebox]

The frustrating thing to me is that I am sure the smart people at SpaceX could design and build a decent moon lander in a reasonable amount of time if they weren't forced to base it on Starship.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're joking. The mission schedule called for SpaceX to land HLS on the Moon (unmanned) in 2024. They are years behind schedule.

Which mission schedule? Elon's pie-in-the-sky schedule that he spouts off without thinking? Or the actual published mission schedule that they are really genuinely following?

Correct. The flown versions of Starship are utterly irrelevant to the lunar lander problem.

As they are utterly irrelevant to the fuel and cargo problems. Right? So why are they doing them?

This is why NASA took Artemis III away from them as a lunar landing.

Again, if you have some kind of insider knowledge into NASA's reasoning for the change in the Artemis schedule, I'd love for you to share it. As far as I know that reasoning hasn't been published.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As they are utterly irrelevant to the fuel and cargo problems. Right? So why are they doing them?

Because he has no intention of doing what he contracted to do with NASA.
He just wanted the money.

 

[JayUtah]

As they are utterly irrelevant to the fuel and cargo problems. Right? So why are they doing them?

They appear to be focused on perfecting Starship’s earth landing and LEO cargo deployment features. Why indeed is that their focus?

Again, if you have some kind of insider knowledge into NASA's reasoning for the change in the Artemis schedule, As far as I know that reasoning hasn't been published.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/science/nasa-moon-landing-artemis-schedule

 

[arthwollipot]

Because he has no intention of doing what he contracted to do with NASA.
He just wanted the money.

The entire Starship programme is a scam? He's deliberately defrauding the US government with no intention to deliver? No, I don't believe that for a moment. He is neither that smart, nor that stupid.

 

[arthwollipot]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/27/science/nasa-moon-landing-artemis-schedule

Thanks, but this is not insider knowledge into NASA's reasoning process. In particular it does not say that the Artemis programme was rescheduled because SpaceX couldn't deliver. What it does say is this:

“Over the past year, programmatic and technical risks with these systems have continued to emerge and affect the overall Artemis III schedule and risk management,” according to a recently published report by NASA’s independent oversight group, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. “This is especially evident with the HLS, given its intricate operational design, complex concept of operations, and challenges during their ongoing flight test program. Taken together, these difficulties cast doubt on the current Artemis III timeline and the feasibility of the Artemis III mission goals.”

Ibid.

This does not mention Artemis - it refers to issues with the HLS programme itself. And it's a statement from the ASAP, not NASA. And it's easily obtainable knowledge that I already knew.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk is a willing victim of the exponential progress falacy: it doesn't matter if after quite a while you've made little progress, because for the next period you will do twice as much, then double that, and then double that etc etc

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks, but this is not insider knowledge into NASA's reasoning process. In particular it does not say that the Artemis programme was rescheduled because SpaceX couldn't deliver.

Yeah that’s pretty much what it says. HLS is identified as too great a risk and therefore the program was changed.