• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged SpaceX’s Starship Rocket Explodes After Launch/Starship hop

So you say, but is it true?



I've seen no evidence that that Musk is any more hateful than the average person. I've seen far more hate directed at him than from him, and many of the haters appear to crave it.



Here's one example:-



Elon Musk haters vandalized dozens of Tesla Cybertrucks



[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1476&pictureid=14065[/qimg]



And that's just the tip of the iceberg.



It's almost impossible to discuss about anything related to SpaceX or Tesla these days without the haters chiming in, derailing the conversation with their childish name-calling and ignorant negativity. And if we rebut them they call us fanboys or worse. Engaging them doesn't help because their minds are firmly closed - they've found a 'legitimate' target to hate on and nobody's going to reason them out of it!
I haven't called anyone here a fanboy. Much of youtube is fanboys.

Vandalizing Tesla cars is stupid and criminal.

Musk calling the men who saved the boys in Thailand "pedos" was the wakeup call for me. The MDS starts with Musk.
 
Last edited:
You claim to have impeccable sources of truth. I have asked already but you don't reveal them.

That is a lie. I never, ever claimed to have "impeccable sources of truth". You're just making that up from whole cloth.

What I actually claimed was...

Thankfully, there are other forums around where actual rocket scientists and engineers, including people actually working on some of the projects under discussion, are participating.

I have asked already but you don't reveal them.

And I'm not going to!

Given your obvious blind hatred of Musk, and childish inability to see beyond that hatred, it should be fairly obvious why.
 
I agree, he is an *******.

However, grown-ups are capable of seeing beyond those flaws


They aren't flaws. they are the pathology of a malignant narcissist..



Still waiting for evidence, like sceptics do, I'm more than willing to look at what you, as an expert, can produce besides stupid memes when you say someone is wrong. I don't know nearly as much about general aircraft or rockets as you.
 
Last edited:
I haven't called anyone here a fanboy. Much of youtube is fanboys.
Oops!

Musk calling the men who saved the boys in Thailand "pedos" was the wakeup call for me. The MDS starts with Musk.
And there it is.

Elon Musk wins defamation case over 'pedo guy' tweet about diver
Vernon Unsworth was seeking $US190 million ($NZ289m) in damages from the Tesla founder, over the tweet sent last year...

Mr Unsworth, an experienced 64-year-old cave explorer, splits his time between the UK and Thailand. During the rescue, which captured the world's attention, he helped recruit expert cave divers who were instrumental in freeing the boys safely.

Mr Musk sent Tesla engineers and a small submarine to help with the Thai rescue effort, but the vessel was never used.

Instead, he and Mr Unsworth got into a public war of words after the diver branded the offer of help a "PR stunt".

During an interview with CNN, he suggested the billionaire "stick his submarine where it hurts".

Mr Musk, who has 22 million followers, responded with a series of tweets about Mr Unsworth - including the one calling him "pedo guy". It was later deleted.
I could explain to you how this context matters and what it means about Musk's personality, but there's no point because you would just dig your heels in. Instead I refer you to these two posts:-

That can be the Achilles heel for a lot of highly intelligent people. Can't admit when they are wrong.

Musk is a highly intelligent jerk and Trump thinks he is highly intelligent and is a jerk. I don't think Musk ever ran a beauty pageant so he could perve at the young contestants.
Seems your 'wokeness' evolved over time. In October 2019 (a year after the 'pedo man' tweet) he had an 'Achilles heel'. By May 2020 he was a 'highly intelligent jerk' - both reasonably fair evaluations IMO. Now he's a 'malignant narcissist', an extreme epithet that I don't believe is deserved.

As with many highly intelligent people who have a great interest in science and technology, Musk is borderline autistic. His social skills are clearly lacking. The only difference between Musk and millions like him is that he lucked into a large fortune (of his own making, mind you) which he then used to follow his dreams to an even larger fortune - before he achieved the maturity to handle it well. Extreme wealth leads to hubris, and Musk was no exception. But this is more than matched by the extreme jealousy of the millions ripping him down to hide their own inadequacies.

As Musk gets older and more experienced he is becoming more mature, unlike his detractors who are going the other way. The more successful he is the more they hate him.

Many liberals also deride his moving to the right, but this too is totally expected for someone in his position. What those liberals don't realize is that they are helping to push him there, many to the point of compromising their own values as they dial up the hate. That was my wake-up call.
 
Many liberals also deride his moving to the right, but this too is totally expected for someone in his position. What those liberals don't realize is that they are helping to push him there, many to the point of compromising their own values as they dial up the hate. That was my wake-up call.


Yes indeedy! I wish some of the Liberals in my cohort would realize this!
 
I think people underestimate how impossible it is for a billionaire to know what people actually think of them and their work.
The Super Rich are the only type of customers for which there actually still exists a Market, i.e. a place where their purchasing power makes them equals to the the other market participants, and not just targets for advertising. Companies and service providers go to extreme lengths to get a piece of their business, and they will always have an airtight bubble of hanger-ons around them, shielding them from any non-choreographed interactions. Politicians will actually take the time to listen to them, instead of sending them auto-generated requests for donations.

They have no chance to experience life as it happens to practically everyone else.

how is Musk supposed to know that he is being an idiot when his toadies know their fortune depends making him believe he is brilliant?

Billionaires would do well to hire Court Jesters and be required to listen to their roasts before making any major decision.
 
As Musk gets older and more experienced he is becoming more mature

I'd love to see what makes you imagine this is true. Musk unilaterally orders delays on rocket launches for no technical or operational reason, just so that the launch can happen on "marijuana day" because he's a 50-year-old man who still thinks weed jokes are pinnacle of humor. He appoints women he finds attractive to privileged positions in companies he controls so that he use their careers as leverage to initiate sexual relationships, as part of his Epsteinian sci-fi "breeding" fantasy. When companies pulled advertising from Twitter because they didn't want their ads showing up under white supremacist calls-to-action, he threw a tantrum in which he hurled profanity at them and proclaimed that "the world" would somehow punish them if Twitter ended up failing. Twitter's press contact email auto-replies to everything with a "poop" emoji. Emotionally he seems to be stuck roughly at age 9. Where do you see any maturity whatsoever, let alone increasing maturity?
 
Maybe worth sharing here, I found this image showing the number of Falcon9 launches since 2019 to be pretty compelling. While Starship is in development, Falcon9 continues to improve along the simple metric of total number of launches and mass launched to LEO, with an increase of ~40% /year.
 

Attachments

  • falcon9 flights.jpeg
    falcon9 flights.jpeg
    21.8 KB · Views: 133
https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/s...florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/

SpaceX is aiming to go do many launches on what is essentially public property that other launch providers are going to have drastically reduced access to launch times. I also don't know if they would want to share the launch infrastructure as a landing platform as well.

I can't open the link, but I assume they or their customers are paying to use the launch facilities in question?
 
I can't open the link, but I assume they or their customers are paying to use the launch facilities in question?

Yup. There is demand, and there is not enough supply, so SpaceX are building their own launch facilities, two launch towers in Boca Chica for Starship, and two in Florida, one for Starship and one for Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy

Also needs to be noted (for those implying that SpaceX are somehow getting something for nothing here) is that, just like everyone else at KSC, CCSFS, VSFB and WFF, SpaceX are PAYING to use the launch facilities they use... even the ones they have built and/or refurbished themselves. Keep in mind, that without SpaceX, the USA would still be going cap-in-hand to Putin for their human spaceflight requirements.

NOTE: If I were NASA, I would not be counting on Boeing for anything any time soon. Judging by the farcical situation with Starliner at the ISS (aptly nicknamed "Strandliner"), Boeing Defense, Space & Security (their spacecraft manufacturing division) seems to be having the same reliability and quality control issues that their airliner manufacturing division is having.
 
I don't doubt that they are paying their way, the competitors are complaining about their launches being impacted.

Okay. Seems like a pretty normal thing. Launch facilities are in short supply. When there's a shortage of supply and high demand, people will compete for that limited commodity. Usually the way markets deal with this is by increasing the price, leading to both rationing by value and new suppliers being incentivized to enter the market and increase supply.

I don't really see how this is a SpaceX problem. If they are doing some sort of political deals to leverage connections to get access to launch facilities based on corruption rather than merit (or just being willing to pay a higher price), then that's the kind of accusation that I could see as meaningful, but it doesn't sound like you're making that sort of accusation. You're just saying "they've increased demand", which is, well, not bad?

Also, when you noted that this is "public property", what were you trying to convey? It was your highlighting of the "public property" aspect here that seemed to imply that there was some issue with paying for the use, otherwise, what's the importance of it being public rather than private launch facilities?
 
Okay. Seems like a pretty normal thing. Launch facilities are in short supply. When there's a shortage of supply and high demand, people will compete for that limited commodity. Usually the way markets deal with this is by increasing the price, leading to both rationing by value and new suppliers being incentivized to enter the market and increase supply.

I don't really see how this is a SpaceX problem. If they are doing some sort of political deals to leverage connections to get access to launch facilities based on corruption rather than merit (or just being willing to pay a higher price), then that's the kind of accusation that I could see as meaningful, but it doesn't sound like you're making that sort of accusation. You're just saying "they've increased demand", which is, well, not bad?

Also, when you noted that this is "public property", what were you trying to convey? It was your highlighting of the "public property" aspect here that seemed to imply that there was some issue with paying for the use, otherwise, what's the importance of it being public rather than private launch facilities?

Besides which, lets have a look at who their competitors are.

ULA. Two launches this year so far, and two to go;
Jan 8 - Vulcan Centaur (with Peregrine Lunar lander) SLC-41
Jun 5 - Atlas V N22 (with Starliner) SLC-41
Jul 31 - Atlas V (with USSF-51) SLC-41
Q4 - Delta IV Heavy (with NROL-70, a military recon satellite) SLC-37

Their launch cadence is hardly going to be impacted.

Rocketlab 8 launches so far this year, 14 more scheduled
All from Mahia LC-1 in New Zealand, except 21 March which was from Wallops LC-2

Astra No launches so far this year, and none planned
Launches from Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska
Two successful launches to orbit out of nine attempts

...which is more that can be said for

Blue Origin Who so far haven't even launched a suborbital flight let alone put anything into orbit. They are providing million-dollar joyrides to rich people (launched from Corn Ranch, near Van Horn, Texas) straight up to the Karman line and back down again.
In September 2015, they leased LC-36 at Cape Canaveral, Florida to build a launch pad for their orbital launch vehicle New Glenn. The first Blue Origin launch from LC36 was planned for 2020.... nothing yet but hopefully, their new target date of August/September this year will be met.

Really, its hard to see who they are going to affect. Frankly, I just think its a load of bollocks - Bezos is always bitching and moaning about SpaceX over something - despite the fact that he contract ed them to launch three batches of Amazon's "Project Kuiper" internet satellites, because his rockets weren't ready, and there was no-one else who could take them.
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt that they are paying their way, the competitors are complaining about their launches being impacted.

One of these competitors being ULA, that petitioned for government assistance when SpaceX started competing with them on price and taking away their business.

Seriously, what exactly is SpaceX supposed to be doing wrong here? Besides just existing and launching rockets?
 
One of these competitors being ULA, that petitioned for government assistance when SpaceX started competing with them on price and taking away their business.

Seriously, what exactly is SpaceX supposed to be doing wrong here? Besides just existing and launching rockets?

Taking up airspace?
 
I admit I'm strangely captivated by the idea of wicked, wicked SpaceX, squatting illegally on public land, hogging all the launch pads so that Legitimate Businessmen cannot conduct their Legitimate Businesses.
 
Last edited:
That's not what was said at all.

No, it's only what was implied. And you're still trying to imply that SpaceX is somehow a problem, because it's hiring existing space launch infrastructure to deliver payloads for paying customers. It's good that you're walking it back, but you still have a ways to go, before you concede that there is nothing wrong with SpaceX being the biggest customer of space launch infrastructure right now. Just like there's nothing wrong with SpaceX beating ULA on price, and taking a lot of their clientele.
 
No, it's only what was implied. And you're still trying to imply that SpaceX is somehow a problem, because it's hiring existing space launch infrastructure to deliver payloads for paying customers. It's good that you're walking it back, but you still have a ways to go, before you concede that there is nothing wrong with SpaceX being the biggest customer of space launch infrastructure right now. Just like there's nothing wrong with SpaceX beating ULA on price, and taking a lot of their clientele.


It's like a commercial airport with slots for flights. Smaller companies or new companies can't get slots. It kills competition.
 
It's like a commercial airport with slots for flights. Smaller companies or new companies can't get slots. It kills competition.

What is your specific critique here? SpaceX is engaging in anti-competitive practices by paying for the use of launch sites at market rates, thus driving up the price? Or is there some deeper allegation here, of preventing other parties from getting access, even at the market price?

If its the former, it basically comes down to criticizing SpaceX for launching rockets, which just seems completely backward to me. If it's the latter, please elaborate.
 
Can you elaborate on exactly what SpaceX has done that you are describing as "pulling up the ladder"?

Blocking launch sites would be one.
Just because you can pay for it doesn't mean that you should - they were a startup once, and they got a ton of help to get where they are.
paying forward would be the thing to do if they valued innovation over profit.

Another BIG THING is blocking a massive part of the orbit space for Starlink.
It look very much like creating fact on the proverbial ground to make it nigh impossible for newcomers to compete.
 
Last edited:
What does "blocking" launch sites mean?

Its worth noting that SpaceX has increased total launch capacity in the US by constructing their own launch facilities. And the expectation should be that their increased demand for launch facilities will only increase the supply over time.

Can you quantify your concerns with respect to Starlink? Are there other companies that are having trouble finding orbits for their satellites because of Starlink? How do you think the space of orbits should be handled? (the government auctioning off property rights to them as is done with access of broadcasters to radio frequencies seems reasonable to me if there is a problem). Your stated concern about Starlink setting off Kessler syndrome suggests to me that you don't actually know much about their orbits or any issues here, but if you have real concerns, please actually make your case.
 
SpaceX has gained a monopoly in the space industry. No one else can compete with the prices they are offering and still make a profit. But SpaceX has gained the ability to offer cheap, reliable spaceflights. They will learn how to launch heavier loads into space. In a few years they will be launching humans beyond low earth orbit.
 
SpaceX has gained earned a monopoly in the space industry. No one else can compete with the prices they are offering and still make a profit. But SpaceX has gained earned the ability to offer cheap, reliable spaceflights. They will learn how to launch heavier loads into space. In a few years they will be launching humans beyond low earth orbit.


Respectful FTFY
 
What is your specific critique here? SpaceX is engaging in anti-competitive practices by paying for the use of launch sites at market rates, thus driving up the price? Or is there some deeper allegation here, of preventing other parties from getting access, even at the market price?

If its the former, it basically comes down to criticizing SpaceX for launching rockets, which just seems completely backward to me. If it's the latter, please elaborate.


I'm just providing a link. The number of launches proposed doesn't seem realistic. If they do achieve it, it will be at the expense of the competition. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Blocking launch sites would be one.
Just because you can pay for it doesn't mean that you should - they were a startup once, and they got a ton of help to get where they are.
paying forward would be the thing to do if they valued innovation over profit.

Another BIG THING is blocking a massive part of the orbit space for Starlink.
It look very much like creating fact on the proverbial ground to make it nigh impossible for newcomers to compete.


Can you please explain to us all how SpaceX is "blocking launch sites".

Which ones are they blocking?

Space X |LC-39A (KSC), SLC-40 (CCSFS) SLC4E (VSFB)|

ULA | SLC-41 & 37B (CCSFS), SLC-3 (VSFB)|

Rocketlab | LC-1 (Mahia) and LC-2 (Wallops)|

NASA |LC-39B (KSC)|

Firefly | Launch Pad 0A (Wallops)|

Astra | SLC-46 (CCSFS) and Launch Pad 3B (PSCA)|

Blue Origin | LC-36A and LC36B (CCSFS) + LC-11 (Under renovation)|

Relativity Space | LC-16 (CCSFS) (under renovation)

 
I'm just providing a link. The number of launches proposed doesn't seem realistic.

2022: 61 launches
2023: 98 launches
2024: 148 launches (68 so far)

Current rate: One launch every 2.7 days (they will have to improve that to 2.4 days to make the 148 they are targeting.

If they do achieve it, it will be at the expense of the competition. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think you are suffering from zero-sum bias.
Have you any idea how many rocket launch pads there are in the US?
Have you any idea how many rocket launch pads have been built or refurbished in the last 10 years?
Have you any idea how many rocket launch pads are currently being constructed?

Space flight is not a zero sum game!!
 
Blocking launch sites would be one.
Just because you can pay for it doesn't mean that you should - they were a startup once, and they got a ton of help to get where they are.
paying forward would be the thing to do if they valued innovation over profit.

Who do they owe for that early government help? The government and the public, not their competitors. And they are paying that back handsomely by offering cheap launch capacity. Which both the government and the public benefit massively from.

Competitors will eventually catch up. Nothing is preventing anyone else from developing reusable launch vehicles. SpaceX is very competent, but nothing they have done or are doing is magic.
 
Can you please explain to us all how SpaceX is "blocking launch sites".

Which ones are they blocking?

Space X |LC-39A (KSC), SLC-40 (CCSFS) SLC4E (VSFB)|

ULA | SLC-41 & 37B (CCSFS), SLC-3 (VSFB)|

Rocketlab | LC-1 (Mahia) and LC-2 (Wallops)|

NASA |LC-39B (KSC)|

Firefly | Launch Pad 0A (Wallops)|

Astra | SLC-46 (CCSFS) and Launch Pad 3B (PSCA)|

Blue Origin | LC-36A and LC36B (CCSFS) + LC-11 (Under renovation)|

Relativity Space | LC-16 (CCSFS) (under renovation)


The launch capacity of the site is all I'm wondering about. It's like a busy airport, you have a limited number of slots.


To add to this: Cape Canaveral has about 35 paunch pads, most not in use. It is Space Force, not NASA. It does mostly government launches (military and intelligence and such). Space X has one (1) out of those 35, plus two landing pads. Admittedly, SpaceX is using 100% of the rocket landing space there.;)

Cape Kennedy (NASA) has 3 launch pads with a fourth one planned. Space X has one of those, and if the planned one is built it will be for Space X.
So that's SpaceX using less than 10% of Canaveral/Kennedy's pads. The great majority (about 2/3) of the launch pads are inactive. The area is operating at a far lower capacity and launch rate than it was built to accommodate.

Nobody is blocking anyone down there. To use the airport analogy, this like Denver International Airport (bigger than Manhattan, six runways, at least one long enough to land the Space Shuttle) running no more than a few dozen flights a day. Canaveral/Kennedy is great big complex, built for a level of spaceflight dreamed of in the 1950's and 60's and that we never got close to achieving. It is massively overbuilt and under-utilized.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom