• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    16 days ago

    Seems like you’re comparing SpaceX to Elons promises, not against the rest of the space industry. They’re still much better than all the rest, even if they don’t quite meet Elons promises.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Are you serious? Most observers shake their head at SLS. Best result for everyone on its maiden flight would have been blowing up at Max-Q. Then congress could admit it’s a failure and move on.

    • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      16 days ago

      A big part of that is money. The competition is either less wealthy Musks or notoriously underfunded government agencies.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Are you saying SpaceX is selling launches at a loss? I don’t think musk is paying for SpaceX launches with Tesla money.

        • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          16 days ago

          Not necessarily, although I wouldn’t be too surprised, scientific endeavors tend to operate at a loss. I’m just saying that Musk’s funding gave SpaceX a jumpstart on the competition. Someone like NASA isn’t going to be able to keep up when their budget is consistently getting cut and Musk is rolling around in more money than anyone could ever spend.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            16 days ago

            So then if you want to move that goalpost again at least move it to a comparison that makes sense. SpaceX and Blue Origin are both Billionaire funded launch providers. Even though SpaceX now operates from their launch sales.

            Meanwhile, Blue Origin has a complete lack of real world launch vehicles to send viable payloads. The best they’ve shown is a handful of tourism rides on New Shepard. And massive delays on the new engines for New Glenn and other rockets, which are finally starting to be delivered to customers massively delayed, but still no New Glenn rocket anywhere near being launched.

            • Emerald@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              Meanwhile, Blue Origin has a complete lack of real world launch vehicles to send viable payloads.

              Do they really need to? Vulcan seems like it will be a fine rocket. And the vulcan engine is the same as new glenn engine

              Edit: Okay well it seems New Glenn is planned to be a lot more powerful, containing 7 BE-4’s rather than 2 for Vulcan.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Musk is SpaceX.

      He’s the frontman, even if Shotwell is the CEO now she’s made some of the absurd claims I’ve referenced.

      And SpaceX as a company, its developed products, fall laughably short of its promises, of its marketing.

      The rest of the Space industry, generally, is no where near as bombastic and obviously full of shit, instead preferring to develop and operate without grandiose media/public performances.

      There is a saying in business: Under-Promise, Over-Perform, or Over-Deliver.

      SpaceX does the opposite of this.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        Yeah but that doesn’t mean SpaceX isn’t a fantastic rocket company. Why is over promising an issue? It’s still fantastically cheap and capable. You aren’t buying rocket launches, and the people who are are looking at the current performance, not future projections.

      • AngryMob@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        Like it or not, the industry would still be worse off without the idiotic claims. The idiotic claims pushed the industry forward. You want to make a bulleted list of all the things you dislike or you perceive as failures and drawbacks, fine, go ahead. There are just as many positive bullet lists that could be made.

        • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Or one could interpret them as fraudulent claims for the purpose of soliciting funding, you know, like Full Self Driving.

      • sushibowl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        16 days ago

        There is a saying in business: Under-Promise, Over-Perform, or Over-Deliver.

        SpaceX does the opposite of this.

        It literally doesn’t matter though: everyone and their mother are buying falcon 9 or heavy launches. SpaceX accounts for almost 90% of the world’s launched upmass. They are simply the cheapest most reliable option out there and it is not close. The only reason not to fly on a SpaceX rocket is national security or wanting to keep your own domestic launch industry alive.