What do you think about SpaceX?

[tater]

6 hours ago, Kryten said:

The comparison doesn't really make a lot of sense; Blue are in suborbital testing, which SpaceX didn't steam, and never released footage of in some cases. Remember when F9R Dev blew up? They've been a lot more timely with updates on other activities like progress on Be-4, whereas we've not idea what development stage raptor is it, and we know nothing recent dragonfly other that we know from observers near McGregor.

I don't entirely disagree with you... I think that SpaceX fandom has ramped up since they started landing attempts, though. Before that it wasn't really as much of a thing, they were just another aerospace company launching rockets (sort of off the radar of people who are now excited).

[Robotengineer]

On 4/25/2016 at 2:32 AM, Scotius said:

Well, at least they have a young, starry-eyed fan-base. It's better than having a bunch of bored young people apathetic towards science and space exploration. Don't you think?

 

I support SpaceX and would consider working for them, though only as a higher-up and preferably as an astronaut, in other words, I want to be the payload, not the propellant.

[Kerbart]

SpaceX appeals to the younger generation. The ones that will be the future, so to say. NASA and it's traditional subcontracters are happy to say “Mars? Yes, we'll start working on the concept for a timeline. That concept should be ready in five years. Then we'll need ten years for the actual timeline. Give us another five years to come up with the initial specs after that. In all, we'd be ready to have a proposal for congress around the early 2050's, we hope” I'm always amazed that we got to the moon, basically starting from scratch, in less than 8 years.

And then there's Elon Musk with a “yeah, you guys make up your mind. I will be building the damn thing in the meantime, ok?” attitude.

For a generation where instant gratification is the norm, SpaceX is refreshingly appealing. Starry-eyed perhaps, but the greybeards of the old guard should really stop thinking in decades and centuries when it comes to development. Ain't nobody got time for that!

[Robotengineer]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

SpaceX appeals to the younger generation. The ones that will be the future, so to say. NASA and it's traditional subcontracters are happy to say “Mars? Yes, we'll start working on the concept for a timeline. That concept should be ready in five years. Then we'll need ten years for the actual timeline. Give us another five years to come up with the initial specs after that. In all, we'd be ready to have a proposal for congress around the early 2050's, we hope” I'm always amazed that we got to the moon, basically starting from scratch, in less than 8 years.

And then there's Elon Musk with a “yeah, you guys make up your mind. I will be building the damn thing in the meantime, ok?” attitude.

For a generation where instant gratification is the norm, SpaceX is refreshingly appealing. Starry-eyed perhaps, but the greybeards of the old guard should really stop thinking in decades and centuries when it comes to development. Ain't nobody got time for that!

This. At least this is why I am supporting SpaceX primarily. Though also because SpaceX plans to colonize from the start so as to stop Mars from becoming another 'been there, done that' destination like the moon. (Which I fear is what would happen if we went Mars Direct).

[HebaruSan]

20 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

NASA and its traditional subcontracters are happy to say “Mars? Yes, we'll start working on the concept for a timeline. That concept should be ready in five years. Then we'll need ten years for the actual timeline. Give us another five years to come up with the initial specs after that. In all, we'd be ready to ...

"... put our kids through college and top off our 401(k)s nicely. Oh and good luck with that space thing!"

[Frybert]

Thread has been trimmed of some political content, please don't go there folks.

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

I think they have done some cool things and I think some of the change they have brought through to the industry will ultimately have a generally positive effect in both costs and availability of investments. I think some of their plans are more hype and less actually fully thought through that I do not believe there will actually be an effective market for things that are planned like their colonization. 

Right now, they are new and different and proposing revolutionary over evolutionary systems. They can get people really excited in ways that other companies dont care to or need to. Ultimately this excitement is their survival. If you talk to many aerospace engineering students you may find that almost 80% of them are really excited about spacex and very few that get excited and want to work for ULA, Orbital, Ariancespace, Airbus Defense, Aerojet, Mitsubishi Heavy Industry etc. They have a young population and a very high turnover rate. They can only maintain their process as it stands while the starry eyes remain. Eventually, they won't be new, their cult following and the stars with fade and they won't have the masses of interns they do now. They will have to make some tough decisions about their culture and how they treat their employees that I don't think they will be able to make. They may make some lasting impact, but ultimately, they won't survive.  

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

SpaceX appeals to the younger generation.

...who might also be somewhat naive and inexperienced.

Aside from KSP, what is their experience in the aerospace sector? in hi-tech economy? global politics?

People who have been observing the industry for decades tend to be more jaded. We've been promised so much for so long. For 50 years, Mars has always been 30 years away, and it still is. We were supposed to have a reusable Space Shuttle by the 70s, ring space stations in the 80s, SSTO's in the 90s, affordable space tourist rides in the 00s. We've seen so many "new space" companies rise and fall, that it's hard to be blindly enthusiastic about anything.

So yeah, I take everything Musk (or Bezos, Branson, Allen, and all those other over-optimistic space entrepreneurs) says with a pinch of salt. I think the younger generation tends to lack that pinch of critical thinking and takes everything they read on twitter for granted.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Nibb31

[Frybert]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

space tourist rides in the 00s.

Technically this one did happen.

[Nibb31]

6 minutes ago, Frybert said:

Technically this one did happen.

Added affordable

[Robotengineer]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

...who might also be somewhat naive and inexperienced.

Aside from KSP, what is their experience in the aerospace sector? in hi-tech economy? global politics?

We've seen so many "new space" companies rise and fall, that it's hard to be blindly enthusiastic about anything.

 You're missing the point. If young people were to adopt your rather pessimistic (realistic is a term jaded pessimists use to appear rational and un-jaded), they would give up. If this is so hard, and so many previous attempts have failed, why bother? Why try when, realistically, you won't succeed? 

And really, it's no wonder that young people haven't been interested in space these past few decades given they have had people like you telling them that what they want to achieve is nigh impossible. If you really want progress in space, you should encourage young people, not discourage them.

You've seen so many 'new space' companies rise and fall that this just has to be another failure, eh? Even though they have become a successful launch provider, completed multiple resupply missions to the ISS, have successfully landed F9 1st stages on both land and barge, and are soon going to provide crew transport to the ISS? I mean, all those other 'new space' companies did pretty much the same, and they failed, so SpaceX has got to fail too. 

I'm not asking for blind enthusiasm. I'm asking for enthusiasm. Period. Is that to much to ask?

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I think the younger generation tends to lack that pinch of critical thinking and takes everything they read on twitter for granted.

Thank you very much for insulting our (the younger generation) critical thinking skills.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Robotengineer
Inclusive ending, and BTW, I don't even have twitter, let alone believe everything Musk (etc) say.

[tater]

@Robotengineer few gave up, they pushed hard, but reality hit them in the face and they got what they got... they wanted to make rockets, and then ended up making shuttle, ISS, etc. NASA wants to do a bunch of things, but they get to do SLS/Orion, even if they don't want it. It has little to do with enthusiasm, it has to do with money. As they said well in The Right Stuff, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."

BTW, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I try to evaluate all their claims very critically, but that doesn't make me less enthusiastic. I thought landing a rocket was incredibly cool, and in fact had a standing party invite for several people to just head to my place for drinks should SpaceX land a Falcon 9, and they did. That doesn't mean we didn't discuss if it actually matters or not, lol.

Look at the attitude of GoogleX as an example. They brainstorm crazy ideas, and their methodology is to identify the things most likely to make it impossible, and test those FIRST. They trash more ideas than they pursue. That's the point. Reuse sounds transformative, but unless the math works out, it's not transformative.

[kunok]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

I'm not asking for blind enthusiasm. I'm asking for enthusiasm. Period. Is that to much to ask?

Why should we always focus our enthusiasm in SpaceX?? I'm still waiting to see a real proposal for anything that hasn't to do with the ISS or the GEO satcom markets. The first is in their last years and the second is just an uninteresting (but important) commercial market to me. And I don't want even to hear about the DOD.

I was reading about the project ARGO just now http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2016/04/26/proyecto-argo-una-nave-tripulada-rusa-alrededor-de-venus-y-marte-en-2022/

I love this kind of proposals, using an actual hardware or describing the hardware they will do for that mission, even if I know only will be a powerpoint (like the one I showing).

I liked how SpaceX is accomplishing things, but I don't believe in their claimed ultimate goal, neither lots of their ways. I don't understand why we can't critique SpaceX or his owner.

If this thread is still in front page next week, I will post a real opinion about the company of how it works.

And FYI, I'm very young myself and I support almost all @Nibb31 @A Fuzzy Velociraptor or @tater said.

 

PD: Also this.

Getting things done used to mean (in business) creating an entity that sold goods or services and made a profit. Not a company with a cool idea, that sold shares in that idea to make money, without actually making profit. I think they have a chance to succeed, but not much of a real record in all cases. Amazon is actually turning a profit, so that;s certainly something. Maybe Tesla will sell their new car and not end up subsidizing each sale.

Elon has still to make profit of his business, and I have the suspect that they not only subsidize the tesla to be cheap, also the spaceX brand.

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by kunok
not making lots of post

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

People who have been observing the industry for decades tend to be more jaded. We've been promised so much for so long. For 50 years, Mars has always been 30 years away, and it still is. We were supposed to have a reusable Space Shuttle by the 70s, ring space stations in the 80s, SSTO's in the 90s, affordable space tourist rides in the 00s. We've seen so many "new space" companies rise and fall, that it's hard to be blindly enthusiastic about anything.

That of course, is exactly the magic that makes Musk so attractive. Instead of passively waiting for congress to release funds for those grandiose promised projects (which will be retracted within two years) he just “went ahead and did it.” One can equally argue that this is exactly why the younger generation loves SpaceX and doesn't warm up to ULA (despite their 100% launch record in a business that is extremely punishing).

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

So yeah, I take everything Musk (or Bezos, Branson, Allen, and all those other over-optimistic space entrepreneurs) says with a pinch of salt. I think the younger generation tends to lack that pinch of critical thinking and takes everything they read on twitter for granted.

Of course we base everything on Twitter. There's nothing else to go on. Branson, Bezos, Allen and Musk have no proven track record of managing large enterprises after all. Why would we assume they can build up a large successful project out of nothing? Have they ever achieved anything? As if Branson has any experience with aeronautical ventures? What does Musk really know about hi-tech industry? 
No, we're forced to base our optimism only on blindly believing tweets, not on a proven track record of getting things done.

[tater]

Getting things done used to mean (in business) creating an entity that sold goods or services and made a profit. Not a company with a cool idea, that sold shares in that idea to make money, without actually making profit. I think they have a chance to succeed, but not much of a real record in all cases. Amazon is actually turning a profit, so that;s certainly something. Maybe Tesla will sell their new car and not end up subsidizing each sale.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

 I think that they will not have anyone on mars until the 2040s and that they are going the  right way with reusability. ElonMusk plays KSP

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

 You're missing the point. If young people were to adopt your rather pessimistic (realistic is a term jaded pessimists use to appear rational and un-jaded), they would give up. If this is so hard, and so many previous attempts have failed, why bother? Why try when, realistically, you won't succeed? 

And really, it's no wonder that young people haven't been interested in space these past few decades given they have had people like you telling them that what they want to achieve is nigh impossible. If you really want progress in space, you should encourage young people, not discourage them.

You've seen so many 'new space' companies rise and fall that this just has to be another failure, eh? Even though they have become a successful launch provider, completed multiple resupply missions to the ISS, have successfully landed F9 1st stages on both land and barge, and are soon going to provide crew transport to the ISS? I mean, all those other 'new space' companies did pretty much the same, and they failed, so SpaceX has got to fail too. 

I'm not asking for blind enthusiasm. I'm asking for enthusiasm. Period. Is that to much to ask?

I think you might be misunderstand what @Nibb31 is saying, though I may be as well. That fact that younger people tend to have less experience is just a fact of being young and many people here may have very little experience with the industry.

There is a difference between what is realistic, and pessimism and optimism. Understanding what can be done and what the market can support and understanding those things probably won't live up to the revolutionary promises we've had isn't pessimism. Unfortunately, space systems aren't really a revolutionary field, they are an evolutionary field.

It's not bad to be excited, space is exciting, there is so many cool and interesting things that are being done everyday. Just because an idea may not be able to transform the market, or something is extremely difficult doesn't mean it isn't exciting or shouldn't be worked on. These systems are extremely complicated and difficult and will take time to develop. More importantly a new product has to have a customer and a market, and for many of the ideas people propose (young and old) it simply isnt feasible. 

Many new companies rise and fall. SpaceX has done some cool things certainly and they have done some things that other groups before them haven't and the story of an eccentric billionaire that wants spaceships that have come up lately is certainly a story which helps the excitement. Ultimately though SpaceX hasn't really proven anything. They have demonstrated that they can change a lower launch price off the backs of their employees and intern hoards, though the very high turnover rate of employees should be testament to the treatment of their employees. It will work for now and while they can keep the hype and the starry eyes of the younger people, but eventually they won't be able to anymore and they won't survive as they are now. They have made claims of re-usability and costs as low as 11MUSD, and yes they have landed a booster on land and barge, but until the data speaks it is nothing more than empty claims. Even to get to the costs they are claiming they require a market which simply doesn't exist. They make further claims about plans to colonize beyond Earth, and so do some of the other people of their grande plans, but without a market or a need, or the money available to do it they have no chance of succeeding. It is possible they could build these grande plans of theirs investing their fortunes to do it, but ultimately a product without a customer is just a money sink and will either be cancelled or force the company into bankruptcy. 

This does not mean that revolutions can't happen or that they won't be exciting as they happen, but until the data speaks it is hype, nothing more.

Edited April 26, 2016 by A Fuzzy Velociraptor

[Spaceception]

53 minutes ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

I think you might be misunderstand what Nipp is saying

*Nibb

At least spell it right

Edited April 26, 2016 by Spaceception

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

1 minute ago, Spaceception said:

*Nibb

You may not agree with him, but at least spell it right

Hush you. I know a fellow called Nipp on another forum, must have thought it was the same name. It is fixed now.

Also I'm fairly sure we agree.

[Spaceception]

12 minutes ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

Hush you. I know a fellow called Nipp on another forum, must have thought it was the same name. It is fixed now.

Also I'm fairly sure we agree.

And I misread it

[Robotengineer]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

@Robotengineer few gave up, they pushed hard, but reality hit them in the face and they got what they got... they wanted to make rockets, and then ended up making shuttle, ISS, etc. NASA wants to do a bunch of things, but they get to do SLS/Orion, even if they don't want it. It has little to do with enthusiasm, it has to do with money. As they said well in The Right Stuff, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."

BTW, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I try to evaluate all their claims very critically, but that doesn't make me less enthusiastic. I thought landing a rocket was incredibly cool, and in fact had a standing party invite for several people to just head to my place for drinks should SpaceX land a Falcon 9, and they did. That doesn't mean we didn't discuss if it actually matters or not, lol.

Look at the attitude of GoogleX as an example. They brainstorm crazy ideas, and their methodology is to identify the things most likely to make it impossible, and test those FIRST. They trash more ideas than they pursue. That's the point. Reuse sounds transformative, but unless the math works out, it's not transformative.

But SpaceX has money, and they aren't beholden to Congress and the public like NASA is. SpaceX deserved to be considered just another one of those 'new space' companies until Falcon 9 actually started flying successfully. Now SpaceX is as much a part of the LV market as ULA. Plus, Musk has a record of doing the 'impossible', so continuing to doubt him seems sort of pointless. Perhaps enthusiasm is not the right word, but rather drive, but as you point out drive without money is useless. Musk has both the drive and the money. 

I'm not sure about what you're not sure about. I try to evaluate their claims critically as well. Sometimes I'm even skeptical of their goals, but I think that since SpaceX has repeatedly proved itself it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

41 minutes ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

There is a difference between what is realistic, and pessimism and optimism. Understanding what can be done and what the market can support and understanding those things probably won't live up to the revolutionary promises we've had isn't pessimism. Unfortunately, space systems aren't really a revolutionary field, they are an evolutionary field.

It would be quite hard to call what SpaceX has achieved anything short of revolutionary.

45 minutes ago, A Fuzzy Velociraptor said:

Many new companies rise and fall. SpaceX has done some cool things certainly and they have done some things that other groups before them haven't and the story of an eccentric billionaire that wants spaceships that have come up lately is certainly a story which helps the excitement. Ultimately though SpaceX hasn't really proven anything. They have demonstrated that they can change a lower launch price off the backs of their employees and intern hoards, though the very high turnover rate of employees should be testament to the treatment of their employees. It will work for now and while they can keep the hype and the starry eyes of the younger people, but eventually they won't be able to anymore and they won't survive as they are now. They have made claims of re-usability and costs as low as 11MUSD, and yes they have landed a booster on land and barge, but until the data speaks it is nothing more than empty claims. Even to get to the costs they are claiming they require a market which simply doesn't exist. They make further claims about plans to colonize beyond Earth, and so do some of the other people of their grande plans, but without a market or a need, or the money available to do it they have no chance of succeeding. It is possible they could build these grande plans of theirs investing their fortunes to do it, but ultimately a product without a customer is just a money sink and will either be cancelled or force the company into bankruptcy. 

1. Musk isn't operating SpaceX simply to make a profit, and while a profit is necessary to reinvest in the company SpaceX's goals go far beyond profit. 2. SpaceX employees have a choice. They don't have to work there, and the fact that they have so many interns is a testament to their popularity. 3. I think you may be forgetting about Musk's internet plan, which could provide the much more revenue and launches. 4. You're using traditional business thinking, not thinking about it the way Musk thinks about it. 

1 hour ago, kunok said:

Why should we always focus our enthusiasm in SpaceX?? I'm still waiting to see a real proposal for anything that hasn't to do with the ISS or the GEO satcom markets. The first is in their last years and the second is just an uninteresting (but important) commercial market to me. And I don't want even to hear about the DOD.

I'm not saying all our enthusiasm should be focused on SpaceX. I'm simply saying that they are the only organization seriously pursuing any reasonable Mars initiative, except perhaps the Mars Society which doesn't have any funding. Mark your calendar for 29-30th of September. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/431fz0/mct_announcement_planned_for_september_at_the/ There is also Musk's internet plan.

What exactly are you going to do on an Earth-Venus-Mars free return trip? Helioscience outside of Earth's magnetosphere? Could do that with a robot. That sort of mission has no practical value. 

1 hour ago, kunok said:

I liked how SpaceX is accomplishing things, but I don't believe in their claimed ultimate goal, neither lots of their ways. I don't understand why we can't critique SpaceX or his owner.

You can critique SpaceX and Musk all you want. Which ways? And are you talking about the Mars Colonization goal? What's wrong with it?

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

But SpaceX has money, and they aren't beholden to Congress and the public like NASA is. SpaceX deserved to be considered just another one of those 'new space' companies until Falcon 9 actually started flying successfully. Now SpaceX is as much a part of the LV market as ULA. Plus, Musk has a record of doing the 'impossible', so continuing to doubt him seems sort of pointless. Perhaps enthusiasm is not the right word, but rather drive, but as you point out drive without money is useless. Musk has both the drive and the money. 

Why do people think SpaceX has money? They almost didn't fly their first successful orbital flight, they blew the allotted money, but had parts for a third try. They MUST launch payloads for money to be a thing. BO fits your description far more than SpaceX. Bezos is legitimately rich at this point in a way that Musk doesn't even approach. Nothing has been terribly "impossible," BTW. There were VTVL rockets tested before either SpaceX or BO. Tesla is cool, but they are massively subsidized. Paypal is basically a bank.

When you think he's Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark wealthy, you make any subsequent arguments predicated on that look pretty silly.

 

7 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

1. Musk isn't operating SpaceX simply to make a profit, and while a profit is necessary to reinvest in the company SpaceX's goals go far beyond profit. 2. SpaceX employees have a choice. They don't have to work there, and the fact that they have so many interns is a testament to their popularity. 3. I think you may be forgetting about Musk's internet plan, which could provide the much more revenue and launches. 4. You're using traditional business thinking, not thinking about it the way Musk thinks about it. 

1. It has to make a profit, and or be subsidized (commercial crew) or it would not even exist.

2. This I entirely agree with.

3. I'm aware of the plans, but the bulk of the people on earth without internet are also without, you know, money, so I'm not sure I see a great revenue stream there. How much can you make from people living in places with a per capita income of maybe a few thousand dollars a year (or less)? Trade cow blood and fermented milk for internet access?

4. Traditional business models can always use a shake up now and then, but the idea that you make something to serve a need/demand of customers is pretty fundamental.

7 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

I'm not saying all our enthusiasm should be focused on SpaceX. I'm simply saying that they are the only organization seriously pursuing any reasonable Mars initiative, except perhaps the Mars Society which doesn't have any funding. Mark your calendar for 29-30th of September. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/431fz0/mct_announcement_planned_for_september_at_the/ There is also Musk's internet plan.

How can you possibly suggest that a SpaceX Mars plan is reasonable when none of us have the slightest idea what the plan is? 

[Robotengineer]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Why do people think SpaceX has money? They almost didn't fly their first successful orbital flight, they blew the allotted money, but had parts for a third try. They MUST launch payloads for money to be a thing. BO fits your description far more than SpaceX. Bezos is legitimately rich at this point in a way that Musk doesn't even approach. Nothing has been terribly "impossible," BTW. There were VTVL rockets tested before either SpaceX or BO. Tesla is cool, but they are massively subsidized. Paypal is basically a bank.

When you think he's Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark wealthy, you make any subsequent arguments predicated on that look pretty silly.

I misspoke. SpaceX may not have as much money available as say, BO, but they have control of what money they do have. Part of what makes the SpaceX so cool is the 'skin of your teeth' nature of their survival. I wasn't saying that the feats themselves were 'impossible' but rather the fact that they were achieved by a company that has been around for little more than a decade and has none of the amenities that say, ULA has. 

I really don't know how wealthy Musk is, only that most of his wealth is in the stock of his companies.

9 minutes ago, tater said:

1. It has to make a profit, and or be subsidized (commercial crew) or it would not even exist.

2. This I entirely agree with.

3. I'm aware of the plans, but the bulk of the people on earth without internet are also without, you know, money, so I'm not sure I see a great revenue stream there. How much can you make from people living in places with a per capita income of maybe a few thousand dollars a year (or less)? Trade cow blood and fermented milk for internet access?

4. Traditional business models can always use a shake up now and then, but the idea that you make something to serve a need/demand of customers is pretty fundamental.

1. It has been making a profit, and been subsidized by commercial crew. 

3. What of the plan isn't aimed at people who don't already have internet but rather those who are fed up with telecom giants? SpaceX could offer internet moderately cheaper than the telecoms and market it as a way to stick it to the telecoms (who doesn't hate the telecoms?)

4. Yes, SpaceX needs to sell product for profit, but the end goal isn't the same as every other company. 

15 minutes ago, tater said:

How can you possibly suggest that a SpaceX Mars plan is reasonable when none of us have the slightest idea what the plan is?

We have some speculation, and we know the general population/payload numbers Musk wants to get to Mars. Either way we will know more come September. 

[A Fuzzy Velociraptor]

1 hour ago, Robotengineer said:

But SpaceX has money, and they aren't beholden to Congress and the public like NASA is. SpaceX deserved to be considered just another one of those 'new space' companies until Falcon 9 actually started flying successfully. Now SpaceX is as much a part of the LV market as ULA. Plus, Musk has a record of doing the 'impossible', so continuing to doubt him seems sort of pointless. Perhaps enthusiasm is not the right word, but rather drive, but as you point out drive without money is useless. Musk has both the drive and the money. 

I'm not sure about what you're not sure about. I try to evaluate their claims critically as well. Sometimes I'm even skeptical of their goals, but I think that since SpaceX has repeatedly proved itself it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

It would be quite hard to call what SpaceX has achieved anything short of revolutionary.

1. Musk isn't operating SpaceX simply to make a profit, and while a profit is necessary to reinvest in the company SpaceX's goals go far beyond profit. 2. SpaceX employees have a choice. They don't have to work there, and the fact that they have so many interns is a testament to their popularity. 3. I think you may be forgetting about Musk's internet plan, which could provide the much more revenue and launches. 4. You're using traditional business thinking, not thinking about it the way Musk thinks about it. 

I'm not saying all our enthusiasm should be focused on SpaceX. I'm simply saying that they are the only organization seriously pursuing any reasonable Mars initiative, except perhaps the Mars Society which doesn't have any funding. Mark your calendar for 29-30th of September. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/431fz0/mct_announcement_planned_for_september_at_the/ There is also Musk's internet plan.

What exactly are you going to do on an Earth-Venus-Mars free return trip? Helioscience outside of Earth's magnetosphere? Could do that with a robot. That sort of mission has no practical value. 

You can critique SpaceX and Musk all you want. Which ways? And are you talking about the Mars Colonization goal? What's wrong with it?

I wish I knew how to break up quotes on this forum.

The problem is that he doesn't actually have a huge amount of money. He may be worth a good amount but a large amount of that is based on how much he could sell his assets for and not his liquid assets. They need money from selling services or subsidization. They cannot survive on their own just doing cool things.

It is actually quite easy to call what they have done not revolutionary. They haven't done anything significantly revolutionary, they have made some evolutionary improvements like the supercooling for cryo systems but that is not revolutionary. Landing a rocket vertically is not revolutionary, we've done that before and even so it doesn't make a bit of difference right now. If they can demonstrate extended re-usability and significantly reduced costs for the the system then there would be a discussion. At this point they have not achieved anything revolutionary. Maybe they will at some point and when that happens that'll be a different discussion. Even the lower cost isn't a revolutionary aspect, its amazing how much cost you can cut by overworking people and using low-paid intern hoards. 

Without a significant profit a company cannot serve, regardless of how noble their goals may be.

Yes, SpaceX employees have a choice. This is why they leave. They only survive right now because they are popular. That won't continue forever and when it does they will either have to radically alter their corporate culture or die.

There is a reason traditional business thinking is traditional business thinking, it is a timeproven way business works. It isn't how Musk thinks about it, its about what works and what doesn't. No good idea that requires a lot of money no matter how cool it may be will survive without customers and a market.

They are the only group pursuing a Mars initiative because everyone else realizes there is not a market nor money available. Also we have no idea if their idea is reasonable or even at least feasible at this point. We know literally almost nothing about it. Speculation is ultimately useless. Until the data speaks it is nothing but hype.

Edited April 26, 2016 by A Fuzzy Velociraptor

[insert_name]

SpaceX is not subsidized by NASA, NASA is SpaceX's customer beause NASA pays SpaceX to develop a system to launch crew and then launch crew.