81–90 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most definitely! I mean, Ford was revolutionary because it was the first car factory company, right? Before that, you had to have a weird german guy hand build your buggy.
Before Ford, there were thousands of bespoke car manufacturers all around the world, producing units in the hundreds per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.
I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.
SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also related to providing services to them, not just receiving money for nothing.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
If they can pull this off I think we may enter an age with a clear "Before super heavy reusable launch" and "after". It's mind boggling how much stuff a Starship will be able to chuck into space and come down and then do it again and again. Consider this, the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment anywhere in the world within 90 minutes using this kind of capability. International…
How reliable would this really be in practice? I'm thinking of all the times a projected launch has to get scrubbed and rescheduled days later. Not exactly the type of delivery uncertainty you'd want for critical equipment.
Press releases from SpaceX have alluded to a possible launch date of 420, which I think would be hilariously on brand.
Can we please come up with some new "funny numbers" than 420, 69 and 42.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.
SpaceX undoubtedly does have US government agencies as some of their biggest customers, but 98% must be a gross exaggeration. The Falcon 9/Heavy have made nearly all of their launch revenues, and from just perusing the lists [1][2] of all launches, the US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage. SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also relate…
From that source, SpaceX has about ~$5.515B in contracts. Of that, about $5.411B is from government contracts (military, NASA). That's about 98.1%.
There's probably a good chance it's higher, if they have govt contracts that aren't allowed to be public knowledge for security reasons.
Also, nobody is claiming SpaceX receives "money for nothing" from the govt. They are a contractor who, at least at these relatively early stages, need government contracts to survive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's the way many nascent industries survive. But we need to call a spade a spade.
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgA...
If they can pull this off I think we may enter an age with a clear "Before super heavy reusable launch" and "after". It's mind boggling how much stuff a Starship will be able to chuck into space and come down and then do it again and again. Consider this, the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment anywhere in the world within 90 minutes using this kind of capability. International…
> Consider this, the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment anywhere in the world within 90 minutes How reliable would this really be in practice? I'm thinking of all the times a projected launch has to get scrubbed and rescheduled days later. Not exactly the type of delivery uncertainty you'd want for critical equipment.
Press releases from SpaceX have alluded to a possible launch date of 420, which I think would be hilariously on brand.
How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.
The only time I was ever tested for drugs was when I started an internship at Toyota back in 2006 or so. I had to do a whole physical. At the time it seemed pretty silly. Later in my career I started a new job, and the new company's background check flagged me for being unable to verify my employment at Toyota. That also seemed pretty silly, considering the company's CTO used to be in the same department at Toyota back in the day!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX undoubtedly does have US government agencies as some of their biggest customers, but 98% must be a gross exaggeration. The Falcon 9/Heavy have made nearly all of their launch revenues, and from just perusing the lists [1][2] of all launches, the US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage. SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also relate…
98% wasn't a number I pulled out of thin air. It's hard to know exact figures, but there are some people who publicly track what they can. [1] From that source, SpaceX has about ~$5.515B in contracts. Of that, about $5.411B is from government contracts (military, NASA). That's about 98.1%. There's probably a good chance it's higher, if they have govt contracts that aren't allowed to be public knowledge for security r…
Edit: I did unreasonably make the assumption that you were making the case the SpaceX was receiving subisidies for "nothing" and I see that you weren't now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider this, the military is starting to explore the idea of moving heavy military equipment anywhere in the world within 90 minutes How reliable would this really be in practice? I'm thinking of all the times a projected launch has to get scrubbed and rescheduled days later. Not exactly the type of delivery uncertainty you'd want for critical equipment.
What if you have that equipment in a Starship already in orbit?
Edit: it looks like conventional weapons are not banned by treaties. But I suspect that would make Starship an easy target as well.