51–60 of 60 posts
NASA always needs more competition to keep launch costs low and encouraging innovation and it seems like he hasn't been CEO for a long time. This is indicative of funding competition which is a good thing.
It's so weird that space launches is one of the businesses where the free market appear to be working.
I need to jump on this rocket company spacewagon. Claude, make me a space rocket. Using only lisp, if and regex statements.
You didn't add "make no mistakes" so that first test burn will probably blow up the pad, but now you know.
That's gotta be some kind of rite of passage
This mission is an orbital science mission studying Mars' atmosphere, not the same objective as SpaceX's long-term goal of sending large cargo and eventually humans to Mars. So I think the title might be taking the piss just a smidge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't make an argument. You still haven't. Every new thing goes through a long stage where it hasn't happened yet . You haven't even begun to argue, with evidence, that this thing can't happen. Even your line about "an entire space program" is incoherent in this context because the rocket in question is literally being used as a component in "an entire space program".
I fully disagree. Is that good enough to discuss? Name a private company that has landed on private devices on another planet. Here's the picture of where the argument stands: Venus Rocket Lab / MIT: Venus Life Finder: Late (Missed original 2023/2025 windows; now targeted for late 2026/2028) Mars One: Conceptual Failure Inspiration Mars Foundation: Cancelled SpaceX: very, very, very late (timeline pushed to 2028+) Re…
NASA always needs more competition to keep launch costs low and encouraging innovation and it seems like he hasn't been CEO for a long time. This is indicative of funding competition which is a good thing.
Third parties will always build in profit to their services which is wasteful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pathetic response, and even lazier a comment history. https://postimg.cc/JDyRWZJv/d3056008
[flagged]
> The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
https://old.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/1i7w4nz/comparison_of...
I understand that this very uncomfortable for many people, but, yeah... this is reality.
Relativity Space had a really interesting idea even before Eric Schmidt bought it. The key ideas were new technologies in 3d printing of designs for rapid iteration of design-to-implementation on what was previously extremely difficult (rocket engines, rocket bodies). They even called their printers "Pylons" if recall (a nod to StarCraft's Protoss). The manufacturing tech has far broader implications than the applica…
This mission is an orbital science mission studying Mars' atmosphere, not the same objective as SpaceX's long-term goal of sending large cargo and eventually humans to Mars. So I think the title might be taking the piss just a smidge.
Not everything is about Elon’s wacky plan to settle Mars.
I need to jump on this rocket company spacewagon. Claude, make me a space rocket. Using only lisp, if and regex statements.
This mission is an orbital science mission studying Mars' atmosphere, not the same objective as SpaceX's long-term goal of sending large cargo and eventually humans to Mars. So I think the title might be taking the piss just a smidge.
Why? Not everything is about Elon’s wacky plan to settle Mars.
(yes, I'm a bit disappointed, I worked on a canceled European Mars mission long ago. Unfortunately, the financial math on why the entire company was canned was entirely correct, and yes I'm a bit angry that SpaceX gets such incredible funding, with a financial plan that, while better than the one we used, still isn't good enough)
Doubly so now it has been made clear that Falcon 9 is a failure. Reusable rockets are, as an innovation, in fact not good enough for a company to profitably sell access to earth orbit, as it turns out (but was extensively predicted)
(note: this is because starlink is of course using SpaceX funds, and is making a big loss doing it. In other words: the market for falcon9 launches is not big enough to sustain SpaceX, without artificial tricks that look good in the short term but unless something changes, increase the losses in the long term)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/nov/13/jeff-bezos-b...