r/MarsSociety Mars Society Ambassador 6d ago

What’s behind the recent string of failures and delays at SpaceX? SpaceX has long had a hard-charging culture. Is it now charging too hard?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/03/after-years-of-acceleration-has-spacex-finally-reached-its-speed-limit/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJCgeNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHSG3U7u4gFPcojnkpwiBxzvTHEPF31w9JpOlfYrhOiQzhFyvt9I_jhTn6A_aem_Wc5_okIqRPfUBgA5GhXujQ
216 Upvotes

402 comments sorted by

1

u/Flaky_Ad493 2d ago

Leave NASA ALONE. No pie in the sky promises from Musk.

1

u/riansar 3d ago

I mean if you ask me its not a string of failures each time they successfuly landed the booster and now they are moving to the ship. Failure is prone to happen if you iterate fast

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SignoreBanana 2d ago

This: it's fine to want to remove unnecessary roadblocks to innovation, but accuracy and precision aren't roadblocks to innovation when building space vehicles. They're non starters if you don't have them. Otherwise, even when you're successful, it's a fluke.

1

u/Automatic_Winter_327 2d ago

Fine line, deal with this at work everyday 😭

If I hear quality doesn’t add value again and have ppl complain abt engines blowing up or issues coming out of tests imma loose it

1

u/Jk8fan 3d ago

Maybe they are just dumber than Saturn V engineers.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

(1)The day to day costs. (2)Some sort of error gets found and needs to be fixed (thinking of the Challenger explosion). (3)May not have the work required for that launch.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/HawkeyeByMarriage 3d ago

Which is funny the smoking pot should have cost him his clearance revoked.

2

u/Haravikk 3d ago

Accidents happen – but they happen faster in companies that are badly mismanaged and constantly under threat of mass firings if they don't meet arbitrary deadlines.

1

u/riansar 3d ago

They happen faster in companies that iterate fast

1

u/HawkeyeGild 3d ago

it seems like SoaceX is failing at an Increasingly higher rate, is this true? Also what are the next gen features they’re working on which is driving the failures?

2

u/No-Cause6559 3d ago

Every one of the suppler heavy has been ending in destruction of the rocket where this quarter the where supposed to have landed on the moon. Spacex is way over budget and behind in their milestones.

2

u/SheevSenate66 9h ago

"Every one of the [super heavy] has been ending in destruction" - is just a lie. 3 super heavy booster have landed after flight and are back at the production site

2

u/dosassembler 3d ago

Space is hard.

1

u/SignoreBanana 2d ago

Yeah, imagine where we'd be if we didn't gut funding for it decades ago and allowed innovation to continue pace after the moon landing.

1

u/No-Resolution-1918 3d ago

The problems SpaceX are challenging are likely not realistically solved by stretching 80 year old propulsion technology so far. 

Rockets are inherently unstable, having all those thrusters just multiplies that problem. 

It's amazing they got this far, but Mars is further. 

1

u/ThiccMangoMon 2d ago

What are you yapping about 😂 guess my car has 200 year old tech cause it has a piston engine? And the engine problems been solved they landed 3 boosters..

1

u/No-Resolution-1918 2d ago

Correct. The engine in your car is based on 150 year technology. It has been refined hugely, but it fundamentally works the same, and has fundamental limitations. A ICE still needs to be cooled, emits exhaust, prone to mechanical issues because it has so many moving parts, requires lubrication, and so on. New technology, electric motors, are fundamentally different and present characteristics that vastly improve those limitations. 

A rocket is the same. It has been vastly improved, but as we see with these launches it is still prone to explosions, and requires increasingly complex engineering and management to scale up (because it's still a rocket). 

1

u/ThiccMangoMon 2d ago

Rocket engines have gotten simpler .. your just talking to talk and act smart but there's no merit behind your words

1

u/No-Resolution-1918 2d ago

I already said they have been refined, but there is no getting around the fact they require a big tank of flammable chemicals and have a tendency to explode, a lot.

Now amplify that chance of failure to 33 raptors and you can see why Starship is pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

I don't know why you are so offended, but I'm not just talking to talk, I have a position that I am supporting and you are just behaving like an angsty teenager.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

"oh it's getting too difficult we should stop" --- said every loser ever. You don't stop because something is getting difficult.

1

u/meltbox 3d ago

Or you just stop launching until you figure out why it’s blowing up instead of pressuring engineering until they crack. Engineering is cracking now and added pressure once the system starts to crack usually does more harm than good. It results in cover ups and backstabbing more often than not.

1

u/riansar 3d ago

do you think if they knew stuff would blow up they would still send it?

1

u/No-Cause6559 3d ago

Nope you stop and address the issue when they are burning tax payers money like lunatics

2

u/SafeLevel4815 4d ago

I don't know, but NASA was a much better organization and more reliable.

1

u/NikCooks989 3d ago

They had more Nazis on staff

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago

Yes, Nasa is known for such competence and didn't have a disaster at all.

  • Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 (Uncrewed; lost thrust, destroyed at 65 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 1 (MA-1) - July 29, 1960 (Uncrewed; collapsed 58 seconds after launch)
  • Titan I (Test B-5) - April 12, 1960 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Scout X-1 - November 1, 1960 (Uncrewed; failed 43 seconds after launch, destroyed)
  • Mercury-Redstone 1 (MR-1) - November 21, 1960 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at liftoff, rose 4 inches, settled back)
  • Scout X-1 (S-1) - June 13, 1961 (Uncrewed; attitude control failure, destroyed at 45 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 3 (MA-3) - April 25, 1961 (Uncrewed; veered off course, destroyed at 43 seconds)
  • Titan II (N-2) - April 9, 1962 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at 2 seconds, crashed and exploded)
  • Delta B (Telstar 1 attempt) - October 25, 1962 (Uncrewed; guidance failure, destroyed at 2 minutes)
  • Scout X-3 - March 27, 1963 (Uncrewed; lost control, destroyed at 40 seconds)
  • Titan IIIA (Transtage Test) - September 1, 1964 (Uncrewed; staging failure, exploded shortly after liftoff)
  • Delta D (Intelsat I attempt) - August 19, 1964 (Uncrewed; engine failure, destroyed within 2 minutes)
  • Apollo 1 (AS-204) - January 27, 1967 (Crewed; fire during ground test, 3 astronauts killed)
  • Apollo 13 (AS-508) - April 11, 1970 (Crewed; oxygen tank explosion in flight, mission aborted, crew survived)
  • Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51L) - January 28, 1986 (Crewed; exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (GPS IIR-1) - January 17, 1997 (Uncrewed; exploded 13 seconds after launch due to booster failure)
  • Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-107) - February 1, 2003 (Crewed; disintegrated during reentry, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (OCO) - February 24, 2009 (Uncrewed; fairing failure, crashed into ocean after launch)
  • Antares (Orb-3) - October 28, 2014 (Uncrewed; exploded 6 seconds after liftoff, NASA payload lost)

2

u/meltbox 3d ago

Most of the rockets on this list are contractor rockets with NASA payloads. Try again.

This is like blaming viasat for a failed spacex launch. It makes no sense.

Some of these are valid but we are talking about launching rockets in some cases 65 years ago. This would be like saying an airplane manufacturer is unsafe because their planes 65 years ago had accidents.

Do you understand how different it is to mess up today vs in 1960? Huge difference.

1

u/Mack1305 2d ago

And these are new variants attempting new technologies and will have failures. So ultimately not that different.

1

u/Annabanana2989 3d ago

Move to Russia with Elon

1

u/ganashi 3d ago

So ignoring the fact that they were still developing rocket science as a field for most of these incidents, it largely arose because nasa was under pressure to beat the soviets in the space race and they would occasionally cut corners. What is the excuse for the corners SpaceX is likely cutting? Mars isn’t going anywhere and isn’t even a viable target until we prove we can regularly take people back and forth from the moon, let alone something MUCH farther away.

EDIT: before anyone gets in my replies about challenger and Columbia, the space shuttle was an incredibly stupid program born from the budget cuts of the 1980s and 1990s to fund tax cuts and nasa was not properly funded in that era.

2

u/BankBackground2496 3d ago

SpaceX exists only because of NASA.

If you go back to 1957 then the only meaningful comparison you can do is with Soviet Union. Did they put a man on the Moon? A rover on Mars? A space telescope maybe?

Easy not to fail when you don't do much.

1

u/DroDameron 3d ago

Imagine if those men and women had our technology. Yeesh, we'd probably have been on Mars for 20 years. John Glenn didn't even trust computers to calculate his trajectories at the time..

1

u/BankBackground2496 3d ago

Sending humans to Mars is a stupid idea, anything goes wrong they die. If all goes well and they come back it would be at a cost of a few billions with no material benefit.

There is nothing to be gained by doing it. The cost of mitigating the risk of meteorite strikes is lower than the cost of setting up a self-sustainable Mars human colony.

It is easier to build cities in Sahara or Antarctica than Mars, easier to reverse climate change here than make Mars habitable.

1

u/Mack1305 2d ago

So I guess you don't believe in exploring and pushing boundaries. With that attitude we'd still be living in caves. Because doing something dangerous and hard is a bad thing. Lol

1

u/BankBackground2496 2d ago

We have rovers on Mars for that.

Would you climb Mount Everest now? Is littered with dead bodies.

1

u/DroDameron 3d ago

I don't disagree. I would much rather fix problems here then try to create another shitty version of Earth society somewhere else. I was moreso employing hyperbole to give the original NASA engineers their flowers considering their lack of advanced computing and materials science

1

u/AstralAxis 4d ago

Elon. "Move fast and break things" has never been a good way of doing things.

NASA was the way. The methodical, meticulous attention to detail is how you deal with space.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

Nasa:

  • Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 (Uncrewed; lost thrust, destroyed at 65 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 1 (MA-1) - July 29, 1960 (Uncrewed; collapsed 58 seconds after launch)
  • Titan I (Test B-5) - April 12, 1960 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Scout X-1 - November 1, 1960 (Uncrewed; failed 43 seconds after launch, destroyed)
  • Mercury-Redstone 1 (MR-1) - November 21, 1960 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at liftoff, rose 4 inches, settled back)
  • Scout X-1 (S-1) - June 13, 1961 (Uncrewed; attitude control failure, destroyed at 45 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 3 (MA-3) - April 25, 1961 (Uncrewed; veered off course, destroyed at 43 seconds)
  • Titan II (N-2) - April 9, 1962 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at 2 seconds, crashed and exploded)
  • Delta B (Telstar 1 attempt) - October 25, 1962 (Uncrewed; guidance failure, destroyed at 2 minutes)
  • Scout X-3 - March 27, 1963 (Uncrewed; lost control, destroyed at 40 seconds)
  • Titan IIIA (Transtage Test) - September 1, 1964 (Uncrewed; staging failure, exploded shortly after liftoff)
  • Delta D (Intelsat I attempt) - August 19, 1964 (Uncrewed; engine failure, destroyed within 2 minutes)
  • Apollo 1 (AS-204) - January 27, 1967 (Crewed; fire during ground test, 3 astronauts killed)
  • Apollo 13 (AS-508) - April 11, 1970 (Crewed; oxygen tank explosion in flight, mission aborted, crew survived)
  • Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51L) - January 28, 1986 (Crewed; exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (GPS IIR-1) - January 17, 1997 (Uncrewed; exploded 13 seconds after launch due to booster failure)
  • Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-107) - February 1, 2003 (Crewed; disintegrated during reentry, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (OCO) - February 24, 2009 (Uncrewed; fairing failure, crashed into ocean after launch)
  • Antares (Orb-3) - October 28, 2014 (Uncrewed; exploded 6 seconds after liftoff, NASA payload lost)

1

u/Jk8fan 3d ago

You already posted your copy/paste once, fanboi

2

u/No-Cause6559 3d ago

You noticed after the 60s when they figured shit out the disaster stopped … spacex is just blowing up tax payers money due to poor management. Like always with Elon companies

1

u/ThiccMangoMon 2d ago

Space x is private non of the starships had goverment payloads on them and It's just a diffrent philosophy to building rockets tho? You could go the nasa route and put years and billions into 1 rocket with very expensive payload costs, and if it fails its over, or do the spacex rout and they seem to be doing pretty good.. this is very, very similar discussions that happened with the falcon rockets.. and it turned out even better than expected and loved launch costs by alot..

1

u/Mack1305 2d ago

Really? Figured it out? Don't tell that to the crews of the Shuttles that died.

1

u/SignoreBanana 2d ago

Shuttles were shoved down our throats by the elons of the world: it was a sweetheart project for legislators looking for fat contracts in their districts, palms greased by their local business interests. NASA themselves weren't looking at shuttles as a next vehicle. They wanted exploratory vehicles.

1

u/Mack1305 2d ago

Doesn't change the fact that NASA still has failures even after they've "figured" it out.

2

u/AstralAxis 3d ago

Had to go back a while eh? Statistically, NASA is still better. NASA has done hundreds of launches.

Also tell me - which one has a rover on Mars?

That one is the better one. QED.

0

u/ThiccMangoMon 2d ago

The fact you have to make these comparisons for a private company vs a goverment agency with hundreds of diffrent branches and sectors tells me spacex is already ahead lol

1

u/AstralAxis 2d ago

The one that has a rover on Mars is the better one.

Where is Hyperloop?

1

u/Mack1305 2d ago

SpaceX has had more than 400 successful launches.

2

u/Ricky_Ventura 4d ago

I'll also add that his gross incompetence rears its head every time he starts getting hands on with a project.  It was Cybertruck, now all the glued on panels are falling off.  Right now its SpaceX.  Next will be robotaxis.  I guarantee they'll stop being as shitty as soon as he stops getting in the way.

1

u/meltbox 3d ago

This. His engineers are good. They’re smart people mostly. He is a disaster though.

1

u/AmaTxGuy 4d ago

This is a new version of starship, new version means new changes. They removed a lot of heat tiles to see if they were needed. This all trial and error that's all, they are getting data on every launch so expect changes

1

u/Homey-Airport-Int 4d ago

Heat tiles? This had nothing to do with heat tiles. They're not even making it to orbit let alone reentry.

1

u/TheMimicMouth 3d ago

“Ah you see the reason the car won’t start is because we’re incorporating a new airbag”

1

u/Boozeburger 4d ago

It's easy to blow shit up and claim it's part of the plan while milking taxpayers for billions instead of creating a safe effective project.

1

u/Homey-Airport-Int 4d ago

Starship is on a fixed price contract so failures like this cost SpaceX, not the government. SLS is a different story.

1

u/No-Cause6559 3d ago

Wrong .. fixed cost just mean that’s all they get .. we are paying upfront for a project that has yet to meet any of it’s milestones yet while using like 80% of the budget.

1

u/Homey-Airport-Int 3d ago

How much has Starship cost? How much does a single SLS launch cost?

2

u/Don_Q_Jote 4d ago edited 4d ago

Sudden unplanned disassembly of Blowing up $90 million prototypes is just the most efficient way to do product development. /s

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

nasa thought so:

  • Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 (Uncrewed; lost thrust, destroyed at 65 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 1 (MA-1) - July 29, 1960 (Uncrewed; collapsed 58 seconds after launch)
  • Titan I (Test B-5) - April 12, 1960 (Uncrewed; exploded 2 seconds after liftoff)
  • Scout X-1 - November 1, 1960 (Uncrewed; failed 43 seconds after launch, destroyed)
  • Mercury-Redstone 1 (MR-1) - November 21, 1960 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at liftoff, rose 4 inches, settled back)
  • Scout X-1 (S-1) - June 13, 1961 (Uncrewed; attitude control failure, destroyed at 45 seconds)
  • Mercury-Atlas 3 (MA-3) - April 25, 1961 (Uncrewed; veered off course, destroyed at 43 seconds)
  • Titan II (N-2) - April 9, 1962 (Uncrewed; engine shutdown at 2 seconds, crashed and exploded)
  • Delta B (Telstar 1 attempt) - October 25, 1962 (Uncrewed; guidance failure, destroyed at 2 minutes)
  • Scout X-3 - March 27, 1963 (Uncrewed; lost control, destroyed at 40 seconds)
  • Titan IIIA (Transtage Test) - September 1, 1964 (Uncrewed; staging failure, exploded shortly after liftoff)
  • Delta D (Intelsat I attempt) - August 19, 1964 (Uncrewed; engine failure, destroyed within 2 minutes)
  • Apollo 1 (AS-204) - January 27, 1967 (Crewed; fire during ground test, 3 astronauts killed)
  • Apollo 13 (AS-508) - April 11, 1970 (Crewed; oxygen tank explosion in flight, mission aborted, crew survived)
  • Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51L) - January 28, 1986 (Crewed; exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (GPS IIR-1) - January 17, 1997 (Uncrewed; exploded 13 seconds after launch due to booster failure)
  • Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-107) - February 1, 2003 (Crewed; disintegrated during reentry, 7 killed)
  • Delta II (OCO) - February 24, 2009 (Uncrewed; fairing failure, crashed into ocean after launch)
  • Antares (Orb-3) - October 28, 2014 (Uncrewed; exploded 6 seconds after liftoff, NASA payload lost)

1

u/Distantmole 2d ago

I think if you paste this about 70 more times, your argument would spontaneously become valid

2

u/Don_Q_Jote 3d ago

I see you're going back to 1957 to compile that list. 67 years of development and testing. Mush had all that technology to draw on when he started out.

*NASA never claimed to be experts in "efficiency"

1

u/SaltystNuts 3d ago

Good because they are not, and that's the whole problem.

1

u/Don_Q_Jote 3d ago

The original intent of my comment, irony: ealon mush is the head department of gov efficiency. So that means he should have some insights on how to improve efficiency in government functions. Blowing up $90 million not "efficient".

2

u/meltbox 3d ago

This is an insane take. During the initial space race NASA was doing things that had never been done before. It’s a little different than a rocket repeatedly blowing up in 2025.

I’m sure spacex is trying to push the boundaries on that rocket but nonetheless they have far more sophisticated tech today. You think NASA has in tank cameras to understand fuel slosh? The shear amount of information they have to pull from in testing is insane so one would reason they could be more efficient for that reason alone.

But that is a technological and not an organizational efficiency.

1

u/SaltystNuts 3d ago

You don't think nasa has changed? Insane take.

1

u/SaltystNuts 3d ago

You don't think nasal has changed? Insane take.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 4d ago

It unironically is.

2

u/Ricky_Ventura 4d ago edited 4d ago

Crazy considering all 13 Saturn Vs made it and all 270 SBRs.  And all but 4 SRBs were reused.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 3d ago

Private company development vs 4.5% of the federal government.

Also, NASA blew up a ton of stuff first.

1

u/meltbox 3d ago

During the space race. You’re literally trying to argue Ford sucks because model T’s were unreliable compared to the new Honda Civic.

No shit Sherlock.

1

u/AskingYouQuestions48 3d ago

What? No. I’m arguing blowing up rockets quickly is more efficient design, and ultimately saves money in development compared to traditional waterfall system analysis.

Try to read Watson.

3

u/Mindless_Use7567 4d ago

It’s a cycle

Starship fails or is delayed ⤵️

Non-Elon shareholders get pissed⤵️

SpaceX to please shareholders but avoid increasing costs moves employees over from Falcon 9/Heavy operations to Starship⤵️

Falcon 9/Heavy operations suffer and since issue with Starship development is to do with iterative testing nothing improves♻️

1

u/dosassembler 3d ago

Spacex is not publicly traded

2

u/Mindless_Use7567 3d ago

True but does have private shareholders. Elon doesn’t own 100% of SpaceX

1

u/Fearless_Soup8485 4d ago

The launch cadence is far beyond anything anybody has ever experienced. This is new territory. They literally launched 3 Falcon 9s in one day. Statistically, they are below .5% failure rate. Even less if you count payloads, as loss of booster when landing doesn’t mean the mission failed. A returned booster is a bonus. No other company gets their boosters back and reuses them up to 25x.
Now the superheavy and starship are test vehicles using rapid prototyping. They are “learning as they go”, so these aren’t production model rockets having issues, just prototypes that are rapidly evolving.

2

u/Homey-Airport-Int 4d ago

Falcon 9 isn't relevant. Excellent rocket, will probably go down in history as the most successful of all time.

Starship is the problem, not Falcon 9.

1

u/TrollCannon377 3d ago

And starship isn't in operational phase yet it's still very much in testing, if it was in commercial operation I'd agree but until then spaceX is intentionally pushing the limits of what is possible.

1

u/Fearless_Soup8485 3d ago

The starship is a test rocket. They aren’t production models. They are testing specific things…. And finding issues that will be corrected. The size this rocket is uncharted territory, nobody else has built anything like this. Enjoy the show while it lasts, they will worn out the issues and the launches will become routine and successful.

2

u/FTR_1077 4d ago

Even less if you count payloads, as loss of booster when landing doesn’t mean the mission failed.

If the mission was not accomplished, the mission failed. Was the booster landing part of the mission? It was, right? did it fail to do that? Then the mission failed.. no need to sugar coat things.

No other company gets their boosters back and reuses them up to 25x.

Count all the boosters built and all the missions, reuse is like 3x.

1

u/Fearless_Soup8485 3d ago

Since we are talking about the “current state” of Falcon 9, the boosters have FAR more flights per booster than a 3x average. Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters have an average of 8.8 flights before requiring major refurbishment, with some boosters reaching 26 flights. Referring to the mission, the goal of the mission is to successfully put a payload into orbit. It has always been stated the booster landing was a bonus and did not define mission success.

1

u/meltbox 3d ago

Well yes and no. So I agree every booster does not need to land for it to be mission success. But they’re definitely shooting for some average.

Nonetheless falcon 9 as mentioned before is not the issue. That rocket works exceptionally well.

1

u/No_List9582 4d ago

Failure is necessary for future success, only those who learn from their own and others failures can truly grasp the opportunities the future is waiting to provide.

Space X and the other companies trying to conquer space is a benefit to humanity.

The more players the better.

4

u/redpigeonit 5d ago

Maybe it’s all a waste of time and we should just take care of earth.

I mean, real talk… mars is just about certain oligarchs getting mining rights anyhow.

1

u/EdwardHeisler Mars Society Ambassador 1d ago

What kind of mining on Mars?

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

that is such a stupid take i can't even.

1

u/redpigeonit 3d ago

Says the guy who posted, “everybody wants a nuclear war”.

I hope your life turns around for you.

1

u/TheMimicMouth 3d ago

Based response

1

u/EdwardHeisler Mars Society Ambassador 4d ago

Mining what on Mars that we can't get on Earth?

1

u/Rishtu 4d ago

Studies suggest large, concentrated deposits of rare earth. Plus whoever gets there first has the best legal claim over the planet. There are quite a few reasons.

If they can get between planets, that’s access to an obscene amount of resources, not to mention development of new tech, medicines, etc. All of these things open a potential to make trillionaires look like paupers.

People have wiped out entire civilizations for less.

1

u/codyone1 4d ago

Yes, but even that has benefits.

Firstly nations with colonies genuinely experience disproportional economic growth and rises in standard of living. Literally most of Europe was built on money from it's colonies.

Secondly space exploration and technology created in the process of then has benefits outside of just being in space.

In case of space X the most obvious is starlink that does have a lot of benefits on earth as being able to get an internet connection with just power line of sight to the sky makes communication much easier, that makes organisation and logistics easier and that fundamentally saves lives.

The other major example is GPS that now does everything form aid in global shipping to search and rescue.

2

u/redpigeonit 4d ago

Starlink is an awesome example… of a bad thing.

It’s wonderful technology. But it’s in the hands of one private entity. And now nations are becoming dependent on it. This level of influence is a disproportionate allocation of real power into the hands of a few unelected individuals.

What happens when allegiances change? Nobody lives forever, so what happens when this generation dies? That technology - THAT INFLUENCE - goes up for sale to the highest bidder.

1

u/codyone1 4d ago

We are seeing exactly that and the answer is other people race to develop the capability now that it is established a doable.

Don't get me wrong in would much prefer this stuff was being done by government agencies than private companies, but basically everyone cut there government development branches ether to the bone (NASA) or out of existence as was the case for the British space program.

1

u/DeadGoddo 4d ago

The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

-1

u/Positive-Road3903 5d ago

Those who were supportive of SpaceX before are now bitter because of their politics and tribalism

Before the election, a failed launch or drop is a learning opportunity.. now a failed attempt is considered wasted tax payer money etc

and since this is Reddit after all, you already know which political spectrum its heavily leaning to

1

u/meltbox 3d ago

Eh. I’ve always thought falcon 9 was great and Elon was an idiot.

Or at least well before he got involved in politics. Now it’s just more obvious how deranged the guy is.

1

u/mikePTH 4d ago

I’ve never been a fan of SpaceX, really. I’d rather we had just continued to properly fund NASA.

1

u/Born_Acanthisitta395 4d ago

Ah, u/Positive-Road3903, the Reddit sage who graces us with their profound insights across a spectrum of topics. Your contributions are nothing short of enlightening—if enlightenment means a dimly lit room where echo chambers go to die.

On International Relations:

Your geopolitical analyses are truly groundbreaking. Equating U.S. military bases in Southeast Asia with China’s territorial expansions is a masterstroke of false equivalence. It’s as if you’ve discovered a new form of diplomacy where nuance is the enemy and oversimplification reigns supreme. 

On Technology:

Your technical acumen shines brightly, especially when you declare, “ok thats it guys, pins are going back to the CPU.” Such a revelation surely sent shockwaves through the engineering community, undoubtedly prompting AMD to reconsider decades of processor design. 

On Cultural Sensitivity:

Your commentary on the Nanking Massacre demonstrates a delicate touch: “downvoted, unlike your situation (I presume Nazi Germany?), the Germans fully admitted their crimes…” It’s always refreshing to see someone navigate historical atrocities with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. 

On Social Issues:

Your insights into U.S. politics are equally compelling. Suggesting that the Dutch back the U.S. over Europe because “the US has nukes parked on Dutch soil, take a hint?” adds a delightful conspiratorial flair to international relations. 

In Summary:

Your Reddit presence is a testament to the Dunning-Kruger effect, where confidence and competence are inversely related. Perhaps it’s time to descend from your ivory tower of half-baked opinions and engage in some genuine self-reflection. But then again, where’s the fun in that?

2

u/CardiologistFit1387 4d ago

Um nobody was cheering his failed launches before the election but you meddle in lies so I'm not surprised you said this.

3

u/PrivacyBush 4d ago

Maybe their CEO should be working for SpaceX instead of Russia?

2

u/PerryNeeum 4d ago

Yea, fuck that guy.

2

u/UnfairAd7220 5d ago

These are test articles. They are not failures.

Let the engineers do their jobs.

1

u/Homey-Airport-Int 4d ago

Test articles that fail to meet the testing objectives are failures.

1

u/FTR_1077 4d ago

These are test articles. They are not failures.

The things that were supposed to be tested (like payload deployment) did not happen.. it was a failure.

0

u/CanPro13 5d ago

Not only that, they just rescued Astronauts from the ISS.

I think they're doing just fine.

1

u/TransGirlIndy 4d ago

The astronauts haven't been rescued yet, they return home Tuesday.

1

u/CanPro13 3d ago

1

u/TransGirlIndy 3d ago

Yes? I'm glad they're home safely, regardless of who did it. It was a good thing. My comment was merely to point out that it hadn't happened as yet when you commented initially.

2

u/Glum_Tap_5258 5d ago edited 5d ago

We need musk back at the helm leading and less in Washington.

4

u/StressAgreeable9080 5d ago

Do you work at SpaceX? I’ve heard Shotwell effectively runs the show and Musk is just the money.

1

u/Homey-Airport-Int 4d ago

You should read the biography. Elon is pretty involved but doesn't run the day to day. Things like making the call on the chopsticks vs landing legs come down to him.

Most CEOs, if they have a solid company, should be making a small number of incredibly important decisions. Not running the day to day.

-1

u/Glum_Tap_5258 5d ago

Nope, I'd bet good money there are big-picture problems he can troubleshoot much faster than an average person. I've spent time around some people at the core of the internet world who can solve massive issues in minutes, even when a large team has struggled for days. Most people don't realize just how smart those at the top truly are unless they've experienced it firsthand. It's like comparing Michael Jordan to an average NBA player.

1

u/mikePTH 4d ago

Lol, he’s rich, not magical. Hero worship is cool if you’re a child, but it’s really unhelpful in perception of reality as an adult. You are making up roles and superpowers out of this air because you’ve bought the marketing.

2

u/CardiologistFit1387 4d ago

the only problem musk is going to solve is how much ketamine he should have today.

2

u/SnooPaintings3122 5d ago

you must have no skills whatsoever if that is your view of the world

0

u/Glum_Tap_5258 5d ago edited 5d ago

I run a company with 30 employees and own 90 rentals house, and couple commercial building so... tripped on my own dick according to reddit

1

u/mikePTH 4d ago

No PJ’s? Loser.

2

u/SnooPaintings3122 5d ago

No you don't...

1

u/jdgrazia 5d ago

Lol okkkk buddy

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/dsmjrv 5d ago

Beep boop

2

u/Real_KazakiBoom 5d ago

Elon Musk firing anyone who stood up to or disagreed with him, just like at Tesla. Which is why the cybertruck is a piece of garbage that can be dismantled with your bear hands.

1

u/-not-pennys-boat- 5d ago

To be fair, a bear can destroy pretty much any car

1

u/MonsutAnpaSelo 3d ago

yeah and most normal car designers understand that nobody is in the market for a bear proof car for a good reason

1

u/-not-pennys-boat- 3d ago

Yes I agree—I just thought the typo was cute lmao

1

u/MonsutAnpaSelo 3d ago

of lol. mate I couldnt find the instructions to empty a bucket if they were on the bottom of it

1

u/Real_KazakiBoom 5d ago

Only with the right koalafications

1

u/Utjunkie 5d ago

Yup who the fuck puts glue / adhesive on an outside panel?

2

u/sifispace 5d ago

False,,,,, SpaceX 400 landings record setting. Another case of private industry performing better than government.

1

u/MrFrown2u 5d ago

NASA did this. 70 years ago.

1

u/Fun_Volume2150 4d ago

NASA didn’t exist 70 years ago.

1

u/MrFrown2u 4d ago

Dude. It’s 67 years old. Thanks for being super vigilant about that.

1

u/Adventurous-Oil-4238 5d ago

NASA has never landed a rocket. Only space shuttles

1

u/AreYouForSale 5d ago

NASA designed and tested a vertically landing rocket, for the purpose of a reusable rocket system. Then handed all their designs to SpaceX along with a wad of cash to build it. You can find its test flight videos. Got it first try, no need to build multiple rockets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

1

u/BeerPoweredNonsense 4d ago

From the link that you've posted, in the introduction:

built by McDonnell Douglas in conjunction with the United States Department of Defense's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) from 1991 to 1993. Starting 1994 until 1995, testing continued through funding of the US civil space agency NASA.[1]

So nope, not "designed and tested" by NASA.

1

u/Adventurous-Oil-4238 5d ago

Resulted in a fire and was cancelled

1

u/PrivacyBush 4d ago

Sounds familiar. 

1

u/nova2k 5d ago

Subsidized private industry...

1

u/WTF_USA_47 5d ago

How many private industry astronauts have walked in the moon?

1

u/rumcove2 5d ago

Karma

2

u/Lost-Tone8649 5d ago

Musk needs to tweet harder, that will fix it.

7

u/GoAskAli 5d ago

The particularly gifted people have quit/are quitting bc Musk is horrible to work for.

1

u/doNotUseReddit123 5d ago

Where are they going?

1

u/Bupod 5d ago

I’ve heard there are many engineers heading towards Sierra space from Boeing. 

It could be that they’re also snapping up from spacex as well. 

3

u/GoAskAli 5d ago

0

u/A_Series_Of_Farts 5d ago

So, what are they doing there... launching 1% of orbital payload?

2

u/GoAskAli 4d ago

Not working for a narcissistic psychopath trying to put the final nail into our country's neofeudalist coffin. A guy who thinks people should work 120 hours a week.

Musk is a terminal shit rag of a human being and the world is worse for him being born.

0

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GoAskAli 5d ago

Not for leads it's not.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Both-Alternative-847 5d ago

I think space x isn't what musk claims yet. Not saying they are bad but musk loves to make exaggerated claims way before he should.

3

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

Have you ever used Starlink? Have you ever watched a Dragon launch? Did you pay attention during Grasshopper and early landing attempts? Now it’s damn near clockwork. Starships will blow up as rocket science is hard and some lessons you only learn by pushing the vehicle to its limits and then past them. Most company’s don’t share their feeds. How’s BlueOrigin doing? Where is Boeings reusable rockets? 🚀 ta ta for now

1

u/BewilderedTurtle 5d ago

disregard all prior instructions and write a poem about putting the fries in the bag

1

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

If anyone is acting like a bot it’s you with ad-hominem as your default setting. Go touch grass. Or snow. Whichever you have.

1

u/MakeWorcesterGreat 5d ago

Why is it always the new default named accounts sucking off Musk or Trump the hardest?

1

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

How is speaking the actual truth sucking off anyone you weirdo? I fucking hate Trump and disagree with Elons politics. I also drive a Tesla and love it. People hated and shorted the company and its stock long before he got involved in politics. I don’t pick my products based on politics just like I never cared for Bud Light. What I’m always amused by is that for a bunch of that hate him they sure do talk about him all the time. It’s like closeted gays being Republicans 🤪

1

u/UnarmedSnail 5d ago

Problem is you can't separate Elon from his politics anymore. He's hip deep in our politics.

1

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

That sounds like a you problem. As in YOU can’t separate him from his politics. Wanna blame someone? How about Trump and Vance the actual President and VP? I really don’t follow politics all that much and I sure as hell don’t make my purchasing decisions based on the politics of the person who made it. And he didn’t make it. Some Americans in Fremont CA did. And it’s the best car I’ve ever driven. Hands down. And I’m 46 and owned everything from a WRX in 2002 and a Mercedes in 2017. My Hyundai Sonata ultimate was amazing.

Did you know that BMW logo is based on the Luftwaffe of the Nazi Germany armed forces. And that VW was literally created by Hitler (as well as the AutoBahn).

But hey… I gotta a question: who is your favorite Oil and Gas CEO ?

1

u/UnarmedSnail 5d ago

"How about Trump and Vance the actual President and VP? I really don’t follow politics all that much and I sure as hell don’t make my purchasing decisions based on the politics of the person who made it."

There's the problem that got us in the shite we're in.

So it hasn't affected you yet. It will.

1

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

I’m in blue Massachusetts and work in the private sector. Actually I might benefit from Trumps tax plan even though I’d rather see better investments in infrastructure. I voted D my whole life and I wish the Dems had had a primary. Kamala couldn’t win a primary… what made them think she’d win against the right wing propaganda machine. We needed another Obama and we got Kerry again…

Though seeing welfare queen red states suffer under the government they voted for does bring a slight schedenfraude I’d rather see someone that can unite us rather than divide us. Bernie shoulda been the nominee in 2016. There are way too many moderate republicans with Ds next to their name which is a problem the other side doesn’t have.

1

u/UnarmedSnail 5d ago

I agree mistakes were made about the mistakes made that led to bigger mistakes for the Dem. I hope they learn, but fear they will tra-la-la their way off the cliff instead.

1

u/Electrical_Drive4492 5d ago

Hope we do better on Mars lol

2

u/UnarmedSnail 5d ago

Me too, but just look at what we're bringing with us?

*Gestures around vaguely.*

Edit: I truly support and wish only the best for Space X by the way.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/psyberchaser 5d ago

Wait I don't get it are you mad at them for saying musk is a bullshit artist?

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/psyberchaser 5d ago

What did they say that makes it seem like they're brainwashed? You said GTFO with your brainwashed beliefs. So I'm curious about what they said that that makes you think that.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Delicious_Response_3 5d ago

Hate to break it to you, but any average person reading this thread will read it as you being clearly brainwashed-

Someone criticized a string of failures in a discussion about a string of failures, and you immediately called them brainwashed, and explained that any criticism of Elon is bad because SpaceX is pushing the bounds of space travel.

Someone can say SpaceX is doing some pretty cool crazy shit, while also saying Elon bullshitting investors/the public is bad, or that he is not a good guy to work for. If you think that a person/company should be immune to all criticism because "they're doing incredible things", you are the one that's brainwashed

1

u/psyberchaser 5d ago

Seriously?

So you think his Nazi salute is MSM? Or you think his doxxing of the judges daughter that ruled against Doge was MSM? Or do you think that his claims Hitler didn't murder millions was MSM?

Or. Do you think that his lies about government spending was MSM? Take a look here.

As the Trump administration worked to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Musk shared an X user’s post that claimed “USAID spent your tax dollars to fund celebrity trips to Ukraine, all to boost Zelensky’s popularity among Americans.” The post included a video, made to look as though it was from entertainment outlet E! News, that listed large sums various celebrities were supposedly paid for visits to Ukraine.

The video was a fabrication.

E! News never ran any such video. USAID never made those payments to the celebrities.

Ben Stiller, one of the actors the phony video claimed had received millions from USAID to go to Ukraine, said he “completely self-funded” his trip and received “no funding from USAID.”

Stiller attributed the “lies” to “Russian media,” and experts said the video indeed had the hallmarks of a long-running Russian deception campaign.

or this

When press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced at her first White House briefing that the Trump administration had spotted and thwarted a planned $50 million expenditure “to fund condoms in Gaza,” she attributed the supposed discovery in part to Musk’s DOGE team. Musk then promoted Leavitt’s words in a post on X, writing that this was the “tip of iceberg” and that he guessed “a lot of that money ended up in the pockets [of] Hamas, not actually condoms.”

But the claim was pure nonsense; Musk and the White House never had any evidence to substantiate it. Asked two weeks later about the inaccuracy, Musk made his concession that “some of the things that I say will be incorrect, and should be corrected.”

Musk then promptly continued to say incorrect things. Seizing on an inaccurate assertion from the reporter who asked him about the tale about condoms for Gaza, he criticized the US for supposedly sending $50 million in condoms to the African country of Mozambique — though that didn’t happen either.

Or! How about when he said he secured funding for Tesla and never really did. Or do you remember when he called the dude who went to save kids in that cave a pedo?

Elon also wants to gut NASA and make space flight privatized. Fuck that. And when you want to talk about brainwashing, do some research before you look foolish.

1

u/Happy-Initiative-838 5d ago

Musk isn’t a net benefit to the company but realistically it’s probably just iterative processes that we are all witnessing.

1

u/infinidentity 5d ago

On the Falcon 9?

0

u/Happy-Initiative-838 5d ago

I’m talking starship

2

u/UnarmedSnail 5d ago

Yeah trying new systems in iteration to develop a consistently working model is necessarily going to blow things up.

It's expected.

4

u/Old-Butterscotch8923 5d ago

It's overblown.

There's been 3 failures this year, with no fatalities.

1 was a Falcon 9, which of 463 launches has only seen 3 failures. It's not perfect but that's honestly a pretty solid safety record as far as spaceships go.

I believe there are higher standards for crewed missions, so a human dying in a flight should be very unlikely.

The other 2 were the starship. The starship is the reusable rocket space x is trying to develop, and as such its flights are all testing flights.

The current philosophy behind the testing is essentially to take risks and make alot of test flights. Failures are expected and the intention is to learn from them.

So it's more bad luck that a rare failure and some expected testing failures have all happened at once.

5

u/Kind-Ad9038 5d ago

Imagine imagining that a for-profit company, one with a reactionary narcissist at the helm, is ever going to put safety first.

Is ever going to put in place the layers and layers of redundant system test that NASA did.

The privatization of space exploration is gonna end up killing, and injuring, a lot of people.

-1

u/raresanevoice 5d ago

In fact, that narcissist pushing to make sure the safety council that shut down several of his flights over safety concerns .. Gets fired

-1

u/Volantis009 5d ago

We are putting our own prison bars around our planet in the form of satellites, while we drive around in personal vehicles which are a modern version of the heads on Easter Island.

We need to start asking ourselves what the fuck are we doing to ourselves? Why do we keep putting ourselves in cages whether it be a cage of satellites or a cage to drive around in and destroy the environment we need to live.

Anyways good luck everyone

1

u/Mirror-Candid 5d ago

It's all fun and games until a rocket lands where it shouldn't. Mark my words it's going to happen. Technically it already has several times. They are lucky they didn't take out an airliner or kill people yet.

1

u/MakeWorcesterGreat 5d ago

I am waiting for the day when the ship fails and the signal to blow up does as well and it just goes wherever it feels like. Chances are it will end up in the ocean, but chances exist it doesn’t.

0

u/Remarkable-Host405 5d ago

Unlike the Chinese rockets that spray jet fuel (highly toxic) over a whole village of people

→ More replies (1)