SpaceX Lies

May 3, 2021
9
4
15
https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-simplified-everything-you-need-to-know-about-elon-musks-rocket-empire/#:~:text=SpaceX%2C the rocket company founded,of taking humans to Mars.
extract:
SpaceX grabbed heaps of attention in February of 2018 when it launched Falcon Heavy, the most powerful rocket launched from the US since the Saturn V that sent astronauts to the moon
This is just one of a lot of lies.

Falcon Heavy = 3.4mil lbs thrust.
Orbiter = 6.78mil lbs of thrust.

Other lies include:
1) First reusable rockets - Orbiter was reusable.
2) First reusable spacecraft - Orbiter was reusable.

Other spurious claims like "First private company to do something."

So Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Rockwell Intl?

These aren't private companies?

SpaceX took government money, too.

Also why is SpaceX building rockets that can land when ocean recovery makes more sense?

The Lunar Module could land via rocket on the Moon so nothing new there either.

And SpaceX is taking the US backward in technology going from Rp1 to Methane while China takes the lead with Hydrogen Technology.

From these basic facts. SpaceX is a dangerous, propagandistic showboat with no REAL results or accomplishments and will fail miserably to get to the Moon
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
May 3, 2021
9
4
15
Wow. Never thought of SpaceX like that.
You're welcome.

I can break it down more thoroughly as people reply.

Basic take aways.

1) SpaceX has done nothing new.
2) SpaceX can't master Hydrogen so claims that bad fuels are big achievements in discovery.
3) SpaceX can't cut the cost of dV in space.
4) SpaceX can't build complex titanium alloys so claims using inferior and more massive and weaker steel is an accomplishment.

5) SpaceX has no future. Northrup Grumman launched their answer to SpaceX this year. An orbital repair drone to increase the lifespan of satellites thereby reducing demand for launching new satellites. Which is SpaceX's only business model.

6) SpaceX is a bad business model. It can never be profitable. China is 75% of satellite market and uses in house launches. SpaceX has no room to grow in a shrinking market. NASA manned launches with dragon capsule = about 1% of SpaceX debt.

Imagine trying to pay down a $100,000 dollar credit card using $1,000 a year income.

SpaceX is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
May 3, 2021
9
4
15
What company isn't when trying to promote themselves?

I suggest we stick to science and sources here. Makes for a better discussion.
I did stick to science.

I can tear apart Musks scientific claims about his rockets. Where would you like to start?

Perhaps his use of RP1 fuel?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
May 3, 2021
9
4
15
Please proceed. Use sources to back up claims. Looking forward to the informed discussion.
Works better when someone asks a question about it. Am I supposed to presume your side of the argument too?

For instance why use Methane? There's no advantage for it. It has a specific impulse that is 16% less that of Hydrogen. The principle argument anyone has come up with has been methane is more storageable.

But what's that matter when the dV budget of methane cannot possibly get a meaningfully sized Payload into Martian Orbit?

So how do you want to discuss this problem? Which is one of many of SpaceX's problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
Aug 14, 2020
424
89
760
Works better when someone asks a question about it. Am I supposed to presume your side of the argument too?

For instance why use Methane? There's no advantage for it. It has a specific impulse that is 16% less that of Hydrogen. The principle argument anyone has come up with has been methane is more storageable.

But what's that matter when the dV budget of methane cannot possibly get a meaningfully sized Payload into Martian Orbit?

So how do you want to discuss this problem? Which is one of many of SpaceX's problems.
The more companies sending to space the better. I want no one or two, or even three, monolithic monstrosities monopolizing transport to space. Throughout history it took a lot of shipbuilding firms trying, and failing, to produce the lot that finally succeeded. Some of those ship, and shipping, failures were truly bizarre. The same with the aircraft industry. The same with the auto industry. You apparently want perfection up front. You want the great end product immediately up front. That would come at infinite cost and it would never leave the ground. Come to think of it, what the government has done so far for the rest of us to reach space has come at almost infinite cost and has never even left the drawing boards.

------------------------
"When the human race dies out, it will be because it was brainwashed to be so totally, completely, utterly safe that it no longer dared to keep on living, a risky business at best."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
Feb 11, 2021
66
38
60
This is just one of a lot of lies.

Falcon Heavy = 3.4mil lbs thrust.
Orbiter = 6.78mil lbs of thrust.

Other lies include:
1) First reusable rockets - Orbiter was reusable.
2) First reusable spacecraft - Orbiter was reusable.

Other spurious claims like "First private company to do something."

So Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Rockwell Intl?

These aren't private companies?

SpaceX took government money, too.

Also why is SpaceX building rockets that can land when ocean recovery makes more sense?

The Lunar Module could land via rocket on the Moon so nothing new there either.

And SpaceX is taking the US backward in technology going from Rp1 to Methane while China takes the lead with Hydrogen Technology.

From these basic facts. SpaceX is a dangerous, propagandistic showboat with no REAL results or accomplishments and will fail miserably to get to the Moon
I wonder what you'll tell when SpaceX finally manages to land their Starship and take a successful flight to Mars. Will you also state that this company achieved nothing?
 
May 25, 2021
486
293
560
Howard Hughes made a lot of mistakes developing his Aircraft. Crashed one that nearly killed him. Then here came WWII, and everything changed after that. But it was a British RAF biplane bomber that helped to sink the Bismarck, along with a lot Royal Navy ships.
 
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2019
158
123
760
In some respects I see a significant achievement - much reduced launch costs - but Mars ambitions look way out of reach to me. But I also think Mars is only tangential to SpaceX success and it looks mostly a PR, brand building exercise; servicing government funded contracts, mostly for Near Earth, Earth focused reasons is the real commercial opportunity, not Mars. It doesn't need to go there to be successful - and if it does go there it is unlikely to be an independent, self funded SpaceX project, but SpaceX bidding on government, taxpayer funded Mars missions that do not, themselves, make profits. Sustaining high levels of public awareness and voter support for Mars ambitions sustains the taxpayer funding SpaceX needs if it is ever to send people to Mars.

Government agencies may contract with the lowest bidders but pricing includes a willingness to pay enough to ensure profitability for contractors, ie superficially there is market competition but the bottom price is sustained artificially high. I think grand space dreams require genuine profitability based around exploitation of space based physical resources - otherwise it is an endless succession of Earth based resources propping up space projects that cannot support themselves.
 
May 11, 2021
55
35
60
"But I also think Mars is only tangential to SpaceX success and it looks mostly a PR"
I think you are wrong there. I believe that the reason Elon Musk created SpaceX was to make humanity a multi-planet species and actually attempt to establish a city on Mars. Sounds far fetched, but SpaceX is more or less controlled by one person - Elon Musk. If you look at the way SpaceX is run and the way Starship is being built it indicates as much.
 
Jul 25, 2021
1
1
15
Ok. I don't know if you still believe in what you posted because it's been months since this thread was posted but allow me to put what I know on the table.


1. The shuttle orbiter supposed to be reusable, and to some degree it was "reusable" but a lot of people think a more accurate term was "refurbishable" as it had to go through so much maintenance just to fly again; changing the thousands of heat shield tiles, checking the payload bay, and the hydraulic systems of the wings. The falcon 9, however, needs less maintenance as it has less systems to check and it doesn't have the tens of thousands of heat shield tiles to replace.

2. Spacex was the first private company to do something independently. Trying to get approved by NASA instead of doing an already approved contract by NASA like Boeing and such, I think is different. But I do agree that they're not the first company to do something, I just feel that the statement is taken out of context. -opinion

3. Spacex got money by NASA because they were finally noticed and recognized. Other private companies got a headstart because they were already famous and doing aerodynamic stuff before they got into rocket science. -opinion

4. They land rockets on land because they use liquid fuel engines and salt water isn't good for the engine. The shuttle's boosters used solid fuel which has less parts and so less stuff to fix after landing in the ocean (though it still costed more to refurbish them than to just replace them).

5. Yes the moon lander landed propulsively but did it have to deal with re-entry heating, higher gravity of the earth, and high dry mass? No. And not to mention the lunar lander descent module was specifically made for that specific job and after that it was staged and didn't even get to orbit again. The Falcon 9 booster, however, had to lift payload, survive re-entry, and land, where it could be reused afterwards.

6. Spacex use cheaper metal because it's cheaper and it doesn't make sense to use more expensive metals if the cheaper metal has more checks on your checklist that the expensive one.

7. I'm not gonna go full throttle with rocket fuel because I know so little to make an opinion but every type of fuel has its pros and cons like how much temperature before it freezes or burns, stability, density, delta v and probably other things I don't know. Different rockets use different types of fuel to fit their needs and there is little reason to use fuel that isn't meant to be used by your rocket. But the plan is to refuel the Starship to get to its destination. You don't really need an expensive type of fuel that has more delta v if you can make a rocket with cheaper fuel and able to refuel.

8. Of course Spacex has to be "propagandistic" to some degree, they're a company! A company won't get much attention if it doesn't advertise itself as something different from the others.

I hope you understand and put these things in your mind.

Mod Edit - Let's keep it polite!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Clovis
May 25, 2021
486
293
560
Soyuz: one thing you can say about it is, it has a long track record. And still in use today, by Roscosmos. Russia is on track to build its own Space station, so is China. Who already has one but they intend to expand it.
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2021
43
17
35
I do have to admit, Elon Musk thinks a lot of people will die going to Mars. But they still are going on with the project
Yes but hasn't it always been that way with human expansion? How many people perished on the Mayflower crossing the ocean to the "new world" but they still kept coming, how many died during westward expansion in coved wagons? but they still continued going west- space, the final frontier, is going to be no different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clovis
Jul 29, 2021
1
0
10
Actually, I have never been a fan of Elon. But I’ve never thought that he could be a liar.
However there is only one reason why I like him. He is a professional at controlling. I suppose that no other company could brag about it. I always thought that maybe he is using some employee tracking software. Have some ideas?
 
May 25, 2021
486
293
560
Elon Musk has had a lot of set backs, but that isn't stopping him. His so called fully autonomous vehicles have been ordered off the road. After a few reported fatalities. One problem is, the AI can't predict unexpected driving events. Like running into black ice on the road, which has already been a problem for it.

Tesla wants to make it to where the AI systems would not activate unless the driver has their hands on the wheel. Ok , so what's the point in useing it?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS