SpaceX's Starship has 'decent chance' of success on upcoming flight, Elon Musk says

[Admin]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said his company is ready for the next flight of Starship. In a new keynote address, he talked about what comes next, and how the system will ready SpaceX for future Mars exploration.

SpaceX's Starship has 'decent chance' of success on upcoming flight, Elon Musk says : Read more

 

[Kehk in a MiG]

The N1 moon rocket also had a "decent chance" of success.

 

[011eNigma235]

So did earlier attempts. I'll believe it when it has been accomplished!

 

[billslugg]

The N1 moon rocket also had a "decent chance" of success.

Yes, but the N1 program was run by a madman with a substance abuse problem.

 

[sciencecompliance]

Yes, but the N1 program was run by a madman with a substance abuse problem.

Lol. I see what you did there.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I take that as "It has a decent chance of failing."

I understand Musk's thinking about development speed being increased by getting data soon, even if it allows for many early failures.

But, unlike the U.S. early rocketry, which had many, MANY explosions on the pad and in the air, the more recent NASA work has been extremely sensitive about avoiding failures (but still has had some spectacular and even deadly ones). That is mainly driven by the funding for NASA coming from Congress, which has a short attention span compared to any engineering effort's schedule.

So, when Musk has a failure of anything, it gives his detractors a handle to argue against allowing him to continue, or at least continue at the pace that has been the hallmark of his successes.

Because his development costs are not being supported by Congressional appropriations, the only handles his opponents have on him is through government "reviews" of "safety", "environmental effects", "employment discrimination", "financial law compliance", etc. etc. These are successful in delaying, rather than directly preventing progress - until they get to the level where progress is delayed so much that it is essentially a prevention.

So, I am definitely rooting for a success, and hoping that Musk has realized that public acceptance is being tied to his ability to avoid catastrophic failures.

 

[sciencecompliance]

So, I am definitely rooting for a success, and hoping that Musk has realized that public acceptance is being tied to his ability to avoid catastrophic failures.

I could care less about Musk and would just as soon see him fail, but SpaceX is too important to US geopolitical goals at the moment--and employs too many decent people--to want to see it do anything but succeed, despite Musk.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I agree that SpaceX has become too important to the U.S. and the larger "space community" to disrupt it without good reason. The problem is determining a threshold for something being a "good reason".

There seem to be people who dislike Musk because they disagree with some of his beliefs or positions or opinions. And there seem to be some who just dislike anybody with a lot of money, whether they spend it on things like rockets and electric cars or gigantic personal yachts. Plus, there are always the calculating foreign interests that want to disrupt U.S. progress and use social media to create distrust and even hatred in the U.S. by leveraging the things that some people dislike.

So, when I see stuff disparaging Musk in media articles, I often wonder what the real purpose of those articles is. For instance, do those of us reading Space.com really care about Musk's personal life, or even that there are people claiming that he is "unfair" about whom he hires and whom he does not hire. Do we really care that non-citizens who have green cards might not be given a job that can be filled by a citizen? And I say that as a friend of several green card holders, some of whom have security clearances. It isn't that I don't like non-citizens. I just recognize that it costs more money and time and effort to get clearances for them, and that they might later leave the country, taking with them the knowledge that they gained about some very sensitive technologies.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

If you think these are the biggest criticisms of Musk or that people are simply jealous of his wealth, then you have not been properly informed.

That is not what I said, so I am wondering why you took that part of my paragraph out of context and are implying that is what I meant.

What I said is:

I agree that SpaceX has become too important to the U.S. and the larger "space community" to disrupt it without good reason. The problem is determining a threshold for something being a "good reason".

So, since you say I have not been properly informed, how about specifying what you believe are the "good reasons" to "disrupt" SpaceX activities? Remember, we are talking about disrupting launch capabilities, present and future. So, let's not drag in the things that are related to his other companies, or his private life, or even his personal opinions about world events.

 

[billslugg]

"the fact that he [Musk] regularly lies " - sciencecompliance

Google "Top Musk Lies"
Go to the first item on the search results
Open the list and go to the first item
Tab down to the "money quote", here it is:
"Musk replied to Insider by saying there’s “a lot more to this story” and asked the outlet for more time to respond. Insider agreed and extended its deadline. But instead of following up with Insider, Musk took to Twitter to announce he’d be voting Republican and predicted Democrats would engage in “dirty tricks” against him."
The top Musk lie: He promised to call a reporter back, and didn't.

Go to the second web site on the search results
"Talking Up Hyperloop, the (Fantasy) Transportation of the Future"
It seems in 2013 he said in a funding proposal that "a pod would be able to whisk passengers from L.A. to San Francisco in just 35 minutes.", and that never happened.
Top Musk lie: He talked something up and failed to deliver. "He did it only to derail the high speed train." Or, it could be he lost interest, or he needed money somewhere else, or the permits were hard to get, or he woke up to the cesspool that CA has become and wanted nothing to do with it. So, who is lying here?

That is the best they have. Anyone got a better example? We'll add it to the list.

 

[billslugg]

"Elon Musk wins defamation case over 'pedo guy' tweet about caver"​

• • Published
    6 December 2019
    BBC

 

[billslugg]

Here is the technicality according to the BBC:

"Jury foreman Joshua Jones said Mr Unsworth's legal team were unable to prove their case and should have focused more on the evidence."

Elon Musk wins defamation case over 'pedo guy' tweet about caver

Tesla's founder did not defame a UK caver who helped in the Thai cave rescue, a US jury finds.

www.bbc.com

 

[Classical Motion]

I didn't realize one needed permission from a FAA official. I thought one only needed compliance.

Must the Musk kiss the ring?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Still waiting for anything relevant to launch capability.

If the government went after everybody who "lies" to the extent delineated in the posts above, it would rid our entire government system of all politicians.

 

[billslugg]

If Musk breaks the law it is our business, if he does not, it is none of our business.