Hubble has been accomplished completely without SpaceX, as is James Webb and almost all other amazing advances in space. What do you think about the organizations and people that actually accomplished these things?
SpaceX at least doesn't appear to be building a business model based on being a barrel for pork with a board that functions as a pension fund for military generals.
From my comment, you didn't suppose I believed government space capabilities and projects should be entirely shut down, or that they should be left to old space companies to continue extorting taxpayers, did you?
Providing a service to the government is not a problem. This is not some kind of libertarian purity test I'm concerned about. It is about ripping off tax payers with lobbyists and the military industrial political revolving doors.
I mean it really is a pretty bad question because you've not taken even 60 seconds to learn the first thing about SpaceX
It isn't.
> There isn't enough history yet to compare them fairly.
I compare them on what they provide for what cost right now, and the kind of company that they appear to be building as of now. Hopefully it was clear that I wasn't making predictions about the future.
Yes, that is how they fund their operations. No one else is giving out billions of dollars to build rockets.
At the same time they are using that money to
1. Create full reusabilty.
2. Drop launch costs 10 to 100 fold.
3. Massively increase payload and launch capability.
Which is the point of this particular thread. The other launch groups have pocketed (hundreds of) billions of dollars and changed almost nothing over the past few decades.
Maybe SpaceX does, maybe it will. But providing launch services to the military and undercutting the companies that definitely do those things is not a problem to me. This wasn't a military = bad rant.
Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
Without pointing out that it could theoretically be done (that rocket isn't ready yet, and may never be), the assertion that it should be done is seriously devalued.
I think it's warranted when we're, say, comparing the costs of SLS vis-a-vis something like Starship but it's really silly to constantly suggest SpaceX and other commercial space entities are some sort of savior figure for space exploration. I think it's actually a cautionary tale of again sacrificing a commons (space) for the sake of profit.
Why are you getting hung up on Starship being the current best choice for a return mission at Hubble's EOL? If I was making the comment in 2010 I'd've said returning Hubble is worth the cost of a shuttle launch. If Hubble miraculously lasts another decade I'll make the argument returning it is worth the cost of whatever vehicle is best suited at that time, possibly if unlikely a vehicle coming from the France 2030 development drive.
Why?
"It will cost you 1 billion to launch 100 tons to orbit"
or
"It will cost you 100 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"
or
"It will cost you 10 million to launch 100 tons to orbit"
Guess which one of those is going to 'save' space exploration? Not only that, cheap launches will massively increase the size of the market giving all those good little boys and girls that are interested in space a chance of getting a job in the market. NASA is the market too. If they can drop launch costs 10x, they can launch that much more science.
The space market has been dead for years, it's time to bring it back to life.
Keep your fantasies about my emotional state to yourself. I meant precisely what I wrote.
> religious feeling
I'm well aware of it, but it's not the basis of posts to HN. Such religions - cults of personality - inevitably do a lot of harm to society and the followers. Musk, of course, will make out very well.
Zealousness never has paid off; its purpose is to override reason and good judgement. How can that turn out well? Why would Musk want to encourage that, unless there is something to hide?
> I don't know of many companies that succeed at this level.
It's success to manipulate people? Apple and Steve Jobs succeeded in having an enthusiastic following without narcissim, setting a good example, without manipulating the followers, without undermining and harming others, and without undermining, apparently intentionally, the rule of law. Disney I think is the same.
Look at the number of views the falcon heavy double booster landing got. It’s entirely irrelevant to science but it’s still inspiring nonetheless.
Why does that matter? People without a 4 year+ degree in physics need to be inspired as well because statistically they are the ones who make the decisions.
Who said it did? I'm not sure what you are responding to.
However, working with an entity that perverts merit-based decision-making with public pressure could certainly be harmful, and Musk acts by manipulationg the public. Other NASA partners don't do that. The Europa Clipper, for example, will take years longer to reach its destination - a critical milestone that will delay the exploration of life on Europa for years (if I understand correctly)- due to being switched to a SpaceX launch. It was switched for technical problems later determined to be meritless.
The vibration issues were also very real.
The parent comment was just that it would be cool to bring Hubble back eventually, and that Starship seems promising towards that end. It's not a diminishment of all other space-focused organizations.
Presumably the OP thinks of them what they wrote about them in the comment - that they explore and inspire.
To address your later comments as well, there was no specific promotion of SpaceX in the OPs comment, no implied criticism of any other space tech company or reason to believe the OP thinks anything but good things about them. Just a space enthusiast enthusing about space. But no, you have to turn it into an argument.