Why Musk’s biggest space gamble is freaking out his competitors | Hacker News Reader

Why Musk’s biggest space gamble is freaking out his competitors

politico.com

53 pointsdkobia18 comments

In the beginning Musk went to Russia to buy a rocket and the then head of the Russian Space Agency literally spat in his face. On his way home Musk pulled out his spreadsheet and decided he could build his own rocket. Fast forward to now, the Russian Space Agency has almost no business to transact. Ouch.

Personally I'm hoping for a few more humongous explosions during testing of Starship like we had with the Falcon 9 development, but I'm not holding my breath.

Where can I read more about this?

Here's a link that seems to cover the basics of this history (but doesn't seem to get right down to the nitty gritty spitting incident).[1]

[1]https://www.inverse.com/article/34976-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-t...

Ashlee Vance's biography, 'Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future'

Jim Cantrell says it is true in https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Elon-Musk-was-spat-on-...

> Personally I'm hoping for a few more humongous explosions during testing of Starship like we had with the Falcon 9 development, but I'm not holding my breath.

They heavy fog for SN11's RUD is a travesty.

I'd like to see more explosions, because they learn a lot from them, but the stakes are getting super high.

Slight correction here. Apparently it wasn't the head of the agency but the head rocket designer and he spat on Musk's shoes and not in his face. For the record.

This articles frames the Artemis program as an us vs. then contest with Space X. They cannot, and never could, compete with Space X. However, NASA and the U.S. government will certainly benefit a lot if Starship is successful. I’m sure most everyone, except maybe some higher ups, are rooting for Space X just the same as many civilians are.

I gotta ask how a $2,000,000,000 single flight vehicle with a two year turnaround is still considered remotely acceptable?

US Congress & Senate require the $2B be distributed to contractors in all States. Actually flying the thing is about vanity, and using up supplies and equipment to make room / demand for more to be made. Maybe some stuff will be lofted, besides, a bonus.

The rocket they stacked has to be launched. The best we can hope for is another will not be stacked. But for that to happen we probably need to start a new $trillion ICBM project. SLS may be the smaller evil. We might end up with both, if it looks like SLS is at risk.

It’s a jobs creation program to improve re-election chances, and a transfer of tax $ to private companies in return for “lobbyism” (bribes) and lucrative jobs in those companies if re-election fails.

Honestly, I don't feel bad for SpaceX's competitors. More competition = more advancement, especially in a field where it seems that things move slowly and are expensive.

The industrial policy of the United States is "maybe Elon Musk will do it".

Seems obvious that the SLS can be the Metroliner and Starship can be the Ever Given. Everybody happy.

Can someone explain this to me?

The Metroliner is a defunct express train between New York City and Washington DC. The Ever Given is a giant container ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal and held up world trade last year. I'm not sure what was meant to be said, but maybe the SLS is for people and Starship is for cargo? The SLS will work for a few decades and Starship will screw up supply lines for months?

Yes, passengers versus cargo, that was my intention. So, TIL: the Metroliner is kaputt.

Perhaps the parent is trying to pass the message that even if both the projects are a failure is still fine and all the people involved are happy because they are getting their money anyway? Just guessing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com