[WizardAustralis]

With all the positive talk on here, I shall present a contrary point of view on this.

This is the YouTube channel Common sense skeptic, that seems to be doing a good job if trying to test Musks/SpaceX claims, typically it is not positive at all.

It is clear they have an axe to grind with Musk but they seem to doing a very good job of backing up their criticism s.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog

[renewiltord]

No one cares about this shit anymore. Everyone and their uncle had a Youtube channel telling us why Crew Dragon would fail because they used electron for their interface or Tesla would fail because they don't understand what Real Car Companies™ do or Tesla is just a bunch of techies who think they can solve other problems because they can write software or Space X is doomed because their rocket exploded once.

Well, it's over. The naysayers know fuck-all. They just know how to talk and talk. Meanwhile someone out there is walking the walk. It's over. The contrary position is dead.

Musk makes the one in a million shot nine times out of ten.

[dgritsko]

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

[WizardAustralis]

It is all very well to quote Roosevelt and yes he is correct. But there is a difference between putting in the hard work and trying achieve something great, SpaceX have done that and will continue to do great things, and the difference between claiming a million people on Mars.

The thing is there are many folks out there that were the nay-sayers and were completely wrong but also many that were completely correct. They are typically not remembered. It is one thing to make bold claims, it is another to out right deny the realities of the universe because they get in the way of a vision.

[njarboe]

Why are people even interested in peoples' opinions on how other people might fail? Musk has said that he thought SpaceX had a less than 10% chance of even getting a rocket to orbit when he founded it, but trying was worth it anyway. Now that SpaceX has built an orbital booster that comes back to land at the launch site like in the fucking cartoons in the 1950's, why would one spend time thinking about if they will fail instead of how great it would be if they succeed. You can't short SpaceX stock.

[WizardAustralis]

It isnt so much a case of schadenfreude but more a case of seeing what issues still need to be addressed.

Personally I would love nothing more that to see the doubters get shown up by the likes of SpaceX actually going out there and making it all actually happen.

It is when legitimate issues are being brought up but arent being actively addressed by the likes of SpaceX that is when one has to wonder about how the upper ends of the business is skewing the marketing/output of the company.

I am reminded about the slogan of r/realtesla - revolutionary technology, awful company. I fear that, what if a company like SpaceX over promises and under deliv ers and causes more damage to the field long term than if they had not done anything at all?

[njarboe]

"I fear that, what if a company like SpaceX over promises and under delivers and causes more damage to the field long term than if they had not done anything at all?"

Not sure how you think SpaceX could cause more damage than doing nothing. They are the only group for the last two decades, besides Blue Origin, that is trying to advance the technology of heavy lift rockets past what we had with the Saturn V. Just imagine what $30/kg to orbit instead of $10000/kg will open up. They have are half way there with booster recovery and now just need the size of StarShip and the recoverable second stage.

If a company is creating revolutionary technology, why is it an awful company? Under what metrics are you judging it by? Lots of people get "burned out" working at SpaceX, but others also thrive in the environment.

[WizardAustralis]

It can cause more damage than good by making people doubt the entire mission as a whole. Funding will dry up pretty quick if folks think it is just another dead end.

And $30 per Kg would be nice, the last figure for SpaceX is $2,720 per kg. That is a very big difference.

I have nothing against revolutionary technology. The thing is, when it comes to the reusable rockets and near earth orbital stuff - I have never had much doubts that SpaceX would achieve this outside of earth based political issues. I worry that they are pushing an image of what they want rather than what they will achieve.

Look at Blue Origin, I actually don't have a problem with them as they seem to be taking the more cautious approach. It could be a Turtle and the Hare situation going on here.

[mlindner]

There's a difference between discussing legitimate issues versus going on a tirade rants full of misinformation to prove your point. That's what these channels do.

For example one of their videos says that Starship isn't possible because of space radiation. Which is a much discredited idea and has been for years.

[WizardAustralis]

The issues of space radiation is far from discredited. It is one.of the major issues that still doesn't have an elegant solution. One.idea that SpaceX is proposing is to try and get the trip to Mars to 6 months. It will still be a serious issue but it would at least be better than the typical trip proposal.

One of the reasons I posted that channel was because they seem to have really done their research far beyond the typical "it wont work, just because". It is biased still but at least they arent just firing blind.

[skykooler]

It does have a pretty elegant solution: water. Water is an excellent shield against radiation, and any long duration mission will have a large amount of water on board for the humans. With proper positioning of the tanks, said water can do double duty as a radiation shield.

[WizardAustralis]

Water does work, it is also astoundingly heavy. That is the major issue. Elegant but impractical.

It simply blows out any useful payload volume and costings because of the amount of water required. Last estimate I have seen is they would need 1,500 tons of water to make Starship radiation resistant (80% decrease in exposure). Even at $300 per Kg, about 1/8th the cost of current launches, that is still approaching a half billion dollars per ship with a significant lost of internal space.

Technical viability and economic viability are two very different things as well. This is going to be the thing that I feel will eventually limit our travel outside of the earth system.

I suspect we will see rampant use of Starship in orbit, the occasional run to the moon and maybe once or twice to Mars but beyond that. It will be just another technological lead that ends up in civilizations recycling bin.

[skykooler]

One possibility is the use of a cycler - in other words, putting only a couple Starships with massive amounts of water onboard in an orbit that loops back and forth between the Earth and Mars. Passengers would board it for the transit, then transfer back into an unshielded starship that flies in formation for the journey. This way, the shielding mass only needs to be launched once, and can be reused for an arbitrary number of flights.

[WizardAustralis]

That is a pretty smart idea actually.