What's with space x

[Greg Furtman]

And virtually no one talks about them.

My comments about their (Musk's) self promotion do not negate that SpaceX is doing amazing things. I have zero internet connectivity at home because the current satellite offerings suck, and I would love to get onto the StarLink beta test list. But it's a lot like when it seems the whole world picks one very talented and very beautiful actress who is on all the talk shows, and they ignore the other very talented, very attractive A-list stars. As Josh said, there are lots of fan boys. We look at that actress on a talk show and say "She must have a really good agent"; Musk is his own really good agent.

I live in a rural area and my only internet option is ADSLthrough a phone company. 5 Mb/s down, .4 up. My brother lives in Duluth and a number of friends and they all have 100 Mb/s or greater. I want to get on the StarLink beta list too.

 

[Greg Furtman]

I'm a fan of SpaceX. They have accomplished amazing things that were only dreams for so many years. I like the fact that Elon Musk has put his money into things like electric vehicles, battery storage, solar power, and space flight. All things that will make the future a brighter place.

And SpaceX has worked closely & very well with NASA. After all they got an Emmy for the coverage of the SpaceX Demo 1 mission.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-wins-two-emmy-awards-for-interactive-mission-coverage

 

[jqavins]

Wow, you've got 5Mb/s?! What I've got available is absolute squadoo. I'd do a lot more for ADSL than I would for a Klondike Bar.

 

[Greg Furtman]

Wow, you've got 5Mb/s?! What I've got available is absolute squadoo. I'd do a lot more for ADSL than I would for a Klondike Bar.

BArely enough bandwidth to stream Netflix or Prime. And forget streaming if Windows decides it needs to do an update.

 

[manixFan]

And virtually no one talks about them.

My comments about their (Musk's) self promotion do not negate that SpaceX is doing amazing things. I have zero internet connectivity at home because the current satellite offerings suck, and I would love to get onto the StarLink beta test list. But it's a lot like when it seems the whole world picks one very talented and very beautiful actress who is on all the talk shows, and they ignore the other very talented, very attractive A-list stars. As Josh said, there are lots of fan boys. We look at that actress on a talk show and say "She must have a really good agent"; Musk is his own really good agent.

As dhbarr says, SpaceX has actually made progress towards their goal, and has raised a lot of money to complete the task. What progress have the other companies made? More importantly, how many of those companies are using their own reusable rockets to launch their satellites? And, how many of those companies are run by a person who also runs a car company that has done something that the major players have been unable to do? (Ignite public passion for electric cars as performance vehicles.)

I don't get people who think Musk is somehow a great self-promoter. Have you ever seen him speak? He has a terrible public persona. He is clearly a genius who has accomplished great things, in spite of all the conventional wisdom being against him and his goals. His success is his 'self-promotion'.

More importantly, what bothers you (the OP - Josh) that people are 'rah rah space x'? Is it a bad thing than an American company has completely upended the entire space industry? Do you resent Musk's success? That he has succeeded in spite of all the naysayers who said it could not be done? That the other industry players who dismissed his efforts and are now on the losing end of his success?

What I don't get is people who are bothered by the success and innovation of Musk and his vision. We should all be 'rah rah SpaceX' and hope that there are a lot more of leaders like Musk out there who can innovate in ways that others can't see.

Finally, please provide some examples of his self promotion. The only things I've seen him do are mostly product launches like the Tesla Pickup, which was a nightmare from a PR standpoint. I'd like to see how he self-promotes in ways that some of you seem to take offense at.


Tony

PS: in full disclosure, my son works for SpaceX!

 

[manixFan]

I sometimes have a problem with overzealous fans of SpaceX when they point to something SpaceX has done and ask sarcastically why NASA can't do the same thing.

The truth is often that NASA has done it - many times forty or fifty years earlier. And SpaceX has certainly benefited from the knowledge accumulated and shared by NASA as well direct funding from NASA.

I'd like to see some examples of this, someone sarcastically asking why NASA can't do the same thing. My son's dream was to work for NASA, but now he works for SpaceX. As SpaceX has transitioned to manned flight, he's worked with a number of NASA folks and learned how they do things. It's completely fair to say NASA would never have done many of the things SpaceX has done, just based on their 'corporate' structure. But NASA is still the organization that put us on the moon, I've never heard anyone disparage their accomplishments. The biggest complaint I see is how politics keeps screwing up their long term plans, and the huge costs associated with the idea of throwing away the rocket every time it is flown.


Tony

 

[jqavins]

Finally, please provide some examples of his self promotion.

Well...

Have you ever seen him speak?

Yes, I'd wager nearly all of us have, and that's your example. He's personally the one doing those product introductions, every time. He keeps saying "These products are great" yet the message is "MY products are great". And don't get me wrong, they are great.

What drives Musk/SpaceX/Tesla fandom is both factors: they do great things and Musk never lets you forget it.

 

[DaHabes]

Why are people excited about what SpaceX is doing? Watch this and compare it to that NASA does (which these days, is not launch, let alone land, anything). Then become a fanboy yourself....

 

[manixFan]

Well...Yes, I'd wager nearly all of us have, and that's your example. He's personally the one doing those product introductions, every time. He keeps saying "These products are great" yet the message is "MY products are great". And don't get me wrong, they are great.

What drives Musk/SpaceX/Tesla fandom is both factors: they do great things and Musk never lets you forget it.

That's it? Because he does product launches? So, how many of these has he done in the last 5 years? He's promoting what you admit are great products and you ding him for that.

Wow, the price of doing great things, who knew.


Tony

 

[Greg Furtman]

One of the great things NASA hasdone over the years is provide funding at many levels for STEM education. I worked at a Tribal College and much of our science opportunities like the First Nations Launch Competition sponsered by the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium but funded by NASA. I'm willing to bet that many of the SpaceX people went to high schools & colleges that had programs that NASA help fund.

Another big STEM funder is The National Science Foundation. Thank god there are people who know that without engineers, scientists, mathematicians we are in deep doodoo.

 

[Nytrunner]

I'd like to see some examples of this, someone sarcastically asking why NASA can't do the same thing.

Just look at some of the NASA or SLS facebook pages. Lots of trollish folks making snide comments about "Ill be imoressed when it can land itself" and similar. Having perused a few of the poster's pages, i wouldnt exactly call them experts in space technology, they believe what they see on media/social, so what they see is Musk.

 

[EvryThngIsAOk]

What’s not to like? A privately funded company that brings manned space flight back to the US and does it with A unique and awesome twist all under budget.

 

[OverTheTop]

NASA do great things. No denying that. It is great that SpaceX are going gangbusters with their launches, as it gives NASA a vehicle for its great spacecraft. Cheaper launches also mean more $ for NASA to spend on the spacecraft, which directly translates to more ambitious missions and more on-board science experiments.

The other older players in the launch arena also provide a service, but I get the impression sometimes that they are milking the system a bit, and they also seem a little lackluster in their vision.

A good bit of competition is a great way to shake things up!

 

[Nytrunner]

The other older players in the launch arena also provide a service, but I get the impression sometimes that they are milking the system a bit,

The more established firms shifted their process with the government's shift from "produce" contracts to "design and produce" contracts.
Chatting with an older colleague, he was describing how companies self-funded the development of prototypes based on their interpretation of what was needed in the day, demonstrated their proto to the gov/customer, and hoped to secure a production contract. That was a great day for innovation and aviation. But when the customer wanted to streamline their fleets and services and not use so many different designs by different manufacturers, they started making bigger and bigger contracts for a system built to specific and exacting requirements. The costs and schedule impacts due to negotiating and changing design requirements is massive (i know, im a systems engineer), so now we have these huge design and integration contracts that, yes, can get milked and drawn out.

Xspace returns to the older model a bit and builds their own capability saying "This is what we built, this is what it can do, and for this much we can tweak it to serve your specific needs". It is much leaner and faster paced most of the time (just ask the ones who work there that have to pull 80 hr+ weeks when Musk is in a deadline fit).

Having been behind the curtain in both the public and private space industries, they each have their place and make great technological advancements.

 

[manixFan]

Just look at some of the NASA or SLS facebook pages. Lots of trollish folks making snide comments about "Ill be imoressed when it can land itself" and similar. Having perused a few of the poster's pages, i wouldnt exactly call them experts in space technology, they believe what they see on media/social, so what they see is Musk.

Well, I’d say reading Facebook posts is the main issue. I don’t do Facebook, exactly for the reason you cite. It seems to be a cesspool of trolling/misinformation/social manipulation. The fall of modern society will be pinned on Facebook and Twitter.

Seriously, it bothers me to think that anyone would denigrate NASA. For all their warts, they have accomplished great things. If Musk makes it to Mars it will be on the knowledge gleaned from the NASA Mars missions.

The biggest issue NASA faces is the fact that it is often a pawn between the local interests of senators and folks in the administration. Being a private company frees SpaceX from much of that, but even then SpaceX still has to compete against the political interests of the classic military/industrial complex.


Tony

 

[manixFan]

Here's something about another company trying to do space based internet:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-main-starlink-competitor-out-of-money/

Kinda bothersome that the OP has abandoned the thread, I hate it when that happens.


Tony

 

[Josh Kellogg]

Here's something about another company trying to do space based internet:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-main-starlink-competitor-out-of-money/

Kinda bothersome that the OP has abandoned the thread, I hate it when that happens.


Tony

I didn't abandon it. I was just taking a break from the internet for a little bit. But as to your earlier reply, I never meant to say space x hasnt done great things. Its the obsession around it that is aggravating. It feels like anything I try to learn about any form of model rocketry (especially in the youtube world) devolves from model rocketry to just fanboying about musk, and space x. They literally talk about it like sports commentators talk about players stats, and its just feels irrelevant.

To me, it reminds me of when I was attempting to learn about financial investing. Everything always seemed to revolve around Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. People would just go on and on endless about them, but never get to the subject. I never said they didn't achieve great things, but its just annoying when everyone focuses so much on being a fan base for one person or company, that we loose out on the real topic we love, model rocketry.

Look at the forums view list. Space x fan posts get thousands of views, while actual rocketry post if their lucky will get half of that. all I'm saying is that maybe there should be a shift in focus.

 

[manixFan]

(Well, if you only learned about investing from Warren Buffet, you'd be well served. He's one of the few investors that has a strategy anyone can follow - buy and hold, especially in companies that you understand how they work.)

As to Youtube rocket videos devolving into SpaceX fandom, I guess I've not seen that. I've watched a fair number of videos on different techniques, builds, etc., and I can't recall any of them ever veering off into SpaceX fandom. Maybe you could provide some examples?

And regarding view count, SpaceX is a generic topic that anyone interested in rockets can relate to, so, lots of views. If I start a thread on 3D printing a part, or fiberglassing, or electronics, those will appeal to only a small subset of forum users, so, not so many views.

What shift in focus are you looking for? That we should be less interested in SpaceX and their potential to lead America back to the forefront of space travel? How is widespread interest in that a bad thing that we should avoid?

Interest in model rockets and real rockets has always gone hand-in-hand in my experience. I feel any renewed interest in real rockets is something that should be celebrated by our hobby.


Tony

 

[Josh Kellogg]

(Well, if you only learned about investing from Warren Buffet, you'd be well served. He's one of the few investors that has a strategy anyone can follow - buy and hold, especially in companies that you understand how they work.)

As to Youtube rocket videos devolving into SpaceX fandom, I guess I've not seen that. I've watched a fair number of videos on different techniques, builds, etc., and I can't recall any of them ever veering off into SpaceX fandom. Maybe you could provide some examples?

And regarding view count, SpaceX is a generic topic that anyone interested in rockets can relate to, so, lots of views. If I start a thread on 3D printing a part, or fiberglassing, or electronics, those will appeal to only a small subset of forum users, so, not so many views.

What shift in focus are you looking for? That we should be less interested in SpaceX and their potential to lead America back to the forefront of space travel? How is widespread interest in that a bad thing that we should avoid?

Interest in model rockets and real rockets has always gone hand-in-hand in my experience. I feel any renewed interest in real rockets is something that should be celebrated by our hobby.


Tony

Warren buffet isn't the only one out there though. That strategy isn't new. Its just that there are tons of other rich guys out there who may have a different perspective, and everyone being a cheerleader for one dude is just annoying. And drowns out other points of thought.

Pretty much any longer form video. The ones that are a few minutes are fine, but when I try to go in depth, especially on the science of it all, it just becomes a space x commentary.

I just don't get how rockets most us won't get to work on, or be a part of, is more relatable than models, even the heavy duty models. That we all either can do, or have a better chance at doing.

And to be honest, if it comes to america leading the world I'd rather see space force do it. And I have no problem with general interest in it, I just don't want it in my face every two seconds.

But I do see what you're saying on that, I think its just that we should focus more on things we can actually be a part of and do, rather than just focusing more on something that only a few have a role in. I think what I'm getting at is if there was a development company like space x, but for model rocketry, I'd rather see that more. There are groups that are close, but nothing like a unified experimental group.

 

[bearnard66]

A few words about the Starlink internet connection. Till September 2021 Space X is gonna cover the whole planet with a Starlink internet connection and it's gonna launch 42 thousand of satellites. How do you relate to the number of satellites in the orbit of Earth? Also, I`ve heard that big number of sats will be launched with the help of Starship

 

[Blast it Tom!]

One of the great things NASA hasdone over the years is provide funding at many levels for STEM education. I worked at a Tribal College and much of our science opportunities like the First Nations Launch Competition sponsered by the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium but funded by NASA. I'm willing to bet that many of the SpaceX people went to high schools & colleges that had programs that NASA help fund.

Another big STEM funder is The National Science Foundation. Thank god there are people who know that without engineers, scientists, mathematicians we are in deep doodoo.

That's great that you work for a Tribal College. The problems on many reservations are deep, I hate to see the despair. The bolded part is so, so true - hence a big part of my BAR involvement with rocketry centers around engaging the grandkids, and eventually perhaps their friends and even schoolmates.

 

[Mushtang]

Space X is gonna cover the whole planet with a Starlink internet connection and it's gonna launch 42 thousand of satellites. How do you relate to the number of satellites in the orbit of Earth?

I relate it with math. So the surface area of the earth is 196.9 million sq miles. Divide that by 42,000 satellites and each satellite gets 4,688 sq miles. That's about 70 miles between each one, which leaves a LOT of space in between for other satellites. If the earth were covered with houses spaced 70 miles apart, it would be a super lonely place and would seem very empty.

And that's just at the surface of the earth, go up into low earth orbit altitudes where you actually need to be, and you'll be able to fit a lot more. Starlink satellites will orbit about 350 miles up. At that height the orbiting sphere has a "surface" of about 233.2 million sq miles - which is closer to 75 miles between each satellite.

And that's just that one height. We currently have over 7,000 satellites (including a lot of inactive ones) in orbit at various heights, a lot being WAY the heck out there in geosynchronous orbits which puts the distance between them incredibly further apart.

If someone launched a rocket to the moon and didn't bother to even check and see if they'd hit a satellite, chances are super slim that they would. Earth orbit is not a very busy place at all.

 

[Antares JS]

I feel like "What's with people who hate on SpaceX?" is a better question.

 

[jqavins]

They're both fair questions: "What's with people who hate SpaceX?" and "What's with people who won't talk about anything else?" (or "... who talk shite about everyone else?")

 

[Blast it Tom!]

I relate it with math. So the surface area of the earth is 196.9 million sq miles. Divide that by 42,000 satellites and each satellite gets 4,688 sq miles. That's about 70 miles between each one, which leaves a LOT of space in between for other satellites. If the earth were covered with houses spaced 70 miles apart, it would be a super lonely place and would seem very empty.

And that's just at the surface of the earth, go up into low earth orbit altitudes where you actually need to be, and you'll be able to fit a lot more. Starlink satellites will orbit about 350 miles up. At that height the orbiting sphere has a "surface" of about 233.2 million sq miles - which is closer to 75 miles between each satellite.

And that's just that one height. We currently have over 7,000 satellites (including a lot of inactive ones) in orbit at various heights, a lot being WAY the heck out there in geosynchronous orbits which puts the distance between them incredibly further apart.

If someone launched a rocket to the moon and didn't bother to even check and see if they'd hit a satellite, chances are super slim that they would. Earth orbit is not a very busy place at all.

I agree about the math part, but I think about it a little differently. A satellite (except for a geosynchronous one) occupies an orbit, not just a point in space, so you have to calculate a "safe separation" area or even volume around it and then sweep that around our beloved blue/green rock, and that area or tube becomes something that must be accounted for. Now yes, you could have quite a few satellites around the planet operating in that same "tube" as they won't catch up with one another, or anything, but when it comes to orbits that may intersect those, well, it can get hairy pretty quick - I'm thinking of circumpolar vs. equatorial vs. inclined orbits, etc. Even at that, as you note, there is still a lot of space up there.

I understand astronomers are grumbling a bit about Elon's swarms... here you are with your delicate astrophotography and swoosh! So much for that shot!

 

[user 35280]

How much does it cost for Starlink service?

 

[Titan II]

How much does it cost for Starlink service?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sta...i65j69i60l2.4336j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[bearnard66]

I relate it with math. So the surface area of the earth is 196.9 million sq miles. Divide that by 42,000 satellites and each satellite gets 4,688 sq miles. That's about 70 miles between each one, which leaves a LOT of space in between for other satellites. If the earth were covered with houses spaced 70 miles apart, it would be a super lonely place and would seem very empty.

And that's just at the surface of the earth, go up into low earth orbit altitudes where you actually need to be, and you'll be able to fit a lot more. Starlink satellites will orbit about 350 miles up. At that height the orbiting sphere has a "surface" of about 233.2 million sq miles - which is closer to 75 miles between each satellite.

And that's just that one height. We currently have over 7,000 satellites (including a lot of inactive ones) in orbit at various heights, a lot being WAY the heck out there in geosynchronous orbits which puts the distance between them incredibly further apart.

If someone launched a rocket to the moon and didn't bother to even check and see if they'd hit a satellite, chances are super slim that they would. Earth orbit is not a very busy place at all.

I am a bit concerned with the number of satellites which gonna cover Earth. I hope that those satellites will not have any detrimental effect on humans.

 

[bearnard66]

They launch 60 Starlink satellites at a time using the Falcon 9 rocket, which now launches more often than any other rocket. Falcon 9 is also reusable, lowering SpaceX's cost per launch.
Once SpaceX's new Starship system begins service each of those could launch up to 400 Starlink satellites per launch.

 

[Greg Furtman]

One of the problems it is causing is imaging for both professional & amateur astronomers.