111
Elon Musk: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
111 points (100.0% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
2207 readers
121 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As I said on another post:
This segment was sort of a let down, because the same lies about reusable rockets were repeated without researching them apparently. Some of musk’s most agreed upon accomplishments were achieved 30-40 years ago, but people on TV can’t help but give him the accolades.
Also not much digging into the Starlink for Ukraine debacle, or the fact that he didn’t actually donate all that hardware, didn’t donate the service, and it wasn’t being used in nearly the capacity initially reported because the people receiving the units were happy to bullshit for him as long as they got gear to use.
What are the lies about the reusable boosters?
Imo it's really an important milestone in rocketry. What launch vehicle in history has been better in terms of reusability and reliability than the Falcon 9 series? And how often could they launch and what was the turnaround of those reusable parts?
I haven't followed SpaceX closely in a few years (Elon is crazy and it has gotten pretty boring (but impressive) with the constant launches) so I are not that up to date. But last I checked, a lot of the launches used reused first stages and in some cases the stages had been used 3 times.
A quick search query finds that the record is a booster having been reused 16 times. Hell they even reuse the fairing these days.
The space shuttles are cool but they waste quite a lot and they are very expensive.
And no I don't like Elon but I have to give credit where credit is due. SpaceX is a game changer in rocketry, nothing even comes close.
SpaceX did not pioneer reusable launch systems. Flat out. They've been experimented with since the 1960s, commercial companies were experimenting with them in the 1990s. Even the name FALCON comes from a project DARPA was working on.
There was also this famously reusable system in the US called Shuttle Launch System, consisting of a reusable shuttle, two reusable solid boosters, and an expendable extension tank.
No they don't, they stopped that attempt because recovering them was pointless and difficult.
Yes, imagine if we used a capsule system like Russia kept using.
Ok, then start thanking the people that developed these things in the 60s through the 90s.
No one has said that they invented reusable launch systems.
They did very much perfect them though.
No one else has been able to reuse boosters with the frequency and reliability of the Falcon 9. In fact no one has been able to produce any rocket whatsoever with a better reliability than the Falcon 9
Sure the shuttle had reusable boosters but the turnaround time was significant because they landed in the sea using a parachute.
What capsule system are you refering to? I am not familiar with it. Btw SpaceX does have a reusable capsule.
I couldn't find any indication that they have stopped recovering the fairings, quite the opposite actually. Article from November: https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-payload-fairing-recovery-sea-photo
It seems like they have stopped with the net boats though. It was apparently too hard to catch them and fairing is supposedly not that hard to clean. So they just pick up from the water.
True. But do we have to thank them every single time someone bring up SpaceX? That's ridiculous. One can't claim to invent such an obvious concept and demand credit 20-70 years later for something that is also reusable but not similar in any other way.
It's not like those old systems are anywhere close to how SpaceX is operating nowadays anyways.
It's not like we thank Carl Benz every time someone makes a good car in the 2023
That's a lie. Tons of people say this EXACT thing.
Incorrect. Russia was reusing rockets back in the 1950s for atmospheric research. Stop doing Musk's marketing for him.
Also a lie. I'm not even here saying Falcon is some unreliable POS. I simply pointed out that it wasn't the first reusable rocket, it's not the first commercial space company, and it's not the first vertically landing rocket. Now here you are coming up with all this other bullshit nobody's talking about. I wonder why someone would come to this thread and make up arguments to defend against if not to simp for Musk himself.
Please detail for the class what "significant" means and how long the process was. Keep in mind I have seen NASA's public documentation on the refurbishment. Also, again, SHUTTLE WAS COMPLETELY REUSABLE.
You've lost track of your own chain of thought, so I guess I'd say go back and re-read your comment. Then recall that before Shuttle existed, the US used a capsule system.
Yet you had a problem with shuttle SRB being cleaned. Hmm. Interesting double standard there.
I don't know, do people have to repeat the same SpaceX lies or jerk elon off every time someone mentions anything tangentially related to space? Seems so.
SpaceX is a literal fucking copy of several previous systems as described in the 1960s. I understand that space history starts in 2006 for most of you Musk fans, but wow.
You should calm down a bit.
I didn't say the spaceX was the first.
What rocket is more reliable? I may be wrong, but it wasn't a lie. Can't you just argue in good faith?
Neither I or the video claimed it was the first reusable rocket. I didn't claim it was the first commercial space company. I didn't claim it was the first vertically landing rocket.
Could you link it? I am interested in reading it.
I don't remember where I read that the SRBs were hard to clean but it makes a lot of sense because engines are complicated and salt water is a bitch.
I would be happy to be proved wrong though. As long as you calm down.
Lol. I thought you meant some kind of impressive system. You just meant the normal crew capsules. How are those relevant?
There just seems like there is a huge difference between cleaning an SRB and a fairing... I didn't have a "problem" with it. It's just that I have heard that the shuttle SRBs were hard to clean.
Yeah, no. Sure a few other rockets were also partly reusable but that doesn't make it a copy.
It's called an improvement.
I am all for improvements but if you want everything to be stuck in first iterations then go ahead.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a fan of Elon Musk.
Have you ever tried having an argument without attacking the opponent?
I'll cut this very short, because you people talk out both sides of your mouth.
How about this. If you're attempting to "argue in good faith", then try researching something before you write it down. That's probably a good start in "good faith" debate, right? You want to make statements, without researching them, and then get bent out of shape when I call you out on it and say I'm not arguing in good faith.
Like. Do you not see the hypocrisy with that?
... YOU BROUGHT UP RUSSIAN CAPSULES. You tell me. Holy hell.
Seems? So, your opinion based on absolutely nothing but a guess is that it seems like it's hard to do. And again, you talk about arguing in good faith when I even told you NASA publishes their SRB refurbishment documentation. Why, if you wanted to argue in good faith, didn't you go look for that document? Surely that's step one in an actual good faith debate, no? Learning about the topic?
Then go look at the document. In good faith
This demonstrates how little you know about the history of vehicles and launch systems. You could do an iota of reading, but instead you're here just saying whatever feels right.
Tell me, do you think Hyper Loop was an original idea or do you think it was a carbon copy of a previously debunked idiotic idea? If Hype Loop was a BS copy of an extremely old idea resurrected by con men every so often, why wouldn't Falcon be? I mean, after all, the name Falcon is awfully close the DARPA's FALCON project, which started just a few years before Elon started hiring people for SpaceX. Everything the guy does is a cheap knock off of something someone else has already done.
Anyway, go ahead and look up those refurbishment documents, since you're so dedicated to good faith debate. Maybe when you're done reading them you'll realize why people that come through here just making up their own answers based on their feelings is annoying.
No I just want to have an argument without constant insults and language from a 5 year old. Grow up dude.
You brought up capsules at all, lol. Are you drunk or something 😂
I don't care about the hyper loop. I really don't care about old DARPA projects. The interesting part about the Falcon 9 is that it actually exists and does its job extremely well.
You haven't provided me with anything that actually matters, all you have done is whine at Musk. Like who cares if it's somewhat reusable rockets existed before the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 objectively made it much more efficient and has done a lot of improvements that no one has done before.
I don't like Musk either, but I don't have to deny reality just because I have a hate boner.
I'm pretty convinced by your lack of looking up the actual NASA documentation, which is freely available, and your hypocritical call for "good faith" argument, that you're an un-serious person here just to support your favorite fraudster billionaire.
An obvious lie, since there's no other way to explain your complete refusal to go look up a basic fact instead of repeating marketing nonsense.
So, at this point I'm back to you being a liar since you have to intentionally choose not to know what you're talking about and instead base your position on vibes. I'm uninterested in your opinion, you've demonstrated your inability to use facts, so we're pretty well done here.