Is this a semantics argument? Like you’re arguing over the proper use of “scam”? or do you not see how the word scam could be implied in this context?
I ask because I was about to present a big thing with links and timelines showing how this has all played out since the early 2000’s, but I’m not gonna go to all the trouble if you’re just upset that a better word should be used besides “scam” since there is some sort of measurable output being performed.
(I still think scam is apt when you start breaking down the terminology though, it’s still fraudulent practices which have been performed for the companies benefit, i.e. funding away from NASA)
Mmm, probably. If you focus only on the missed deadlines and failed research projects, it could be considered a scam. But in spaceflight that’s more the matter of fact for a project than the exception. I can’t think of even ONE rocket that launched on time or on budget. I mean, look at SLS (a project that actually IS managed by NASA). Now THAT is a mismanaged fiasco that makes SpaceX look mighty responsible in comparison.
But if you also include SpaceX’s successes, you see that they are simply the best rocketry company in the world. They STILL have the only reusable booster, and one of, if not the highest reliability rating of any ride to space. There’s nothing scammy about a product that provides you exactly the service you requested, with less risk and cost.
Sure, call Starship a scam if you want to. It’s unproven and the project could still fail. But SpaceX as a whole absolutely is not.
I am highly critical of Elon Musk, who is not only a vile human, but is doing more damage to the world than anybody else, except maybe Donald Trump.
But I also understand the launch services industry and know that NASA doesn’t have a viable launcher right now if they stop purchasing Falcon 9, and the only people capable of launching at that cadence right now is probably China.
Is this a semantics argument? Like you’re arguing over the proper use of “scam”? or do you not see how the word scam could be implied in this context?
I ask because I was about to present a big thing with links and timelines showing how this has all played out since the early 2000’s, but I’m not gonna go to all the trouble if you’re just upset that a better word should be used besides “scam” since there is some sort of measurable output being performed.
(I still think scam is apt when you start breaking down the terminology though, it’s still fraudulent practices which have been performed for the companies benefit, i.e. funding away from NASA)
Mmm, probably. If you focus only on the missed deadlines and failed research projects, it could be considered a scam. But in spaceflight that’s more the matter of fact for a project than the exception. I can’t think of even ONE rocket that launched on time or on budget. I mean, look at SLS (a project that actually IS managed by NASA). Now THAT is a mismanaged fiasco that makes SpaceX look mighty responsible in comparison.
But if you also include SpaceX’s successes, you see that they are simply the best rocketry company in the world. They STILL have the only reusable booster, and one of, if not the highest reliability rating of any ride to space. There’s nothing scammy about a product that provides you exactly the service you requested, with less risk and cost.
Sure, call Starship a scam if you want to. It’s unproven and the project could still fail. But SpaceX as a whole absolutely is not.
…
Without reading or verifying anything, I’m just going to assume this is an Elon alt.
I am highly critical of Elon Musk, who is not only a vile human, but is doing more damage to the world than anybody else, except maybe Donald Trump.
But I also understand the launch services industry and know that NASA doesn’t have a viable launcher right now if they stop purchasing Falcon 9, and the only people capable of launching at that cadence right now is probably China.