site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2084 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for November 2, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Starship is mostly funded by SpaceX too, so it's not like its a big deal if there are delays.

Losing the Space Race Boogaloo to China seems like a fairly big deal.

They unironically proposed building a space station near the moon to make up for this, make the moon mission even more complicated and expensive.

Not a very good argument in terms of "non-Musk space companies being a dumpster fire", as he unironically proposed having a dozen or two of orbital refuellings in order to send a single rocket to the moon, which they don't even know if they can do. Using Starship as a lander doesn't strike me as particularly sane either.

There are definitely people too invested in painting him as a clown, and I will further say they're almost certainly doing so for political reasons, but he's also definitely overhyped.

SpaceX is the only group capable of competing with China in space though? If it weren't for them, China would be ahead in orbital launch and cost-efficiency... If anyone's to blame for losing the Space Race it should be Lockheed and NASA who've blundered billions and billions on rockets that don't work properly. If SpaceX had been given that money they probably would've done a much better job with it.

Most of his launches are in-house for Starlink, and it's not clear Starlink's model is sustainable. His competition is slowly catching up to him, and much like with Tesla, his ideas to stay ahead are not panning out, to put it mildly. I'm pretty sure the trajectory of the two companies will be the same.

Also, you're shifting the goalposts. Your original argument was that it's not a big deal that Starship is delayed, and I gave an argument for why it is. Looping back to "but look at all the cool things that they did with Falcon" is irrelevant. This is the typical cycle of the conversations about Elon: use hype about the future to claim he's amazing, then claim the past should already be enough for you, when someone questions the claims about the future.

Most of his launches are in-house for Starlink

So far this year SpaceX has launched forty non-Starlink missions. That is no longer as many launches as the entire country of China, but it is more launches than any other country in the world, including (by a margin over 50%) the combined non-SpaceX remainder of the USA. It is more launches than all non-US non-China countries combined. It is also still more launched payload capacity than the entire country of China.

The fact that he launches even more for Starlink expands this accomplishment; it does not diminish it.

SpaceX is, obviously, empirically, numerically, by hundreds of percent, the only institution currently capable of competing with China in space.

Oh - but I nearly stopped while still just talking about cargo! Last time we talked about the options to launch humans I was hopeful for Starliner, but last year's flight had continuing reaction control system issues that ended up with its two test pilots waiting for extra SpaceX seats to bring them home again, and Boeing and NASA still haven't announced any potential timeline for an upcoming flight. SpaceX are currently still the only ones outside of China and Russia who operate a manned orbital spacecraft; their 4 manned launches in 2025 exceed China's 1 and Russia's 1 (hopefully soon to be 2).

Early next year SpaceX's US competition plan to put Orion in space with people on board for the first time, which is very exciting but terrifying. I want to use a kinder phrase than "flaming garbage", but I do see the photos in that article where literal pyrolysis tore chunks of its heat shield off like literal garbage. Orion's reentry capability is at the same "well, it did survive" stage as the Starship tests' ... or worse, because much of the Starship tests' damage is intentional, and unless you count ablation none of Orion's was. But, Musk will be flying another few dozen or hundred Starships before they dare put a human on board during reentry; NASA's Artemis policy, by contrast, is YOLO.

His competition is slowly catching up to him

Hopefully their future will see a little less gradatim and a little more ferociter.

I am non-ironically excited for the possibility that Blue Origin's upcoming second attempt to accomplish a booster landing is about to succeed. It's unlikely to have any more significant delays (we're just a few days out from the first launch window), and so long as it has no delays worse than have already occurred, their landing attempt will come slightly before the ten year anniversary of SpaceX accomplishing the same. It is awesome (though again I feel I must explicitly state that I'm not being sarcastic) that the leading team among SpaceX's most serious long-term competition may now be less than a decade behind them! But to anyone without a weird grudge against Musk, it's not tempting to overstate the magnitude of that awesomeness.

I am non-ironically excited for the possibility that Blue Origin's upcoming second attempt to accomplish a booster landing is about to succeed. It's unlikely to have any more significant delays (we're just a few days out from the first launch window), and so long as it has no delays worse than have already occurred, their landing attempt will come slightly before the ten year anniversary of SpaceX accomplishing the same. It is awesome that the leading team among SpaceX's most serious long-term competition may now be less than a decade behind them!

Uh-huh. How did the competition "being behind" Tesla detract from Cybertruck, Semi, Robotaxi, FSD, and Optimus being dumpster fires, and the Chinese offering as good or better cars for cheaper? How does "being ahead" supposed to magically help Starship?

When you accused @RandomRanger of "shifting the goalposts", was that an honest concern of yours? I never said a word about Tesla.

I'm curious about when you think Tesla's competition was a decade behind Tesla, but mostly I'm just going to assume that you're shifting to Tesla because, when in the grip of Musk hate, all his companies look alike? They're not. The one building 2.5% of the world's cars and the one launching 85% of the world's spacecraft are in pretty different places.

It's definitely possible that the competition could catch up to SpaceX; I wish there were more even trying to catch up. Blue Origin is trying, though, and they're nearly a decade behind. Not a hyperbole decade, a look-at-the-calendar-and-subtract decade. RocketLab is trying, and with luck they'll succeed with the first Neutron flight next year and they'll only be 11 years behind.

I'm really excited about Stoke trying to surpass SpaceX; their first effort will never carry people but it's the first thing outside of China that could potentially undercut Falcon 9 on light cargo; they're the only serious attempt so far at rapid full reuse other than Starship.

In the context of the "new space race with China", it doesn't bode well that most of SpaceX's prospective competition is in China. LandSpace is probably ahead of Blue Origin, despite being 40% as old. If Starship fails, it's possible that after another ten years we'll be able to say "the Chinese offering as good or better cars launch vehicles for cheaper". Just waiting for that probably wouldn't be good American space policy, though. Ideally we'd have a second homegrown SpaceX, but we don't, and until we do they're both metaphorically and literally carrying us.

When you accused RandomRanger of "shifting the goalposts" was that an honest concern of yours?

Yes.

I never said a word about Tesla.

I know, it's called analogy. It meant to illustrate the fact that just because you reached a milestone before your competitors, doesn't mean you will forever stay ahead of them.

I'm curious about when you think Tesla's competition was a decade behind Tesla,

I dunno, I suppose when BYD first launched and Elon responded by maniacally laughing, but not having much of an argument for why they're bad.

but mostly I'm just going to assume that you're shifting to Tesla because, when in the grip of Musk hate, all his companies look alike?

Well, I do think that different companies managed by the same man are likely to suffer from the same management flaws. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I also don't hate Elon. I told you multiple times that I'd much prefer a world where I'm completely wrong about him. He's supporting most of the causes I support as well, and it would be a lot better fornmenif he proves to be a genius and vindicates ball these causes by proxy, rather than a hype peddler who's about to run out of luck and drag down all these causes with him.

I suppose I do get mildly annoyed that criticizing him inevitably summons fanboys acting like someone just murdered their dog.

Not a hyperbole decade, a look-at-the-calendar-and-subtract decade. RocketLab is trying, and with luck they'll succeed with the first Neutron flight next year and they'll only be 11 years behind.

This argument only makes sense if they managed to maintain the distance over those 11 years, and I'm that instead of doing that, they're sinking their advantage into boondoggle called Starship (which is when comparing SpaceX to Musk's other companies comes in handy, because the man really seems to like boondoggles). Starship is not going to the moon, it's definitely not going to Mars, it might end up doing it's LEO Pez-dispenser bit, but even that is not certain, and it's an open question if it does so in a cost-effective way.

Ideally we'd have a second homegrown SpaceX, but we don't, and until we do they're both metaphorically and literally carrying us.

No amount of SpaceX is going to help you, if what they're doing is retarded. You're not going to the moon with something that requires over a dozen refuellings, a space station that makes you wait a week if you miss a rendezvous, and a lander that is so tall it needs an elevator and lots of prayers to not tip over.

Not all of that is on SpaceX, but if they're so brilliant they should have raise some objections to the idea.

This argument only makes sense if they managed to maintain the distance over those 11 years

Then it's a good thing they've been maintaining some distance! In those years they've:

  • Increased Falcon 9 payload capacity over 50%
  • Added downrange booster recovery options
  • Added booster recovery from and reflight after missions beyond LEO
  • Begun launching national security payloads and NASA flagship payloads
  • Tested and made operational a super-heavy launch vehicle, also partly-reusable, launching it 11 times so far with no failures
  • Began reuse of their unmanned space capsule
  • Had the longest streak in history of successful operational launches of any rocket, then the longest streak of any company, by what is now the most reliable launch vehicle in history
  • Human-rated Falcon 9
  • Tested and made operational a manned space capsule, in the first manned launches from the US since Shuttle, and launched several dozen astronauts to orbit with no failures
  • Surpassed the total on-orbit flight time of any other manned launch vehicle (and of a few space stations)
  • Done launches with GEO insertion
  • Added fairing recovery
  • Added extended fairing options
  • Launched payloads to the Moon (orbit and landing), asteroids, and Jupiter
  • Increased their flight rate 20-fold, flying it far more frequently than any other launch vehicle in history, and more in total than any vehicle save Soyuz
  • Reused recovered boosters, now up to 30 times each, exceeding Shuttle for most-reused orbital rocket stage ever
  • Launched and are now operating enough active satellites to exceed the currently-active total of everyone else in history, by a factor of 2, with several million users and a million more every few months
  • Launched the most powerful rocket in history, nearly by a factor of 2, then recovered three of them and reflew two of them
  • Launched the largest single spacecraft ever (i.e. [edit: not] counting on-orbit assembly) into space
  • Successfully reentered and did a soft splashdown with the largest reentry vehicle ever, with the first live video of reentry ever, then did it again 4 times

Some of those are just firsts for SpaceX, but several are firsts for anybody in history. They are by far the most successful space launch developer in history, and have not been slacking ... and I'm just mentioning their technical achievements, which are secondary to what's actually best about them. The list above is a side effect of the work done lowering the cost of space access.

if what they're doing is retarded

Long ago, you had no idea what you were talking about, but you at least noticed it when I pointed out that SpaceX was indeed already flying astronauts, and you intended to do better. You still have no idea what you're talking about, but now you have no idea that you have no idea - you believe you know so much that you can call the people who are more correct retarded! I don't see how you can come back from that, but you have to try! I know that orbital refueling logistics is a lot more complicated than "look up, SpaceX put that light in the sky and it has people in it", and so I don't think I can get it past your biases this time, but I promise, there is a reason why everybody who hasn't been lobbied by SRB manufacturers is in favor of it, there is a reason why Blue Moon is also planning to do it, and there is a reason why even SLS, the epitome of huge disintegrating-totem-pole rockets, turned out to be unusable for its core mission without it. If we wanted to be the first to get flags and footprints on the moon, we should have canceled Artemis 8 years ago and saved $50B, because it turns out we already did that 50 years ago. If we want to do anything serious on the moon, then doing it 20 tons (Blue Moon Mk2, 4 launches per mission) or 100 tons (Starship HLS, definitely less than 20 per) at a go is the way to do it, but more importantly doing it at a high cadence to help amortize costs and reduce risks is also the way to do it. The marginal cost of a dozen launches even of a fully expended Starship is still cheaper than a single SLS launch.

and I'm just mentioning their technical achievements, which are secondary to what's actually best about them. The list above is a side effect of the work done lowering the cost of space access.

I agree they're secondary. Most of these aren't what I meant by distance. Distance would be things that are preventing their competitors from taking contracts that would otherwise go to them.

Starship HLS, definitely less than 20 per

How would you know that? The performance of Starship is currently unknown, any slip in how much fuel they'll be able to deliver, or how often they can do it, will result in the total number of necessary launches increasing. That's outside of details like we don't even know if they can do it.

and reduce risks is also the way to do it.

I'm a little skeptical that additional launches being necessary will result in lower risk.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats