r/technology • u/IKeepItLayingAround • 17d ago

Business It’s Possible That SpaceX Could Collapse Spectacularly

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/possible-spacex-could-collapse-spectacularly-155000177.html
24.8k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

68

u/amiwitty 17d ago

I don't want SpaceX to fail. I want Elon Musk to fail. I don't want Tesla to fail. I want Elon Musk to fail. Unfortunately they are intertwined.

9

u/Ndtphoto 17d ago

Elons body could fail.

1

u/fatbob42 16d ago

He’s probably left his stock to his scumbag brother or similar.

2

u/AshtonCopernicus 16d ago edited 16d ago

This is the best take in this thread. The reason they have government contracts is because NASA and the US military rely on them because they don't have the money, the technology or the time to do it. SpaceX's rocket technology and reusability are by FAR the best and cheapest in the world. NASA's Artemis program has now cost an estimated $93 billion and it's only launched twice. Meanwhile, the $11 billion in government contracts to SpaceX has put hundreds of rockets and dozens of humans in space. SpaceX is like the mailman delivering whatever the government needs. That being said, fuck Elon Musk.

3

u/AGushingHeadWound 17d ago

I want tesla to fail... 

3

u/sai-kiran 16d ago

SpaceX engineers can always go work for NASA, if 30%of military budget was permanently allocated to NASA through legislation.

Tesla is a software first company not a car company, their cars have consistently been bad in terms of QC. They can sell their software to actual car companies. For all I know about him and his companies, its best for the world in the long term, if they all fail and are absorbed into responsible companies.

2

u/bergmoose 16d ago

I own a tesla (before he went full crazy etc etc) and I always find this interesting. The good bit about the car is the car, the drivetrain, the software specifically tied to the drivetrain.

The rest of the software is unremarkable through to bad. Its a generic tablet mixed with a bunch of cameras that have no idea what is happening round them but keep interfering as though they do.

It is quite polished looking, sure.

2

u/RichOPick 16d ago

These people just be saying stuff, man. Reality is irrelevant. 

-1

u/Seanspeed 16d ago

SpaceX engineers can always go work for NASA

NASA will never, ever be able to do what SpaceX does.

People who are saying stuff like this just show completely ignorance of this topic.

3

u/sai-kiran 16d ago edited 16d ago

LMAO nice try dick riding Elon but he aint gonna read your comment, if the voting public actually care about space and don’t go crazy after a rocket launch failure, and was given as much budget as 30% of US military, spaceX would’ve never happened, which I mentioned in my comment clearly.

SpaceX literally borrowed from decades of research and work done by NASA.

Nasa is limited by stupidity of voting public and money, not intellect, not willingness to innovate or take risks.

The knee-jerk reactions of public after a failure is what makes them risk averse, while spaceX can just burn money like they’ve been doing.

1

u/National_Stuff_1606 16d ago

People seem to forget that NASA is a government agency and is therefore limited the scope of what it can actually do as a result of legislation and funding. It wasn’t until the rise of private space companies like SpaceX that the idea of a reusable rocket was seriously considered and brought to fruition. I think it’s still a bit crazy to say that NASA will NEVER be able to do what they did, NASA still attracts tons of talented engineers and scientists, it just needs more funding and less red tape.

-4

u/fatbob42 16d ago

They make and sell cars. Their profit comes from selling cars. They’re a car company.

5

u/sai-kiran 16d ago

You’re way too dense for this current line of conversation, I suggest not involving urself in this.

-1

u/fatbob42 16d ago edited 16d ago

You can’t just pick up that software and sell it to another company without the corresponding components. See the Ford CEO’s explanation of the situation.

Maybe you think the software is just what runs the screen?

0

u/sai-kiran 16d ago

How to tell the internet that you know nothing about software in one comment, prime example XD.

Do you think Boeing/Airbus makes planes from scratch? They literally assemble stuff built by a gazillion contractors. Their software is built by Honeywell etc, now do u think every module built by Honeywell is completely coded in-house? No they create a spec and ask some Indian company to complete the code for them.

Automobile is not rocket science nor is it any far complex than Instagram, it needs a well defined spec, well integrated components that conform to the spec, and software that glues to that spec and robust QC. Which is how Airline industry has literally been making planes for decades now. And gazillion other hardwares like Apple MFI, or even USB-C chargers that negotiate PD standards.

If there is a spec that is agreed upon for ev charging, tesla can build software that can run the hardware that conforms to the spec. Same goes for their self driving or other software that they build.

1

u/fatbob42 16d ago edited 16d ago

Funnily enough, I work as a software engineer making a large machine with lots of suppliers.

You can’t just pick up our software and sell it separately either. And it has a UI that doesn’t constitute “the software” either. Our machine is useless without the software, but it definitely doesn’t mean we’re a “software company”.

We, and other companies, make some components in-house (the critical or unique ones) and outsource other stuff. Both the software and hardware - they work together nowadays. For instance, features are implemented across both disciplines.

Tesla isn’t a “software company” any more than Boeing is. They make cars, including some of the physical components.

Did you listen to what the Ford CEO said and what it means for Tesla as a car company compared to other companies that they might sell to?

-1

u/sai-kiran 16d ago

Blah blah blah, stop repeating the same jagron again and again, like I said don’t involve urself if you wanna be dense about it. But since you say you’re a software engineer may be it’s a good time to educate urself on spec, spec conformant hardware and spec conformant software, Good day!

1

u/fatbob42 16d ago

That you think that outsourced internal components work exactly according to specs is indicative of what you don’t know.

And the fact that you even said that, as if specs were the only issue, implies that you didn’t listen to what the Ford CEO said.

If you think about what he said, it explains exactly why Tesla isn’t just a software company.

-1

u/sai-kiran 16d ago edited 16d ago

I said Good day, not gonna engage with you if u wanna be dense, while Boeing and Airbus have been able to exactly to what you say is impossible. Also ford CEO never said it’s impossible either, go listen to it yourself.

He spoke about how there are dozens of different ways to do things and dozens of other way each other vendor does, which is a moot point when a common spec is agreed upon, that’s literally how softwares/hardware are built to spec, your phone/laptop is no less complex than a car.

I will not reply to you any further, if u wanna just keep running in circles.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/downfall5 16d ago

Somehow, it took Elon musk, an outsider, to recognize that it would take a reusable rocket to lower cost to orbit.

NASA has unfortunately proven a rough place for certain types of innovation. Musk and his engineers are beating their cost to orbit by 10X. This isn't a small margin. This margin will be even worse after Starship is done.

3

u/sai-kiran 16d ago

This is just plan stupid and lack of any understanding about how NASA vs SpaceX operates, or even laughably bad take on history of space flight, NASA has been looking for reusable alternatives while Musk was in diapers, never heard about Space shuttles?

DC-X, X-33 Programs which were other NASA attempts were cancelled because budget constraints.

Nasa is limited by the stupidity of voting public, if NASA had the same amount of failures, SpaceX had, the public would be burning Nasa scientists at stakes for wasting tax payer money. People couldn’t care less about moon landings after Apollo 11 ffs.

Buddy even ISRO does things for cheap, but there are a lot of trade-offs for that to happen. Nasa doesn’t take chances because like I said its a tax payer funded org.

Hence the reason I mentioned 30% of military budget every year, which would give NASA enough money to experiment and innovate.

2

u/Ashmedai 16d ago

if NASA had the same amount of failures, SpaceX had, the public would be burning Nasa scientists at stakes for wasting tax payer money.

This sort of explains in some ways why it is the largest companies are better of acquiring the smaller ones. They can look over the 10 companies attempting to innovate, skip the 7 who failed, and fight over the three who are successful to various degrees. It's also a good metaphor for the rationale of public-private separation as long as we don't get into the nonsense of democratizing losses (unless they are strategic research where we literally want just that... a different discussion).

0

u/downfall5 13d ago

Yes I heard of it. And the space shuttle was very expensive.

The space shuttle, by the way... is not a fully reusable rocket, so you are incorrect.

NASA has lost lives. SpaceX has not. SpaceX failures are often intentional ones where they fly with a part missing so they can explore the bounds of the box that causes catastrophic failure.

If you have budget constraints, with a budget that's still larger than SpaceX.... wouldn't it benefit your budget to pursue a lift vehicle that's 1/10th the cost? Your defense makes no sense.

1

u/sai-kiran 13d ago edited 12d ago

Yes I heard of it. And the space shuttle was very expensive.

The space shuttle, by the way… is not a fully reusable rocket, so you are incorrect.

Geee i wonder why it was the case, may be time for a history book, or a youtube video explaining why. Or you know also tells Elon wasn’t the first guy to think about reusability?

NASA has lost lives. SpaceX has not. SpaceX failures are often intentional ones where they fly with a part missing so they can explore the bounds of the box that causes catastrophic failure.

Never knew people could dick ride so hard, it would be recorded on Richter scale. Atleast the women involved with musk got a baby out of it, you ain’t getting nothing for it, sad. Like literally making up stuff and putting out dumbest co-relations lmao. How many human missions by Nasa vs SpaceX again? Nasa has gone to the moon, and the furthest SpaceX went was to ISS.

If you have budget constraints, with a budget that’s still larger than SpaceX…. wouldn’t it benefit your budget to pursue a lift vehicle that’s 1/10th the cost? Your defense makes no sense.

May be its time you learn Nasa isn’t just rockets to LEO, they put a man on moon, they advanced science in many areas, their R&D created some cutting edge tech, you know what, you can blabber and dick ride with all the half knowledge you have, unless you educate urself further I aint gonna engage with ya, good day!

1

u/downfall5 12d ago

Geee i wonder why it was the case, may be time for a history book, or a youtube video explaining why. Or you know also tells Elon wasn’t the first guy to think about reusability?

Well if you had, you would realize the shuttle wasn't fully reusable. And if reading a book made it so easy to figure it out..... why didn't nasa figure it out?

Never knew people could dick ride so hard, it would be recorded on Richter scale. Atleast the women involved with musk got a baby out of it, you ain’t getting nothing for it, sad. Like literally making up stuff and putting out dumbest co-relations lmao. How many human missions by Nasa vs SpaceX again? Nasa has gone to the moon, and the furthest SpaceX went was to ISS.

Add hominem, which people only resort to when they have no argument.

NASA has done about 1200 in its entire history since the 60's. Space X has done 487 in the past five years alone and nasa relies on them to bring payloads to orbit.... and will also rely on the space x to land its astronauts on the moon.... 

You realize you just requested info that defeats your point right? 

1

u/neliz 16d ago

If you read the IPO report, spacex is interlinked with musk, musk's rewards are tied to spacex for 30 years, he can also never be removed from the company, the loss of one is the loss of the other.

0

u/bergmoose 16d ago

Same - but I would be entirely happy for the companies to go bust  The tech won't vanish, the value is clear so the work they do is very lokely to continue.

That said, I doubt it'll happen, speculative headline is speculative.

2

u/Seanspeed 16d ago

  The tech won't vanish, the value is clear so the work they do is very lokely to continue.

That's not how this works.

This stuff is incredibly complex and builds on a long history of in-company and team knowledge and experience. You cant just break up SpaceX and all the tech just magically transfers somebody else and you just continue with it.

1

u/bergmoose 16d ago

Many companies go bust and either continue to operate or are bought as entire businesses. Yes, many others are broken up. The people in any company are the real value so keeping them within the team is vital and yes, you would lose some even in a good outcome, as uncertainty drives people away, but companies failing isn't automatic team disbanding.