6 ms·

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas. I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a na

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas. I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

ndr 1y ago
Why would they need to care about narrative at this point? It's privately own, might as well learn as much as possible with each dollar spent.
- DoesntMatter22 1y ago
  I'm certain they don't care about the narrative because ultimately even though yesterday was a big success some places had headlines that really downplayed it
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure. That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. What matters is executing on your vision / goals. And they're doing that. The fact that they're bringing in loads of cash from Starlink surely helps. They haven't had the need to raise money in a while, now.
- iwontberude 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - avmich 1y ago
    I think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.
    - boxed 1y ago
      He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P
      - avmich 1y ago
        > He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P That would be a strange evaluation.
        boxed 1y ago
        I've seen worse from SpaceX haters. I've had a "conversation" here on HN by someone who claimed that SpaceX doesn't land boosters anymore for example. Conspiracy theories basically.
      - iwontberude 1y ago
        Bingo they aren’t anywhere near the solution to return the investment and will be raising debt or begging for more government money. They will be (progressively) nationalized to justify the additional cash infusions to keep the mission from being a complete failure. NASA wants their moon base I guess.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Selling rockets to the government is not receiving gifts of taxpayer money.
    - peterfirefly 1y ago
      Especially not when they are cheaper and/or better than the competitors!
pfannkuchen 1y ago
Does it really seem like Elon cares about public opinion at this point?
- anthem2025 1y ago
  [dead]
- apercu 1y ago
  He acts like he cares a lot, comes across to me as someone deeply insecure and unhappy but I’m not qualified to diagnose him.
somenameforme 1y ago
That's probably the first step on the path to stagnation. There's a lot more eyes on them now a days, and Musk is much more well known, so it creates a lot more drama - but they've done the exact same process with everything. They even published a montage of failures [1] on the way to their first successful landing 'back in the day.' It was fiery, but mostly peaceful. They didn't even hit a shark! [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ
jjk166 1y ago
Unless they took extra risks to hedge against the string of failures continuing. "Yes we blew up three times in a row, but this time we meant to do that, so it's a success" sounds an awful lot better than "We did everything we possibly could to prevent it from blowing up this time but it still did"

They even removed some near fuel tanks. In the past the missing tiles were in less critical areas. I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure.

ndr 1y ago

Why would they need to care about narrative at this point? It's privately own, might as well learn as much as possible with each dollar spent.

DoesntMatter22 1y ago
I'm certain they don't care about the narrative because ultimately even though yesterday was a big success some places had headlines that really downplayed it

NitpickLawyer 1y ago

> I'm surprised they didn't take less risks just to avoid a narrative of failure. That's the advantage of being privately owned. "Vibes" (hah) don't matter. Public opinion doesn't matter. What matters is executing on your vision / goals. And they're doing that. The fact that they're bringing in loads of cash from Starlink surely helps. They haven't had the need to raise money in a while, now.

iwontberude 1y ago
[flagged]
- avmich 1y ago
  I think you're wrong saying they are cash flow negative. Both Starlink and payload launching business are profitable in SpaceX.
  - boxed 1y ago
    He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P
    - avmich 1y ago
      > He means that they are cash flow negative if you discount all government income and at the same time include all costs with those launches :P That would be a strange evaluation.
      - boxed 1y ago
        I've seen worse from SpaceX haters. I've had a "conversation" here on HN by someone who claimed that SpaceX doesn't land boosters anymore for example. Conspiracy theories basically.
    - iwontberude 1y ago
      Bingo they aren’t anywhere near the solution to return the investment and will be raising debt or begging for more government money. They will be (progressively) nationalized to justify the additional cash infusions to keep the mission from being a complete failure. NASA wants their moon base I guess.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Selling rockets to the government is not receiving gifts of taxpayer money.
  - peterfirefly 1y ago
    Especially not when they are cheaper and/or better than the competitors!

pfannkuchen 1y ago

Does it really seem like Elon cares about public opinion at this point?

anthem2025 1y ago
[dead]
apercu 1y ago
He acts like he cares a lot, comes across to me as someone deeply insecure and unhappy but I’m not qualified to diagnose him.

somenameforme 1y ago

That's probably the first step on the path to stagnation. There's a lot more eyes on them now a days, and Musk is much more well known, so it creates a lot more drama - but they've done the exact same process with everything. They even published a montage of failures [1] on the way to their first successful landing 'back in the day.' It was fiery, but mostly peaceful. They didn't even hit a shark! [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

jjk166 1y ago

Unless they took extra risks to hedge against the string of failures continuing. "Yes we blew up three times in a row, but this time we meant to do that, so it's a success" sounds an awful lot better than "We did everything we possibly could to prevent it from blowing up this time but it still did"