SpaceX’s strategy has been really questionable for a while.
Falcon Heavy has done 11 flights since 2018 and now they’re building an even larger platform despite heavy launch not really being a viable market segment. Starship has been slower than the now canceled SLS program run by Boing. If Starship succeeds it seems to guarantee than Falcon Heavy will have a negative ROI, but Starship needs to be wildly successful to have a positive ROI.
Starlink helps justify a high launch capacity, but isn’t in need of a heavy launch platform. A more reusable Falcon 9 would have simplified thermal issues, reduced R&D costs, and presumably increased profits much sooner. That IMO would have been a far better strategy than scaling, up while changing to a wildly different engine, and targeting increased reusability, etc.
> Falcon Heavy isn't relevant to anything SpaceX is doing with Starlink.
You misunderstood my point, Starlink only cares about lower cost per kg to LEO. Spaceship is trying to do that and increase payload capacity.
Spaceship trying to do both is a major reason its R&D costs are so high. Where Falcon heavy is relevant is it demonstrates that there’s little demand for Shapeship’s significant increase in cargo capacity. There’s little economic justification that paying for the size related added R&D complexity driving up both timelines and costs is going to be worth it.
> Seems you've never heard of creative destruction
I was arguing for creative destruction namely killing off all manufacturing of Falcon 9 rockets which would then make Falcon heavy non viable without the economies of scale on the first stage.
> The things they intend to do with Starship aren't possible with Falcon 9 or Heavy period
The things that depend on cost per kg could be accomplished with a NEW but smaller than Starship rocket that could already be in service if they had gone down a different path. The only thing they gain from its current size is the ability to send payloads of that size.
It’s not my money being wasted here, but I’d like SpaceX to be on better financial footing simply to reduce the risks to Starlink.
Clearly how? Seems to me analogous to Tesla where the one thing he's clearly fixated on (Cybertruck and Starship) are very likely to be flops and potentially take down each company as a whole.
Am I the only one who works in an org where the strategy team, on a good day, is completely decoupled from efforts that result in delivery. On a normal day they actively sabotage those efforts.
Like promising your team will create a Mars colony by 2036 while they're trying to make commercial rocketry efficient and safe.
> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
I only know one person currently at spaceX, but I'm willing to bet there's a large contingent of people working there who would sell their souls to die on Mars.
I'll be honest, I've never been the CEO of a successful 10,000+ employee company (or even an unsuccessful one, lol), but at that level, the amount of doing that a person can do themselves is limited.
SpaceX is the only company of his that consistently delivers and that's effectively not operated by him.