You mean that Musk’s engineers, at great taxpayer expense, are building rockets that blow up and endanger air traffic. The only waste, fraud and abuse to be found is in all of his government contracts. At trump’s direction, Chainsaw Charlie has ripped the foundations out from under our government. We are all now caught up in Donald’s own…
You mean that Musk’s engineers, at great taxpayer expense, are building rockets that blow up and endanger air traffic. The only waste, fraud and abuse to be found is in all of his government contracts. At trump’s direction, Chainsaw Charlie has ripped the foundations out from under our government. We are all now caught up in Donald’s own reality show. From your response, I can only assume that you are pleased with the result.
Shakespeare was right when he said, “Hell is empty. All the devils are here”.
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it, but I’d like to address some of the points raised with the data at hand, as it tells a different story about SpaceX’s contributions and costs.
First, the claim that SpaceX’s rockets are built “at great taxpayer expense” doesn’t fully align with the numbers. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches cost around $67 million each, a fraction of the $2–4 billion per launch for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which Boeing develops under traditional government contracts. Even in crewed missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon comes in at $209 million per mission for NASA, compared to $345 million for Boeing’s Starliner. These savings stem from SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology and streamlined operations, reducing the burden on taxpayers compared to older models of government-funded spaceflight. NASA’s own audits and reports—like the 2021 Inspector General findings—highlight how SLS costs ballooned, while SpaceX delivers results under fixed-price contracts, shifting much of the financial risk to the company itself rather than the public.
As for rockets “blowing up,” SpaceX has had failures—most notably early Falcon 1 attempts and a few high-profile Falcon 9 incidents, like the 2015 CRS-7 explosion or the 2016 AMOS-6 loss. But their success rate has soared: in 2024 alone, SpaceX completed 132 launches with no failures reported, a reliability that rivals or exceeds legacy providers. The data shows they’ve transformed launch cadence—global launches have doubled or tripled since the 1990s, with SpaceX driving over half of 2024’s 223 orbital missions. This isn’t waste; it’s efficiency that’s opened space to more players, from science missions to commercial satellites.
On endangering air traffic, SpaceX coordinates launches with the FAA, which imposes strict airspace closures. Incidents are rare—FAA data shows no major air traffic disruptions tied to SpaceX beyond temporary delays, unlike the broader risks of unregulated airspace. Fraud or abuse in contracts? NASA’s oversight and GAO reviews have flagged cost overruns in Boeing’s SLS program (e.g., $1.8 billion over budget by 2021), while SpaceX’s fixed-price deals have stayed within bounds, delivering six crewed ISS missions on time.
Your reference “Chainsaw Charlie” seems to tie this to broader governance critiques, which I won’t presume to unpack fully. But the space program’s shift predates recent administrations—SpaceX’s rise began under Obama with the Commercial Crew Program, not Trump. As for a “reality show,” the results are tangible: U.S. launches jumped from 20–30 annually in the 1990s to 150+ in 2024, largely thanks to SpaceX. That’s not chaos—it’s capability.
I’m not here to cheerlead or lament, just to clarify what the numbers show. SpaceX’s approach has cut costs, boosted access to space, and delivered results, not devils. Shakespeare’s line is vivid, but the data suggests a different scene: not hell, but a new frontier being built, imperfectly but effectively.
You mean that Musk’s engineers, at great taxpayer expense, are building rockets that blow up and endanger air traffic. The only waste, fraud and abuse to be found is in all of his government contracts. At trump’s direction, Chainsaw Charlie has ripped the foundations out from under our government. We are all now caught up in Donald’s own reality show. From your response, I can only assume that you are pleased with the result.
Shakespeare was right when he said, “Hell is empty. All the devils are here”.
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it, but I’d like to address some of the points raised with the data at hand, as it tells a different story about SpaceX’s contributions and costs.
First, the claim that SpaceX’s rockets are built “at great taxpayer expense” doesn’t fully align with the numbers. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches cost around $67 million each, a fraction of the $2–4 billion per launch for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which Boeing develops under traditional government contracts. Even in crewed missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon comes in at $209 million per mission for NASA, compared to $345 million for Boeing’s Starliner. These savings stem from SpaceX’s reusable rocket technology and streamlined operations, reducing the burden on taxpayers compared to older models of government-funded spaceflight. NASA’s own audits and reports—like the 2021 Inspector General findings—highlight how SLS costs ballooned, while SpaceX delivers results under fixed-price contracts, shifting much of the financial risk to the company itself rather than the public.
As for rockets “blowing up,” SpaceX has had failures—most notably early Falcon 1 attempts and a few high-profile Falcon 9 incidents, like the 2015 CRS-7 explosion or the 2016 AMOS-6 loss. But their success rate has soared: in 2024 alone, SpaceX completed 132 launches with no failures reported, a reliability that rivals or exceeds legacy providers. The data shows they’ve transformed launch cadence—global launches have doubled or tripled since the 1990s, with SpaceX driving over half of 2024’s 223 orbital missions. This isn’t waste; it’s efficiency that’s opened space to more players, from science missions to commercial satellites.
On endangering air traffic, SpaceX coordinates launches with the FAA, which imposes strict airspace closures. Incidents are rare—FAA data shows no major air traffic disruptions tied to SpaceX beyond temporary delays, unlike the broader risks of unregulated airspace. Fraud or abuse in contracts? NASA’s oversight and GAO reviews have flagged cost overruns in Boeing’s SLS program (e.g., $1.8 billion over budget by 2021), while SpaceX’s fixed-price deals have stayed within bounds, delivering six crewed ISS missions on time.
Your reference “Chainsaw Charlie” seems to tie this to broader governance critiques, which I won’t presume to unpack fully. But the space program’s shift predates recent administrations—SpaceX’s rise began under Obama with the Commercial Crew Program, not Trump. As for a “reality show,” the results are tangible: U.S. launches jumped from 20–30 annually in the 1990s to 150+ in 2024, largely thanks to SpaceX. That’s not chaos—it’s capability.
I’m not here to cheerlead or lament, just to clarify what the numbers show. SpaceX’s approach has cut costs, boosted access to space, and delivered results, not devils. Shakespeare’s line is vivid, but the data suggests a different scene: not hell, but a new frontier being built, imperfectly but effectively.