He had SpaceX buy 19% of his CyberTruck inventory that isn't selling to inflate his CyberTruck sales figure ... now that's classic.

Back to reality Musk.

Hopefully those of you here on AVSIM didn't buy into SpaceX IPO.

The right way to approach this problem is with multi-government funding (aka tax payers) if they want to be serious about reaching Mars.

Edited Friday at 09:58 PM2 days by SayAgain

9 hours ago, SayAgain said:

The right way to approach this problem is with multi-government funding (aka tax payers) if they want to be serious about reaching Mars.

Rob..... you did know that's a fake AI video, created for entertainment and not Brian Cox's words? Brian is a fan of SpaceX and their ambition to reach Mars, if I recall correctly.

Also... both the Artemis program to go back to the Moon and form a permanent presence, and a future manned mission to Mars, is a NASA ambition, so yes, funded by the tax payer. This will be in partnership with private companies like SpaceX, that way, cheaper for the taxpayer.

"Yes, NASA plans to head to Mars after establishing a sustainable presence on the Moon. The NASA Artemis Program uses the Moon as a stepping stone and testing ground to develop the critical life support, communication, and habitation technologies required for a future crewed mission to Mars in the 2030s."

Edited Saturday at 07:07 AM2 days by martin-w

I don't think it is uncommon for a stock IPO to rapidly gain value in the first few days after the IPO, then fall to well under the IPO price. I expect some investors buy at the IPO and sell within the first few days, cashing in on the excitement of the IPO, but that can also weaken the value of the remaining shares.

2 hours ago, stans said:

don't think it is uncommon for a stock IPO to rapidly gain value in the first few days after the IPO, then fall to well under the IPO price. I expect some investors buy at the IPO and

Exactly. Most investment advice, prior, was to wait for the initial volatility to settle down.

SpaceX didn't "lose" anything. The stock valuation simply went down.

The company collected a massive amount of money when it went public and sold shares. That money didn't disappear.

The people who maybe lost money are the ones who bought shares at the IPO price or higher, as the stock has fallen well below its IPO price. I say "maybe" because even investors who own shares valued at less than what they paid for them don't actually lose money until they sell those shares at a loss.

I suspect that this post is more about dislike of Elon Musk than simply a criticism of of SpaceX.

Dave

Edited Saturday at 01:39 PM2 days by dave2013

@stans Agree, but the “common” increase pattern usually lasts more than 1.5 months. The failures in SpaceX program and the fact the current design simply will not make Mars journey viable. Brian Cox details the many specific reasons as to why Starship is no more than marketing hype vs. the real physics involved.

Those pesky Physicists hitting us with reality crushing the spirit of the “believers”

"The failures in SpaceX program and the fact the current design simply will not make Mars journey viable. Brian Cox details the many specific reasons as to why Starship is no more than marketing hype vs. the real physics involved."

Again, that wasnt Brian Cox. It was a fake AI video.

What failures of the SpaceX program? They are prototypes in testing and testing is progressing well, and not meant for Mars. A version of the current prototype, the HLS, will be the Moon lander, or possibly a blue origin contender.

Unfortunately, for some strange reason, you have put me on your ignore list, so you won't see these replies. Others will though, so it's good that inaccurate information is corrected.

I understand you aren't a fan of Musk, you aren't alone, but SpaceX have achieved remarkable things, so we mustn't let our opinions of their boss get in the way of that. It's not fair to the talented engineers that work for the company to do that.

Edited Saturday at 08:50 PM1 day by martin-w

I made a fake YT video recommending investing in Fielder's Famous Rockets. Unfortunately, nobody was fooled :(

3 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Brian Cox details the many specific reasons as to why Starship is no more than marketing hype vs. the real physics involved.

You do understand that the video you posted has nothing to do with PBR?

Regardless of whatever marketing hype may be involved, the 'real physics' are launching vehicles, putting satellites in orbit and plowing ahead with rapid development.

The 'multi government funding' solution plods along with a vehicle that puts very brave volunteers into space whilst everyone holds their breath hoping they're not watching another tragedy unfold.