I believe I read in Eric Berger's book Liftoff that the name came from the Star Wars Millennium Falcon.
But your theory has some merit since the timing of the Falcon project's award to SpaceX could be coming about the same time that they named the rocket.
Both theories may be right. The Falcon project grew out of the Reagan era Star Wars project, so it's likely a backronym.
Musk has been a complete trainwreck for years, and it hasn't stopped SpaceX from winning a bunch of government (including defense) contracts, nor---crucially---from delivering on them. The recent Twitter stuff has gotten a lot of airplay, but I'm not sure what's supposed to have happened that would fundamentally change the equation.
Musk has had some trouble recently, but I thought it was pretty well known that Shotwell pretty much runs the show at SpaceX & has for some time. I may be completely incorrect, but I think Musk is mostly just a mascot/figurehead/hype-man for SpaceX & has been for a bit. Regarding most of the day-day stuff that is, he probably still has some input on very long term matters.
But I think if Musk were to die in a mysterious Tesla fire tomorrow, not much would change for the worse at the company for quite some time.
It is well known that Shotwell runs the business side and Musk runs the engineering/R&D side.
Eg. Falcon Heavy was almost cancelled because the engineering side turned out to make it more expensive to develop than expected (with the original plan for fuel crossfeed) and F9 had improved so much that it ate up most of FH's potential market. So Musk's preference was to cancel it. But because it was favorable for the business side (I think they might've even already bid on some launches with it by then), Shotwell pushed for them to keep it, which is how we got the current variation of FH which just has F9s with a reinforced center-core.
It wasn't important to the business side -- they'd only sold a couple launches or so. But Shotwell convinced Elon that it was important to their reputation.
Musk has since cratered his, but Shotwell's is intact.
I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith.
The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer.
In a national security context that would be generally thought of as a completely unacceptable amount of leverage for your main enemy to have over your national security infrastructure.
This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec.
>I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith.
Translation: "I think you're committing wrongthink to be asking such a question, but I'll magnanimously say 'let's operate on good faith'".
>The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco
Ah yes, the world's wealthiest man has invested 20% of his net wealth in something that may or may not work out. Proof that he is a danger to national security!!!1!!11!!!!!
PS - Two questions to ponder:
Q: Wasn't Twitter supposed to have collapsed and died like a month ago? A: Yes.
Q: Isn't Twitter functioning apparently quite well during the current mega world event known as the FIFA World Cup? A: Yes.
>but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer.
Oh, good grief. Musk said that Ukraine might have to give up land to end the war with Russia. A) A negotiated settlement is how 90% of wars in world history have ended, and B) such a settlement has always been the most likely scenario for ending the current war. Maybe it'll be a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, maybe it'll also include parts of eastern Ukraine.
Now, maybe Ukraine's recent successes on the ground will let it regain control over all of its territory, maybe even Crimea. I hope that happens, but (again, even with the recent pushback of Russian lines) that still remains a relatively unlikely outcome.
>This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec.
There is nothing wrong, from a legal or moral perspective, in Musk publicly stating what he said. He is an American and the US is not actually a combatant in the war. Musk is free to say anything he wants, and those who immediately claim that anything short of demanding "Ukrainian forces roll into Moscow and Zelensky personally swings the axe that cuts off Putin's head" = Russian sympathizer/"problem with natsec" just make themselves look stupid.
>You’re the one who has constructed an entire backstory here not me.
It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer.
>You even managed to get the country wrong which was impressive.
If you're referring to my stating that Musk is an American, he is a naturalized US citizen; he'd have to be, to comply with ITAR regulations regarding SpaceX.
> It is true that you are not the one who constructed the backstory of "Buying Twitter + publicly stating that the Ukraine War might not end with Ukraine winning 200% of its goals = 'problem with natsec'", but it does you no favor for merely being the mindless echoer.
Elon Musk didn't say that Ukraine might not win, he actively pushed for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, which is pretty much exactly what Russia wants.
As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russia already occupied about 20% of Ukraine before February.
I've said since the start of the war <https://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/t2nbtx/lets...> that some such deal between Russia and rump Ukraine is a plausible, and perhaps the most likely, end to the war. Such a view, as I understand it, was and remains the consensus view among geopolitical experts.
"pretty much exactly what Russia wanted" as of February was to conquer Kiev rapidly, kill Zelensky and decapitate the Ukrainian government, and quickly end the war with it either absorbing all of Ukraine or much of it with a puppet regime in power ruling the remainder. That failed. Now the best it can likely hope for is some sort of negotiated deal as per above. That does not mean that the complete opposite of Russia's February goal—Russia forced out of all of eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea—is the likely outcome for Ukraine, either.
I repeat: Musk is a citizen of a country which is not actually a combatant in the war. The US has not declared war on Russia, there are no American troops fighting within Ukraine's borders, and the US embassy in Moscow remains open (and vice versa). Insta-denouncing any remark that isn't "Anything short of 100% victory for Ukraine = Putler wins!!!111!!1!!!" as wrongthink is just fatuous.
> As I said, some sort of negotiated settlement is the way 90% of wars end. Proposing such is not "pretty much exactly what Russia wants", especially when Russia already occupied about 20% of Ukraine before February.
A negotiated settlement is not predicated on Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. Why shouldn't Russia cede territory to Ukraine over this war instead?.
> "pretty much exactly what Russia wanted" as of February was to conquer Kiev rapidly, kill Zelensky and decapitate the Ukrainian government, and quickly end the war with it either absorbing all of Ukraine or much of it with a puppet regime in power ruling the remainder. That failed. Now the best it can likely hope for is some sort of negotiated deal as per above. That does not mean that the complete opposite of Russia's February goal—Russia forced out of all of eastern Ukraine, and even Crimea—is the likely outcome for Ukraine, either.
Russias goals have likely, and continue to change, but it's clear that they want at least some of Ukraine.
> I repeat: Musk is a citizen of a country which is not actually a combatant in the war. The US has not declared war on Russia, there are no American troops fighting within Ukraine's borders, and the US embassy in Moscow remains open (and vice versa). Insta-denouncing any remark that isn't "Anything short of 100% victory for Ukraine = Putler wins!!!111!!1!!!" as wrongthink is just fatuous.
Anything short of a Ukrainian victory really just shows Russia they can send in their troops and meet at least some of their goals by concessions. This is detrimental to the entire world, which would be best off is Russia losses decisively and gets nothing of what it wants.
What does the Twitter purchase or Musk’s opinions on the war in Ukraine have to do with Space-X’s capabilities to successfully put satellites into orbit?
