Space X

[omaniphil]

What are you getting at here? That I should cut them some slack because we are comparing quasi-reuseable rockets with one time use units of the 60's?

As an aside, I thought/heard the whole re-useable aspect is a joke.
By the time you have recover, inspect, certify, refurbish a re-useable rocket .... the cost and "turn-around" time doesn't make sense.
Especially if you are putting people on them.
Reuseable rockets are ... to your point I think .... harder to engineer and make, and more expensive than disposable rockets.
They still only will have so many launches in them.
If something fucks up on the reentry/landing part .... ooof, that's a huge loss and really fucks up The Books.

Elon Musk is a moron, but what SpaceX is doing is kind of amazing in revolutionizing spaceflight, and they don't need you to cut them slack.

The re-usability aspect is absolutely not a joke, and is really key to the incredible cost reductions in launches that SpaceX has pioneered. They're basically a full order of magnitude cheaper than their competitors, and the reusability is why.

Here is a chart from wikipedia showing how many times the latest Falcon 9 boosters have been reused. 8 of them have been reused 10 or more times. Thats incredible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F ... e_boosters


Here, we see costs per kg to launch to low earth orbit. Note that the y-axis is logarithmic. Falcon Heavy costs around 1500/kg whereas its closest competitor in the US, Delta IV heavy costs almost $12000/kg.

[aurelius]

Too much 4D chess for Musk. The ongoing Twitter saga has shown he doesn't think that far ahead. Bare in mind he had his engineers make the rocket nose more pointy after watching the Dictator. A rounded nose is better by the way.

I don't think it is 4d chess. Elon wanted to launch as fast as possible, and factors both reasonable (overall design philosophy) and silly (4/20!), no doubt played into that decision. The outcome wasn't ideal but not as bad as some are making it out to be.

The $$$ is no big deal as Space X is a state sponsored company. There is more printed money to replace the printed money that just exploded. It is the lawsuit Space X and the FAA will now have to fight before they can launch again. Which will take a lot longer than 3-6 months to resolve. Please see previous GIF.

I am not sure what a "state sponsored company" is but it seems like an unnecessarily pejorative moniker. SpaceX does contract work for the federal government. So do IBM and Phizer.

And SpaceX is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by taking people and cargo, for the government, to space for orders of magnitude cheaper than anything the government has access to before.

Boeing has gotten billions of dollars for Starliner alone and it has yet to carry a live passenger. The next closest thing to Starship is the SLS/Orion that NASA is building with the help of the usual suspects. That has been in development for almost 20 years, they have spent $50b so far, and have had one uncrewed test flight, and that was built literally out of left-over space shuttle parts. And yeah it didn't explode. Congratulations Government.

Whether the government should be spending tax money on spaceflight is a fine discussion to have, but the fact is the congress you people elected wants to spend that money so I'd prefer they do so with the lowest cost provider, and that is SpaceX by a mile.

I am being snarky and referencing Musk labeling NPR “state sponsored media” when they receive very little funding from the federal government while Space X receives billions. I appreciate your lengthy response.

[mikeylikey]

I am being snarky and referencing Musk labeling NPR “state sponsored media”

Missed it. That's actually funny.

[mikeylikey]

The royal launchpad is clean, your highness.

[mbasic]

The royal launchpad is clean, your highness.

ju lyk all the bisches panties when I walk into the gym

[mikeylikey]

It took pretty much exactly 3 months to repair and upgrade the pad after the first test. During which time they were making changes to the staging system of the rocket anyway. They rolled out the booster to the pad this morning, so another launch this year seems almost certain, and possibly a third. What I'm saying is it probably was not as stupid as many assumed to go for it in April.

[DoctorWho]

Greetings fellow time-wasters.

Musk walked with dozens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars from paypal (or whatever) as a young man. He spent it ALL on (i) Tesla, (ii) Space X, (iii) Boring, and (iv) whatever the chip-in-your-brain thing is named. At the time, to me (i) elec cars were underpowered Prius's that sucked. Last successful new car company was jeep about 75 years ago (ii) nobody can equal NASA + liability = failure. (iii) another intersting concept that seems impractical. (iv) sci fi.

To me, all very likely failures. If they all fail he loses the wealth, which could have given him a lifetime of yachts & models.

Like him personally or not, that's a man right there.

[aurelius]

Greetings fellow time-wasters.

Musk walked with dozens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars from paypal (or whatever) as a young man. He spent it ALL on (i) Tesla, (ii) Space X, (iii) Boring, and (iv) whatever the chip-in-your-brain thing is named. At the time, to me (i) elec cars were underpowered Prius's that sucked. Last successful new car company was jeep about 75 years ago (ii) nobody can equal NASA + liability = failure. (iii) another intersting concept that seems impractical. (iv) sci fi.

To me, all very likely failures. If they all fail he loses the wealth, which could have given him a lifetime of yachts & models.

Like him personally or not, that's a man right there.

Musk's business acumen is going into industries that have not adopted modern computer advancements to logistics/development and applying them. He has not 'invented' any new technology. Take his two successes:

Solar City/Tesla: Solar panels were invented in 1883. Electric motors are very simple and invented before internal combustion engines. The battery technology has been understood for some time. Have you seen a Tesla car battery? It's like 1000 AA batteries taped together. Not super high tech stuff. It is really limited by availability of rare earth materials. Musk recognized a market that the existing car manufacturers were ignoring. He took advantage.

Space X: the technology (rocket fuel and aluminum rockets were invented in the 50's) was invented in the 50's. Musk has access to 3D printing technology (that is the materials/construction advantage Space X has over previous eras) that allows those designs to be cost effective and viable (less welding points). Musk recognized an established need to deliver pay loads into near space and took advantage.

This is similar to Amazon's game plan. That applied modern computer technology to logistics to take over supply chains. Bezos chose a very antiquated and inefficient supply chain to take over first (books). Then expanded into other markets once his infrastructure was established. Amazon expanded into groceries with the purchase of Whole Foods hoping to apply the same advantages and has found that difficult to actually implement.

Musk has had ittle success where modern computing does not give a competitive advantage. Take Boring. It is an expensive, intensive process where little efficiency is to be found.
Or entering markets that have already had the improvements of modern computing applied like Twitter. Musk isn't going to find efficiencies or adopt novel approaches that Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook...aren't doing. His run at Twitter
has shown him to be short-sighted, petulant, thin-skinned, and egotistical. Which hurts his other endeavors.

Not saying he isn't a good businessman. He should be credited for recognizing opportunity in the market and seizing it. But like most, when he operates outside of his proven game plan, he demonstrates fallibility.

[Hardartery]

Greetings fellow time-wasters.

Musk walked with dozens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars from paypal (or whatever) as a young man. He spent it ALL on (i) Tesla, (ii) Space X, (iii) Boring, and (iv) whatever the chip-in-your-brain thing is named. At the time, to me (i) elec cars were underpowered Prius's that sucked. Last successful new car company was jeep about 75 years ago (ii) nobody can equal NASA + liability = failure. (iii) another intersting concept that seems impractical. (iv) sci fi.

To me, all very likely failures. If they all fail he loses the wealth, which could have given him a lifetime of yachts & models.

Like him personally or not, that's a man right there.

Musk's business acumen is going into industries that have not adopted modern computer advancements to logistics/development and applying them. He has not 'invented' any new technology. Take his two successes:

Solar City/Tesla: Solar panels were invented in 1883. Electric motors are very simple and invented before internal combustion engines. The battery technology has been understood for some time. Have you seen a Tesla car battery? It's like 1000 AA batteries taped together. Not super high tech stuff. It is really limited by availability of rare earth materials. Musk recognized a market that the existing car manufacturers were ignoring. He took advantage.

Space X: the technology (rocket fuel and aluminum rockets were invented in the 50's) was invented in the 50's. Musk has access to 3D printing technology (that is the materials/construction advantage Space X has over previous eras) that allows those designs to be cost effective and viable (less welding points). Musk recognized an established need to deliver pay loads into near space and took advantage.

This is similar to Amazon's game plan. That applied modern computer technology to logistics to take over supply chains. Bezos chose a very antiquated and inefficient supply chain to take over first (books). Then expanded into other markets once his infrastructure was established. Amazon expanded into groceries with the purchase of Whole Foods hoping to apply the same advantages and has found that difficult to actually implement.

Musk has had ittle success where modern computing does not give a competitive advantage. Take Boring. It is an expensive, intensive process where little efficiency is to be found.
Or entering markets that have already had the improvements of modern computing applied like Twitter. Musk isn't going to find efficiencies or adopt novel approaches that Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook...aren't doing. His run at Twitter
has shown him to be short-sighted, petulant, thin-skinned, and egotistical. Which hurts his other endeavors.

Not saying he isn't a good businessman. He should be credited for recognizing opportunity in the market and seizing it. But like most, when he operates outside of his proven game plan, he demonstrates fallibility.

You are highly critical of Musk, and yet he is doing what most well known and successful business men have done since the Industrial Revolution. The inventors typically do not make any money, and don't know what to do with it if they do. Tesla died heavily in debt and with nothing to his name, and yet he is responsible for a great deal of the things we use daily. The men he sold his rights and inventions to were fabulously wealthy. I am not particularly defending Musk, and am not enamoured of him, but your review of him and his businesses is pity and smacks of envy. His "Run" at Twitter doesn't show anything yet, it just started. He show typical form so far, venturing into Trading and finance first might very well give him more success than he is even shooting for with it and his actions provide publicity at the very least. And there is no such thing as bad publicity.

[aurelius]

You are highly critical of Musk, and yet he is doing what most well known and successful business men have done since the Industrial Revolution. The inventors typically do not make any money, and don't know what to do with it if they do. Tesla died heavily in debt and with nothing to his name, and yet he is responsible for a great deal of the things we use daily. The men he sold his rights and inventions to were fabulously wealthy. I am not particularly defending Musk, and am not enamoured of him, but your review of him and his businesses is pity and smacks of envy. His "Run" at Twitter doesn't show anything yet, it just started. He show typical form so far, venturing into Trading and finance first might very well give him more success than he is even shooting for with it and his actions provide publicity at the very least. And there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I have been highly critical of Musk in other posts. I do not believe my previous post was highly critical of him. I think you reading a lot into the post based on your perception of me which is more telling of you. My main point with discussing 'inventing', probably not clear in my post, is that Musk is lauded in some circles as a genius.

To be clear: Musk is 100% a great businessman. And the #1 trait of a great businessman is to take huge risks. #2 is vision. I will state again that Musk saw opportunity in existing markets where others had not. That has been his main reason for success with Space X and Tesla.

What you perceive as envy is frustration and disappointment. Not at Musk. I think there is a lot wrong with the US/Western capitalist system. Capitalists, a classic example is Trump, create corporations and organize them in a manner such that if companies fail, operate illegally, and so forth they are essentially personally immune from consequences. Add to that politicians routinely bail corporations out when they fail. So why not swing for the fences? The risk/reward equation is so out of whack in the US economic system. It only benefits a very few. Wealth accumulation into a very few has negative repercussions to the whole that we are witnessing. Musk is not the cause just the symptom.

Twitter, I mean X, could turn around/sustain and become profitable. But that isn't a success. Musk purchased Twitter for $44 Billion 2022 dollars. It will never be worth that again nor will he derive profit from it over his lifetime that will justify the purchase price. He took a risk (I would say foolishely) and it didn't pan out. He's a businessman. That is what they do. Musk is fine because he organized his risk in such a manner that it won't matter if Twitter went belly up tomorrow.

[Hardartery]

You are highly critical of Musk, and yet he is doing what most well known and successful business men have done since the Industrial Revolution. The inventors typically do not make any money, and don't know what to do with it if they do. Tesla died heavily in debt and with nothing to his name, and yet he is responsible for a great deal of the things we use daily. The men he sold his rights and inventions to were fabulously wealthy. I am not particularly defending Musk, and am not enamoured of him, but your review of him and his businesses is pity and smacks of envy. His "Run" at Twitter doesn't show anything yet, it just started. He show typical form so far, venturing into Trading and finance first might very well give him more success than he is even shooting for with it and his actions provide publicity at the very least. And there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I have been highly critical of Musk in other posts. I do not believe my previous post was highly critical of him. I think you reading a lot into the post based on your perception of me which is more telling of you. My main point with discussing 'inventing', probably not clear in my post, is that Musk is lauded in some circles as a genius.

To be clear: Musk is 100% a great businessman. And the #1 trait of a great businessman is to take huge risks. #2 is vision. I will state again that Musk saw opportunity in existing markets where others had not. That has been his main reason for success with Space X and Tesla.

What you perceive as envy is frustration and disappointment. Not at Musk. I think there is a lot wrong with the US/Western capitalist system. Capitalists, a classic example is Trump, create corporations and organize them in a manner such that if companies fail, operate illegally, and so forth they are essentially personally immune from consequences. Add to that politicians routinely bail corporations out when they fail. So why not swing for the fences? The risk/reward equation is so out of whack in the US economic system. It only benefits a very few. Wealth accumulation into a very few has negative repercussions to the whole that we are witnessing. Musk is not the cause just the symptom.

Twitter, I mean X, could turn around/sustain and become profitable. But that isn't a success. Musk purchased Twitter for $44 Billion 2022 dollars. It will never be worth that again nor will he derive profit from it over his lifetime that will justify the purchase price. He took a risk (I would say foolishely) and it didn't pan out. He's a businessman. That is what they do. Musk is fine because he organized his risk in such a manner that it won't matter if Twitter went belly up tomorrow.

My perception of you is that you are the type of guy that I am familiar with from my working life. Frustrated by many things in life, yet reasonably successful if examined apart from comparisons with others who are more daring or had greater opportunity. You are somewhat left-leaning, but not entirely. You look at things like an engineer. Musk rubs you the wrong way because he is an engineer, socially awkward and weird, but in the right place at the right time to take advantage of his autism and workaholic leanings. I would guess that his success is not worth the personal price for you personally. I may have the wrong impression of you, but you strike me as very much akin to many guys that I worked with at phone companies in the office.

That aside, Twitter/X is entirely too much in it's infancy to suffer judgement as a risk. It could easily blow that valuation to dust. Or it might fail with a whimper. I would consider The Boring Company to be much more likely a failure, and I agree with your sentiment that the current economic model is unbalanced and rewards behaviour such as Musk's with no regard for possible negative consequences for society in general. I'm just saying you are in a rush to judgement on Twitter/X, and I think that is because you are being swayed by the things that influence your life in that assessment rather than making an entirely empirical examination. In short, you don't like him (Obvious from every single post you have made about him) and you let that colour your opinion in addition to the similar opinion that form the echo chambers of each persons sphere of influence. You do you, I'm just expressing an outside and probably unwanted opinion.

[DoctorWho]

Greetings fellow time-wasters.

Musk walked with dozens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars from paypal (or whatever) as a young man. He spent it ALL on (i) Tesla, (ii) Space X, (iii) Boring, and (iv) whatever the chip-in-your-brain thing is named. At the time, to me (i) elec cars were underpowered Prius's that sucked. Last successful new car company was jeep about 75 years ago (ii) nobody can equal NASA + liability = failure. (iii) another intersting concept that seems impractical. (iv) sci fi.

To me, all very likely failures. If they all fail he loses the wealth, which could have given him a lifetime of yachts & models.

Like him personally or not, that's a man right there.

Musk's business acumen is going into industries that have not adopted modern computer advancements to logistics/development and applying them. He has not 'invented' any new technology. Take his two successes:

Solar City/Tesla: Solar panels were invented in 1883. Electric motors are very simple and invented before internal combustion engines. The battery technology has been understood for some time. Have you seen a Tesla car battery? It's like 1000 AA batteries taped together. Not super high tech stuff. It is really limited by availability of rare earth materials. Musk recognized a market that the existing car manufacturers were ignoring. He took advantage.

Space X: the technology (rocket fuel and aluminum rockets were invented in the 50's) was invented in the 50's. Musk has access to 3D printing technology (that is the materials/construction advantage Space X has over previous eras) that allows those designs to be cost effective and viable (less welding points). Musk recognized an established need to deliver pay loads into near space and took advantage.

This is similar to Amazon's game plan. That applied modern computer technology to logistics to take over supply chains. Bezos chose a very antiquated and inefficient supply chain to take over first (books). Then expanded into other markets once his infrastructure was established. Amazon expanded into groceries with the purchase of Whole Foods hoping to apply the same advantages and has found that difficult to actually implement.

Musk has had ittle success where modern computing does not give a competitive advantage. Take Boring. It is an expensive, intensive process where little efficiency is to be found.
Or entering markets that have already had the improvements of modern computing applied like Twitter. Musk isn't going to find efficiencies or adopt novel approaches that Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook...aren't doing. His run at Twitter
has shown him to be short-sighted, petulant, thin-skinned, and egotistical. Which hurts his other endeavors.

Not saying he isn't a good businessman. He should be credited for recognizing opportunity in the market and seizing it. But like most, when he operates outside of his proven game plan, he demonstrates fallibility.

Right! It's all so easy.

If only the Waltons knew that computers exist.

[aurelius]

Right! It's all so easy.

If only the Waltons knew that computers exist.

I stated Musk is a great businessman. Your position is Musk’s success was ‘easy’?

What does Sam Walton in a different era and different industry have to do with Musk’s successful business model?

[aurelius]

You do you, I'm just expressing an outside and probably unwanted opinion.

you are correct that I don’t like Musk. He spreads lies like “you don’t need an education”. When he himself is a highly educated engineer and you can’t work for his companies without an education. In a world where we need people to be smarter Musk is actively making it dumber.

You failed to respond to anything I wrote and just attacked me. I assumed good intent and clarified in my response. You proceed to double down with another attack on me guised as dime store psychoanalysis based on “some guys I know”.

I have certainly gotten in my internet scrapes. Mostly just embarrassed by them to be honest. Working to be better. But immediately going to personal attacks to defend a billionaires business acumen or whatever is Definitely not my hill to die on. Okay. Have a nice night.

[Hardartery]

You do you, I'm just expressing an outside and probably unwanted opinion.

you are correct that I don’t like Musk. He spreads lies like “you don’t need an education”. When he himself is a highly educated engineer and you can’t work for his companies without an education. In a world where we need people to be smarter Musk is actively making it dumber.

You failed to respond to anything I wrote and just attacked me. I assumed good intent and clarified in my response. You proceed to double down with another attack on me guised as dime store psychoanalysis based on “some guys I know”.

I have certainly gotten in my internet scrapes. Mostly just embarrassed by them to be honest. Working to be better. But immediately going to personal attacks to defend a billionaires business acumen or whatever is Definitely not my hill to die on. Okay. Have a nice night.

I wasn't meaning anything as an attack. Speaking on a personal level, I don't like Musk either, I don't think that he is a very nice person. That said, I am sure I would have disliked all of the Robber Barons and most of the "Successful" people as denoted by history writings. You proffered an explanation of my perception versus what you actually feel towards him, I shared what my perception, very generally speaking, is of you. I don't know you personally, so I don't know anything to speak of you other than generalities gathered here. And by "Guys I know" I mean people that I in some cases actually like but match your general tone and what seems to be your educational background. Nothing malicious intended there. I merely think you allow your obvious dislike of the man to bleed through into your characterizations of some of his decisions. It happens. I am confident that I am equally guilty of it regarding plenty of people.

I suspect that if his plans for the financial services side of Twitter/X come to pass, the value will come to be many times the initial 44 billion. I also think what he was really buying was a few patents and a lot of publicity. Hard to know how much is too much for your advertising budget when the plans are that grand.

[JonA]

If only the Waltons knew that computers exist.

Yeah. "Modern computer technology" isn't just laying around. Companies like Amazon literally invented it to satisfy their needs.

Amazon sells rents it's technology platform. It's the sole reason that Amazon has any operational profit.

[DoctorWho]

If only the Waltons knew that computers exist.

Yeah. "Modern computer technology" isn't just laying around. Companies like Amazon literally invented it to satisfy their needs.

Amazon sells rents it's technology platform. It's the sole reason that Amazon has any operational profit.

Good point.

A friend convinced me that BarnesandNoble.com was going to kill Amazon -- when Amazon sold only books in the days when I was trying to trade internet stocks. Then it seemed like a bad idea when Amazon expanded outside of books because for evertyhing important, I wanted to see and hold it before buying.

Being so wrong twice, I was prepared by the success of Amazon fulfillment that lets me and you use their warehouses to sell and deliver to anyone. And Amazon Web Services seems like another success.

[DoctorWho]

Right! It's all so easy.

If only the Waltons knew that computers exist.

I stated Musk is a great businessman. Your position is Musk’s success was ‘easy’?

What does Sam Walton in a different era and different industry have to do with Musk’s successful business model?

Explaining the world-changing effect of Musk, Bezos as "hey, they were good businessmen" and "hey, they didn't invent anything new" misses the point. Same for "he's not infallable." Same could be said for Ford & Jobs, even though the Musk and Bezos stories are still playing out.

All of the above guys are or were wrong at lot. It's expected and built in. Mostly what I feel toward those guys is gratitude.

[DoctorWho]

You are highly critical of Musk, and yet he is doing what most well known and successful business men have done since the Industrial Revolution. The inventors typically do not make any money, and don't know what to do with it if they do. Tesla died heavily in debt and with nothing to his name, and yet he is responsible for a great deal of the things we use daily. The men he sold his rights and inventions to were fabulously wealthy. I am not particularly defending Musk, and am not enamoured of him, but your review of him and his businesses is pity and smacks of envy. His "Run" at Twitter doesn't show anything yet, it just started. He show typical form so far, venturing into Trading and finance first might very well give him more success than he is even shooting for with it and his actions provide publicity at the very least. And there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I have been highly critical of Musk in other posts. I do not believe my previous post was highly critical of him. I think you reading a lot into the post based on your perception of me which is more telling of you. My main point with discussing 'inventing', probably not clear in my post, is that Musk is lauded in some circles as a genius.

To be clear: Musk is 100% a great businessman. And the #1 trait of a great businessman is to take huge risks. #2 is vision. I will state again that Musk saw opportunity in existing markets where others had not. That has been his main reason for success with Space X and Tesla.

What you perceive as envy is frustration and disappointment. Not at Musk. I think there is a lot wrong with the US/Western capitalist system. Capitalists, a classic example is Trump, create corporations and organize them in a manner such that if companies fail, operate illegally, and so forth they are essentially personally immune from consequences. Add to that politicians routinely bail corporations out when they fail. So why not swing for the fences? The risk/reward equation is so out of whack in the US economic system. It only benefits a very few. Wealth accumulation into a very few has negative repercussions to the whole that we are witnessing. Musk is not the cause just the symptom.

I don't think that you've thought this trough. If a company should be held liabile for harm (which I think we agree is yes), and it damages the world more than it could pay, then who is responsible? The shareholders (meaning you and me)?

The officers? We already have that for intentional acts, but (without the benefit of hindsight) innocent choices that turn out badly?

Insurers? OK, so then when the insurer can't pay?

[aurelius]

Yeah. "Modern computer technology" isn't just laying around. Companies like Amazon literally invented it to satisfy their needs.

Correct. AWS is now the core business of Amazon. I see and agree with you that Amazon invented the infrastructure to make what they do possible.

It is an obvious gross simplification of the business model Bezos pioneered describing it as using modern computer technology. I'm writing in short-hand because this is sub-forum on strength training board. Caveats for broad generalizations and gross simplifications. Do we really need these disclaimers at this point?