6 ms·

Nobody deserves it more than Elon. After PayPal the guy could have just done what so many others do, lay down and casually invest, chill on a beach, and let oth

by shingen 15y ago

Nobody deserves it more than Elon. After PayPal the guy could have just done what so many others do, lay down and casually invest, chill on a beach, and let others do the hard work. Instead he's killing himself running multiple ground breaking companies, directly challenging near government monopolies in GM / Ford / Boeing / Lockheed (protected by massive lobbying, deep political ties going back decades, and regulation designed to protect them from competition). If America could get a few more Elon Musks, we might start to get our mojo back. Hey there immigration policy.

smeg 15y ago
I remember watching another video about the Falcon Heavy Rocket, and how it was designed with a large number of small rockets cones at the bottom, so a certain number can die yet the whole thing can still reach orbit. I just seemed so elegant and efficient, the kind of thing that could only have come from the mind of private industry that is so mindful of cost and efficiency, unlike the government which only build monstrosities at ridiculous expense (to the taxpayer).
- ballooney 15y ago
  Quite incorrect. If we rewind to the golden age in the 60s, the US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage. The UK's Black Arrow had 8 identical engines in 4 pairs. Russia's Soyuz has 20. Similarly, if you ask anyone at SpaceX they would tell you it's difficult to underestimate how much they owe to the old grey-beards from NASA who are still around and who helped them get up to speed quickly, avoiding many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars of blind alleys and reinventing the wheel. SpaceX is a wonderful example of good engineers - old nasa ones and fresh graduates, united by a common mindset, with enlightened (for which private is often but not strictly a prerequisite) management. That's where they succeed, I think. They look at where they are now, where they want to be, and keep the string taught between the two. But don't think SpaceX could have done this in a vacuum (hohoho). Of the several SpaceXers I've met, including Elon Musk himself back when he had time to give talks at SEDS conferences, none would make such a claim, certainly.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    > "he US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage." Ah yes... but what did the second stage have? Not more F-1's, but J-2's, which did not even use the same fuel! Compare this with the route SpaceX is taking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)#Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)#Revision...
    - ballooney 15y ago
      Yes indeed, and even sillier was that the engines were built by an entirely different company in a different state. But that just goes back to why private money is smarter - it's not allowed near senators who each want their slice of cake. The current SLS (waggishly called the senate launch system in some circles) has had most of its major technical decisions made on the basis of politics - eg having to use shuttle derived solid rocket boosters to keep that factory open. I think Apollo only got away with it because money was no object. Again I think this is where the strength of SpaceX lies (modulo the obvious like hiring smart and/or very experienced people) - they are quite free of all this nonsense, their PMs and designers and fabricators are all under once roof and can close the loop on design and manufacturing feedback and iteration. It's very much like skunkworks back in the day. Having said all that, they're not immune to interference. Dealing with NASA and the ISS means you have to renormalise what constitutes 'exciting' and 'newsworthy' so where in the early days we had things about engines tests and re-entry tests, now we get releases beginning with sentences like 'Today, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) announced it has successfully completed the preliminary design review...'[1]. I've worked on projects with which NASA or ESA have suddenly got involved and I've seen first hand how the innocence get lost, you go from running to wading through treacle, and you have a bizarre out of body experience where you sit in on one of the meetings and wonder how it has taken three hours for them to agree that a decision should be made about something (but not actually make a decision). If you've not read skunkworks, I'd highly recommend it. A lot of it details how one of Kelly Johnson's key strengths was being rather brutal to his 'customers' (DoD usually) to prevent their incompetence, expense and geological timescales leaking into his outfit. I can quite understand this offensive form of defence, having seen what government tentacles can do to an otherwise good project. [1]http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020
hristov 15y ago
Elon Musk is certainly to be commended but when you talk about him challenging government monopolies, it should be mentioned that the government helped him out quite a bit too. Tesla was bailed out with government loans. AFAIK even his rocket business benefited from government orders, although I think he had to sue the government to get their orders.
- shingen 15y ago
  It's the least they could do for making it so radically expensive to start a new car company in the first place. Not to mention the Feds were giving massive loans to the other manufacturers under the same umbrella (DOE). Fortunately I doubt the taxpayer will lose billions on the Tesla loan, unlike the GM bailout fiasco.
  - ceejayoz 15y ago
    Fiasco? Even the Republicans fighting in the primaries are having to hem and haw and grudgingly admit that it seems to have worked out pretty well.
    - EREFUNDO 15y ago
      I agree, no matter how much any one spins it the bailout of the auto-industry seems to be the right move.
    - shingen 15y ago
      The fiasco is the losing $10 to $15 billion in taxpayer funds part, according to the latest update by the Treasury on expected outcomes to that deal.
      - ceejayoz 15y ago
        How much in lost tax revenues, new unemployment, new Medicaid, and other economic damages would've been incurred by having GM - and the thousands of smaller businesses dependent on its existence - collapse? I suspect we'd have been in the hole for a lot more than $10-15 billion.

by shingen 15y ago

smeg 15y ago

I remember watching another video about the Falcon Heavy Rocket, and how it was designed with a large number of small rockets cones at the bottom, so a certain number can die yet the whole thing can still reach orbit. I just seemed so elegant and efficient, the kind of thing that could only have come from the mind of private industry that is so mindful of cost and efficiency, unlike the government which only build monstrosities at ridiculous expense (to the taxpayer).

ballooney 15y ago
Quite incorrect. If we rewind to the golden age in the 60s, the US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage. The UK's Black Arrow had 8 identical engines in 4 pairs. Russia's Soyuz has 20. Similarly, if you ask anyone at SpaceX they would tell you it's difficult to underestimate how much they owe to the old grey-beards from NASA who are still around and who helped them get up to speed quickly, avoiding many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars of blind alleys and reinventing the wheel. SpaceX is a wonderful example of good engineers - old nasa ones and fresh graduates, united by a common mindset, with enlightened (for which private is often but not strictly a prerequisite) management. That's where they succeed, I think. They look at where they are now, where they want to be, and keep the string taught between the two. But don't think SpaceX could have done this in a vacuum (hohoho). Of the several SpaceXers I've met, including Elon Musk himself back when he had time to give talks at SEDS conferences, none would make such a claim, certainly.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  > "he US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage." Ah yes... but what did the second stage have? Not more F-1's, but J-2's, which did not even use the same fuel! Compare this with the route SpaceX is taking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)#Revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)#Revision...
  - ballooney 15y ago
    Yes indeed, and even sillier was that the engines were built by an entirely different company in a different state. But that just goes back to why private money is smarter - it's not allowed near senators who each want their slice of cake. The current SLS (waggishly called the senate launch system in some circles) has had most of its major technical decisions made on the basis of politics - eg having to use shuttle derived solid rocket boosters to keep that factory open. I think Apollo only got away with it because money was no object. Again I think this is where the strength of SpaceX lies (modulo the obvious like hiring smart and/or very experienced people) - they are quite free of all this nonsense, their PMs and designers and fabricators are all under once roof and can close the loop on design and manufacturing feedback and iteration. It's very much like skunkworks back in the day. Having said all that, they're not immune to interference. Dealing with NASA and the ISS means you have to renormalise what constitutes 'exciting' and 'newsworthy' so where in the early days we had things about engines tests and re-entry tests, now we get releases beginning with sentences like 'Today, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) announced it has successfully completed the preliminary design review...'[1]. I've worked on projects with which NASA or ESA have suddenly got involved and I've seen first hand how the innocence get lost, you go from running to wading through treacle, and you have a bizarre out of body experience where you sit in on one of the meetings and wonder how it has taken three hours for them to agree that a decision should be made about something (but not actually make a decision). If you've not read skunkworks, I'd highly recommend it. A lot of it details how one of Kelly Johnson's key strengths was being rather brutal to his 'customers' (DoD usually) to prevent their incompetence, expense and geological timescales leaking into his outfit. I can quite understand this offensive form of defence, having seen what government tentacles can do to an otherwise good project. [1]http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020 http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020

hristov 15y ago

Elon Musk is certainly to be commended but when you talk about him challenging government monopolies, it should be mentioned that the government helped him out quite a bit too. Tesla was bailed out with government loans. AFAIK even his rocket business benefited from government orders, although I think he had to sue the government to get their orders.

shingen 15y ago
It's the least they could do for making it so radically expensive to start a new car company in the first place. Not to mention the Feds were giving massive loans to the other manufacturers under the same umbrella (DOE). Fortunately I doubt the taxpayer will lose billions on the Tesla loan, unlike the GM bailout fiasco.
- ceejayoz 15y ago
  Fiasco? Even the Republicans fighting in the primaries are having to hem and haw and grudgingly admit that it seems to have worked out pretty well.
  - EREFUNDO 15y ago
    I agree, no matter how much any one spins it the bailout of the auto-industry seems to be the right move.
  - shingen 15y ago
    The fiasco is the losing $10 to $15 billion in taxpayer funds part, according to the latest update by the Treasury on expected outcomes to that deal.
    - ceejayoz 15y ago
      How much in lost tax revenues, new unemployment, new Medicaid, and other economic damages would've been incurred by having GM - and the thousands of smaller businesses dependent on its existence - collapse? I suspect we'd have been in the hole for a lot more than $10-15 billion.