Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

Page 79 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 11, 2004
23,285
5,724
146
Contrary to popular myth and the delusional teachings of Ayn Rand, no single person is ever responsible for advancements in human technology. Not in the past, and certainly not now. I can appreciate that Musk's risk taking likely sped up some advancements by a few years (if not decades), but without him, there still would have been someone else.

I also think you all are missing the point when I'm talking about what Musk's cons are. You guys think Tesla and you likely think EVs, but EV's aren't why TSLA achieved a market cap greater than all the other automakers combined. That was because Musk promised FSD. Which was a con. Tesla is nowhere near FSD. Likewise, with SpaceX, you all likely think of reusable rockets, but what's actually been driving investment into SpaceX has been Musk's "dream" of putting 100k humans on Mars in a self-sustaining permanent settlement by the end of the 2030s. Which is also a con (for a long list of reasons).

I don't agree that FSD is why Tesla is where its at. In fact I'd say the opposite as its been very clear for awhile now that Musk's vision of FSD isn't feasible anywhere close to the timeframe he claimed, and Tesla has continued to be successful in spite of that (and in spite of that issue specifically leading to scrutiny and growing number of lawsuits even). Its because Tesla is iterating on the changeover to electric vehicles, which now has a timeframe (laws being passed banning ICE in like 2035 many places). We'll see if that momentum continues as others are starting to see success as well (including large established automakers like Ford and GM), but Tesla is ahead of the game still in many respects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heartbreaker

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Investors aren't chasing Mars, or FSD. They are responding to practical things like Tesla being very profitable, and SpaceX successfully having a string launches and landings.
Nonsense. The only reason TSLA has a larger market cap than all of the other automakers combined is because Musk promised FSD so good you could rent your Model 3 out as a self-driving taxi. Without that, there is no financial justification for TSLA's share price, not at $1600 or $700. And without Starship going to Mars, SpaceX is bankrupt. Musk even said so himself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Nonsense. The only reason TSLA has a larger market cap than all of the other automakers combined is because Musk promised FSD so good you could rent your Model 3 out as a self-driving taxi. Without that, there is no financial justification for TSLA's share price, not at $1600 or $700. And without Starship going to Mars, SpaceX is bankrupt. Musk even said so himself.
Well Musk often makes hyperbolic and silly statements about his companies. As far as I can tell SpaceX has a significant launch cost advantage in all other launch companies in the world so it seems like they have a pretty business case going forward.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
I don't agree that FSD is why Tesla is where its at. In fact I'd say the opposite as its been very clear for awhile now that Musk's vision of FSD isn't feasible anywhere close to the timeframe he claimed, and Tesla has continued to be successful in spite of that (and in spite of that issue specifically leading to scrutiny and growing number of lawsuits even). Its because Tesla is iterating on the changeover to electric vehicles, which now has a timeframe (laws being passed banning ICE in like 2035 many places). We'll see if that momentum continues as others are starting to see success as well (including large established automakers like Ford and GM), but Tesla is ahead of the game still in many respects.

Watch as Ford and VW blow past Tesla in EV production in the next 5 years.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Well Musk often makes hyperbolic and silly statements about his companies. As far as I can tell SpaceX has a significant launch cost advantage in all other launch companies in the world so it seems like they have a pretty business case going forward.

I wholeheartedly agree that SpaceX has a potentially solid business model for launching satellites and humans into orbit. But with so much of their resources being devoted instead to Starship and Mars...
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
I don't agree that FSD is why Tesla is where its at. In fact I'd say the opposite as its been very clear for awhile now that Musk's vision of FSD isn't feasible anywhere close to the timeframe he claimed, and Tesla has continued to be successful in spite of that (and in spite of that issue specifically leading to scrutiny and growing number of lawsuits even). Its because Tesla is iterating on the changeover to electric vehicles, which now has a timeframe (laws being passed banning ICE in like 2035 many places). We'll see if that momentum continues as others are starting to see success as well (including large established automakers like Ford and GM), but Tesla is ahead of the game still in many respects.

Agreed. The real Tesla advantages, are that they have more battery supply locked up than the competition, and the Supercharger network works well, while the patchwork of alternate charging networks are a mess.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
SpaceX has a terrible environment and treats their people like shit, or at least did when back in the day. But like you said Musk is a big risk taker and he actually lets the engineers be engineers and he is willing to blow shit up to figure it out. A decade ago no one thought turning around a rocket and landing it back at the pad or on a ship was realistic, but Musk was willing to let his engineers fail until they succeeded. Really, I am sure ULA or Boeing could do the exact same thing if their management would let the engineers just be engineers and accept some risk of failure to push the technology.

Now on self driving or star link I think some of that risk taking is very excessive, so there are definitely pros and cons.
I'm starting to wonder about Boeing, though.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,282
10,879
136
I'm starting to wonder about Boeing, though.
SpaceX, Boeing, ULA, and Lockheed all hire from the same pool of people. I have personally gotten offers from all of them.

I will say smaller organizations can do a better job of weeding out the lower performers, though. And you can focus your talent on one or two hard problems, while Boeing or Lockheed has hundreds of projects going on at any given time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,574
9,956
146
Watch as Ford and VW blow past Tesla in EV production in the next 5 years.
Yup. In the meantime, it's absolutely astounding what Musk was able to achieve with Tesla. Becoming a car company from scratch is just ridiculously difficult.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
5,686
1,962
136
I wholeheartedly agree that SpaceX has a potentially solid business model for launching satellites and humans into orbit. But with so much of their resources being devoted instead to Starship and Mars...

Starship has good potential for paying customers. Already SpaceX has a contract for $3B from NASA for developing Starship as the Human Landing system to go from Lunar Orbit to the Surface of the Moon. Space Force is also asking questions about using Starship. Starship will potentially have lower launch costs than the Falcon-9 with more up-mass capability. A rapidly reusable launch vehicle would be a huge game changer for space access if SpaceX can get Starship to work as intended.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,241
37,646
136
Starship has good potential for paying customers. Already SpaceX has a contract for $3B from NASA for developing Starship as the Human Landing system to go from Lunar Orbit to the Surface of the Moon. Space Force is also asking questions about using Starship. Starship will potentially have lower launch costs than the Falcon-9 with more up-mass capability. A rapidly reusable launch vehicle would be a huge game changer for space access if SpaceX can get Starship to work as intended.

Were I a betting man I'd wager they will get Starship to work long before FSD.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,741
126
I think you need to look up the stats on just how much been born into privilege helps someone. No they don't all go on to create rockets that land themselves, but way more than their fair share end up as executives.

I'm not doubting this. Money most defintely helps.

I knew of a man who wanted to pursue the arts. He came from money. His parents were able to put him into an apartment in NYC, while he was free to attend art college without the need to look for work. He had ample time to pursue his dream. He is currently a well paid musician in the Opera. He travels the world and is doing exactly what we wanted when he was young. Most people don't have that luxury. If they want to pursue the arts, most would have to get a job. They most definitely wouldn't be able to live in NYC. The pursuit of their dream would be at best minimum. They wouldn't be able to pursue it 100%, as real life would get in the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,027
13,536
136
That isn't what Musk said. He said there was a risk of Bankruptcy if they couldn't get Starship to work as a reusable LV. Because they need Starship to launch Starlink V2 satellites.

https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/
This is true and true to Elons MO. Bet it all on black, but, carefully optimize and maximize for the roulette to hit black. There is not a single one of his ventures that has not been on the fucking edge of collapse before success. But.
But. Something has changed. Elon is busy impregnating a vast of different hosts, partying and living large on the billionaire yacht life. I suspect this is where Elon experienced cocaine and hookers for the first time in his life.
Eye is not on the ball.
Poor guy. Hope he finds his way home.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,027
13,536
136
Its not been for naught though, player four and five has entered the game
With Elons recent departure from reality and insertion into Q space, maybe, just maybe the talent at his rocket bizz realizes that they have options.

Two Companies Aim to Beat SpaceX to Mars With ‘Audacious’ Landing

 

Roger Wilco

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2017
4,179
6,222
136
Despite earth turning into Venus 2.0, at least we can say we put a bunch of cool shit on Mars.

I’ve heard rumors that carbon capture is “audacious,” but nah, lets give up on avoiding extinction and spend all of our money and research on sending a few flesh bags to a dead planet so they can stand around and watch the machines do all the work.
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,340
5,464
136
Despite earth turning into Venus 2.0, at least we can say we put a bunch of cool shit on Mars.

I’ve heard rumors that carbon capture is “audacious,” but nah, lets give up on avoiding extinction and spend all of our money and research on sending a few flesh bags to a dead planet so they can stand around and watch the machines do all the work.

I've always argued that putting people on Mars was a stupid waste, even back when I thought Musk was just a tech nerd doing cool stuff.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,586
2,946
136
Carbon capture isnt even that audacious. Capture/sequestration chemistry is trivial. Conversion is more sophisticated but hell every single plant on the planet seems to manage so i find it ludicrous that its presented as some massive technological challenge when its literally the basis of all life on the planet.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,132
14,507
146
People forget that NASA is just as invested in ULA as SpaceX, and that ULA has a better track record. Plus SpaceX isn't just Musk. There are talented people there who do the real making it happen. And I feel bad for them that their talents are being squandered on his personal glory projects.
Actually NASA for ISS crew transport is twice as invested in Boeing/ULA than as SpaceX. The commercial crew contract paid Boeing about twice as much and so far Boeing has flown two test flights and SpaceX is about to launch its 5th crewed mission later this year.

As for flight records ULA is 100% successful across 145 flights and SpaceX Falcon 9 is 98.8% successful across 168 flights (166/168).

I also have a Tesla. It’s a fully functional electric entry level performance luxury sedan. It works great as a daily driver.

Thanks to its efficiency and the Supercharger network day trips and overnight trips are not overly painful. In fact using a Supercharger is easier than a gas pump. Autopilot works for the most part. To be fair full self-driving I didn’t pay for because a lot of it I wouldn’t trust or still isn’t functional.

However the image recognition is pretty good. The car recognizes and displays curbs, cars, trucks, vans, people, traffic cones, garbage cans, traffic lights, stops signs, speed limit signs, and painted arrows/lines/words on the road in real time. So the foundation for automated driving is there.

Musks timelines are shall we say “aspirational” if we are being charitable but the engineering teams at Tesla and SpaceX do seem capable of eventually reaching the goals he’s set out.

His current behavior is more like a mid-life crisis except magnified by being a centi-billionaire. Hopefully he either gets back to focusing on his companies which are great when punching upward at an entrenched market like launching or cars - or he steps back and let’s others manage his companies and they dial back some of the rhetoric.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,132
14,507
146
I wholeheartedly agree that SpaceX has a potentially solid business model for launching satellites and humans into orbit. But with so much of their resources being devoted instead to Starship and Mars...
Well SpaceX has a NASA contract for a lunar lander and they are using Starship so I hope they are deploying resources toward it.

Edit: what @Brovane said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Starship has good potential for paying customers. Already SpaceX has a contract for $3B from NASA for developing Starship as the Human Landing system to go from Lunar Orbit to the Surface of the Moon. Space Force is also asking questions about using Starship. Starship will potentially have lower launch costs than the Falcon-9 with more up-mass capability. A rapidly reusable launch vehicle would be a huge game changer for space access if SpaceX can get Starship to work as intended.

Until the lunar dust problem is solved, there is no economically viable reason to return to the surface of the moon.