Thoughts on Elon Musk?

[boomhower]

I like the dude. He's got electric cars becoming commonplace. The major autos weren't giving much thought until he brought Tesla along. Then he went and started SpaceX. Now that is multitasking!

If they can manage to get the model 3 of the ground and manufacture at capacity then it will be a massive success.

 

[Mai72]

The only one that's going to save your world, (change your life for the better) is you.

Having said that, there are far worse expenditures of your time than learning from those who have achieved success. Just be forewarned that he doesn't teach you how to live your life the best, just how he lived his. Your path will be different. The way to find your path is to learn more about yourself than someone else.

Oh, I agree with your statement. I'm not looking at Elon's life as a way to fix my life. I like to read about exceptional people so I can draw inspiration from their life story. It's the same with Ghandi, King, Mandela, Washington, Jordan, Mozart, Tesla, Ford, Walton, etc.. I could go on. You get my point.

Btw, the beginning sentence sounds like a quote from Jim Rohn. I don't know if I'm correct. But, in one of his seminars he says "The key to your better future is YOU." I know it's not the same, but it does have the same meaning.

 

[Mai72]

I think he gets a bad rap for being arrogant. He doesn't come across that way to me, more like a mix of confidence & passionate about what he does. I see all this hate about his Tesla cars & whatnot, and yet up until he did that, I didn't see many other companies trying to reduce out reliance on fossil fuels. NASA isn't working on going to Mars, nor is our government. He's pushing Solar City along to reduce our reliance on the power grid. He has a fun job doing cool things & he obviously enjoys it. More power to him!

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, was obviously kind of a dictator. He had great showmanship & produced awesome, market-leading products, but there are so many horror stories about working for him. You never really know, but based on what I've seen & read about Elon Musk, he seems like a pretty decent dude. The guy is like a real-life Tony Stark haha.

Type A driven people come off as arrogant to most normal people because they don't realize what it takes to be so obsessed with an idea. From start to finish. It's so hard to be tuned in all the time. To get something that you've dreamed about and to make it a reality. It takes guts. And, you've got to be a bit insane.

I've always wondered what the Wright brothers had to endure when they were trying to get their plane into the air. I'm sure they faced many nay sayers and doubters. They were probably ridiculed.

 

[agent00f]

I dunno, we went to the moon 40 years ago using slide rules, simply to beat Russia there. A lot of great things have happened because of the space program, outside of national pride. For starters, it provided a ton of jobs. Today, working on a spaceship to Mars probably beats working on Trump's wall to Mexico. Not to mention all of the technology that has been introduced because of spacecraft. Just a small sampling:

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

So there's a lot of fringe benefits that happen, it's not just about the destination. Part of the problem is that the space program gets a lot of criticism because there are other problems with the world. But going back to politics, like Trump referenced in the debate when he was giggling about tax avoidance, the politicians don't know how to manage or spend the money they have properly now. Plus, we can't be rulers of the world...globally, we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, and yet millions die of starvation. But then we have dictators like the guys over in North Korea, so we can't effectively distribute aid as needed. The world is always going to have problems...we still need to make progress in other areas tho.

I suppose he can be different things to different people.

For example, he got his start in business through that "abusive" father's money, but that's not how he tells the origin story. Generally the rule in the valley for "success" when someone lacks the technical skill to do much themselves is to hang around others in a position of power to pick winners. That's why he spends considerable time cozying up political leaders with that tony stark image he's curated, and why his businesses are heavily subsidized yet goes around saying gubmint loans are for losers.

Because he's that kind of person, folks who spend their time building what he spends his time building recognition for aren't going to think very well of him.

 

[Brovane]

I suppose he can be different things to different people.

For example, he got his start in business through that "abusive" father's money, but that's not how he tells the origin story. Generally the rule in the valley for "success" when someone lacks the technical skill to do much themselves is to hang around others in a position of power to pick winners. That's why he spends considerable time cozying up political leaders with that tony stark image he's curated, and why his businesses are heavily subsidized yet goes around saying gubmint loans are for losers.

Because he's that kind of person, folks who spend their time building what he spends his time building recognition for aren't going to think very well of him.

How is SpaceX heavily subsidized? No a government launch contract isn't a subsidy.

What is your criteria for when a business becomes heavily subsidized?

 

[DeathReborn]

I think he's a wazzock, plain and simple.

 

[agent00f]

How is SpaceX heavily subsidized? No a government launch contract isn't a subsidy.

What is your criteria for when a business becomes heavily subsidized?

If that's how you count it SpaceX is the least subsidized of his business only getting some millions for the land, then I suppose the military industry is a great icon of unsubsidized profitability. At the very least consider most of the knowledge necessary to build rockets is a side-effect of NASA & other government research.

 

[Brovane]

If that's how you count it SpaceX is the least subsidized of his business only getting some millions for the land, then I suppose the military industry is a great icon of unsubsidized profitability. At the very least consider most of the knowledge necessary to build rockets is a side-effect of NASA & other government research.

"knowledge necessary to build rockets is a side-effect of NASA & other government research"

If that is your criteria then most of the current industrial knowledge in the US has been built on the foundation at some point of government research. So what point are you trying to make?
Based on your criteria, since the Internet foundation was based on ARPANET which received DARPA funding then this means the Internet is subsidized and this website is subsidized.


then I suppose the military industry is a great icon of unsubsidized profitability

How would you have the US government procure Space launch? Should they go back to owning the baseline and the LV instead of buying a service? The US government is a major buyer of space launch so for any US launch provider they are going to have the US government as a customer. Even Blue Origin which Bezos has been self funding from his Amazon Billions is now getting money from the USAF for BE-4 rocket engine development.

There are currently 3 US based providers of Orbital space launch, Orbital ATK, ULA and SpaceX. Only one of these companies isn't completely dependent on government space launch contracts. do you want to guess which one? (Hint it begins with a S and ends with a X)

 

[agent00f]

"knowledge necessary to build rockets is a side-effect of NASA & other government research"

If that is your criteria then most of the current industrial knowledge in the US has been built on the foundation at some point of government research. So what point are you trying to make?
Based on your criteria, since the Internet foundation was based on ARPANET which received DARPA funding then this means the Internet is subsidized and this website is subsidized.

The basis of the private launch industry is literary government rocket scientists (eg jpl guys) & such the taxpayers paid to build up. I would also say the earlier internet was basically a government funded project, because it pretty much was.

then I suppose the military industry is a great icon of unsubsidized profitability

How would you have the US government procure Space launch? Should they go back to owning the baseline and the LV instead of buying a service? The US government is a major buyer of space launch so for any US launch provider they are going to have the US government as a customer. Even Blue Origin which Bezos has been self funding from his Amazon Billions is now getting money from the USAF for BE-4 rocket engine development.

There are currently 3 US based providers of Orbital space launch, Orbital ATK, ULA and SpaceX. Only one of these companies isn't completely dependent on government space launch contracts. do you want to guess which one? (Hint it begins with a S and ends with a X)

Just because everyone is dependent on government contracts doesn't mean spacex isn't. At that point wtf is even the difference between a gov dept and private industry other than to make Musk look good to the free market set.

 

[alcoholbob]

I dunno, we went to the moon 40 years ago using slide rules, simply to beat Russia there. A lot of great things have happened because of the space program, outside of national pride. For starters, it provided a ton of jobs. Today, working on a spaceship to Mars probably beats working on Trump's wall to Mexico. Not to mention all of the technology that has been introduced because of spacecraft. Just a small sampling:

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

So there's a lot of fringe benefits that happen, it's not just about the destination. Part of the problem is that the space program gets a lot of criticism because there are other problems with the world. But going back to politics, like Trump referenced in the debate when he was giggling about tax avoidance, the politicians don't know how to manage or spend the money they have properly now. Plus, we can't be rulers of the world...globally, we produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, and yet millions die of starvation. But then we have dictators like the guys over in North Korea, so we can't effectively distribute aid as needed. The world is always going to have problems...we still need to make progress in other areas tho.

A lot of the problems in the world are created by various federal agencies with little to no oversight going around the world overthrowing governments and committing voter fraud in order to gin up orders for the military industrial complex. Since the defense industry is so desperate not to lose work, the U.S. government should just provide them a permanent welfare guarantee and tell them to get out of screwing around in world affairs and re-orient the entire defense industry (which is more than half our discretionary spending) and tell them to pour that into a moon base and building bases on Mars or on Jupiters moons.

Would seriously reduce the amount of warfare in the world and also we'd get some impressive return on investment in terms of new technologies like we did in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s from semiconductor and materials advancements from NASA research. I mean if we cut military spending to half of what it is, and poured 200 billion dollars a year into space we could have a freakin' battlestar galactica fleet touring the solar system instead of a fleet of drones bombing weddings and poor farmers in the 3rd world, and our medical costs would go down substantially without the steady stream of new PTSD patients.

 

[Brovane]

The basis of the private launch industry is literary government rocket scientists (eg jpl guys) & such the taxpayers paid to build up. I would also say the earlier internet was basically a government funded project, because it pretty much was.

SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Musk and using private funding they developed the Merlin Engine and the Falcon-1 LV. The Falcon-1 in 2008 became the first privately funded liquid propelled rocket to reach orbit. The Falcon rocket is a privately designed rocket, the Merlin Rocket engine is a privately designed rocket engine. Saying the Falcon and Merlin are based on US government research is like saying the current Internet is based on ARPANET because they both use TCI-IP.

FYI-JPL doesn't build rockets, they build un-manned probes.

Just because everyone is dependent on government contracts doesn't mean spacex isn't. At that point wtf is even the difference between a gov dept and private industry other than to make Musk look good to the free market set.

SpaceX has done more private commercial launches this year than US government launches. While it would hurt them loosing a major customer they would still survive. ULA and Orbital ATK are completely dependent on the US government. ULA is so dependent on the USAF that they are paid $1-Billion a year by the USAF to maintain 4 launch pads for the Atlas-V and Delta-IV so the USAF can have assured access to space.

SpaceX launch prices are so competitive that they have been able to bring commercial space launch back to the US. Basically ULA was not competitive with the Europeans and the Russians so most commercial companies had been using them for launch services until SpaceX came along and started securing launch contracts because it's prices were competitive.

Which gets me back to this question that you didn't answer. The US government needs to procure services. How would you have them procure unique services, like space launch? Should they go back to owning the baseline and the LV instead of buying a service?

 

[agent00f]

SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Musk and using private funding they developed the Merlin Engine and the Falcon-1 LV. The Falcon-1 in 2008 became the first privately funded liquid propelled rocket to reach orbit. The Falcon rocket is a privately designed rocket, the Merlin Rocket engine is a privately designed rocket engine. Saying the Falcon and Merlin are based on US government research is like saying the current Internet is based on ARPANET because they both use TCI-IP.

FYI-JPL doesn't build rockets, they build un-manned probes.

It's simply a matter of fact that the first private ventures using tcp/ip & such are also built entirely on government funded/subsidized r&d. They simply would not exist otherwise.

SpaceX has done more private commercial launches this year than US government launches. While it would hurt them loosing a major customer they would still survive. ULA and Orbital ATK are completely dependent on the US government. ULA is so dependent on the USAF that they are paid $1-Billion a year by the USAF to maintain 4 launch pads for the Atlas-V and Delta-IV so the USAF can have assured access to space.

SpaceX launch prices are so competitive that they have been able to bring commercial space launch back to the US. Basically ULA was not competitive with the Europeans and the Russians so most commercial companies had been using them for launch services until SpaceX came along and started securing launch contracts because it's prices were competitive.

Which gets me back to this question that you didn't answer. The US government needs to procure services. How would you have them procure unique services, like space launch? Should they go back to owning the baseline and the LV instead of buying a service?

This discussion has nothing to with what the government might or might not choose to buy, but rather whether or not Musk ventures all more or less directly leverage taxpayer money for personal gain. Now you can argue that's his right, or it might be for the greater good, but not the basic fact of the matter.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I used my credit and bought "Elon Musk" on Audible the other day. I'm digging it so far. I didn't know much of Elon's life story...

*As a child he read an average 10 hours a day.
*Was constantly bullied in middle/high school.
*Learned to program in 3 days!
*Made $500 from a game he programmed.
*Had an abusive father.
*Left for Cabada at 18.
*Dropped out of University.
*Founded Zip2. Sold it for millions.
*CoFounded PayPal w/Thiel. Sold it to eBay for hundreds of millions.
*Thrown out of both companies.
*Founded Space X, Tesla.
*Learned about rockets on his own. By reading books on the subject.
*SpaceX almost bankrupted Musk. Went thru his fortune.
*Was sleeping on the sofa of a friend's house during those last rocket attempts. He had no money.
*Last rocket was a success.
*Worth Billions now.
*Goal is to colonize Mars.
*Goal is to have self driving cars on the road that use ZERO fossil fuel.
*Trips to Mars will be as common as going to Disney. Maybe not in our life-time.
*Wants to save humanity.
*He's only 45!

Is he the most important entrepreneur and inventor of our lifetime? I think so. At least, in the top 3.

I thought Elon Musk was an after shave........hmmmmmm

 

[ultimatebob]

I like Elon Musk. He's a bit of a dreamer with his Hyperloop and Mars missions and whatnot, but he's helping to make electric cars and home solar systems and affordable reality for the average consumer.

 

[Brovane]

It's simply a matter of fact that the first private ventures using tcp/ip & such are also built entirely on government funded/subsidized r&d. They simply would not exist otherwise.

The Merlin Rocket engine was the first LOX/RP1 engine develop and put into service in the US since the H-1 rocket engine was put into service in the early 60's. The commonality between the designs is that they both use LOX/RP1. Trying to say that the Merlin rocket engine was built entirely on US government funded and subsidized R&D is like saying ANANDTECH.COM is built entirely on US government funded and subsidized R&D since it uses TCP/IP, which is just absurd. It would be like saying the Falcon air-frame is based on US government funded and subsidized R&D because it is cylinder.

This discussion has nothing to with what the government might or might not choose to buy, but rather whether or not Musk ventures all more or less directly leverage taxpayer money for personal gain. Now you can argue that's his right, or it might be for the greater good, but not the basic fact of the matter.

You earlier said "Heavily subsidized" yet you still have not defined what is heavily subsidized. What is you definition of when a business becomes heavily subsidized?

As I said earlier, selling services to the US government isn't a subsidy. You want to know how to make a small fortune the space launch business? Start out with a large fortune......

Musk didn't start SpaceX for personal gain. He started SpaceX because he wanted to make the human species multi-planetary. If you have ever visited SpaceX, it is literally the first church of Mars as crazy as that sounds.

 

[agent00f]

The Merlin Rocket engine was the first LOX/RP1 engine develop and put into service in the US since the H-1 rocket engine was put into service in the early 60's. The commonality between the designs is that they both use LOX/RP1. Trying to say that the Merlin rocket engine was built entirely on US government funded and subsidized R&D is like saying ANANDTECH.COM is built entirely on US government funded and subsidized R&D since it uses TCP/IP, which is just absurd. It would be like saying the Falcon air-frame is based on US government funded and subsidized R&D because it is cylinder.

Basically every program that cranks out rocket scientists/tech like the JPL might as well be government institutions. Much historically important tech developed at MIT for example were paid by the DoD. When the americans for example scavenged the former german rocket program you really think the important part was to get the blueprints? Do you know much about how tech works?

You earlier said "Heavily subsidized" yet you still have not defined what is heavily subsidized. What is you definition of when a business becomes heavily subsidized?

As I said earlier, selling services to the US government isn't a subsidy. You want to know how to make a small fortune the space launch business? Start out with a large fortune......

Musk didn't start SpaceX for personal gain. He started SpaceX because he wanted to make the human species multi-planetary. If you have ever visited SpaceX, it is literally the first church of Mars as crazy as that sounds.

I'd say the military industry is heavily subsidize even though they're ostensibly private and sell to customers other then the US government.

 

[Brovane]

Basically every program that cranks out rocket scientists/tech like the JPL might as well be government institutions. Much historically important tech developed at MIT for example were paid by the DoD. When the americans for example scavenged the former german rocket program you really think the important part was to get the blueprints? Do you know much about how tech works?

You keep putting yourself in contortions to justify your viewpoint. The chief technology officer of propulsion at SpaceX is Tom Mueller. He has a masters degree from Loyola Marymount University in Mechanical Engineering. He basically built a 13,000lbf rocket engine in his garage, which is why Elon hired him as one of his first employees. He was the designer for the Merlin Engine.

So what is your proof that the Frank R. Seaver College of Science and Engineering at Loyola Marymount University is a government instituion?

Stop trying to drag things up that occurred decades ago as if they apply today.


[QUOTE="agent00f, post: 38500059, member: 370658"
I'd say the military industry is heavily subsidize even though they're ostensibly private and sell to customers other then the US government.[/QUOTE]

What is you definition that a industry is heavily subsidized? What % of revenue tells you that a industry is heavily subsidized?

 

[MongGrel]

You keep putting yourself in contortions to justify your viewpoint. The chief technology officer of propulsion at SpaceX is Tom Mueller. He has a masters degree from Loyola Marymount University in Mechanical Engineering. He basically built a 13,000lbf rocket engine in his garage, which is why Elon hired him as one of his first employees. He was the designer for the Merlin Engine.

So what is your proof that the Frank R. Seaver College of Science and Engineering at Loyola Marymount University is a government instituion?

Stop trying to drag things up that occurred decades ago as if they apply today.


[QUOTE="agent00f, post: 38500059, member: 370658"
I'd say the military industry is heavily subsidize even though they're ostensibly private and sell to customers other then the US government.

I won't bother elaborating other than agreeing with what you have just stated.

 

[agent00f]

You keep putting yourself in contortions to justify your viewpoint. The chief technology officer of propulsion at SpaceX is Tom Mueller. He has a masters degree from Loyola Marymount University in Mechanical Engineering. He basically built a 13,000lbf rocket engine in his garage, which is why Elon hired him as one of his first employees. He was the designer for the Merlin Engine.

So what is your proof that the Frank R. Seaver College of Science and Engineering at Loyola Marymount University is a government instituion?

Stop trying to drag things up that occurred decades ago as if they apply today.

Just fyi I know people from JPL who work in the industry. The idea that spacex could've built their cheap taxi rocket without the entire government funded field is rather hilarious, they already have enough failures even with the wealth of taxpayer funded knowledge base, 50 years+ after the fact. What spacex/musk is particular good at though is PR, ie. making a transportation business sound impressive to general public, which in all fairness is outside the field.

What is you definition that a industry is heavily subsidized? What % of revenue tells you that a industry is heavily subsidized?

Enough that they can't exist possibly without government money, like everything that Musk does.

 

[bigi]

It's been pretty common in history for general mob to be unable to understand, approve and like pure genius.

Remember Giordano Bruno, Copernicus? The former was burned and the latter was so afraid of his findings that he published all right before his death.

Anyway, they might not burn Elon now for not following the 'common mob thinking', but latest SpaceX explosion might have been helped by outside forces.

Hope Elon is well aware from all dangers from outside as he was well assisted by bodyguards during his outdoor press conference in Austin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nPsQQkPev0

 

[gorcorps]

He's got a lot of goals/dreams and while some of them seem a little out there, without people like him we don't advance technology fast enough. There's plenty about his personality to not like, but that's the case with a lot of people in his position. I don't necessarily like HIM, but I'm a big fan of what he's doing... if that makes sense.

 

[sontakke]

Netflix has (had?) a documentary on Space Elevator. I was surprised that some of the JPL alumni had start ups in that field. Whatever is your political view point, that documentary is interesting to watch.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Agent, your notions about government subsidization are ridiculous. Just because my training was done as part of a US Govt entity, paid for by US tax dollars, does not mean that the work I do after my term with the US Govt is done is somehow 'subsidized' by them. By that logic, everything the US does is subsidized by Spain because they funded Columbus' expedition.

Secondly, yeah they're primarily getting *work* from the US govt because they're primarily the ones exploiting the resources of space, which right now is pretty much knowledge and satellite placement. That'll undoubtedly change in the future as more resources become available to exploit (mining, construction, planetary missions, whatever). That still doesn't mean that the Govt is 'subsidizing' anything, it just means they're being contracted by a customer.

 

[agent00f]

Agent, your notions about government subsidization are ridiculous. Just because my training was done as part of a US Govt entity, paid for by US tax dollars, does not mean that the work I do after my term with the US Govt is done is somehow 'subsidized' by them. By that logic, everything the US does is subsidized by Spain because they funded Columbus' expedition.

Secondly, yeah they're primarily getting *work* from the US govt because they're primarily the ones exploiting the resources of space, which right now is pretty much knowledge and satellite placement. That'll undoubtedly change in the future as more resources become available to exploit (mining, construction, planetary missions, whatever). That still doesn't mean that the Govt is 'subsidizing' anything, it just means they're being contracted by a customer.

Sure, same as the whole rather specialize military equipment sector is a self-sufficient private industry who just happens to have so much merit to warrant taxpayer funding all of it.

It really is comical how much complete laymen brag about how impressed they are with a glorified uhaul. Ponder for a while the fact that nasa & the soviets were launching these loads and much more into space 50+ years ago. Consider what technology was available at that time and how much it's advanced for some perspective on just how uninspiring some bean-counting version of it is. The funniest part is that spacex is making progress toward the solved problem of manned launches slower than competent guys using slide rules, with advanced government paid knowledge of how to do it all.

 

[Brovane]

Just fyi I know people from JPL who work in the industry. The idea that spacex could've built their cheap taxi rocket without the entire government funded field is rather hilarious, they already have enough failures even with the wealth of taxpayer funded knowledge base, 50 years+ after the fact. What spacex/musk is particular good at though is PR, ie. making a transportation business sound impressive to general public, which in all fairness is outside the field.

As I said before JPL doesn't build rockets, they build robotic spacecraft. They don't build rocket engines. Just because somebody works at JPL doesn't mean they know launch vehicles or even rocket engines. Even the fact that you are trying to make such blanket statement to try to justify your opinion tells me you really don't know what you are talking about. So basically your argument is "I know people that say it is true so it is true" What type of weak ass argument is that? Is that what they teach kids these days in school?

Let me help you, present evidence linking the Merlin Engine to the last LOX/RP1 engine that was developed and put into service in the US the H1 rocket engine.

Enough that they can't exist possibly without government money, like everything that Musk does.

Let me know when you actually have some figures instead of blanket statements.

Consider what technology was available at that time and how much it's advanced for some perspective on just how uninspiring some bean-counting version of it is. The funniest part is that spacex is making progress toward the solved problem of manned launches slower than competent guys using slide rules, with advanced government paid knowledge of how to do it all.

Let me refresh your history. SpaceX and Boeing are both trying to develop a Capsule that can hold up to 7 astronauts. It took contractors working for NASA about 7 years from initial contract to first manned flight for the Apollo CSM and they killed 3 astronauts in the process. It also cost about $940 million back in the 60's and that was just the Command Module, not the service module part. Which works out to about $6.9B in today's dollars. NASA has a planned allocation of about $6.8B in todays under fixed price contracts for development of both the CST-100, DragonV2, Human Rating certification for both LV's and 14 flights. The full development contract for the DragonV2 and CST-100 was awarded in 2014 to both Boeing and SpaceX.

If we want to do a better comparison between the Apollo CM cost we would also need to add in the cost of Saturn1B flights, which is about $300M in today's dollars. We will leave the SM out since was developed for getting the CM in and out of lunar orbit. Quick calculation shows about $4.2B for 14 launches with the S1B so to develop the Apollo CM and fly it 14 times (leaving out SM costs) would be about $10B in today's dollars. The US government is asking both SpaceX and Boeing to each develop a manned spacecraft and launch for $6.8B and do it in about 4 years from contract award.


Of course it is government knowledge for manned space flight. The US government is the customer that is paying for development and NASA is working closely with both companies. That is one of the job of NASA to share knowledge and technology with US industry.