Thoughts on Elon Musk?

[agent00f]

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 that they teach kids these days in school is evidence?

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.

The Caltech/JPL academy graduates some of the better aero folks in the world. Also odd that someone who supposedly knows what they're talking about is so impressed by a glorified uhaul with a lot of press releases. Are you some kind of truck driver?

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

Musk cheerleaders don't appear to know much about him: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

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

Not sure why you're bragging about conflating an actual achievement 60 years ago and someone using government money (and to be fair some of his own) to cosplay tony stark.

 

[Brovane]

The Caltech/JPL academy graduates some of the better aero folks in the world. Also odd that someone who supposedly knows what they're talking about is so impressed by a glorified uhaul with a lot of press releases. Are you some kind of truck driver?

I am impressed by a LV that uses a engine designed and manufactured in the US. A LV that has the highest mass coefficient of any LV to LEO. A LV that can do a full propulsive landing of the 1st stage booster while still delivering a 4.5+ ton satellite to GTO. A LV that can do all of this and still deliver a price that is lower than it's competitors for launch services.

FYI - Any LV is essentially a glorified UHAUL when you get down to it. However they do make a lot more noise than a UHAUL.

Musk cheerleaders don't appear to know much about him: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

What do all these companies have in common with Tesla Motors, Solar City and SpaceX?

Boeing, Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Motors, Intel, Sempra Energy, NRG Energy, Iberdroal, Fiat Chrysler Automobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Nike, NextEra Energy, Dow Chemical, Nissan, Cerner, Cheniere Energy, Summit Power, Southern Company, General Electric, JPMorgan Chase, SCS Energy, Duke Energy, IBM, Volkswagen, Toyota, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Delta Air Lines, Goldman Sachs.

They all get subsidies from the US Govt, State Governments or local governments.

Not sure why you're bragging about conflating an actual achievement 60 years ago and someone using government money (and to be fair some of his own) to cosplay tony stark.

I find it interesting that you keep changing the subject when another one of your statements is proven wrong.

Yes let's find fault with a company that is not afraid to push the envelop and isn't afraid of failure to advance technology.

However you can just stick with this viewpoint.

Because Musk has bigger balls than you.

 

[agent00f]

I am impressed by a LV that uses a engine designed and manufactured in the US. A LV that has the highest mass coefficient of any LV to LEO. A LV that can do a full propulsive landing of the 1st stage booster while still delivering a 4.5+ ton satellite to GTO. A LV that can do all of this and still deliver a price that is lower than it's competitors for launch services.

FYI - Any LV is essentially a glorified UHAUL when you get down to it. However they do make a lot more noise than a UHAUL.

Just because their admittedly well produced PR is impressive to some doesn't mean it is to everyone. Nasa for example is working on actual science instead of cost cutting solved eng problems.

What do all these companies have in common with Tesla Motors, Solar City and SpaceX?

Boeing, Alcoa, Ford Motor, General Motors, Intel, Sempra Energy, NRG Energy, Iberdroal, Fiat Chrysler Automobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Nike, NextEra Energy, Dow Chemical, Nissan, Cerner, Cheniere Energy, Summit Power, Southern Company, General Electric, JPMorgan Chase, SCS Energy, Duke Energy, IBM, Volkswagen, Toyota, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Delta Air Lines, Goldman Sachs.

They all get subsidies from the US Govt, State Governments or local governments.

For anyone good at comparing numbers it's possible to see that he gets more than a typical share.

I find it interesting that you keep changing the subject when another one of your statements is proven wrong.

Yes let's find fault with a company that is not afraid to push the envelop and isn't afraid of failure to advance technology.

However you can just stick with this viewpoint.

Because Musk has bigger balls than you.

I don't doubt all these things are proven one way or the other in your head, but it might also do some good to put more stuff up there like the difference between actual research and eng work understandably more advanced than what you probably do.

 

[Brovane]

Just because their admittedly well produced PR is impressive to some doesn't mean it is to everyone. Nasa for example is working on actual science instead of cost cutting solved eng problems.

You mean like this type of science? - http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-its-key-mars-landing-tech-with-the-falcon-9/

Or like this type of science? - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/its-propulsion-evolution-raptor-engine/

For anyone good at comparing numbers it's possible to see that he gets more than a typical share.

What is a typical share of subsidies?

I don't doubt all these things are proven one way or the other in your head, but it might also do some good to put more stuff up there like the difference between actual research and eng work understandably more advanced than what you probably do.

So what does that have to do with your argument that SpaceX is receiving massive subsidies?

 

[agent00f]

You mean like this type of science? - http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...-its-key-mars-landing-tech-with-the-falcon-9/

Or like this type of science? - https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/its-propulsion-evolution-raptor-engine/

Like the type of science that might be in a science publication.

What is a typical share of subsidies?

Less than 5 billion for companies that aren't selling that much more.

So what does that have to do with your argument that SpaceX is receiving massive subsidies?

It's a reply to the argument that spacex is really impressive to you.

 

[MongGrel]

Just because their admittedly well produced PR is impressive to some doesn't mean it is to everyone. Nasa for example is working on actual science instead of cost cutting solved eng problems.

There is a reason SpaceX is receiving subsidies.

And it is in conjunction with NASA.

 

[MongGrel]

Like the type of science that might be in a science publication.

You should perhaps go back to P&N and argue in circles with Realibrad.

Might be a bit more appropriate.

 

[agent00f]

You should perhaps go back to P&N and argue in circles with Realibrad.

Might be a bit more appropriate.

I wouldn't say there's much of a difference.

 

[MongGrel]

I wouldn't say there's much of a difference.

Yes there is, you can be ambiguous and it would make more sense from your end.

 

[agent00f]

Yes there is, you can be ambiguous and it would make more sense from your end.

Pretty sure realibrad & friends find me to be ambiguous, too. Might be worth figuring out why it appears that way.

 

[Brovane]

Like the type of science that might be in a science publication.

Obviously you didn't read the links. Let me give you a hint - SpaceX did the first full scale super-sonic retro-propulsion in Mars like conditions. The ability to do this is going to be essential for anyone wanting to land payloads larger than 1-ton on the Mars surface. This is science and is impressive at the same time. It was so impressive NASA spent money to study what SpaceX was doing and to see how the 1st stage behaved during re-entry.

Less than 5 billion for companies that aren't selling that much more.

Let me help you. The 1.4B from Nevada for Tesla for the giga-factory is spread out over 20-years. To even receive all of this money, Tesla has to hit specific employment targets in outlier years. So this works out to about $70million per year. Tesla sold in 2015 about 26,566 Model S cars in the US. So that is about $200M in subsidies that customers received for buying their cars. So we can round up and Tesla got in 2015 about $300M in subsidies(or benefit) for $4 Billion in revenue. So this means less than 10% of Tesla's revenue in 2015 could be attributed to subsidies. How is less than 10% massive? It isn't you just never worked out the numbers and all you did see was the $4.9B figure and then went with it. Not reading that this $4.9B included money that is going to received over a decade in the future.

It's a reply to the argument that spacex is really impressive to you.

Which is a reply to your argument that somehow SpaceX receives massive subsidies because NASA was flying rockets decades ago.

So once again how are you proving your point that SpaceX is receiving massive subsidies?

 

[agent00f]

Obviously you didn't read the links. Let me give you a hint - SpaceX did the first full scale super-sonic retro-propulsion in Mars like conditions. The ability to do this is going to be essential for anyone wanting to land payloads larger than 1-ton on the Mars surface. This is science and is impressive at the same time. It was so impressive NASA spent money to study what SpaceX was doing and to see how the 1st stage behaved during re-entry.

Perhaps it's hard to see that using NASA facilities and resources to test their gear isn't conducive to your argument.

Let me help you. The 1.4B from Nevada for Tesla for the giga-factory is spread out over 20-years. To even receive all of this money, Tesla has to hit specific employment targets in outlier years. So this works out to about $70million per year. Tesla sold in 2015 about 26,566 Model S cars in the US. So that is about $200M in subsidies that customers received for buying their cars. So we can round up and Tesla got in 2015 about $300M in subsidies(or benefit) for $4 Billion in revenue. So this means less than 10% of Tesla's revenue in 2015 could be attributed to subsidies. How is less than 10% massive? It isn't you just never worked out the numbers and all you did see was the $4.9B figure and then went with it. Not reading that this $4.9B included money that is going to received over a decade in the future.

Tesla was essentially funded by DOE loans, with exit terms no private venturer would accept. Likewise even after they got off the ground they still need a few hundred million a year just to stay afloat, to make some toy cars for the relatively wealthy. I assume you forgot about Solar City because their numbers are even worse. Not even the military industry gets such handouts. Speaking of such industries, spacex's main customer is still the government to the tune of some billions.

Which is a reply to your argument that somehow SpaceX receives massive subsidies because NASA was flying rockets decades ago.

So once again how are you proving your point that SpaceX is receiving massive subsidies?

I think you'll just have to accept that you'll never grasp that space is a pretty much wholly government funded field.

 

[Brovane]

Perhaps it's hard to see that using NASA facilities and resources to test their gear isn't conducive to your argument.

You love changing the topic whenever you are proven wrong.

Your argument about SpaceX not doing science proven wrong. SpaceX did the first full scale super-sonic retro-propulsion in Mars like conditions.

Space launch companies like ULA and SpaceX pay the USAF to lease pad facilities at CCAFS. They essentially lease the land under long term leases and then are responsible for constructing their pad facilities on top of the leased land. For example Launch Complex 37 at CCAFS was previously built in the late 50's to support Saturn-1 and then Saturn-1B launches. The launch facility was deactivated in the early 70's and then in 2001 under a long term lease was extensively modified by ULA to support Delta-IV launches.

Launch facilities like CCAFS and Vandenberg on the West coast are national space launch assets that are made available to private companies since there is only a few areas within the territory of the US that can support space launch. Consider it like Interstates that are owned by the government but continued usage is paid for by user fees. SpaceX and ULA also pay the USAF to support their launch activities with launch fees for the use of range time.

Tesla was essentially funded by DOE loans, with exit terms no private venturer would accept. Likewise even after they got off the ground they still need a few hundred million a year just to stay afloat, to make some toy cars for the relatively wealthy.

Tesla used the DOE loans because they were available. Let me clear up a little history for you. Tesla was founded in 2003 and Musk joined as a initial investor in 2004. These dates are long before any EV subsidies and DOE loans existed.
Congress approved funding for the ATVM loan program in the fall of 2008 to provide debt capital to the US Auto Industry to fund projects to meet the higher mileage requirements and to lessen US dependence on foreign oil. You can get butt hurt all you want but the point of the loan program wasn't to make money for the US government. Of course Tesla applied for the loans, the US government made them available. During the time frame of 2008 private capital had all but dried up and the US government was loaning money left and right to unfreeze the capital markets. A lot of companies received US government loans, some of them on the order of hundreds of Billions.

I assume you forgot about Solar City because their numbers are even worse. Not even the military industry gets such handouts.

No I didn't. You claimed that Tesla was getting massive subsides and I ran the numbers for you and it is less than 10% of revenue. No massive subsidy found as you claim. Let me know if you have some facts to present that shows Tesla receiving more subsidies as a % of revenue.

Speaking of such industries, spacex's main customer is still the government to the tune of some billions.

Of course the US government is a very big customer for space launch and both NASA and the USAF spend Billions a year on activities around space with the private industry. The US government is the majority procurer of space launch services and assured access to space is critical for national security purposes. As I said before, a US government space launch contract isn't a subsidy. It can be argued that SpaceX saves the US government money for it's space launch activities because they are considerably cheaper than their competitor, ULA.

I think you'll just have to accept that you'll never grasp that space is a pretty much wholly government funded field.

Let's run down SpaceXs launch activity this year. I know you hate to be presented with facts.

• Completed launches (out of 8 completed launches for SpaceX 5 of them are private industry launches 62% of launches)
  • Jason-3 - NASA (US Govt)
  • SES-9 - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-8 - NASA (US Govt)
  • JCSAT-14 - Private Industry
  • Thaicom-8 - Private Industry
  • Eutelsate 177W/ABS-2A - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-9 - NASA (US Govt)
  • JCSAT-16 - Private Industry
• Planned Launches (2016~)
  • AMOS-6 Private Industry (Pad explosion during static fire
  • Iridium - Private Industry
  • Formosat-5 - Private Industry
  • Iridium - Private Industry
  • Echostar-23 - Private Industry
  • SES-10 - Private Industry
  • SES-11 - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-10 - NASA (US Govt)

So for planned flights by SpaceX in 2016 12 of them are private industry and 4 are US government. So what is that 75% of SpaceX flights are private industry flights. The point you fail to grasp is that space is changing and private industry is spending more and more in space. Especially in the area of telecommunications.

 

[agent00f]

You love changing the topic whenever you are proven wrong.

Your argument about SpaceX not doing science proven wrong. SpaceX did the first full scale super-sonic retro-propulsion in Mars like conditions.

As mentioned we simply have differing standards of what constitutes science, mostly because you've never done anything of the sort. For example, one person might know that supersonic retro-propulsion is something nasa & research university are long familiar with, and other just parrots phrases they don't really understand from press releases. Funny you mentioned previously that JPL & such doesn't work on rockets much anymore, in large part because that's considered a solved problem.

Space launch companies like ULA and SpaceX pay the USAF to lease pad facilities at CCAFS. They essentially lease the land under long term leases and then are responsible for constructing their pad facilities on top of the leased land. For example Launch Complex 37 at CCAFS was previously built in the late 50's to support Saturn-1 and then Saturn-1B launches. The launch facility was deactivated in the early 70's and then in 2001 under a long term lease was extensively modified by ULA to support Delta-IV launches.

From you own link:
=======
As such, individual testing of each subsystem is almost impossible for full flow engines, unless you have a test stand capable of supplying extremely high-pressure liquid and hot gas of both the fuel and oxidizer at the same time.

Enter the famous Stennis Space Center and its critical E2 test stand.

While incapable of handling the full size of the expected Raptor engine unit, the Stennis test stand enabled the individual testing of each subcomponent of the 1MN scaled prototype that SpaceX currently has at its test facility in McGregor, Texas.

During late 2013, the SpaceX engineers arrived at Stennis to help upgrade its unique E2 test stand, enabling it to supply liquid and hot gaseous methane.
========
"You love changing the topic whenever you are proven wrong." comes to mind.

Launch facilities like CCAFS and Vandenberg on the West coast are national space launch assets that are made available to private companies since there is only a few areas within the territory of the US that can support space launch. Consider it like Interstates that are owned by the government but continued usage is paid for by user fees. SpaceX and ULA also pay the USAF to support their launch activities with launch fees for the use of range time.


Tesla used the DOE loans because they were available. Let me clear up a little history for you. Tesla was founded in 2003 and Musk joined as a initial investor in 2004. These dates are long before any EV subsidies and DOE loans existed.
Congress approved funding for the ATVM loan program in the fall of 2008 to provide debt capital to the US Auto Industry to fund projects to meet the higher mileage requirements and to lessen US dependence on foreign oil. You can get butt hurt all you want but the point of the loan program wasn't to make money for the US government. Of course Tesla applied for the loans, the US government made them available. During the time frame of 2008 private capital had all but dried up and the US government was loaning money left and right to unfreeze the capital markets. A lot of companies received US government loans, some of them on the order of hundreds of Billions.

The money was used to build the model S. I suspect you're aware of what they were dicking around with before then.

No I didn't. You claimed that Tesla was getting massive subsides and I ran the numbers for you and it is less than 10% of revenue. No massive subsidy found as you claim. Let me know if you have some facts to present that shows Tesla receiving more subsidies as a % of revenue.

I would consider a few hundred million a year which was rather more than 10% in the past, or -infinite% of profits in just straight handouts for a fashion car company a pretty massive subsidy, a level that only Musk's other endeavors might be able to beat.

Of course the US government is a very big customer for space launch and both NASA and the USAF spend Billions a year on activities around space with the private industry. The US government is the majority procurer of space launch services and assured access to space is critical for national security purposes. As I said before, a US government space launch contract isn't a subsidy. It can be argued that SpaceX saves the US government money for it's space launch activities because they are considerably cheaper than their competitor, ULA.

Let's run down SpaceXs launch activity this year. I know you hate to be presented with facts.

• Completed launches (out of 8 completed launches for SpaceX 5 of them are private industry launches 62% of launches)
  • Jason-3 - NASA (US Govt)
  • SES-9 - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-8 - NASA (US Govt)
  • JCSAT-14 - Private Industry
  • Thaicom-8 - Private Industry
  • Eutelsate 177W/ABS-2A - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-9 - NASA (US Govt)
  • JCSAT-16 - Private Industry
• Planned Launches (2016~)
  • AMOS-6 Private Industry (Pad explosion during static fire
  • Iridium - Private Industry
  • Formosat-5 - Private Industry
  • Iridium - Private Industry
  • Echostar-23 - Private Industry
  • SES-10 - Private Industry
  • SES-11 - Private Industry
  • Dragon CRS-10 - NASA (US Govt)

So for planned flights by SpaceX in 2016 12 of them are private industry and 4 are US government. So what is that 75% of SpaceX flights are private industry flights. The point you fail to grasp is that space is changing and private industry is spending more and more in space. Especially in the area of telecommunications.

Thanks for arguing the point that the glorified uhaul companies are stepping after the hard work was done.

 

[Brovane]

As mentioned we simply have differing standards of what constitutes science, mostly because you've never done anything of the sort. For example, one person might know that supersonic retro-propulsion is something nasa & research university are long familiar with, and other just parrots phrases they don't really understand from press releases. Funny you mentioned previously that JPL & such doesn't work on rockets much anymore, in large part because that's considered a solved problem.

JPL doesn't work on rockets because they do robotic spacecraft and have done robotic spacecraft for decades. Marshall handles rocketry and propulsion research. That was the NASA center that Von Braun was the director of during the Apollo program. They don't do as much as they did back in Von Braun's day but they still do rocketry and propulsion research. Guess what, space is still hard because anything about space launch is hard because in order to get into orbit a vehicle has to be pressed to it's maximum capability.

Of course NASA and research university's are familiar with super-sonic retro-propulsion. They just were not sure if it would work in a full scale demonstration because no-body had done it before in a live full-scale test. SpaceX took it from theory and put it into practice and demonstrated that it would work.

From you own link:
=======
As such, individual testing of each subsystem is almost impossible for full flow engines, unless you have a test stand capable of supplying extremely high-pressure liquid and hot gas of both the fuel and oxidizer at the same time.

Enter the famous Stennis Space Center and its critical E2 test stand.

While incapable of handling the full size of the expected Raptor engine unit, the Stennis test stand enabled the individual testing of each subcomponent of the 1MN scaled prototype that SpaceX currently has at its test facility in McGregor, Texas.

During late 2013, the SpaceX engineers arrived at Stennis to help upgrade its unique E2 test stand, enabling it to supply liquid and hot gaseous methane.
========
"You love changing the topic whenever you are proven wrong." comes to mind.

Guess who paid to upgrade the test stand to support a Methane engine and paid for use of the test stand? SpaceX.

The money was used to build the model S. I suspect you're aware of what they were dicking around with before then.

I would consider a few hundred million a year which was rather more than 10% in the past, or -infinite% of profits in just straight handouts for a fashion car company a pretty massive subsidy, a level that only Musk's other endeavors might be able to beat.

Thank you for confirming that Tesla isn't receiving massive subsidies anymore.

Thanks for arguing the point that the glorified uhaul companies are stepping after the hard work was done.

Thank you for conceding the point that Space isn't anymore a government funded field as you originally claimed. That also means that SpaceX isn't receiving massive subsidies as you claimed earlier.

 

[agent00f]

JPL doesn't work on rockets because they do robotic spacecraft and have done robotic spacecraft for decades. Marshall handles rocketry and propulsion research. That was the NASA center that Von Braun was the director of during the Apollo program. They don't do as much as they did back in Von Braun's day but they still do rocketry and propulsion research. Guess what, space is still hard because anything about space launch is hard because in order to get into orbit a vehicle has to be pressed to it's maximum capability.

Of course NASA and research university's are familiar with super-sonic retro-propulsion. They just were not sure if it would work in a full scale demonstration because no-body had done it before in a live full-scale test. SpaceX took it from theory and put it into practice and demonstrated that it would work.

Your retort was supposed to demonstrate that you can tell the difference between science and engineering.

Guess who paid to upgrade the test stand to support a Methane engine and paid for use of the test stand? SpaceX.

Good thing somebody built all this stuff to solve the hard problems first.

Thank you for confirming that Tesla isn't receiving massive subsidies anymore.

I guess Musk won't mind if the government handouts stopped when the company went public.

Thank you for conceding the point that Space isn't anymore a government funded field as you originally claimed. That also means that SpaceX isn't receiving massive subsidies as you claimed earlier.

Then also no need for the 5+ billion in government contract money and several thousand suppliers from the government defense/aerospace industry.

Recall I originally claimed you must be some kind of truck driver for all this excitement over a space uhaul, which is rather verified given you've only memorized their PR which doesn't talk about how much they depend on the taxpayer.