Why Musk's Biggest Space Gamble Is Freaking Out His Competitors (politico.com) 289
schwit1 shares a report from Politico: Starship is threatening NASA's moon contractors, which are watching its progress with a mix of awe and horror. "They are shitting the bed," said a top Washington space lobbyist who works for SpaceX's competitors and asked for anonymity to avoid upsetting his clients. NASA and its major industry partners are simultaneously scrambling to complete their own moon vehicles: the Space Launch System mega-rocket and companion Orion capsule. But the program is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule -- and, many would argue, generations behind SpaceX in innovation.
The space agency's first three Artemis moon missions over the next three years -- including a human landing planned for 2025 -- are all set to travel aboard the SLS rocket and Orion capsule, which are being built by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne and numerous other suppliers and engineering services firms. But with the SLS' first flight this year further delayed at least until late spring, concerns are growing that even if it succeeds, the system, at an estimated $2 billion per launch, could prove too costly for the multiple journeys to the moon that NASA will need to build a permanent human presence on the lunar surface.
That makes Starship, which conducted a successful flight to the edge of space last year, especially threatening to the contractors and their allies in Congress. As Starship progresses, it will further eclipse the argument for sticking with SLS, according to Rand Simberg, an aerospace engineer and space consultant. "Once the new system's reliability is demonstrated with a large number of flights, which could happen in a matter of months, it will obsolesce all existing launch systems," he said. "If SLS is not going to fly more than once every couple of years, it's just not going to be a significant player in the future in space, particularly when Starship is flown," he added.
The space agency's first three Artemis moon missions over the next three years -- including a human landing planned for 2025 -- are all set to travel aboard the SLS rocket and Orion capsule, which are being built by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne and numerous other suppliers and engineering services firms. But with the SLS' first flight this year further delayed at least until late spring, concerns are growing that even if it succeeds, the system, at an estimated $2 billion per launch, could prove too costly for the multiple journeys to the moon that NASA will need to build a permanent human presence on the lunar surface.
That makes Starship, which conducted a successful flight to the edge of space last year, especially threatening to the contractors and their allies in Congress. As Starship progresses, it will further eclipse the argument for sticking with SLS, according to Rand Simberg, an aerospace engineer and space consultant. "Once the new system's reliability is demonstrated with a large number of flights, which could happen in a matter of months, it will obsolesce all existing launch systems," he said. "If SLS is not going to fly more than once every couple of years, it's just not going to be a significant player in the future in space, particularly when Starship is flown," he added.
Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
Obsolete thinking has to make way for something that works. Too bad we've been held back for as long as we have been. Too big to fail also means unlikely to succeed.
Innovation is the point of capitalism which is a cogent threat to corporatism.
Re:Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the big corporations never work to shout out competitors ?!
Capitalism only works when reined in by strict regulation.
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
They're more than happy to put in a competitive bid to NASA for a contract. Money is money.
But unlike some of their competitors, their business model does not rely on near perpetual government contracts, secured through small, legislatively exclusive pools of competitors.
The key difference is SpaceX would be going to the Moon and Mars with or without NASA's contracts. They've already been developing the tech and launch platforms to do it, and are years ahead of their competitors as a result. Out of all the companies that put in proposals for a manned mission to the Moon, only SpaceX had a man-rated launch system already in operation.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:4, Informative)
They're more than happy to put in a competitive bid to NASA for a contract. Money is money. But unlike some of their competitors, their business model does not rely on near perpetual government contracts,
Their original business model (Falcon I) failed. Their revised business model was to build a launch vehicle using NASA funding, which succeeded. While they now make a large number of non-NASA launches, this is no different from the legacy aerospace contractors, who developed vehicles with government (usually Air Force) funding and then went into the commercial launch business with those vehicles.
secured through small, legislatively exclusive pools of competitors.
No, the "legislatively exclusive" part is misinformation. There is ONE legislatively-mandated launch vehicle (SLS), but outside of that, NASA (and the Air Force) has supported a large number of start-ups... including SpaceX.
The key difference is SpaceX would be going to the Moon and Mars with or without NASA's contracts.
Until they bid (and won) the $2.9 billion NASA lunar lander contract [nytimes.com], they had showed no interest at all in the moon. Now that they have, the NASA contract has become their main funding for developing Starship.
They've already been developing the tech and launch platforms to do it, and are years ahead of their competitors as a result. Out of all the companies that put in proposals for a manned mission to the Moon, only SpaceX had a man-rated launch system already in operation.
This part is accurate. Although it's also true that the lunar lander competition did not require a human-rated launch system.
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
While SpaceX absolutely relied on NASA contracts to grow (and would have gone out of business at one point without them), that's not somehow some terrible thing. Consider that this article is comparing against SLS (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne). How exactly are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Rocketdyne not reliant on "gubbermint money"? They're all government contractors, but SpaceX seems to be delivering more for the money.
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
The key difference is that SpaceX is a normal company sometimes delivering on government contracts, while those other companies are traditional government contractors.
Or to phrase it better...
The goal of a company like SpaceX is to accomplish something, where a contract is simply an agreement with a customer to pay for the result.
Meanwhile, the goal of a traditional government contractor is to bill against a charge number associated with a contract. They won't do anything unless it can be accounted for this way. Actually accomplishing anything useful is little more than a side-effect of the process.
(Maybe that wasn't the best wording, but its the gist of it.)
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
The Falcon 1 was an orbit-capable rocked that was developed with private funding, with the first orbital launch in 2008 - six years after it was founded. Blue Origin had existed for 8 years at that point (founded in 2000), and even today, almost 22 years after being founded, Blue Origin does not have an orbit capable anything.
So to your claim that "spacex wouldn't even be as far along as blue origin is" without government money: SpaceX had passed Blue Origin on private funds alone over a decade ago.
=Smidge=
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Blue Origin does not have an orbit capable anything
No but they've gone further than anyone in replicating that rocket scene from Austin Powers, which is what really matters here.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, it looks like Falcon Heavy can launch 3.5 tonnes to escape earth's gravity without relying on that special window for a Martian transfer.
The thing that should scare existing rocket manufacturers is how SpaceX is designing its next generation rocket to be constructed out in the open, out of cheap materials, with lower skilled processes. This stands out in contrast to ULA with a cleanroom of a factory and high end machining processes to produce Atlas and now Vulcan. ULA's factory has never com
Re:Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the "strict regulation" that's allowing SpaceX to achieve success while Lockheed and Boeing find failures or delays?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Regulation within the companies that they must milk tax payers for every possible penny for as many years as possible.
I never invested in Tesla, and have always from day one thought they were overvalued (though I like the cars). But I have wanted to invest in SpaceX since the very first launch I heard about, and after hearing about Starlink I was ready to put my entire 401k towards it. But they will likely not go public until well after they have finished growing. Good for the company I guess, not good for
Re: (Score:3)
Likely all the requirements piled on by NASA and congress.
NASA requires MILSPEC, which inflates the cost of everything being purchased for NASA programs. They don't require MILSPEC for commercial crew, as SpaceX is a shipper, and not building and selling the rocket to NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
(Free market) capitalism requires that there is competition in a free market. Both Adam Smith and Marx pointed out that with no regulation things degenerate into some form of feudalism.
"Capitalism" doesn't mean "do whatever the fuck you want." It never has.
Re: (Score:3)
So he knows his audience?
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of of capitalism is to create wealth. Innovation is just a tool. If wealth can be created by any other means, those too will be tools.
Re: (Score:3)
The point of of capitalism is to steal wealth. Innovation is just a tool. If wealth can be created by any other means, those too will be tools.
FTFY.
Re: Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
You sure you want to bark up that tree? China is also doing well. And NASA on their own was too decades ago.
Before they were forced to privatize in the name of innovation and capitalism by bidding out to a few select private companies. A relationship that has been mostly a money sink.
Most public+private partnerships are like this where the latter finds it more profitable to invest in politicians and regulatory control rather than focus on their product.
Re:Good thing about capitalism: Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously... the government just needs to stay out of Elon Musk's way and let him build the Starship needed to return to his home planet. He seems to be doing a decent job repurposing primitive earthling technology for his needs.
Re:Good thing about independence: Innovation (Score:3)
Other example? Look at YouTube (bought by google) and the google's "innovative" removal of progress indicator in suggestions. They "innovated" to make you view the same videos (and more ads) more often. THAT is capitalism.
FAA (Score:5, Insightful)
at an estimated $2 billion per launch, could prove too costly for the multiple journeys to the moon
Wow, they must be throwing money hand over fist at FAA and environmental lobbyists right now. That's their best hope - get starship bogged down with regulatory reviews.
I wonder if these people ever stop to think of they world they would live in if their ilk were able to truly destroy the efforts of those who wish to push humanity forward.
Re:FAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. That is exactly right, environmental review is their tactic. They know environmental review is highly subjective. There’s bound to be some species of crab in Boca Chica that is scared off by rocket engines and that can be used to bash SpaceX over the head.
It does not help that Elon goes out of his way to be anti-Biden on twitter, it seems like Elon keeps grudges just as bad as the government does. Maybe he needs a class on psychology, strategy, and diplomacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he needs a class on psychology, strategy, and diplomacy.
Well he's the richest man in the world...
So he's doing 'Ok' without your advice.
Are you sure we want to make him stronger?
Re:FAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Chinese officials do admire him a lot for his achievements but not even that would've saved him from speaking out of turn a hundred times over.
Besides, Musk loves USA. He's totally on board with the hands-off government play-book.
If lander is Starship based anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than pork, SLS and Orion don't really serve any purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creating/keeping highpaying jobs in the states through political power and taxmoney. Thats why people often refer to SLS as Senate Launch System.
SLS is slow, superexpensive, late, uncompetetive but keeps jobs and ppl inb office. But have nothing to do with effectiveness, science, explorations or sustainability at all. Sadge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than pork, SLS and Orion don't really serve any purposes.
Pretty much. They are old tech that is very obsolete at this time.
Re:If lander is Starship based anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides pork, I think the point of SLS was to be the "other bet". When NASA started the commercial launch provider model that SpaceX has been so successful under, it was not clear that it would work. It still is not a sure thing that starship will work out, but getting better all the time. SLS was the "traditional" hedge bet in case SpaceX's model didn't succeed. So the idea would be that after a few launches that complete the technology proving, which is worthwhile from a technology development point of view, SLS will end. NASA won't need in-house launch capability at that scale since it will be available on the open market. I would argue that has been the plan all along, i.e. it's good to have a back-up, even if it is expensive.
The other way to look at it is that NASA figured out a way to get out from under the thumb of congress telling them what kind of tech they can use for their rockets by moving that choice outside NASA (into the market) and making it so conspicuously cheaper. Basically working around the bad direction from congress.
Re:If lander is Starship based anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Pork is the point. Space has went through thirty plus years of the government using it as a money funnel to favorite donors, and not seen as an area for innovation. The tech involved in the SLS is all old tech repurposed. The one thing I'll give Musk is his push to get SpaceX moving things forward. If SpaceX hadn't existed and been this successful, we'd probably be hearing about how the moon mission had been pushed off to 2035 and the SLS will need to be re-engineered from the boosters up for the hundredth time. While there are other players on the field, SpaceX getting their human rating for the Dragon Capsules scared the old guard enough to actually start trying. But "trying" for them is a much slower process than it is for SpaceX with its fast iteration and expectation of failure in early prototypes to learn lessons to apply to the next iteration.
I'm no Musk fanboy, but SpaceX, despite not matching his fantasy timeline, is actually getting something done. Whether it will be allowed to continue here in the states or not may be up for debate soon, as they're waiting on regulatory approval for an orbital test, and have been for months. I could definitely see the old guard lobbying HARD to get them shut down, or at least on indefinite administrative hold "for review." Not sure how long Musk's patience will last on that front. He doesn't strike me as the type of dude that will let this drag on for years.
To the edge of space... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Remind me how many times the SLS and Orion have flown?
Orion, unlike Starship or SLS has been to space. I'll forgive you for forgetting since it was seven years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Starship has only flown to about 12.5 km altitude, hardly the edge of space...
True. However, getting to space seems to actually be the easy part. There's very little doubt that they can make it to space. Their high altitude flights so far seem to have been much more focused on just getting it high enough that they can practice landing maneuvers. Logically, it does seem like that part should come first.
Business versus purpose. (Score:5, Interesting)
Big firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are bogged down in a corporate culture of just doing business which means they are minimizing risk and expense which is how they approach every problem. SpaceX on the other hand got into the game risking it all, taking it's success and attempting what established businesses called a pipe dream. The difference is that decision makers at the businesses are not really interest in pushing further and faster, they are just in it for money. SpaceX is still run by people who were risking it all when it started.
Re:Business versus purpose. (Score:5, Informative)
Musk tends to over-promise and under-deliver. He does get some impressive tech out there, but you would be unwise to rely on his predictions when planning your timetable.
Full Self Driving - 6 years late and counting
New Roadster - 5 years late and counting
1 Million Robotaxis - 3 years late and counting
Tesla Semi 500 mile range - 3 years late and counting
Cybertruck - 1 year late and counting
Solar Powered Superchargers - 5 years late and counting
The list goes on. If he says he will get you to the Moon by 2025, don't start packing.
Re: (Score:2)
A question on those. By "Solar Powered Superchargers" do you mean 100% solar powered? Because Tesla definitely has solar powered superchargers, but they only get some of their power from solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk promised that superchargers would be 100% powered by solar, in response to a question about how clean electric vehicles really are when the coal fire power station can be seen from the supercharger site.
He also promised that there would a "SpaceX edition" of the new Roadster, with integrated rocket motors. He even described how they would help you accelerate and take corners.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk tends to over-promise and under-deliver.
I have no illusions here. He absolutely does when it comes to Tesla because a large part of why he's there is because he's a talented hype man to get people excited as it's a publicly traded company. Higher the hype, the higher the stock price. SpaceX is not publicly traded, so there is a lot less product hype though he does want people to be thinking and excited about space. If you recall, he didn't think SpaceX would be a success but he wanted people thinking about space again.
I don't think anybody is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he wants any SpaceX business outside LEO he'd better learn to meet a timetable though. Orbital mechanics don't magically adjust themselves to match any CEO's whim. Hohmann waits for no one. And if a mission's launch window to Mars or beyond is missed because Musk got distracted by some new shiny, couldn't be bothered to pay attention to SpaceX deadlines, and the launch vehicle is not ready; then the mission is scrubbed and NASA is screwed.
And just imagine the congressional hearings after that happens.
Re:Business versus purpose. (Score:4, Interesting)
If "risking it all", even combined with "skin in the game", determined who wins then Las Vegas would not exist. There's a lot more to success -- especially groundbreaking success -- than those two factors. There has to be uncommon acumen and someone who is in the right place at the right time, not just a willingness to dump a lot of resources on an unsure thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot more to success -- especially groundbreaking success -- than those two factors. There has to be uncommon acumen and someone who is in the right place at the right time, not just a willingness to dump a lot of resources on an unsure thing.
The piece that you are missing is that the other companies are publicly traded, so they are highly averse to risk taking when it's not immediately profitable. To that end, the ULA didn't even bother to design their own rocket engine, they just used old rockets from the 1960s. The knowledge to design a new rocket existed but building up the institutional knowledge and hiring people to work on it may or may not end up saving them money and that takes a lot of time compared of just buying old rocket engines.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if you're a big contractor serving GOVERNMENT projects, their strategy IS the highest reward, lowest risk choice.
They are the optimized survival product of their environment.
Particularly when serving a government that is
- utterly risk averse
- swollen with money (so what if we have to borrow 1/3 from the hand-wavy future to pay for it)
- unable to make and stick to long term plans, with the political winds changing direction 180 degrees about every 8 years
Look at the Challenger investigation - som
Edge of Space? (Score:3)
Starship, which conducted a successful flight to the edge of space last year
Where the fuck is that? I can think of two meanings, both extreme :
1) Where the Earth's atmosphere peters out
2) Where the leading edge of the Big Bang shockwave has reached
Re:Edge of Space? (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly it's the latter.
. . .
*cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starship, which conducted a successful flight to the edge of space last year
Where the fuck is that? I can think of two meanings, both extreme :
1) Where the Earth's atmosphere peters out
2) Where the leading edge of the Big Bang shockwave has reached
The edge of space is where the turtle's shell begins.
$2 billion vs $??? (Score:2)
I don't see this in the article - has SpaceX estimated what the cost of a Starship launch will be once in full swing? I'm sure it'll be less than $2 billion given the re-usability, but it would be useful to have a sense of how much less before declaring it the obvious alternative to SLS.
Re: (Score:2)
To start with they expect circa 10 million and one launch every two weeks.
"they"?! No, Elon says that. The engineers and accountants roll their eyes.
Starship is Great But We Do Need Competition (Score:2)
It's great to see SpaceX giving the industry the giant kick in the arse that it long desperately needed. The absurd costs and slow uninspired development were only getting worse over time, as these things usually do. So SpaceX has added new hope and vigor where nearly none existed, before.
That said, I really hope the FAA doesn't give SpaceX too hard of a time with Starship. I have a feeling the Biden administration isn't super friendly and isn't going to offer any help (as judged by President Biden's hos
Re: (Score:2)
I hope he doesn't unnecessarily antagonize the FAA (or the Biden administration).
Yeah, it would be a shame to see SpaceX pack up and move to another country because FAA or the Biden administration shat the bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it "Be Crude on Social Media Day"?
YMBNH
Re: (Score:2)
"Shat the bed" seems to be a beloved phrase of the anonymous Washington insider. Goes well with their scotch drinking, chain smoking, heart attack having, hard nosed street fighter image.
Artemis, the Greek god of... (Score:2)
Seems like a very, very perfect quote. (Score:2)
I don't know how well Politico follows up on its posts, but a quote that perfectly entertaining deserves some scrutiny. Even anonymously, people in professional circles don't usually speak with such direct punchiness against their own interests. Caution and discretion are the rule, and the exceptions are rarely so figurative and on-point at capturing zeitgeist.
Reality tends not to be this satisfying. But if everything is as advertised, well done!
Malapropisms are my pet peeve. (Score:2)
'Shit your pants' means fear. I'm told that happens IRL, too.
Top lobbyist, huh?
In related news... (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:3)
which conducted a successful flight to the edge of space last year
They did not. I think at best it reached 6 miles in height. It has not even come close to space at this point.
Re: What we are going to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember that the vast majority of the rank and file employees at both NASA and the contractors are on SpaceX's side. They got into aerospace because they wanted to be part of cool stuff. After working at these organizations they've realized it's all just slow moving red tape with no actual results. It's all designed to funnel tax dollars into the pockets of these big companies, missing deadlines and increasing costs. Musk comes along and actually changes the game. They love this.
Sadly they're not the ones calling the shots...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see NASA going back to being more like NACA: working on the important basic research that others can employ. Let industry make the workhorses; let NASA develop the materials, simulators, reactors, sensors, theoretical engines, human physiological data, in-situ chemical processes, etc etc that help them out. As well as, obviously, funding that there's little profit motive for (probes, telescopes, etc).
As a European, though, I can only wish the ESA had NASA's budget. Honestly, the ESA is disappo
Re: (Score:2)
There's been fairly massive anti-SpaceX sentiment in MSM for quite some time. There have been a few stories about SLS tests, and inevitably someone brings up SpaceX and then they spout off about how "they can't even get humans to space yet" or "they just like to blow their rockets up." Like SpaceX is ONLY the Starship and the successful landing never happened. Whether intentional or not, it's a saddening trend that I expect will only grow worse as the old guard get further and further behind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course only Neuralink and Hyperloop are representative of Musk's success rate. All those other super successful companies/products/etc are all just noise really.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course only Neuralink and Hyperloop are representative of Musk's success rate. All those other super successful companies/products/etc are all just noise really.
I wouldn't call inflicting pain and suffering [yahoo.com] before killing you a success.
Re: Musk is full of shit (Score:2)
And the poster didnâ(TM)t say they were. In fact, it is clear that he considers them failures. However, Elon Musk has more than enough success to be considered a successful entrepreneur.
Re:Musk is full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Or not [neuralink.com]
Neuralink - as is normal - started out its work on (A) cadavers, and (B) terminal procedures from UC Davis. If you're not familiar with (B), that's a research subject that has already been slated to be euthanized for quality of life reasons (whether natural or as an unintended result of past research) - in this case, as declared from UC Davis's ethics committee. They're anesthetized, the experimental procedure is performed, and then the animal is not brought back out of anesthesia. Let me reiterate that: terminal procedures are supposed to end with the animal dead. It's not "OMG, the animals just spontaneously died!"
Of non-terminal procedure deaths, as from the initial plan, developed with the UC Davis ethics committee:
* Two were planned to be euthanized from the start, in order to gather histological data
* Five were unplanned. One was an unexpected reaction with an FDA-approved product (BioGlue). The four were implant-associated infections. Developing proper, safe procedures is kind of the whole point of animal research.
The animals at Neuralink were assigned to them by UC Davis, both terminal procedures and non-terminal procedures. However, many of the non-terminal procedure animals already have a wide range of preexisting conditions. Several were missing digits at arrival, none of which happened in Neuralink's custody. This was not the result of experimentation, but rather fights between rival macaques, which happens both in captivity and the wild.
Neuralink now has their own facility and animals rather than relying on UC Davis. I recommend reading the above linked articles for descriptions, photos, and videos of the facilities. As a random selection of excerpts:
* "The Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations Part 3, Subpart D. 3.80 (b)(2) states that a nonhuman primate weighing 10-15 kg needs an enclosure with 6.0 sq ft of floor space and 2.6 ft in height. Our housing enclosure provides our animals 200 sq ft in floor space with 12 ft in height."
* "We do not practice water and food restriction, which are common strategies used in medical research to motivate animals to perform behavioral tasks. Instead, as discussed above, we utilize a diverse diet with novel food items to intrigue animals and encourage them to engage and participate with the behavioral tasks. If an animal chooses not to participate in a training task, they are never forced to do so. You may have seen an example of this in action during our first demo when our pig Gertrude chose to forage through straw in the back of her pen rather than make her debut on stage when cued. ... We retired several macaques to a sanctuary last March because they consistently chose to spend their day swimming in their pools, foraging, and relaxing in their hammocks rather than attending the game we presented to them. Their brand new enclosures and sanctuary costs were fully funded by Neuralink."
* "Restraint Devices: The Animal Welfare Act (Part 3, Subpart D 3.81(d)) allows for nonhuman primates to be in restraint devices for research with approval by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. At Neuralink, we’ve worked relentlessly to do away with restraints entirely and minimize the time needed engaging in a task to obtain optimal data. Thanks to the preliminary work at UC Davis, we identified a process for fully implanting our device under the skin, making the device fully wireless. This allows animals to perform their research tasks either in their home environment or in large plexiglass enclosures where they are freely able to climb up a branch to interact with the game console, as demonstrated by Pager in the Monkey MindPong video.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla sells cars too, they're quite popular. The solar roof files weren't a fraud, they're still being installed.
Sounds like you just have a hatred of Musk
Re: (Score:2)
You left out:
Errol gave Musk $28,000 to start Zip2
His mother gave him $10,000 and bought him groceries, furniture and other stuff and helped him out financially when he was starting zip2.
With inflation adjusted that would be about $69,555 in current money.
Citation: https://money.com/maye-musk-ca... [money.com]
If you are interrested in well researched debunking of Musk then it's all here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Read better.
"One of the later investment rounds did get an investment from Elon's father, but only a low single-digit percentage."
Errol did not fund the formation of Zip2. That was primarily Greg Kouri, and to a lesser extent Kimbal. Errol invested in a later investment round, and it was a minor investment compared to the total.
The topi
Re:Musk is full of shit (Score:5, Funny)
Can't decide if "dumbass" or "troll". Do we have a moderation for "dumbass"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right...the Hyperloop has been in "production" since 2012 and now the next date is 2030 I believe? It's obvious the Hyperloop is just a scam to get investor money for as long as possible and then dump the product. It's clear to anyone with a scientific mind that the Hyperloop is completely impossible to implement just based on the logistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk and his companies have had little to no involvement in Hyperloop in nearly a decade. The two companies actually working on the concept are Virgin [wikipedia.org] and Hyperloop TT [wikipedia.org]. People like to try and give Musk shit for it, but other than promoting the idea and some early stuff nearly a decade ago, all they've really done is hold some competitions for other teams to develop the idea.
> It's clear to anyone with a scientific mind that the Hyperloop is completely impossible to implement just based on the logistics.
H
Re: (Score:3)
It's one thing to buy successful companies from someone else with your fathers money and pimp them out as your own, to actually build a company up from the ground up yourself.
You've been lied to. You should go to the people who lied to you and ask them why they did that. But instead, you'll probably just keep foaming at the mouth and attacking the messenger.
So, yeah, good luck with that approach to life. It does seem to be working out well for lots of people these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk bought shares in Tesla an already created company. When Musk started Zip2 he was given money from his father for the startup. His mother also supported him and his brother. It's very easy to make money when you already start with lots of money.
Re: Musk is full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything SpaceX does is successful (fairing catchers, anyone?), but they do have a pretty good track record.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone has ever said that reusable rockets landing where an impossibility or stupid. It's just a question if it's actually practical and cost saving in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
It's practical and cost saving in the short term, so why wouldn't it be long-term? That don't make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone has ever said that reusable rockets landing where an impossibility or stupid
Then you either missed a lot or you have a bad memory (it's also possible that you're fibbing, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
It's just a question if it's actually practical and cost saving in the long term.
The evidence so far seems to support the idea that it is both practical and cost saving.
Re: Musk is full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of the guy, but I have to admit he's had some major business and technological successes. Is he himself doing something brilliant, or is he surrounding himself by brilliant people? Both? I don't know, but the results don't lie.
Whatever SpaceX (and Starlink) and Tesla are doing, it's working. Having other companies that aren't as successful doesn't make him a failure. He has a track record of getting involved in bold, cutting edge ventures, not conservative sure bets.
Re: (Score:2)
x.com
spaceX
2 companies (3 if you count zip2). Bought Tesla, made it what it is today. Toys around with insane ideas (hyperloop, neuralink, boring)
He plays markets; by many indicators, he should be considered a fraud. Tesla self-driving definitely should be considered as such.
I know nothing about his company's treatment of employees.
But you know what he does: he tries to do the stuff he dreams about. That is more than I, and presumably you, have the guts/balls for. And from my point of view, the stuff he dre
Re: (Score:2)
x.com was actually a disaster. Paypal merged with x.com in order to eliminate any market fracture. Musk was then promptly replaced as a CEO and then PayPal spun off indepently and was successful when Musk wasn't there anymore.
I think Tesla is what it is today because of it's founders and what their engineers built.
zip2 might be called a success but was funded with his dad money then sold off.
for spaceX we currently don't know if it will actually be successful.
The bottom line is when you can start with lots
Re: (Score:2)
How much money did he start with? I'm also interested in becoming a multi-billionaire and if it's that easy, maybe I can just take out a loan for a few thousand to get me going
They are driving them hard, forcing failures. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Raptor engines (Score:5, Insightful)
They're supposed to melt sometimes in tests. If they never do, you're not pushing them hard enough.
You can always combat nozzle erosion by lowering performance. But - obviously - SpaceX is simultaneously trying to make its engines (A) as high performance as possible, and (B) as cheap as possible. And yes, they're absolutely working to solve both of them simultaneously. To their standards, which are more extreme than is normal for the rocketry industry (mass-production scales of rocket engine manufacture)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the 2-year old redesign of the Raptor? You don't expect it to have issues this far down the line eh? But it's fine for classic contractors to absorb billions for decades to develop nothing?
FTFY.
Re:Raptor engines (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Raptor engines (Score:5, Informative)
The way it works at NASA is they have a need, and they invite companies to put in proposals to fulfil it. At the time SpaceX didn't have a proposal that met the requirements.
Crew Dragon is different because SpaceX had a clear path from where they were to a man-rated vehicle, with demonstrated technology underpinning it.
It's not some conspiracy, it's how NASA works.
Re: (Score:2)
SLS was really conceived in the eighties and ordered in the 2000s. The alternatives were trying to build more Saturn Vs, or starting from scratch.
Starship is coming out of left field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because SpaceX has a record of delivering on some pretty difficult engineering challenges. There have been some failures, but they've pretty much succeeded on all the big stuff. Definitely not always on their ambitious timelines. Everyone sensibly takes the timelines with a grain of salt. However, the eventual timeline that they do succeed on is generally pretty good compared to the competition.