Support NeoGAF

[duderon]

There's quite a few articles suggesting he doesn't quite have the engineering chops as some of his fans believe. Here's one example that shows that he consistently falls short of goals. What's really telling is that many of the goals that falls short are caused by pretty basic problems, like getting doors opening or closing correctly, or car trim pieces properly installed. There's also been a slew of issues with all of his companies lately, like deaths caused by deficiencies in Tesla's self-driving car technology, SpaceX losing a rocket on a launchpad, etc. Of course, he's only the CEO, not the guy designing these components, so we can't put all of the blame on him. But you can blame his combination of pushing certain ideas with fully vetting them and his inability to grasp basic engineering problems, as well as being really bad at managing other people, as a major driver of these failures.



Yes actually. I also know that Hyperloop is basically impossible when taking account safety and practicality issues: debunking video.



Heat shields are old technology, dating back to the 1960s. Maybe he did a good job in this one particular instance, but this is hardly a major accomplishment.

You just quoted a WSJ hit-piece as evidence that Musk hasn't reached his goals. He's accomplished more than he's hoped for. He's said multiple times he expected Tesla and SpaceX to fail. Now Tesla is making 100,000 cars a year and SpaceX is landing first stages on barges in the ocean. He's consistently achieved milestones no one ever has with his companies. You have no facts to prove otherwise.

He also describes himself as an engineer first and foremost. Many of the first engineers that worked for SpaceX described his uncanny ability to absorb information like no one else they had met before. He's a genius. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

The proof is already written in stone. 8 years ago there were zero Teslas. Now there are 150,000 driving around. 3 years ago SpaceX started testing landing capable rockets. They've landed 5 first stages this year.

 

[F!ReW!Re]

A launchpad failure like this hasn't happen in more than 50 years in the US. SpaceX is basically unable to solve problems other have solved long ago. This is a pretty strong example of the lack of engineering ability by Elon Musk, or at least his inability to get other people to properly engineer these issues out.

I got to work, so I can give you a proper reason why this is a laughable statement;

First if you have time, read this;
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html/3

Pretty indept piece about what SpaceX has done up to this point including all the bumps in the road.

Secondly;

A launchpad failure like this hasn't happen in more than 50 years in the US.

That's because the space industry has been relying on old and proven hardware and if I may use a hyperbole: have been barely innovating anything for the last 20-30 years.

Now comes along a man with a vision of doing a start-up in the space industry.
Probably the most ill advised venture to ever spend your money on.
He gets a bunch of brilliant people together and starts the company with with most of his own money invested into it.
They decide to build their own rockets from the ground-up (in the beginning they used contracters for some parts, but later decided that full vertical integration of the design and manufactoring of the parts was essential to reach their goals)

Quote from the article I posted above (if you want another source, check Ashley Vance's Bio on Musk)

And with such large forces in play—the weight of the rocket, the speeds, the thick atmosphere—even a tiny equipment malfunction can immediately destroy the mission. The problem is, you can’t reliably test exactly how the equipment will hold up until it actually launches.

SpaceX learned all of this the hard way.

2006: First launch—failure

2007: Second launch—failure

2008: Third launch—failure

Bad times.

The failures were caused by tiny things. Specifically, a corroded nut not holding up under the pressure, liquid in the rocket sloshing around more than expected, and the first stage engines shutting down a few seconds too late during stage separation. You can get everything 99.9% right, and the last .1% will explode the rocket in a catastrophic failure. Space is hard.

Every rocket-launching government or company—each and every one—has failures. It’s part of the gig. Normally, you take a deep breath, roll up your sleeves, figure out what went wrong, and move on to the next launch. But SpaceX had special circumstances—the company had money for “three or four launches,” and after three failures, the only launch they had left was the Or Four one. It was scheduled for less than two months after the third launch failed. And this was the last chance.

A friend of Musk, Adeo Ressi, describes it like this: “Everything hinged on that launch … If it works, epic success. If it fails — if one thing goes differently and it fails — epic failure. No in between. No partial credit. He’d had three failures already. It would have been over. We’re talking Harvard Business School case study — rich guy who goes into the rocket business and loses it all.”1311

But on September 28, 2008, SpaceX set off the fourth launch—and nailed it.12 They put a dummy payload into orbit without a hitch, becoming only the second privately-funded company ever to do so.

Falcon 1 was also the most cost-efficient rocket ever to launch—priced at $7.9 million, it cost less than a third of the best US alternative at the time.

NASA took notice. The successful fourth launch was enough evidence for them that SpaceX was worth trusting, and at the end of 2008, NASA called Musk and told him they wanted to offer SpaceX a $1.6 billion contract to make 12 deliveries for them to the ISS.

Musk’s money had done its job. SpaceX had customers now and a long future ahead

And then there's the launchpad failure you were referencing to;
We still don't know what caused it.
So to already write it down to: "Their engineering sucks, look at Tesla". Is really weird to me.

 

[HyperionX]

That literally lacks context. If he sets super ambitious goals and achieves them at a later time that's not necessarily indicative of "bad engineering." It could be for any number of reasons that it happens, including bad engineering.

One example would be having to develop an entirely new supply chain because suppliers aren't used to supplying electric vehicles! Not something the science guy on youtube would have knowledge of.

Like I said the article puts it in context itself unwittingly. GM literally can't produce as many electric cars as Tesla because the batteries don't exist in the numbers they would need. Despite missing his goals he'll be far ahead of any large automaker in producing electric vehicles. Being late on his terms might make the stock jump around but needs to be understood in relation to the industry.

Bad engineering is clearly the frontrunner as the explanation. Sure it could be something else, but the strongest evidence points to Tesla's inability to properly design and/or engineer cars. It should be pointed out that the Nissan Leaf came out before the Model S. GM is in the process of launching the Bolt (first EV with 200+ mi range) later this year. Tesla is the only one that runs into these problems. It's not clear at all if he's ahead of the competition.

It's also something of a pattern at all of his companies. Solarcity is in a serious financial crunch. Tesla has tons of problems. SpaceX has problems. The only common factor is Elon Musk himself, and all of the problems seem to originate from some kind of deficiency in design, management, or engineering.

What does pushing it too far mean? Here's how mobileye's CEO describes the tech back in January.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/q-a-mobileye-founder-talks-self-driving-cars-1452714384

That's seems to accurately describe the situation it failed in.

Like I said, it's basically the same technology everyone else uses. What I meant by pushing the envelope was that Tesla was the only ones calling it "autopilot." Everyone else has the same system, but didn't call it that. That apparently led to the death of a driver and several lesser accidents.

Like I said before this again lacks context. For one you don't balance this with the achievements of spacex, you also don't know how engineering relates to this explosion in a substantive manner. The primary reason being nobody knows why this happened. Which is why you shouldn't be jumping to conclusions.

While we can't know in detail what really happened, the last time a rocket failed on the launchpad like that in the US was in the 1960s. There's been thousands of rocket launches since then, suggesting this was a "solved problem" in context of rocket launches. For SpaceX to have this kind of problem strongly suggests that they're missing something everyone else figured out decades ago.

Being a phd in physics does not make one an expert in vacuum technology. If he was he might be more likely to work somewhere like aecom instead of spending his time ranting about sjw's.

Maybe, but the points still seem solid and I've yet to see any counterarguments.

This isn't a coherent chain of thought. Virtually all technologies can be traced back in this overly broad way of classifying it. Nobody cares that something like google maps borrowed technologies that have their roots in decades old inventions, what matters is what it's doing now.[/QUOTE]

Again, in the context of what he's done elsewhere, yes that is true. However, this time he's doing something completely different and beyond what anyone has tried.

 

[Hypron]

Most of your points aren't bad. But come on man, what are you going to prove with an ad hominem? That's not really helpful here.

It's not necessarily wrong though. PhDs are about very specialised topics. Someone that has a PhD in physics will very likely still have a deeper knowledge of Physics in general than your average guy with a bachelor's, but most of the knowledge acquired over the course of their PhD will be very specific to the subject of their research. They will know a ton about that specific subject, but I wouldn't use them as a reference for things that are outside of their areas of expertise.

There are many fields covered by the term "physics" - it's a very broad subject.

 

[Nocebo]

It's not necessarily wrong though. PhDs are about very specialised topics. Someone that has a PhD in physics will very likely still have a deeper knowledge of Physics in general than your average guy with a bachelor's, but most of the knowledge acquired over the course of their PhD will be very specific to the subject of their research. They will know a ton about that specific subject, but I wouldn't use them as a reference for things that are outside of their areas of expertise.

There are many fields covered by the term "physics" - it's a very broad subject.

It is necessarily wrong. The guy in the video makes a bunch of points that seem to be based on physics. Refuting points by saying "you don't know what you're talking about", isn't really a good way of refuting those points. An ad hominem is never a good argument against a point. As it doesn't explain why the point is wrong. Only why the person could possibly be mistaken.

I could say "you're just some guy on a forum, what do you know? Who are you to argue against my point? Do you have credentials in x, y and z!?" and that wouldn't get us anywhere now would it?

 

[HyperionX]

You just quoted a WSJ hit-piece as evidence that Musk hasn't reached his goals. He's accomplished more than he's hoped for. He's said multiple times he expected Tesla and SpaceX to fail. Now Tesla is making 100,000 cars a year and SpaceX is landing first stages on barges in the ocean. He's consistently achieved milestones no one ever has with his companies. You have no facts to prove otherwise.

He also describes himself as an engineer first and foremost. Many of the first engineers that worked for SpaceX described his uncanny ability to absorb information like no one else they had met before. He's a genius. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

The proof is already written in stone. 8 years ago there were zero Teslas. Now there are 150,000 driving around. 3 years ago SpaceX started testing landing capable rockets. They've landed 5 first stages this year.

My understanding is that Nissan outsells Tesla in terms of EVs globally. Tesla's might be better cars than Nissan's (more range, more performance, etc.) so while he has had some success, it is not to the point where we can give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, landing rockets originated at McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s. He deserves credit for improving the idea, but it is not really all that new.

I got to work, so I can give you a proper reason why this is a laughable statement;

First if you have time, read this;
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html/3

Pretty indept piece about what SpaceX has done up to this point including all the bumps in the road.

Secondly;

That's because the space industry has been relying on old and proven hardware and if I may use a hyperbole: have been barely innovating anything for the last 20-30 years.

Now comes along a man with a vision of doing a start-up in the space industry.
Probably the most ill advised venture to ever spend your money on.
He gets a bunch of brilliant people together and starts the company with with most of his own money invested into it.
They decide to build their own rockets from the ground-up (in the beginning they used contracters for some parts, but later decided that full vertical integration of the design and manufactoring of the parts was essential to reach their goals)

Quote from the article I posted above (if you want another source, check Ashley Vance's Bio on Musk)


You make it seem that they suck at engineering and that because of that they made stupid mistakes.
I'm sorry but that's almost insulting...

The Falcon 9 is just a generic kerosene/lox rocket, no different than what existed back in the 1960s. If he's having problems others haven't had since the 1960s, I don't buy the argument that its the lack of innovation among other companies or organizations that's the issue here. Also, SpaceX has only launched about 30 or so rockets in its entire history, which isn't a particularly impressive track record either. Sure, others have failed getting even one rocket off the ground, so definitely Elon Musk is above many others, but he's far from being as successful as your links claim he is.

 

[Nocebo]

The Falcon 9 is just a generic kerosene/lox rocket, no different than what existed back in the 1960s. If he's having problems others haven't had since the 1960s, I don't buy the argument that its the lack of innovation among other companies or organizations that's the issue here. Also, SpaceX has only launched about 30 or so rockets in its entire history, which isn't a particularly impressive track record either. Sure, others have failed getting even one rocket off the ground, so definitely Elon Musk is above many others, but he's far from being as successful as your links claim he is.

Ok, he's not as successful as some people think, but he's more successful than many? And...? What now? Are you arguing just to argue?

 

[F!ReW!Re]

Also, landing rockets originated at McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s. He deserves credit for improving the idea, but it is not really all that new.

For real? Credit for improving it?
You mean landing 5 first stages of a rocket is not impressive enough for you?
Nobody (especially not a private company) has ever done that (landing a first stage after having it enter LEO or GEO) before with a first stage. They landed on a land based landing pad and a drone ship. I'm sorry but that's SUPER impressive...

The Falcon 9 is just a generic kerosene/lox rocket, no different than what existed back in the 1960's. If he's having problems others haven't had since the 1960s, I don't buy the argument that its the lack of innovation among other companies or organizations that's the issue here. Also, SpaceX has only launched about 30 or so rockets in its entire history, which isn't a particularly impressive track record either. Sure, others have failed getting even one rocket off the ground, so definitely Elon Musk is above many others, but he's far from being as successful as your links claim he is.

For a fraction of the price, using newer hardware, lighter materials and better engines.
It cut costs of launching cargo into space and used a lot of innovations. It was also the first first stage to ever get landed on land/barge after reaching LEO/GEO.

I really don't know what they have to do in your eyes before something is considered impressive.

 

[East Lake]

Bad engineering is clearly the frontrunner as the explanation. Sure it could be something else, but the strongest evidence points to Tesla's inability to properly design and/or engineer cars. It should be pointed out that the Nissan Leaf came out before the Model S. GM is in the process of launching the Bolt (first EV with 200+ mi range) later this year. Tesla is the only one that runs into these problems. It's not clear at all if he's ahead of the competition.

The Model S and leaf aren't similar. It is clear he's ahead even if you only look at supply chains. GM can't produce as many electric cars as Tesla can. That's why he built the 5 billion dollar battery factory. GM has to buy their batteries from the supplier LG Chem which doesn't have the volume to compete.

It's also something of a pattern at all of his companies. Solarcity is in a serious financial crunch. Tesla has tons of problems. SpaceX has problems. The only common factor is Elon Musk himself, and all of the problems seem to originate from some kind of deficiency in design, management, or engineering.

As I said before it's because he's expanding. That's what happens when smaller companies make large investments. This is fairly common thing with younger companies.

Like I said, it's basically the same technology everyone else uses. What I meant by pushing the envelope was that Tesla was the only ones calling it "autopilot." Everyone else has the same system, but didn't call it that. That apparently led to the death of a driver and several lesser accidents.

Except in the case of the death the driver knew the limits of the technology and wasn't confused at all about autopilot. This details on this are readily available...

While we can't know in detail what really happened, the last time a rocket failed on the launchpad like that in the US was in the 1960s. There's been thousands of rocket launches since then, suggesting this was a "solved problem" in context of rocket launches. For SpaceX to have this kind of problem strongly suggests that they're missing something everyone else figured out decades ago.

It doesn't strongly suggest that. You're jumping to conclusions.

Again, in the context of what he's done elsewhere, yes that is true. However, this time he's doing something completely different and beyond what anyone has tried.

It's not clear that he's actually doing anything completely new, at least under the lens of technology that you view things through. If you classify for example rocket reusability as something that's been done elsewhere, what qualifies as the novel technology needed here that hasn't been developed in the past?

 

[subrock]

The Falcon Heavy is another project of Elon's that has "fallen short" by being pushed back. Yet it's happening Q1 of next year, and nobody else is even thinking about recovering boosters, let alone two at the same time.

Let alone 3 at the same time

 

[Nocebo]

I really don't know what they have to do in your eyes before something is considered impressive.

What's it matter if this guy finds them impressive or not anyway? To me it seems like he's just pissing in the wind for some reason.
Meanwhile SpaceX moves forward towards its goals. I don't think what they've achieved in 14 years is a slow pace but if HyperionX wants to believe that, that's fine. Why care what he thinks?
I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that SpaceX is progressing towards their goals right now.

 

[HyperionX]

Ok, he's not as successful as some people think, but he's more successful than many? And...? What now? Are you arguing just to argue?

There's been dozens of rocket startups that failed to even get one rocket off the ground. So what I'm saying he's surpassed those guys, but not really in the territory of the truly successful.

For real? Credit for improving it?
You mean landing 5 first stages of a rocket is not impressive enough for you?
Nobody (especially not a private company) has ever done that (Landing a first stage after having it enter LEO or GEO) before with a first stage. They landed on a land based landing pad and a drone ship. I'm sorry but that's SUPER impressive...

To be clear, the first stage of the falcon 9 does not reach LEO. I think it only reaches suborbital space. A drone ship landing is definitely trickier than landing on land, but the basic concept is the same. It's a little bit impressive, but it is nearly the same as the DC-X.

For a fraction of the price, using newer hardware, lighter materials and better engines.
It cut costs of launching cargo into space and used a lot of innovations. It was also the first first stage to ever get landed on land/barge after reaching LEO/GEO.

I really don't know what they have to do in your eyes before something is considered impressive.

Proton, Soyuz, Vega, etc., are in the same ballpark from a cost perspective.

 

[East Lake]

Most of your points aren't bad. But come on man, what are you going to prove with an ad hominem? That's not really helpful here.

I was probably a bit too dismissive but have a look through that guy's youtube channel and tell me it doesn't scream out "mental health issues" honestly.

This was also in response to my comment about hyperloop technology called inductrack, which was specifically adapted for a hyperloop startup by an actual physicist from Lawrence Livermore Labs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_F._Post

And then in response I get that youtube channel. I'm not against contrary opinions but I'd prefer they were sourced from people you can be sure have applied knowledge of the thing.

 

[Nocebo]

I was probably a bit too dismissive but have a look through that guy's youtube channel and tell me it doesn't scream out "mental health issues" honestly.

So? You know Newton was deeply into alchemy and other horseshit. Does that diminish any of his mathematics and scientific achievements?
Ad hominems are not an argument period. How about have a look at the actual contents of the video and refute it point by point?

And then in response I get that youtube channel. I'm not against contrary opinions but I'd prefer they were sourced from people you can be sure have applied knowledge of the thing.

And now an argument from authority? This is a terrible way to argue.

There's been dozens of rocket startups that failed to even get one rocket off the ground. So what I'm saying he's surpassed those guys, but not really in the territory of the truly successful.

And? What I want to know is what your point is by saying that he isn't "truly" successful. Whatever "truly" successful even means. Because you know that is an extremely vague and arbitrary statement. Furthermore, truly successful at what?

 

[CyclopsRock]

My understanding is that Nissan outsells Tesla in terms of EVs globally. Tesla's might be better cars than Nissan's (more range, more performance, etc.) so while he has had some success, it is not to the point where we can give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, landing rockets originated at McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s. He deserves credit for improving the idea, but it is not really all that new.

Haha, what?! The DCX went about 200ft in the air and came back down again. It was also 1/3rd scale. Even if all SpaceX had done was launch the Grasshopper test vehicle from back in 2013 it would be significantly more impressive due to the greater height, but really that's not "the thing" - the thing is that the Falcon 9 accelerates to about 6,000m/s through the atmosphere hundreds of miles away from where it started, then crashes back down through the atmosphere (the bit that usually destroys satellites in a declining orbit) before landing in the middle of a barge the size of a hockey pitch.

This isn't just an "improvement", this is turning a 1/3rd scale test model into a functioning, useful, commercially viable product.

The Falcon 9 is just a generic kerosene/lox rocket, no different than what existed back in the 1960s. If he's having problems others haven't had since the 1960s, I don't buy the argument that its the lack of innovation among other companies or organizations that's the issue here. Also, SpaceX has only launched about 30 or so rockets in its entire history, which isn't a particularly impressive track record either. Sure, others have failed getting even one rocket off the ground, so definitely Elon Musk is above many others, but he's far from being as successful as your links claim he is.

There's a long way to go, but I honestly don't know what your bar for success is if Musk doesn't reach it in the ~10 years that SpaceX has been making rockets. As someone has already said, when it comes to rockets being launched into space, there is no "slightly fail" - it's not like recalling a phone with a dodgy GPS antenna or something. And if you really think it's "no different" to what existed back in the 60s, why are SpaceX capturing so much of the private launch market so quickly?

 

[East Lake]

So? You know Newton was deeply into alchemy and other horseshit. Does that diminish any of his mathematics and scientific achievements?
Ad hominems are not an argument period.

My original point still stands. If we were back in Newton's time and wanted to know about calculus or optics that would be appropriate. That doesn't necessarily make him fit to comment in other scientific areas. And he would be less fit today now that it's so specialized.

And now an argument from authority? This is a terrible way to argue.

All arguments about hyperloop technology here are going to be arguments from authority. There's probably not a single person in this forum who knows enough about the physics of vacuums for example to comment with first hand knowledge.

 

[Unicorn]

There's been dozens of rocket startups that failed to even get one rocket off the ground. So what I'm saying he's surpassed those guys, but not really in the territory of the truly successful.

LMFAO

Dude, you're here just to argue. You'd argue with your own mother about the true, measurable amount of love she has for you... and that love would dwindle fast.

 

[HyperionX]

LMFAO

Dude, you're here just to argue. You'd argue with your own mother about the true, measurable amount of love she has for you... and that love would dwindle fast.

30-35 launches total is not exactly what I call huge success. Sure, in isolation, that's a big success for one person, but this guys saying he'll get you to Mars. That's not even a fraction of the track record needed to make me believe he'll get to Mars.

 

[Nocebo]

My original point still stands. If we were back in Newton's time and wanted to know about calculus or optics that would be appropriate. That doesn't necessarily make him fit to comment in other scientific areas.

Wow you're not getting it are you?
What you said to me was basically "I may have dismissed the guy too quickly (on the subject of mathematics) but have you seen his scribblings on alchemy? What a load of horse shit." You're looking at Newton with hindsight. Remember, alchemy was apparently Newton's main interest. So why should anyone believe him about mathematics?

All arguments about hyperloop technology here is going to be an argument from authority. There's probably not a single person in this forum who knows enough about the physics of vacuums for example to comment with first hand knowledge.

So? Doesn't mean that it is a good way to try and refute a point. Basically you are admitting that you can't be a good judge of who is right or wrong either.

30-35 launches total is not exactly what I call huge success. Sure, in isolation, that's a big success, but this guys saying he'll get you to Mars. That's not even a fraction of the track record needed to make me believe he'll get to Mars.

Okay. Thanks for you input. Now what? You don't believe he'll get to mars... and? We can argue until we're blue in the face about what he can and can't possibly achieve. The fact is that he's taking steps in that direction and only time will tell if he is successful or not in achieving those goals.

 

[HyperionX]

Haha, what?! The DCX went about 200ft in the air and came back down again. It was also 1/3rd scale. Even if all SpaceX had done was launch the Grasshopper test vehicle from back in 2013 it would be significantly more impressive due to the greater height, but really that's not "the thing" - the thing is that the Falcon 9 accelerates to about 6,000m/s through the atmosphere hundreds of miles away from where it started, then crashes back down through the atmosphere (the bit that usually destroys satellites in a declining orbit) before landing in the middle of a barge the size of a hockey pitch.

This isn't just an "improvement", this is turning a 1/3rd scale test model into a functioning, useful, commercially viable product.

I'm pretty sure the DC-X got much more than 200 ft off the ground: http://www.astronautix.com/d/dc-x.html

It also flew again one day after the previous launch, something SpaceX can't claim.

There's a long way to go, but I honestly don't know what your bar for success is if Musk doesn't reach it in the ~10 years that SpaceX has been making rockets. As someone has already said, when it comes to rockets being launched into space, there is no "slightly fail" - it's not like recalling a phone with a dodgy GPS antenna or something. And if you really think it's "no different" to what existed back in the 60s, why are SpaceX capturing so much of the private launch market so quickly?

Again, he's gotten about 30 launches in the last 10 years. That's not really all that impressive. Maybe we can call it minor success?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

LMFAO

Dude, you're here just to argue. You'd argue with your own mother about the true, measurable amount of love she has for you... and that love would dwindle fast.

lol

 

[East Lake]

Wow you're not getting it are you?
What you said to me was basically "I may have dismissed the guy too quickly (on the subject of mathematics) but have you seen his scribblings on alchemy? What a load of horse shit." You're looking at Newton with hindsight.

I meant I was being too dismissive of hyperion's comments and should have toned it down a bit.

I still think it's correct to be dismissive of the youtube guy. As far as I can tell he doesn't have the applied knowledge to comment on hyperloop, while I've read plenty of articles by people who do that say this is possible.

So? Doesn't mean that it is a good way to try and refute a point. Basically you are admitting that you can't be a good judge of who is right or wrong either.

I also can't say personally that global warming is a real phenomenon, or that spacex actually reached orbit and didn't hoax all their rocket landings, but I expect that people who have knowledge of the industry and science know those details and I can make an educated guess that certain people have credentials and others don't.

 

[blu]

To be clear, the first stage of the falcon 9 does not reach LEO. I think it only reaches suborbital space. A drone ship landing is definitely trickier than landing on land, but the basic concept is the same. It's a little bit impressive, but it is nearly the same as the DC-X.

I've been following the discussion, but at this point I can't help but say: you can't be serious. You honestly believe that landing a stage that accelerated a payload to GEO on a barge in the ocean with practically two engine burns equates to the DC-X test flights? Seriously?

Proton, Soyuz, Vega, etc., are in the same ballpark from a cost perspective.

That's about to change very soon.

 

[eyeball_kid]

I was reading up on Musk's wikipedia page to find out why he has that unplaceable Bond villain-ish accent, and it's because he grew up in South Africa, then Canada, and now lives in the U.S.

Also, this bit caught my eye:

Musk was severely bullied throughout his childhood, and was once hospitalized when a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs and then beat him until he blacked out.

Dreamers always seem to have it bad, but Musk seems to have the will and the defiant attitude to overcome everything in trying to achieve his dreams. I have a ton of respect for him because of that.

 

[rokkerkory]

How many blown up rockets will it take to make space x more reliable first?

 

[bitbydeath]

Would be weird knowing you are signing up for either a quick death or a slow painful one

 

[HyperionX]

Okay. Thanks for you input. Now what? You don't believe he'll get to mars... and? We can argue until we're blue in the face about what he can and can't possibly achieve. The fact is that he's taking steps in that direction and only time will tell if he is successful or not in achieving those goals.

Just found out that Robert Zubrin lampoons the idea: https://www.facebook.com/robert.zubrin.1/posts/1799839760231952

So it looks like it's just a dumb idea all around. I think after a few days nearly everyone will agree that this is a nonsense plan that won't work.

At the end of the day, we're just message board goers debating something we don't have any control over. All we can do is debate something is real or not, and I guess my issue is that I've recently become convinced that Elon Musk simply can't accomplish this.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm pretty sure the DC-X got much more than 200 ft off the ground: http://www.astronautix.com/d/dc-x.html

It also flew again one day after the previous launch, something SpaceX can't claim.

Ok, sorry, 2,500m, and that landing broke it.

It's also not true to say that SpaceX can't claim that (though, again, imo going from the upper atmosphere and mach 10 to landing on a barge is way more impressive than this) the first Grasshopper - which in functionality *was* very similar to the DCX - flew 8 times.

Their hesitancy to launch a reused one has more to do with finding a client and insurance company to do it.

Again, he's gotten about 30 launches in the last 10 years. That's not really all that impressive. Maybe we can call it minor success?

That's 3x more than the Ariane series launched in its first 10 years. Sorry that's not sufficiently impressive for you.

 

[Nocebo]

At the end of the day, we're just message board goers debating something we don't have any control over. All we can do is debate something is real or not, and I guess my issue is that I've recently become convinced that Elon Musk simply can't accomplish this.

I hope you don't mind that I ignore the ad hominem. If you do mind, I actually don't care.
What is the "this" that you're referring to?
Didn't you also say:

He's certainly capable of making things that are an iteration of existing ideas. I don't dispute that. However, here he is trying to do things no one has ever tried or even attempted, and there is scant evidence that he can.

What part of the "this" is things that no one has ever tried or attempted (two words that mean the same thing?). Because to me everything Elon talked about wanting to build falls into the category of "iteration of existing ideas". Basically it seems to me that you haven't payed attention to the presentation and that you should actually think that he can achieve the things he presented there, going by your own words.

 

[HyperionX]

Ok, sorry, 2,500m, and that landing broke it.

It's also not true to say that SpaceX can't claim that (though, again, imo going from the upper atmosphere and mach 10 to landing on a barge is way more impressive than this) the first Grasshopper - which in functionality *was* very similar to the DCX - flew 8 times.

Their hesitancy to launch a reused one has more to do with finding a client and insurance company to do it.

I don't agree it is all that impressive. Once you've gotten to terminal velocity on the way down, what does it matter if you're coming from the upper atmosphere or just a few thousand meters? I think the only real difference is that the Falcon 9 has to decelerate to a subsonic speed from the upper atmosphere before falling normally.

That's 3x more than the Ariane series launched in its first 10 years. Sorry that's not sufficiently impressive for you.

Again, he's saying he'll reach Mars in a decade. If Arianespace made the same claim, even if they were three times as successful in their first decade, no one would take them seriously.

 

[Nocebo]

Again, he's saying he'll reach Mars in a decade. If Arianespace made the same claim, even if they were three times as successful in their first decade, no one would take them seriously.

People have sent stuff to Mars before. You believe Elon Musk can achieve iterations on existing ideas. Ergo: you believe he can get to Mars.

 

[HyperionX]

I hope you don't mind that I ignore the ad hominem. If you do mind, I actually don't care.
What is the "this" that you're referring to?
Didn't you also say:

What part of the "this" is things that no one has ever tried or attempted (two words that mean the same thing?). Because to me everything Elon talked about wanting to build falls into the category of "iteration of existing ideas". Basically it seems to me that you haven't payed attention to the presentation and that you should actually think that he can achieve the things he presented there, going by your own words.

"This" refers to getting people to Mars.

This is quite a leap from iteration. He's doing something no one has done before, building a rocket that dwarfs anything that preceded it, from a position where hasn't sent a single person into space. He also has a troubling history of misfires, suggesting that he really isn't all that special as a business leader.

People have sent stuff to Mars before. You believe Elon Musk can achieve iterations on existing ideas. Ergo: you believe he can get to Mars.

Unmanned missions to Mars? I'll believe that. But manned missions to Mars is something else entirely.

 

[Nocebo]

"This" refers to getting people to Mars.

This is quite a leap from iteration. He's doing something no one has done before, building a rocket that dwarfs anything that preceded it, from a position where hasn't sent a single person into space. He also has a troubling history of misfires, suggesting that he really isn't all that special as a business leader.

Building a bigger rocket sounds like an example of an iteration (or a couple) removed from a small rocket. Do you read what you're typing? In what way is a bigger rocket not the next iteration of rocket that is not as big? In the presentation they even show the iterations they will go through before their biggest rocket.
His company hasn't put a single person into space, YET. So what? His company hadn't launched a rocket into space until they did. What kind of terrible non-argument are you trying to push here?

You are contradicting yourself like crazy. You mentioned all these things that other people have built and thought of before that Elon Musk and his team iterated on and or put into practice. And that you acknowledge those. And now you come with an argument that says "well he hasn't done it himself before so he probably can't!". Other people have put people into space, so this is yet another example of an iteration or implementation of an existing thing, right?

It is becoming clear that your argument is coming from some irrational disdain for Elon Musk. As evidenced by you contradicting yourself.

He also has a troubling history of misfires, suggesting that he really isn't all that special as a business leader.

And? Does he need to be a special business leader? What a load of nonsense arguments.

Unmanned missions to Mars? I'll believe that. But manned missions to Mars is something else entirely.

And unmanned mission wouldn't be an iteration on an existing thing now would it? It would simply be an existing thing. A manned mission to Mars would a next step in things that have already been done.
You're not making any sense.

 

[East Lake]

Yeah it's sort of an issue with the way you're framing it hyperion. If the guy steals stuff and thus can only innovate, it's not particularly clear where the obstacle is to get his glued together rocket to mars. What is the new technology needed to get to Mars, one that doesn't have its source in some previous innovation?

If that doesn't make sense saying he can't do it personally isn't much of a backup argument since he has demonstrated to be capable of stealing technology from others even if it goes up in flames occasionally. A couple years ago he never personally landed a rocket.

 

[HyperionX]

Building a bigger rocket sounds like an example of an iteration (or a couple) removed from a small rocket. Do you read what you're typing? In what way is a bigger rocket not the next iteration of rocket that is not as big? In the presentation they even show the iterations they will go through before their biggest rocket.
His company hasn't put a single person into space, YET. So what? His company hadn't launched a rocket into space until they did. What kind of terrible non-argument are you trying to push here?

You are contradicting yourself like crazy. You mentioned all these things that other people have built and thought of before that Elon Musk and his team iterated on and or put into practice. And that you acknowledge those. And now you come with an argument that says "well he hasn't done it himself before so he probably can't!". Other people have put people into space, so this is yet another example of an iteration or implementation of an existing thing, right?

It is becoming clear that your argument is coming from some irrational disdain for Elon Musk. As evidenced by you contradicting yourself.

And? Does he need to be a special business leader? What a load of nonsense arguments.


And unmanned mission wouldn't be an iteration on an existing thing now would it? It would simply be an existing thing. A manned mission to Mars would a next step in things that have already been done.
You're not making any sense.

The new rocket he is proposing is about 3.5 times larger than the Saturn V. It's so much larger than anything ever attempted before, it is comical to suggest that this is iteration. Especially from company that has not yet launch human beings into space.

Launching a fairly generic kerosene/lox rocket is the equivalent of recreating what others have done. You are confusing iteration with duplicating previous work. Of course he can recreate someone else's work without iteration. He can also iterate one step further on a well-proven idea someone else has achieved. He cannot do something entirely new, especially something that has baffled thousands of scientists and engineers for decades.

Actually, he's regularly been called a special business leader, or a genius or whatever. It's one of the central arguments people make as to why he can accomplish this when we would laugh at anyone else who could have made the same claims. However, given his basically inability to run a company at a highly proficient level, or even turn a profit in some cases, suggests his skills are the level of a normal human being. Therefore, we should dismiss this claims of manned Mars missions just like we would dismiss it if anyone else made these claims.

Not even close. A robot mission to Mars doesn't have to come back, or need to keep squishy humans alive. NASA has put rovers on Mars, but they're not claiming to be able to put humans there within the decade. It's pretty obvious that manned mission to Mars is not the iteration to unmade missions.

 

[Doikor]

My understanding is that Nissan outsells Tesla in terms of EVs globally. Tesla's might be better cars than Nissan's (more range, more performance, etc.) so while he has had some success, it is not to the point where we can give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, landing rockets originated at McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s. He deserves credit for improving the idea, but it is not really all that new.



The Falcon 9 is just a generic kerosene/lox rocket, no different than what existed back in the 1960s. If he's having problems others haven't had since the 1960s, I don't buy the argument that its the lack of innovation among other companies or organizations that's the issue here. Also, SpaceX has only launched about 30 or so rockets in its entire history, which isn't a particularly impressive track record either. Sure, others have failed getting even one rocket off the ground, so definitely Elon Musk is above many others, but he's far from being as successful as your links claim he is.

By that logic every gasoline combustion engine car is the same as the first ones made in the late 1800s/early 1900s as they all use mostly the same fuel and thus haven't made any meaningful improvements. There is a lot more to a rocket then just the fuel it uses. Yes its based on a proven idea/design (just like the basic idea of a combustion engine in a car hasn't really changed at all since the early 1900s) but pretty much everything has been re-engineered to be cheaper and have higher performance. The goal of SpaceX currently is to make space travel cheaper (with the end goal of getting people to mars but currently they are still in the make going to space cheaper step)

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't agree it is all that impressive. Once you've gotten to terminal velocity on the way down, what does it matter if you're coming from the upper atmosphere or just a few thousand meters? I think the only real difference is that the Falcon 9 has to decelerate to a subsonic speed from the upper atmosphere before falling normally.

I think that's quite a significant difference, because that's a huge amount of friction heat and wear that the rocket's just been under (and, in the case of the heat, is still under). It's also a lot harder to accurately "aim" a rocket to land hundreds of miles away compared to this.

Again, he's saying he'll reach Mars in a decade. If Arianespace made the same claim, even if they were three times as successful in their first decade, no one would take them seriously.

But you were talking about how 30 launches in 10 years isn't that impressive - that has nothing to do with SpaceX's Mars plans. There's also the fact that SpaceX are still a pretty small company (they have approx 5,000 staff now, but that's been a gradual ramp up in the last 12 years) - compared to Arianne, NASA, Protons and even ULA (since Boeing and Lockheed were doing it for years before ULA came along) who were all much larger and backed by governments (all of Boeing and Lockheed's early research and rocket development - Delta and Polaris respectively - were funded by the US Navy and US Air Force respectively) and came out of the gate much larger.

 

[F!ReW!Re]

The new rocket he is proposing is about 3.5 times larger than the Saturn V. It's so much larger than anything ever attempted before, it is comical to suggest that this is iteration.

Well it is, considering they're first launcing the Falcon Heavy early next year. So after the Falcon heavy they'll probably use that experience and knowledge to start using the raptor engines and see how they can "iterate" from there on out.

Especially from company that has not yet launch human beings into space.

And this is also something they plan to do in the near future with the dragon capsule, which they have been testing for a while now (on actual missions, without humans, but with the actual capsule).
If I'm not mistaken they are vying for a contract with NASA to take up astronauts to the ISS.

And let's not forget another innovation regarding the dragon capsule;
In-flight abort option, which would save the crew of the dragon capsule if there's anything wrong at any of the launch stages.
If they can get this working, it'll be the end of astronaut deaths during the launch part of a trip to space.

Launching a fairly generic kerosene/lox rocket is the equivalent of recreating what others have done. You are confusing iteration with duplicating previous work. Of course he can recreate someone else's work without iteration. He can also iterate one step further on a well-proven idea someone else has achieved. He cannot do something entirely new, especially something that has baffled thousands of scientists and engineers for decades.

Actually, he's regularly been called a special business leader, or a genius or whatever. It's one of the central arguments people make as to why he can accomplish this when we would laugh at anyone else who could have made the same claims. However, given his basically inability to run a company at a highly proficient level, or even turn a profit in some cases, suggests his skills are the level of a normal human being. Therefore, we should dismiss this claims of manned Mars missions just like we would dismiss it if anyone else made these claims.

You mean the guy leading the push for innovation in atleast 4 different fields is a pretty normal guy (I know it's his companies and his employees that do the work, but still):
- Solar power - Solar City
- Electric cars - Tesla
- Space industry - SpaceX
- "Public" Transportation - Hyperloop (as part of kickstarting the idea, etc)

If you read any of the articles on the guy you'll see that a lot of people (co-workers, scientists, NASA employees) are amazed at the guy's knowledge and his deep understanding of different elements across a number of different fields. Not to mention, his business savy is what is constantly bringing in new funds/sponsors for his different companies.

I think if there's anyone we should believe on his claim to take us to Mars, it's Musk's claim.

 

[CyclopsRock]

And this is also something they plan to do in the near future with the dragon capsule, which they have been testing for a while now (on actual missions, without humans, but with the actual capsule).
If I'm not mistaken they are vying for a contract with NASA to take up astronauts to the ISS.

They aren't vying for it - they have it. They just need to pass all the various safety and capability tests with NASA.

 

[F!ReW!Re]

They aren't vying for it - they have it. They just need to pass all the various safety and capability tests with NASA.

I wasn't sure if they had it already and couldn't be arsed to look it up ;-)

 

[blu]

The new rocket he is proposing is about 3.5 times larger than the Saturn V.

And a falcon9 stage goes at ~7.5K km/h at ~100km alt before reorienting and landing on a barge, but apparently that's the same as DC-X landing from a 2.5km hop. Because terminal velocities. You make zero sense.

It's so much larger than anything ever attempted before, it is comical to suggest that this is iteration.

Is that a glimpse of self-awareness?

Not even close. A robot mission to Mars doesn't have to come back, or need to keep squishy humans alive. NASA has put rovers on Mars, but they're not claiming to be able to put humans there within the decade. It's pretty obvious manned mission to Mars is not the obvious iteration to unmade missions.

Yes, a manned mission to mars is so much more complex. We all acknowledge that. SpaceX acknowledge that. But so is rocket stages reusability in the context of an industry of expendable vehicles, and SpaceX are clearly capable of doing it. After some years of extremely focused and sound engineering. Wait, I forgot you thought SpaceX suck at engineering.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes, a manned mission to mars is so much more complex. We all acknowledge that. SpaceX acknowledge that. But so is rocket stages reusability in the context of an industry of expendable vehicles, and SpaceX are clearly capable of doing it. After some years of extremely focused and sound engineering. Wait, I forgot you thought SpaceX suck at engineering.

Plus, it's not like there's any alternative, unless we dig up Laika and send her off again. I always wondered how pole vaulters become pole vaulters. Because with most sports - even very impressive and scary looking ones like diving - I can see how you'd start small and get gradually bigger. But with pole vaulting, I dunno, there's a time when you've never pole vaulted before and then... you have. It seems, due to the way the pole works, that there's no real mid ground. It's kinda like that with manned missions to [XXX] - you haven't until you have. Sending robots and probes and human-rated-capsules-with-no-people is before, and sending people is after, and there's nothing in the middle. Yet, we sent people to the moon, and there are 6 people living in the ISS now.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

This sounds really cool.

Plus I like the idea that hundreds of years from now people might be talking about the BFS, those first pioneers to settle on another planet. Saying this to wide eyed children, who eventually ask, "What does BFS stand for?" and your sobering response of "Big Fucking Ship!"

Can we keep this convention for other ships? Our first space battleship. The BFB.

 

[Nocebo]

The new rocket he is proposing is about 3.5 times larger than the Saturn V. It's so much larger than anything ever attempted before, it is comical to suggest that this is iteration. Especially from company that has not yet launch human beings into space.

It is still not an "entirely" new thing. It is a rocket like what has already been built but bigger. Also it's not like he is building it today or tomorrow. There are still steps in between are there not? Iterations if you will.

He can also iterate one step further on a well-proven idea someone else has achieved. He cannot do something entirely new, especially something that has baffled thousands of scientists and engineers for decades.

So can he not iterate on his own iterations? To me that seems logical. Building a larger rocket is in no way entirely new. Then we have an argument from authority? Which is completely nonsensical. As Elon Musk apparently employs scientists and engineers that do think it is possible. So it is their word versus the others? Unless you have some actually figures that show a rocket of the proposed size cannot be done physically?
Please explain why "something that has baffled thousands of scientists and engineers" is a valid argument. I don't even know if this is a true statement or some hyperbolic bluster. But even granting this is true, that says very little about if it can be done or not. Technology and science are advancing all the time are they not? Things that were thought to be impossible or not feasible become possible all the time.

Actually, he's regularly been called a special business leader, or a genius or whatever. It's one of the central arguments people make as to why he can accomplish this when we would laugh at anyone else who could have made the same claims. However, given his basically inability to run a company at a highly proficient level, or even turn a profit in some cases, suggests his skills are the level of a normal human being. Therefore, we should dismiss this claims of manned Mars missions just like we would dismiss it if anyone else made these claims.

This is a bad argument. It's an ad hominem. What is "normal human" being even supposed to mean? How do you define special and normal? If you define normal as: "someone who is unable to run a company in such a way that it becomes able to send a human to mars" then you have already lost the argument.

Not even close. A robot mission to Mars doesn't have to come back, or need to keep squishy humans alive. NASA has put rovers on Mars, but they're not claiming to be able to put humans there within the decade. It's pretty obvious that manned mission to Mars is not the iteration to unmade missions.

What part is completely new? Please explain what technology has to be invented from scratch to make putting people on Mars achievable?

Who says NASA wouldn't collaborate with SpaceX to achieve these goals? If SpaceX gets help from NASA do you think it becomes achievable?

 

[Hypron]

It is necessarily wrong. The guy in the video makes a bunch of points that seem to be based on physics. Refuting points by saying "you don't know what you're talking about", isn't really a good way of refuting those points. An ad hominem is never a good argument against a point. As it doesn't explain why the point is wrong. Only why the person could possibly be mistaken.

I could say "you're just some guy on a forum, what do you know? Who are you to argue against my point? Do you have credentials in x, y and z!?" and that wouldn't get us anywhere now would it?

My point was more that the fact he has a PhD in physics isn't particularly relevant if it's not in the same field.

I'm not saying his argument should be disregarded, but it's worth keeping in mind.

 

[2MF]

The part of his speech / answers that I find disingenuous is saying that regular people can just go there without much training.

Most people couldn't go to the north pole or a desert or mount everest, and he's telling us you can just hop on the first glorified flight to Mars (which has a very thin atmosphere, no protection from cosmic rays and different gravity), with help being months away.

In reality I think we'll need robots and/or trained specialists to prepare ground for decades before any regular Joe can go there.

 

[Jezbollah]

Who says NASA wouldn't collaborate with SpaceX to achieve these goals? If SpaceX gets help from NASA do you think it becomes achievable?

NASA are very risk-averse. This is the reason they are essentially using a hybrid of Apollo era/Shuttle era hardware in SLS - they are proven technologies. SLS and ICT existing in the same mars ecosystem is a case of everyone not putting their eggs in one basket too. It's for this same reason why they selected multiple providers for the Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew missions.

I suspect that NASA will partner with SpaceX once the ICT is shown to be reliable and cheaper than it is. It shows that the SLS, even with it's current delays and smaller scale in what SpaceX and it's already overflowing costs are still the primary focus of NASA.

 

[cheezcake]

While we can't know in detail what really happened, the last time a rocket failed on the launchpad like that in the US was in the 1960s. There's been thousands of rocket launches since then, suggesting this was a "solved problem" in context of rocket launches. For SpaceX to have this kind of problem strongly suggests that they're missing something everyone else figured out decades ago.

Am... am I reading this right? "Explosions" are a solved problem in rockets. Pack it up guys, Dave figured out how to stop rockets exploding back in the 60's.

Bad engineering is clearly the frontrunner as the explanation. Sure it could be something else, but the strongest evidence points to Tesla's inability to properly design and/or engineer cars. It should be pointed out that the Nissan Leaf came out before the Model S. GM is in the process of launching the Bolt (first EV with 200+ mi range) later this year. Tesla is the only one that runs into these problems. It's not clear at all if he's ahead of the competition.

The fact that you think this is screaming out to me that you're not in any engineering field. Tesla is quite renowned for very, very good engineering and a lot of my friends and generally top talent coming out of university gets approached by them very actively. If they have an issue it's the insane work hours which burns a lot of engineers out causing them to leave for other companies, but the engineering talent they attract is top notch. Also the 2012 Model S had a 208 mile range and current models go up to 310 miles, so have no idea what you're talking about "first ev with 200+ mile range".

Like I said, it's basically the same technology everyone else uses. What I meant by pushing the envelope was that Tesla was the only ones calling it "autopilot." Everyone else has the same system, but didn't call it that. That apparently led to the death of a driver and several lesser accidents.

Please show me another car with the same functionality autopilot provides currently on the market?

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/26/12287118/tesla-autopilot-crash-images-speed-limit-ntsb

It is extremely tragic that autopilot was unable to pick up the truck that the guy crashed into but he was speeding and there's a multitude of youtube videos the guy who died made which showed him explicitly misusing the autopilot feature.

To be honest everything you're saying just makes me feel like you have no idea about how engineering works in industry.

 

[Doikor]

The part of his speech / answers that I find disingenuous is saying that regular people can just go there without much training.

Most people couldn't go to the north pole or a desert or mount everest, and he's telling us you can just hop on the first glorified flight to Mars (which has a very thin atmosphere, no protection from cosmic rays and different gravity), with help being months away.

In reality I think we'll need robots and/or trained specialists to prepare ground for decades before any regular Joe can go there.

The cosmic ray issue is blown way out of proportion. The bases on mars will probably be mostly underground or built from thick materials (and have dirt piled on top of them) to mostly protect you from them. Yes there is a risk when going outside to explore/build new stuff/maintenance etc. but it can be managed.

But the ~1/3 of earths gravity isn't really an issue if you aren't interested in returning to earth. Even still with enough exercise astranouts/kosmonauts have spent very long periods in practical 0g and not die when getting back to earth though they still need a lengthy rehabilitation program though and bones don't really grow back to previous thickness. Again a risk that can be managed.

The other main issue with close to 0g gravity in low earth orbit that we've noticed on top of bone/muscle loss is eye sight loss but that can be fixed with surgery. We really don't know if the gravity on mars is enough to prevent the eye sight problems though.

As for regular people going there you don't need to be all that special to go to south pole if you spent most of your time in some already existing structure (think Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station) which the people going to mars probably are. Though I think the first launches will heavily favour taking people with required skills (builders, doctors, tech support, etc)

 

[RSP]

Really enjoyed the presentation despite Elon's awkward way of giving a keynote like this.

In the 90's, Dr. Robert Zubrin has created a "Mars Direct" plan, that was a design to get people to Mars. You also might enjoy watching this, as it may provide solutions to problems like energy, water consumption (and even waste).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKQSijn9FBs