Post: #26

Still skeptical, but i'd love to be proven wrong. Too much government money is propping up Tesla with tax credits and for every positive I find on the company I find a negative article questioning the long term health of the company. Much like solar power, another entity that is being fed on life support thanks to the government.


The challenge is on you Elon!

Post: #27

I agree with you on Tesla, frenchie. A lot of people classify Elon Musk as an engineer, but I think of him more as a very intelligent and tech-savvy businessman with a real desire to push humanity forward and the appetite for risk to stake his entire fortune on it.

Post: #28

(11-24-2014 04:31 PM)frenchie Wrote:  Still skeptical, but i'd love to be proven wrong. Too much government money is propping up Tesla with tax credits and for every positive I find on the company I find a negative article questioning the long term health of the company. Much like solar power, another entity that is being fed on life support thanks to the government.


The challenge is on you Elon!

Is normal, especially when someone is doing some many new things in different fields, Musk is a great risk taker, everyone is a skeptical when it comes to risk takers.

Post: #29

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 12:46 PM)Engineer Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 09:29 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I like Elon, but it pains me how myopic his newest ventures are.

SpaceX is great too, but again where are the provocative engineering endeavors? Why not build a space elevator or work something similar. Find a cheaper way of getting a payload into space that doesn't involve large amounts of fuel.

Basically, do more with less! Cut the legs of the entrenched status quo and eat their lunch. These dot com geniuses never make the jump from IT guru to industrialist very well.

SpaceX is reducing launch costs by more than an order of magnitude, going to reusable stages so you don't have to throw away the expensive parts (engines, tanks, avionics). The cost of fuel and oxidizer is nothing compared to that. He is doing exactly what you said "cut the legs of ..." - the launcher monopoly for US military satellites (United Launch Alliance) are absolutely shitting themselves and on the defensive.

I don't know the automotive industry as well, but it seems to me the majors are falling over themselves to build hybrids and full-electrics at an accelerating pace. That seems like a shakeup which wasn't exactly inspired by the Prius that was around for much longer. Once BMW saw there is a real market for a luxury EV they went forward with the i series pretty quick.

Bad Hussar, my take is once they have fuck you money, future profits don't appeal as much as they did, so the philanthropic billionaires do things like try to cure diseases globally or lower our dependance on fossil fuels.

Between Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX he seems about as realistically visionary as possible. His next project will partner with World Vu to bring cheaper internet to the entire planet via hundreds of smallsats in low earth orbit. I really don't see where you get "myopic", frenchie.

Thanks for the notes. I don't know enough about SpaceX to make a fully well rounded claim. My interests lie mostly in the automotive industry.

These are problems that everyone has over looked. Current EVs:

3. Lithium ion batteries come from the most non environmentally friendly processing imaginable.

There is nothing green about these automotives despite what people want to think.



I will give you this engineer, i'm just a husk who doesn't know enough to make a good critical judgement. However, i've seen enough interviews of Elon and the lofty promises are just that promises. I still remain skeptical about the long term success of Elon's projects. If anything, I expect them to all fail and someone else to buy up his assets.

Give me a business that has a truly out of this world invention like a new fuel source, long lasting capacitors, non propellant based space propulsion, breeder fusion reactors, etc.

Quote:1. Use coal created electricity

Yeah, that is a issue, but it is not mid 20 century, today the extraction of oil, processes and distributions of traditional fuel is more expensive, you have to fill each gas station in the world the same way, tanks trunks delivery, trunks that use normal gas, the good thing with Tesla is that you can charge at home, is more easy, faster to distribute electricity.

Quote:2. Can only be purchased by the super rich lefties can buy and feel good about. The 35k model that is supposed to be coming out soon will remove my opinion on this.

Everything start like that at some point, eventually price drop, and average people can afford it, just remember how luxury was to be a Iphone owner, now everyone has one.

Quote:Not to mention that the government subsidizes the hell out of Tesla and Wallstreet has made it its current darling.

I prefer having having someone creating new thing while subsidize by the government than countless of millennials with useless degrees and huge student loan debt.

Post: #30

Alright gents, good points and posts so here's my problem:

I don't trust companies when there's a cult around an individual's personality. I had the same apprehension with Jobs and I get the impression it's the same with Musk. Hence my bias against his products.

I'll let the test of time be the marker of his success instead of his ability to woe angel investors.

Post: #31

Had a look at the SpaceX website over the weekend and see that they are in fact focused on satellite launches rather than human space travel like I thought. So I think that they may indeed make money. Seems that their first rocket is already taking up commercial payloads, and their second, bigger, rocket will be doing this next year. I this pans out, and they aren't bullshitting about being so much cheaper than competing delivery vehicles things look good for them. The human space travel and "colonising mars" talk would give me concern as an investor. They sound great for publicity but I really don't see a way that these could make any money in the foreseeable future.

Post: #32

If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

Post: #33

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

Post: #34

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Post: #35

(12-02-2014 10:21 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Ja, I guess this makes sense.....but, protecting humans from radiation must be more difficult on Mars since it is closer to the sun.

Post: #36

(12-02-2014 10:24 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 10:21 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Ja, I guess this makes sense.....but, protecting humans from radiation must be more difficult on Mars since it is closer to the sun.

Mars is not closer to the Sun.............we are........

Post: #37

(12-02-2014 10:21 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Mars is just as tricky as the moon. Two problems that need to be solved would be the gravity differences and the lack of a magnetosphere for shielding the planet from solar radiation.
Gravity on Mars is 0.375 that of Earth http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mars111.php

The moon would be a much easier planetary body to step to first. It also has helium-3 amongst a whole ton of other rare metals.

Post: #38

(12-02-2014 10:28 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 10:24 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 10:21 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Ja, I guess this makes sense.....but, protecting humans from radiation must be more difficult on Mars since it is closer to the sun.

Mars is not closer to the Sun.............we are........

Shit. I really should know more about astronomy. Thanks for pointing this out. On balance do you think Mars would be easier to "colonise" than the moon? How would you even go about doing this since there's no oxygen/atmosphere?

Post: #39

(12-02-2014 10:30 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 10:21 AM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

The problem with colonizing the moon is that we cannot simulate gravity on a space base. That's why we have taken to colonizing Mars which has similar and stable gravity.

Mars is just as tricky as the moon. Two problems that need to be solved would be the gravity differences and the lack of a magnetosphere for shielding the planet from solar radiation.
Gravity on Mars is 0.375 that of Earth http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mars111.php

The moon would be a much easier planetary body to step to first. It also has helium-3 amongst a whole ton of other rare metals.

The gravity on Mars is much more stable, but I think the secondary aim of all this was to terraform Mars as it has the potential to sustain life. That's another reason.

Post: #40

We need more rocket scientists and astronauts on this forum.

I want to see someone with an ISS flag.

Post: #41

(12-02-2014 10:24 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  Ja, I guess this makes sense.....but, protecting humans from radiation must be more difficult on Mars since it is closer to the sun.

Mars does receive more radiation than the Earth but it's because it's atmosphere is thinner than ours not because it's close to the sun.

The astronauts would receive massive amounts of radiation on the trip there. Then they be exposed to excessive radiation if they were to leave shelter during solar maximums on Mars.

Post: #42

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

If you believe the conspiracy theories, the reason they are not going to put a colony on the moon is because there is already an alien mining operation going on.





Or there is the belief that the moon is actually an alien space ship

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Built-Moon-C...90585711X/

Post: #43

Colonizing the moon first makes complete sense. Its the perfect "staging ground" for missions to further out places. One reason is the escape velocity is so much less than here on the Earth so it would be much more cost effective to launch a rocket from there as opposed to here....and frankly the Moon and Mars are not *that* different. They're both dusty and full of craters, Mars' atmosphere is so negligible compared to ours that it might as well be non existent, etc. Once you've successfully colonized the Moon you're in a much better position to take a bigger leap like going to Mars. Jumping straight into a Mars trip would be overly ambitious I think, especially since nobody has been to the moon since 1972.

Post: #44

I've met and banged a Moroccan girl who was upper class. I asked her about things, and she enlightened me to the while hymen repair industry that serves people like her. Last I heard she and her close friends, none of whom were actual virgins, were married off as virgins to unsuspecting husbands. And this was in a culture where being discovered could mean death or dishonor.
So when I hear that some hot ass western bitch claims to be a virgin going into marriage, I find it very amusing.
That doesn't mean that Musk didn't score a good trade in, just that she was likely not a virgin no matter what the hamster says.
As for his companies, yes, as others have pointed out, the electric car is still massively environmentally damaging, as well as completely dependent on government largess.
Many industries are though, and I can't say that I wouldn't love to have the kind of power and influence that he does.
But to paint him as some sort of ultra alpha genius with a "perfect virgin" woman doesn't jibe well with reality. And really, who the hell wants a virgin woman anyway. I had a couple when I was a teenager, and the sex was awful.

Post: #45

(12-02-2014 11:15 AM)Marmite Wrote:  If you believe the conspiracy theories, the reason they are not going to put a colony on the moon is because there is already an alien mining operation going on.





Or there is the belief that the moon is actually an alien space ship

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Built-Moon-C...90585711X/

So are you saying Musk is too Beta to defeat the Aliens on the moon?

Post: #46

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

Bad Hussar, you are so close to the truth it's unreal. Check back in 1-2 years and you will be amazed. People always talk Mars because there are some resources you could extract from the atmosphere or subsurface ices. The next Mars rover will have a small experiment on board that will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere into CO and O2. But it is an order of magnitude more expensive to get there than the moon. Smart people have studied both options, with the result depending on the assumptions you make gong in. It's not a clear cut problem. For example, would we have access to reasonable amounts of water ice in the moon's south pole craters? Who knows.

My take is if you want to protect the species from global civilization-killing asteroids, go underwater. Much cheaper to establish a seafloor colony would be my educated guess. But that is retreating, not evolving.

The current SpaceX focus is commercial satellite launches, cargo to ISS and shortly humans to ISS via the Commercial Crew Program. Their reusable program, Falcon 9R, may lower costs by a factor of 10 or more (Next launch in 2 weeks 12/16/2014 with the first stage attempting a landing on a barge in the Atlantic, video coverage via quadcopter drone). Once Falcon Heavy gets online, they'll be doing air force and NRO launches as well. I've been inside their factory three times, and each time it seems twice as busy as before. If their stock was publicly traded, I'd be buying. They're a for-profit entity, so their focus must be on profit. Later once cheap access to space is established, and some personnel-protection issues are sorted out by NASA and others, then Mars/lunar colonization will make more sense. But never financial sense. I suspect in 20 years Musk will cash in his and others' personal fortunes on starting a Mars colony.

Most important man in our species' history? I would say potentially for the last 100 years; I'm not a historian so can't comment for all times. In our time of relative ennui, where current western civilization seems to be declining, here is a person who is saying "Let's go. Advance. Dream. Do better." on several fronts for the betterment of all humanity, attempting to dramatically lower costs of 1) access to space 2) solar power 3) electric transport and 4) global internet.

Ultra alpha playboy genius? Maybe not in the gaming chicks domain, but in more important areas, most fucking definitely.

Post: #47

This is a good thread.

Musk has a strong combination of alpha traits (game, confidence, risk-taking, leadership, masculinity) and beta traits (IQ, persistence, aversion towards destructive behavior). Definitely someone worth imitating.

Post: #48

(12-02-2014 07:38 PM)Engineer Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:44 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(12-02-2014 09:04 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  If Musk is actually responsible for colonizing Mars, would it be an exagerration to say he is the most important man in our species' history?

As a fellow South African-Canadian for weird patriotic reasons I would like this to be true, but I think it's just talk. It would be phenomenally difficult to do this.

And maybe other forum members can explain to me why Musk, and others, always talk about Mars? What about the moon? It's closer and must be so much easier to get to and from. You know, crawl before you can walk.

Bad Hussar, you are so close to the truth it's unreal. Check back in 1-2 years and you will be amazed. People always talk Mars because there are some resources you could extract from the atmosphere or subsurface ices. The next Mars rover will have a small experiment on board that will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere into CO and O2. But it is an order of magnitude more expensive to get there than the moon. Smart people have studied both options, with the result depending on the assumptions you make gong in. It's not a clear cut problem. For example, would we have access to reasonable amounts of water ice in the moon's south pole craters? Who knows.

My take is if you want to protect the species from global civilization-killing asteroids, go underwater. Much cheaper to establish a seafloor colony would be my educated guess. But that is retreating, not evolving.

The current SpaceX focus is commercial satellite launches, cargo to ISS and shortly humans to ISS via the Commercial Crew Program. Their reusable program, Falcon 9R, may lower costs by a factor of 10 or more (Next launch in 2 weeks 12/16/2014 with the first stage attempting a landing on a barge in the Atlantic, video coverage via quadcopter drone). Once Falcon Heavy gets online, they'll be doing air force and NRO launches as well. I've been inside their factory three times, and each time it seems twice as busy as before. If their stock was publicly traded, I'd be buying. They're a for-profit entity, so their focus must be on profit. Later once cheap access to space is established, and some personnel-protection issues are sorted out by NASA and others, then Mars/lunar colonization will make more sense. But never financial sense. I suspect in 20 years Musk will cash in his and others' personal fortunes on starting a Mars colony.

Most important man in our species' history? I would say potentially for the last 100 years; I'm not a historian so can't comment for all times. In our time of relative ennui, where current western civilization seems to be declining, here is a person who is saying "Let's go. Advance. Dream. Do better." on several fronts for the betterment of all humanity, attempting to dramatically lower costs of 1) access to space 2) solar power 3) electric transport and 4) global internet.

Ultra alpha playboy genius? Maybe not in the gaming chicks domain, but in more important areas, most fucking definitely.

I appreciate your post. I really think you have some eye opening knowledge about what's going on with space.
But I disagree with you on Musk being such a significant/important man in history.
To be truly significant, you have to be unique in my opinion.
I think Einstein wins easily.
I think Musk is on a lower tier, perhaps at the level of Bill Gates or Gandhi. Still amazing, just not a one in ten billion level of amazing.

Post: #49

Not to diverge the topic from SpaceX, but for what its worth, Tesla's profitability was - until very recently - hinged on selling California Air Resource Board ZEV credits to other automakers. Recently, they've claimed to turn a profit without selling ZEV credits, but have mentioned 'other regulatory credits,' likely federal CAFE-related credits.

Obviously, as other automakers proliferate hybrid/PZEV/ZEV/EREV/et cetera technology into their vehicles, they will simultaneously reduce their dependence on Tesla's overabundance of credits and field competition that bites into Tesla's market share.

Needless to say, someone who buys a Model S is far from a mainstream individual as the cars are priced upwards of $100k and does require some amount of sacrifice vs a traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car.

One thing that doesn't stand in Tesla's favor is their distribution system. To wit, automakers actually sell their production to franchised dealers who then retail the vehicles to ultimate consumers. Tesla obviates this by acting as producer and distributor. There are two barriers against this - one is the vastly powerful network of franchise dealer groups represented by lobbying groups like NADA who oppose Tesla's direct sales method out of self-preservation. In many states, Tesla has faced legal challenges on the mere ability to sell cars because they aren't ultimately run through a franchise dealer first. That's how ingrained this good ol' boy way of doing business is.

The second is a more practical impediment - service. You all know how you repair your car now and the argument is that an electric vehicle will require less-frequent servicing due to the lack of failure-parts and consumables (this is factual), but what do you do when you DO need your car fixed or 'upgraded' as the case is here with these high-tech vehicles? Currently, Tesla sends someone out to pick up your car, take it to a service center, fix/upgrade/whatever it, and returns it to you same day (or provides you with an interim loaner). Fine and dandy for a boutique products, but will this same service be afforded to 'mainstream' owners of $30-60k Teslas (price ranges Musk states he wants to eventually trickle the technology down to)? We'll see.

And again, remember as well that the giants are no longer sleeping. BMW is out right now with two electric models. And while the i3 is an urban pacification device for the well-money'd but ill-cultured hausfraus of the idle rich, the i8 is an absolute stunner. Chevrolet's Volt is slowly but surely picking up steam with aggressive leases and idiot-proof simplicity and Ford has a plethora of 'Energi' plug-ins. Granted, there are few pure-electrics right now like Tesla's cars, but does the average driver wanted to be hobbled by a truly set range that can only be topped off after hours of idle charging, even with the highest-capacity 'super-charger'?

Again, a big "we'll see." But I don't suspect Tesla to really compete toe-to-toe with the likes of BMW, Mercedes, General Motors, Toyota, Audi, and Fiat-Chrysler outside of a boutique setting.

Post: #50

(12-02-2014 08:36 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  To be truly significant, you have to be unique in my opinion.
I think Einstein wins easily.
I think Musk is on a lower tier, perhaps at the level of Bill Gates or Gandhi. Still amazing, just not a one in ten billion level of amazing.

We agree on much here. I suppose it depends on what makes one "truly significant" as you put it. Similar to the What is Alpha debate we've seen so much of at RVF. I like your words, and their meaning to me personally means "who has helped the most people"

I would be curious about the results of an RVF poll of "who has directly benefitted the most people" with choices such as Einstein and others. Who were the top tier folks who would go in that poll? Jesus of Nazareth/Mohammed/Scientists like Einstein/etc.