SpaceX launches three Falcon 9 rockets in 36 hours
teslarati.com
teslarati.com
Steve jobs said it best - Real Artist ship. SpaceX is shipping and getting really good at it. Kudos to all the folks that have made it happen.
...I think the saying goes something like that.
That's overselling putting some satellites in orbit. It's going to help isolated people get internet, and maybe support some science missions, but mostly it's going to be orbiting satellites for other people.
One company decides to produce more and more without giving a damn about their ecological impact, in the name of profit.
Hardly sounds like a revolution to me.
One country allows the entire world to use its global navigation system "for free", build businesses on that technology, save people's lives and benefit from it.
One company brings usable Internet connection, the electricity of the 21st century, to anywhere in the world, with a fixed price, often lower than the existing inferior or non-existing ones.
> One company decides to produce more and more without giving a damn about their ecological impact, in the name of profit.
One company will have accelerated our escape from extinction.
> in the name of profit
If Space was such a profitable industry, it'd be as crowded as ad and social network markets. It's the exact opposite. To claim it's all for profit, is to admit you shouldn't be trusted with anything money related, as you'd probably lose it all in a blink.
> One company will have accelerated our escape from extinction
You mean by sending a few chosen people in space? Or do you believe that connecting smart devices to satellites will somehow solve the climate crisis? xD
> it'd be as crowded as ad and social network
What's your definition of crowded? I don't feel like there are thousands of successful social networks or ad companies out there...
But I get your point: SpaceX is a nonprofit with the purpose of solving the climate crisis by launching as many rockets as they can to fill the sky with satellites. No profit planned, no investors, nothing. My mistake.
When US opened up GPS for civilian use, there was NO other GNSS. Other GNSSes exist BECAUSE of GPS.
> You mean by sending a few chosen people in space?
This is how every new thing starts. Do you think people one day had no cars and then suddenly a billion people were driving cars the next day? No! It started with a few who had the money and believed in the future to invest in cars, and further few who could afford to buy cars and were OK with the initial dangerous, horribly unreliable vehicles that the most ill horse of the time would be superior to.
If you read up on the history of literally any tech, that's how they start, and literally that's how they are received (e.g. waste of money, more important things to do, few chosen ones, etc.).
> I don't feel like there are thousands of successful social networks
Your feelings bears nothing on reality. Go do a app search for dating/social apps and you'll see hundreds, with dozens being pretty successful.
> But I get your point: SpaceX is a nonprofit with the purpose of solving the climate crisis
No non-profit will ever solve anything at this magnitude, by definition. This is what it boils down to:
- You need to have a plan to make profit
- in order to attract investors to give you money,
- so you can pay talented people to join your cause.
Yes some of your employees are there because they believe in the cause and they're fine with lower pay. But that's a minority. Majority of your workforce will want challenge and good pay or you'll lose them to the competition making social network apps for iPhone. I'm baffled that most people can't follow this simple logic.
> My mistake.
Never too late to learn.
So when I say they make that for profit, you disagree, and when I say (sarcastically) that they don't want to make profit, you say the opposite again? Choose your camp. Mine is that SpaceX exists because it is profitable.
Then one thing that would be worth considering is that technology is the problem today. You seem to consider that cars made the world a better place, that's your opinion. But it would be hard to argue that the current climate crisis is not caused by technology. You're just blindly hoping that more of it will magically solve the problem which is: technology is destroying life on Earth. Because we can do something cool (nobody denies that SpaceX is cool) doesn't mean we should do it.
To say someone's doing something for money, is to imply money making is their main motivation and end goal. I'm arguing that money is the means to an end.
> You seem to consider that cars made the world a better place, that's your opinion
I probably can argue for that, but what's more important than cars themselves, is the technology, processes and innovations that came about because of the desire for personal transportation.
> But it would be hard to argue that the current climate crisis is not caused by technology.
True.
> You're just blindly hoping that more of it will magically solve the problem
Trend towards more technological societies has historically solved the issues of the past. In field of medicine alone, it's because of industrial revolution, mass production, integrated circuits, and countless other tech innovations that: we have access to all sorts of medical imaging and measurement devices that help diagnose and save people's lives; vaccine development, patient monitoring to name just a few. You look at cars and see excessive number of people moving machines. I see an entire history of innovation in mass production that high scale car manufacturing has led. Mass production is what has made possible the cheap silicon tech we have today, that goes into everything.
TL;DR you can't just pick one thing and label it good or bad. Technology is general has evidently (as piles and piles of stats show) and increasingly improved the quality of life of the world population in general.
> technology is destroying life on Earth
Earth will be destroyed even with no humans on it. In the long run, technology is the only tool for survival of life. Life will go extinct one way or another, sooner or later. We can either stay in the cave and face our doom, or get out, innovate, make mistakes and extend how long life sticks around. We can obviously make more mistakes than we need to but that's a much more nuanced conversation than "tech is bad, let's stop".
> Because we can do something cool (nobody denies that SpaceX is cool) doesn't mean we should do it.
"Something cool", just like "only for profit", is not the goal. SpaceX'es mission is to extend life beyond Earth. Making Space cool is what's needed to inspire people to join and make things happen.
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't care if life goes extinct in twenty thousands years. And I don't want to survive on Mars, looking back at how we destroyed most living beings there.
I don't say that technology is bad in itself. Consumerism is.
GP is talking about the future. The future is what people are working towards and planning for at SpaceX. This of course goes right over most people's heads as most people are consumed by their immediate life (and rightly so).
But you're actually understating even the current state of things:
- First of all, "just" putting satellites in orbit has revolutionized human civilization time and time again. Global navigation, accurate time keeping, weather prediction, communication, physics research, disaster response, and that's just from top of my head. Cost of launching satellites often exceed the satellite development and build itself. SpaceX has improved on that immensely and continues to do so.
- SpaceX puts people into orbit and brings them back down safely. It's the only non-government organisation in the world to do so, and to do so for significantly lower cost.
> It's going to help isolated people get internet
Starlink is already helping 40000+ people in Ukraine to be informed in middle of a war! Starlink is also going to be installed on airliners which will allow far better monitoring and metric collection should the airlines want to use it for. This will greatly improve crash investigations in absence of the black box.
So if history is any lesson, when SpaceX makes a claim, one has to pay real good attention to details and question all their own assumptions hard because these guys have made impossible possible time and again.
And another 26 that have flown 12 times each. They've really succeeded in making reuse routine.
Still, it feels sad to see that a few months ago, SpaceX had roughly the same valuation as... Snapchat. It shows ultra short-term greed of investors and a clear lack of vision of VCs to see the mid-term potential of space exploration and travel.
Despite his faults, I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk, because he's one of the few entrepreneurs with vision and courage to push humanity forward.
While everyone else is doing the stupidest shit with social media, crypto, and other insanity.
Like trolling via then trying to buy Twitter?
That said I'd love to buy some SpaceX stock if only I could!
Imagine if as a global civilization we'd invested the two trillion in crypto into clean energy instead. We might actually solve our pressing climate change problem. Instead we got digital coins and NFTs and actually made the climate change problem worse.
will never happen. It's just a hope by leftists that capitalism will collapse on its own.
That last point is important. Even if you discover something truly valuable, there is no particular reason to believe that you will be the one getting rich by it.
Boeing's market cap is current $80B.
Snapchat was valued pretty richly but is now valued at $20B.
Personally (despite being a huge fan) I think SpaceX is actually quite overvalued on a risk-adjusted basis.
Yes. I am indeed a total fanboy.
This is one of the problems at Tesla I think; they've likely held off on going into areas that are likely more financially risky but with longer-term industrial potential (electric semis in particular) because the shareholders would balk at moving capital into such production efforts.
He tweets a back of the fag packet idea about hyperloops and suddenly we have multiple companies spring up to do just that.
It was only like 6(?) months ago that Tesla was more valuable than the next 3 car makers put together.
If Tesla wanted money to build something they'd get it.
Electric Semis are not that risky. Tesla has been very very clear about their strategy. As long as they can turn all the batteries and chips they can get into car they will not actually make any more profit by adding more model diversity.
Unlike every other car company that is promising 50 models in 2025, Tesla basically will only do so if they can.
The Semi will be a big seller when it comes out. Simply put, nobody else has the batteries either to dominate the market.
More excitingly the quickest turnaround is just over 21 days, or twice as fast as the quickest space shuttle turnaround. This is still a long ways from the 24 hour turnaround SpaceX is aiming for which often draws heavy doubt (just like the reusability factors used to). As much as I'd like to see a turnaround that quick I don't think that'll come with the Falcon 9 generation, maybe with Starship/Super Heavy if we're lucky though.