this is the crux of it.
If he isn't just lucky, than that pushes one's own perils from misfortune to the realm of a lack of self-actualization and agency.
Hard work makes you much more lucky, and that oxymoron is a hard pill for the "unfortunate" masses to swallow.
No one wants to admit to not working hard; they want to push the responsibility to (mis)fortune.
Remember "Field of Dreams"? "Build it and they will come?" That's typical hollywood bullshit advice. You've got to proactively market something, i.e. make your own luck.
Apparently you don't. Costner's character heard a voice saying, "Build it and he will come", referring to his father. So you took this as personal advice, albeit "bullsh!t" advice. More power to you ...
(The space shuttle had to be essentially rebuilt after every mission, the boosters were thrown away, the concept was a dead-end from the start.)
E.g., NASA cannot build a major program with an assembly line mentality. The need to spread their work out across multiple constituencies to ensure continued support. Ever wonder why major NASA centers are in key political states like Florida, California, Texas, and Ohio?
Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance.
>Downvote; go learn.
You might benefit from learning a bit from the HN Guidelines regarding discourse.
Yes, I might :) . Just went with existing practice, not with guidelines. Will try to do better next time :) .
> Except Musk himself has said they were hours away from bankruptcy before NASA's contract had come through after that fourth launch.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think you're proving my point - your "Unless you're Musk, who gets the taxpayers to fund his risk. What's the saying? It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor?" says that Musk didn't risk his own money developing Falcon-1, and almost lost.
Remember Falcon-5? That was SpaceX approach to relatively slowly conquering the market in case NASA won't give them contracts. But NASA did, and Falcon-5 went to history, and Falcon-9 got full steam ahead.
> Also, when they lose govt payloads, the govt (i.e. taxpayers) shoulder most of the risk because they are self-insured. That means SpaceX gets to take bigger risks because they don't have to pay for them through the typical privatized mechanisms of risk mitigation like insurance.
SpaceX happily serves commercial customers. And commercial customers are happily served by SpaceX. And US government wants its own share of cheap and reliable - comparatively - launches, so SpaceX gets their orders too. Will you say anybody dealing with US government rides on the backs of taxpayers?
Do you understand that you're wrong with your socialism and capitalism?
I have no qualms with the hybrid govt/contractor approach. I've said elsewhere on this thread that I think both sides can benefit from it. But, to a certain extent, I'm saying that limits Musk's claims to great business acumen, at least outside of relying on large govt contracts. To a certain extent, many on this thread have said that constitutes a type of grift. A grift that requires taxpayer money. I'm playing a little loose with the socialism definition, for sure, but that's what I mean in the larger point.
To that point, there would be no SpaceX without govt funding. One of the reasons they now have commercial customers is because the NASA contracts allowed them to get better to a point where private customers saw them as a viable option. If they didn't have that opportunity with NASA, I don't think they'd have private customers. For one, they likely wouldn't have enough early private customers to be economically viable. And two, those early flights would be much more expensive because they were unproven and that uncertainty makes insuring those flights much more expensive if not impossible. To that extent, a viable SpaceX business model is completely predicated on government contracts and not on private sector capitalism. The govt split the CCP contract to try and spread risk across multiple vendors and essentially fund an upstart in the hope that it pays off.
It's paying off so far, so I'm not saying that's all bad. But it does make their model divorced from a purely capitalistic endeavor. I'm not saying Musk had no skin in the game, but I am saying he had almost nil chance of winning that game without taxpayer support. Other people on this thread have pointed out how that distinction matters when comparing to better examples of business leaders.
>Will you say anybody dealing with US government rides on the backs of taxpayers?
I would say if the business model is only viable with government contracts and is particularly viable because it forces taxpayers to shoulder the early risk, yes. If your business only works by being propped up by the govt, it's a bastardized form of socialism. I'm glad SpaceX is able to move away from that, but let's not revise history to ignore those early facts because they don't fit our preferred narrative of Musk being a clever paragon of capitalism.
The simplest way of framing it is saying, "If they required taxpayer money in order to become/remain viable, it's a form of socialist intervention." I would put a lot of other companies in that list, from automotive to finance, so I'm not just picking on SpaceX.
> there would be no SpaceX without govt funding
Strictly speaking, historically things evolved one particular way, and we don't know exactly what would happen if something have changed in the past. Here you state your opinion, and I'd say yes, SpaceX used US govt money, but that doesn't mean they couldn't grow without them. They already had an orbital launch on private money - a significant achievement by itself - and there were plans to grow without NASA, which - in my opinion - were reasonable. So I'm skeptical about their guaranteed death without support from US govt money.
> But it does make their model divorced from a purely capitalistic endeavor.
Maybe you mean some rather theoretical, simple pure market model. In reality US govt supports growing industries - Internet is an example - so this is at least rather traditional.
> I am saying he had almost nil chance of winning that game without taxpayer support
This is an opinion. Here is what I know: there is a community, called alt-space (from a Usenet section), or New Space, which basically talked about what SpaceX was doing about a decade before SpaceX. It was a matter of time who'd get this done successfully first. An example of this New Space approach would be Northrop Grumman Lunal Lander Challenge, where John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace showed a lot of impressive technology, and which was eventually won by Masten Space - all of that with reusable rocket technology, landing under power, years before SpaceX made first stages of Falcon-9 reusable. Because of this I think that Elon's stated approach of developing more modest, but cheaper rockets - like Falcon-5 (while continuing flying Falcon-1) - or partnering with Virgin Galactic on droppable launcher - relying only on private market could actually work.
> but I am saying he had almost nil chance of winning that game without taxpayer support.
Beal Aerospace "folded" a few years before SpaceX; now people have doubt if he did the right thing, given that his technology was perhaps even cheaper than SpaceX. NASA also learned a lesson from Beal closing the doors, and was more careful to the next entrant. The final result, by today, is rather good, by popular opinion, I would say - NASA got a good launch supplier, SpaceX got a good anchor customer, so US govt would likely lose if it didn't support SpaceX, and relying on that support was a good approach. Yet even without that support there is no guarantee SpaceX wouldn't succeed; there are some arguments for that.
> if the business model is only viable with government contracts and is particularly viable because it forces taxpayers to shoulder the early risk, yes.
SpaceX brought significant savings to US govt, so that risk - from US point of view - was rather justified. Remember, US govt can't work with only zero-risk schemes, and in such a complex area as space access it has to tolerate some risk, even with existing providers.
> If your business only works by being propped up by the govt
There is no proof that SpaceX couldn't work without govt help. Also govt help brought taxpayers savings - in exchange for some risk, which is not obviously comparable to existing non-zero risk elsewhere.
> it's a bastardized form of socialism.
I doubt many on HN will agree with you.
> but let's not revise history to ignore those early facts
I want to emphasize - if the history would repeat, those choices made would better be repeated. Even if SpaceX lost, US govt would be better keeping betting on new companies for the launch services, because alternatives are likely worse. In this sense SpaceX is a lucky opportunity for US.
> because they don't fit our preferred narrative of Musk being a clever paragon of capitalism.
For long time rocket startups assumed one of their customers - perhaps biggest, or the only one - would be US govt, because the US govt doesn't historically have that much of a choice. If we'd have many SpaceX-es, then, yes, a new company could worry that they could not be chosen by US govt for contracts, because their competitors are that much better - but even now it's not the case. In this sense, because Musk knew all too well US govt will need his resources he doesn't stop being "a clever paragon of capitalism".
> The simplest way of framing it is saying, "If they required taxpayer money in order to become/remain viable, it's a form of socialist intervention." I would put a lot of other companies in that list, from automotive to finance, so I'm not just picking on SpaceX.
Since this is how things work, I wouldn't even argue. I'd just say that's how things work. If you wish they'd better work differently, you'll have to provide arguments why that different way will actually be better.
>This is an opinion.
>There is no proof that SpaceX couldn't work without govt help.
These are all refuted by Musk's own words. He literally said NASA bailed him out when they were so close to failure he thought he might have a mental breakdown. The irony is that your push against that seems to be your own opinion, that goes against his. I am also aware of the previous work with similar ideas, including others that you didn't mention. Yes, the ideas existed. However, there wasn't the right climate or the right timing to execute it. Hell, govt essentially subsidizing flight goes back to the Wright brothers competing for military contracts. In a sense, that's what changed the pursuit from hobbyists to professionals. I give all the credit to Musk for capitalizing on that when the timing was right. But that is conflating good business timing that secures govt support with being a good capitalist businessman, irrespective of govt support.
As to whether the govt is better off, I agree. I've already said that much in this discussion and elsewhere on the thread. But the same applies to when the govt bailed out GM to save a major manufacturing supply chain, or bailing out the financial sector during the housing crises. This feels very much like a strawman. I'm simply pointing out they benefit from a form of socialized risk; I'm not saying the effects of socialist policies are inherently bad.
So, to your statement about this is just how things work, I generally agree there as well. What I disagree on is when people pretend it's not so in order to justify a fairy tale of capitalistic virtue. I don't think it's wrong for the govt to support businesses like this; if you recall, my original post was simply refuting the framing of the problem as a false dichotomy between NASA and SpaceX while failing to recognize that the differences are actually part of the intent, not the result of some boondoggle.
I do think you may have had a knee-jerk reaction to my initial comment, which is understandable given the amount of Elon hate. Maybe if you re-read it with a critical eye and some emotional distance, you'll interpret it differently. It seems like the only part we really disagree on is the viability of SpaceX without govt support early. Sure, maybe there's a chance they would have still succeeded, but given Musk's own words on the matter, I highly doubt it. And I'm pretty happy they've done well.
We disagree in interpretation of Musk's words - indeed, I never heard him saying that he would certainly close SpaceX if NASA funding wouldn't materialize.
That’s because the fourth launch succeeded, reportedly due to engineers changing a single line of code to fix a problem from the third attempt. The success helped SpaceX land a commercial contract with NASA valued at roughly $1.6 billion, extending the young company a lifeline."[1]
“NASA called and told us we won a $1.5 billion contract,” Musk can be heard saying in the clip. “I couldn't even hold the phone. I just blurted out, 'I love you guys!’" Pelley asks in the clip, "They saved you," Yeah, they did,” Musk is heard saying. He describes that he had “virtually no money, a fourth failure would have been absolutely game over. Done.” [2]
Musk deserves credit for avoiding that 4th failure, but that's not the same as saying the business was viable without govt support. That's where I think you're initial response is off the mark. To your earlier points, though, I think this is where the hybrid model excels. The govt, due to it's size, can take on a disproportionate risk to help nascent companies/technologies. But let's not lose sight of the fact that many of these success stories are predicated on socializing that risk to the taxpayer early on.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/30/elon-musk-warning-not-first-...
[2] https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/science/nasa-2...
You can't seem to understand that NASA offer is not the same as closing the company without it. While NASA offer was nice, I never heard Musk saying certainly that without that offer - after Falcon-1 flew successfully - SpaceX would close.
Government takes risk just like commercial companies take risk. Nothing unusial here. Taking such risk means that some ventures will fail, but overall it will get better than without taking risk.
>Government takes risk just like commercial companies take risk.
Incorrect. Govt payloads are self-insured. This is essentially saying "We have such deep pockets that it doesn't matter if we lose the payload, it won't hurt us financially." I don't know many private organizations with that risk threshold. This is partly why the early govt contract is so important. It allows SpaceX to get enough experience while being funded by a customer that isn't risk-adverse. This buys them time to improve to a point where commercial payloads can be insured without being cost-prohibitive. Again to my original point, this means the govt shoulders a disproportionate amount of risk.
I guess when the CEO says "Yep, they saved us. Without that contract, we'd be done because we were out of money" and that isn't clear enough, you've transitioned to fanboy-dom. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a hurdle.
This could be argued about :) as e.g. NASA beat Soviets in the Moon Race by behaving central-planning, while Soviets tried to grow local market competition (Korolyov, Chelomey, Yangel).
But his success isn't all due to skill, either. Someone with the same brain and no seed money from Daddy would have been far less successful.
> "We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn’t even close our safe,” [said Elon's father] adding that one person would have to hold the money in place with another closing the door. “And then there’d still be all these notes sticking out and we’d sort of pull them out and put them in our pockets.”
> More background: I arrived in North America at 17 w $2000, a backpack & a suitcase full of books. Paid my own way thru college. Dropped out of Stanford Eng/Phys grad school w $110k in college debt.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056
> We started Zip2 with ~$2k from me plus my overclocked home-built PC, ~$5k from my bro & ~$8k from Greg Kouri (such a good guy — he is greatly missed).
> My Dad provided 10% of a ~$200k angel funding round much later, but by then risk was reduced & round would’ve happened anyway.
Edit: For example, while he did work on a farm to pay for college that farm was owned by his Mom's cousin. Working for family is generally a significant advantage.
Edit2: Having a wealthy childhood has enduring benefits even if the money doesn't last. For example, it significantly increased his chance of having access to a computer at age 12, which probably had an enduring impact on his coding skills.
I'm not saying that means he didn't work hard and isn't smart. I am saying that it's telling he thinks that kind of thing didn't also contribute.
I don't see why you think that this is what he thinks? It's certainly not what I think. What he is doing is answering persistent claims going too far the other way; that his success is only because of seed money from his father.
Or, as you say seemingly somewhat derogatory, "daddy". Their relationship wasn't always that great as far as I understand it, but I don't know the details.
1. If someone has wealthy family members this tends to benefit them, and they tend not to realize it.
2. Growing up wealthy didn't guarantee Musk's success, but it made it easier than it would have been if he grew up poorer. This happens in ways that are hard for someone like him to realize. For example, he might not realize that if he'd grown up worrying about money there's a significant chance his brain would have noticably changed in a way that made it harder for him to function.
> His success isn't all due to luck, he has genuine skills. ... But his success isn't all due to skill, either.