Elon Musk: The Man With His Mind in the Future
pandodaily.com
pandodaily.com
But, I am seeing the beginnings of a personality cult by some on HN which I thoroughly dislike and I have seen before with the rise of Steve Jobs and Apple.
I just want to state - let's not start feeling that Musk, and Musk alone did these things. This has been the work of thousands of people over many years (not all at SpaceX/Tesla) with critical aid provided by the much maligned and mocked US government. Musk is great - but let's not make it too personal. Let's celebrate the fact that such a situation can exist in such dark times (depending on your viewpoint :D).
For more details see here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4134729
But this isn't a criticism - it's precisely what they should be doing and what I would do in the same situation! It would be madness not to start from a known working configuration (designing a rocket engine is a massive game of high dimensional parameter whack-a-mole, it's very difficult to get a passable configuration without a lot of iteration and forwards-backwards passes). They're trying to massively lower the cost of space access, and you don't do that by trying to redevelop everything from first principles. It's bloody clever to learn everything you can from people in Nasa who are willing to help you and are pissed off that their own beaurocracy won't let them do it themselves. But it's a far cry from the narrative that people on this site sometimes try and suggest, which is that Musk came out of the woods one day with technically revolutionary launcher-industry-disrupting rockets, catching Nasa by surprise. It is simply not true. He has some technical chops of course but his real strength was getting good people already doing interesting things (eg Tom Mueller, SpaceX head of propulsion) and get them all under one roof with his money and focus, and talking to as many people as possible to keep the string taught and avoid going down dead-end allies. This can't be done in a vacuum.
So the reason for this comment is to illustrate that people seem to be discarding their critical faculties when it comes to Musk, and getting carried away with excitement to the point of being irrational. That simply shouldn't be allowed to happen in a community like this, whose signal to noise ratio is, in other respects, among the highest on the web.
I don't know why it is, maybe it's because people think he's a good example of someone winning the game that they're playing (web widgets for a huge payout so they can work on something they think is more meaningful) but I'm sure he's the exception that proves the rule about web start-ups. I've certainly seen comments on SpaceX threads where people get defensive about their social thingamie because one day the payoff will let them work on real problems too. But this seems silly to me if that's the actual reason, as improbable as a hobby tennis player making a career plan that requires him to win Wimbledon. If you actually want to work in some field that holds you passion, and that's not what you're doing now, consider carefully if your long term plan is as unrealistic as my caricature above. Especially if it's space, stuff is really damn exciting right now. Take a look at something like Reaction Engines [4] in the UK, who just this week announced successful testing of their precooler. Have a look at the video on their website - this really really is revolutionary stuff, not taking existing tech and doing it faster+better+cheaper, but inventing really game-changing, throw-out-the-rule-book technology (I'm gushing now, irony). If I wanted to do something exciting in space, I think I'd be far more likely to be able to make a dent in the universe by going to work for someone like these guys or SpaceX than by some dream about billion dollar buyouts.
Whatever, I've digressed from my point which is that I think a lot of people are wearing the kool-aid version of beer-goggles, which are distorting their vision. Elon has done same fabulously praise-worthy stuff, his accomplishments stand up on their own merits without us (seemingly sometimes wilfully) losing perspective or distorting the context in which they were achieved.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3723065 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastrac_(engine) [3] http://www.barber-nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopu... [4] http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/
Musk is not Buckaroo Banzai. He's not the rocket scientist that's inventing a revolutionary technology before he brushes his teeth in the morning. It's true that he's got the opportunity to stand on other people's shoulders, both technically and logistically (e.g., the use of NASA's tracking stations).
But I think that in your caution, you're taking away too much credit. The reason that SpaceX has been so successful is because they are able to take those ideas that were already out there, and bring them to fruition. NASA has not been able to do so, whether that's because of politics, bureacracy, inertia of decades of tradition, or a culture that's too risk-averse.
And that's the whole point: NASA hasn't been able to do these things, despite government funding (i.e., no investors to report to), and over the decades, every bit as many starry-eyed fanboys as follow Musk. NASA has boatloads of brilliant people, but SpaceX has (or seems to have) what's needed to turn the brilliant technical ideas into something real.
IMHO, this isn't something absolutely unique to Musk; it's more a liability in NASA's balance sheet. Their dependence on governmental funding, and thus the whims and nepotism of politics, prevent real success. SpaceX isn't the only entrepreneurial space company, and I believe that at least some of those others will find success as well, since they're also free of NASA's liabilities.
There's a lot of talk on this site about changing the world. I think there's some good reasons that happens with this crowd that sort of get back into the history of computing, but in any case, that mindset is a driving force for many in this community.
Musk is doing it. He is, in fact, changing the world, driving change in the directions he wants to see things move. He's being as audacious as hell about it, and he's actually pulling it off.
That's a personal trait, and it's absolutely worth admiring and attempting to emulate.
No one thinks he's engineering the rockets or the cars, but he's shaping the visions and driving them forward, and most crucially- he's making it happen.
Anyone with any sort of vision (90% of this site) knows how hard that is to do, so seeing someone pull it off on that scale gets our attention.
Leadership, true leadership, motivating people to do their best and to reach beyond, is rare as hen's teeth, and people get excited when they see it. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
Having said that, I'm with you on the so-called plans to make social widgets and then cash out and THEN start on the big plans. That's a plan that's going to end in tears, and it won't be all the much fun along the way, either.
Well, he is lead designer on the Falcon rocket and made a lot of engineering decisions on the Tesla too, afaik. He's more than just a manager/visionary for sure.
I also don't believe in tearing down people who have achieved great things in some effort to attribute their success to mostly luck.
Your other post is rife with the fallacy of special pleading by critically examining fortunate occurrences in his endeavors while making no mention of obstacles he overcame like surviving the internet bubble collapse, being fired, having to compete with Fiskar, and countless other things you nor I know anything about.
You could just as well say that I arrived at my office this morning through pure luck. After all, I didn't slip in the shower like many people do, I didn't get in a car accident as is statistically common, etc.
Also, I was at Apple before and after the return of Steve Jobs. The internal differences in the company when he returned were palpable and quantifiable. He certainly didn't do it alone, but it definitely wouldn't have happened without him.
critical aid provided by the much maligned and mocked US government
Well, when you're spending a quarter of the GDP of the largest economy in the world, some good stuff has to happen somewhere. Those of us maligning and mocking just aren't happy with the cost to the economy and our liberties for the meager gains.
Elon himself would agree, since he once said in an interview: "“No, I’ve never aspired to be an astronaut–I have aspired to invent things,” “In fact, I think an error was made in the Apollo program in that there was too much lionizing of the astronauts. Not that they don’t deserve to be lionized, but the real difficulty was the creation of the rocket–it was the engineering and the invention of rocketry.”
Kids should aspire not to be astronauts but to be engineers."
Elon doesn't explicitly state on most interviews how awesome his engineers are, but he did express it when the space station docking mission was successful during the post-interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjuvIlskUf4#t=7m20s
Also, he recently delivered a speech at Caltech. He told the grads to go out there and change the world with engineering. His speech was really focused on the Arthur C Clarke quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And who wouldn't want to be a magician?"
And when you're talking to grads, it's an accepted norm to tell them to go and be individually superstar awesomesauce. It's not necessarily a bad thing to do so, and it's not a poor reflection that he did.
We may not like that people behave this way, but I take it as a mark of intelligence when someone can accept an unpleasant yet immutable fact rather than fighting it or sweeping it under the rug.
Whether the population of HN is such that our collective behavior is immutable could be the subject of endless debate, of course.
I think most of realize there are large teams of people working behind all these great visions. However, it's not like tens of thousands of people spontaneously get together without the visionary and solved these problems on their own. It does happen occasionally (e.g. Linux), but, in general, the visionary is very critical.
The thing with visionaries that sets them apart from other people is that they are one of a kind. Whereas the vast majority of their team consists of people that, for the most part, are expendable. You can always find more engineers or product people or salesmen. You cannot find more Jobs or Musks.
Musk was also the inspiration behind the characterisation of Robert Downey Jr in the Iron Man films.
A fully-fueled 747 weighs something like 5x an empty 747 so you might get some real efficiencies from not having any at all. Plus, this would give all those solar and windfarms in (literal) flyover country a nice place to sell their power without running lines.
You can launch with a sled or some crazy version of an extension cord.
A fully-fueled 747 weighs something like 5x an empty 747 so you might get some real efficiencies from not having any at all.
That would be frickin amazing. For cargo flights, especially. Something like that could reduce the cost of air freight by a huge factor.
An electric jet would work by removing the turbine and having an electric motor in place. Or possibly around the edges.
This sort of design is called a ducted fan, It'd be more efficient through smaller losses and probably a smaller drag (less flat plate area).
-from downtown LA to downtown SF in 30 Minutes
-cheaper than airplane ticket
-solar panels on the top to make it self sustaining
-energy would be saved without batteries to run at night
-under no influence of the weather
-safe
(-Sarah Lacy made a reference to a TV show/movie with a tube as transportation system, and Elon said it was kind of like that [can't remember the title])
-Sarah Lacy: "Is it possible?" Elon Musk: "Yes!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
Because it's not subject to the rocket equation, it would basically have the same effect on space access costs as a space elevator.
It is possible in principle for such a device to bring a vehicle up to hypersonic speeds, then regeneratively brake the same vehicle to a stop and recover a fraction of the energy.
That would exclude the downtown-to-downtown feature.
Nuke scale energies get dissipated in the atmosphere on a regular basis by thunderstorms. I suspect it may be possible to ensure that most of the mass burns up in the atmosphere and is dispersed.
That would exclude the downtown-to-downtown feature.
A rocketplane could "rendevous" with the electromagnetic loop at high altitude and then be accelerated and decelerated for the bulk of the cross-ocean trip, then land at an airport.
I guess if the transit is efficient enough, you store energy by getting a bunch of mass moving around the loop.
Powering with PV on top of the tube, on the other hand, should be entirely realistic (at least on an average consumption vs average generation basis), and the incremental PV cost will be really low since you'd install it as part and parcel of the tube.
Anyway - the part about electric VTOL aircraft got me really excited. I've been annoyed that no one has tried to do VTOL aircraft with fans yet. If it could be made electric too (I'm assuming on-board generators or fuel cells here), that would turn a lot of things on its head.
The F-35B uses a fan and vectored thrust. It's not quite VTOL though. (Also all helicopters.)
Sure, it's great that one person has lots of money and some vision, but why aren't more people pooling their resources, both time and money, to accomplish more?
Ok, I'll keep it short this time. Back to surfing HN. Enjoy.
Your question is better phrased as: why aren't we forming more organizations to which we directly contribute our time and talents, where we have an intrinsic stake in the outcome?
And I think that's pretty easy to answer, it's all the same reasons startups are hard plus a few more. It's hard to convince others, negotiate internal politics, and set up all the logistics. You also have another problem - if people are not rewarded with money, they tend to do only the things they find intrinsically satisfying.
The kinds of people who are willing to solve the above problems are called entrepreneurs, or politicians, or community organizers, or sometimes artists. However, there may be some technical hacks that would help. Kickstarter helps solve some of the questions above, particularly about where to put one's resources.
I think some of the other answers to your question are unnecessarily pessimistic. If I can take some of them one by one:
"People are lazy": not actually true. People are willing to work crazy stupid hours for the status items mentioned, like smartphones. Often they are doing this for social status. This suggests that people aren't lazy; they're irrational, and bad at managing their resources in a way that benefits them optimally. That is actually a useful characteristic if you want people to commit to something with a small rational chance of success.
"Everyone wants to be a chief": We want lots of things. The ideal is to be personally recognized within the solidarity of a group. A clever leader can rewire your motivations so that to obtain personal fulfillment, you start doing group-beneficial things.
It is far easier to let your government step in and make you do it, or more importantly make someone else do it for you.
Face it, outside of the truly poor, people will spend money on non essentials all the while some essentials go unpaid. I know professionals who do not put money away for retirement, do not go to the dentist, do not go to the doctor, do not, do not, do not. Get the idea? I love the complain of many, they don't have the time or money. Seems to me most have the money but their priorities are to smart phones, expensive cable plans, cars, or other frivolous expenses.
So why should we expect people to pool their resources when they cannot effectively use what they have? The world needs visionaries, fortunately every once in a while one comes along who has the wherewithal to act on his dreams.
There is a reason why Linux and other large projects came up with the "BDFL" to cut discussion short at some point and actually get things done.
If they can't be the visionary genius, they would prefer not to play.
He is a great human being, no doubt. But some of Elon's friends are not great people. And I hope he no longer hangs out with them socially (other billionaires).
Absolutely. When we run out of things to do, we go to Mars (no sarcasm). I honestly think we can do it. More importantly, Elon Musk thinks we can as well, and he has the means to make it happen.
Can we please leave it up to Elon Musk whether he wants to go to Mars or not, without presupposing the notion? I'm fairly sure he might have something to say about the matter if he really does think we can do it (I feel dirty just typing this).
Edit: He has said that he is going to Mars, I know that, and I know the replies to my post here missed this. I'm saying that it's up to him to do it, without fervently believing that he is the second coming of Jesus and will in fact do this. I'm just saying that our reaction to this is not entirely outside the field of personality cult. While knowing that he did say all this, I'm also pretty sure that he will eventually accomplish that goal, and I wish him the best of luck. I'm just not sure that we should see him as the second coming of Jobs, Branson and Jesus combined, which is what this is starting to smell like.
Let the man do electric cars really well first (i.e. outside a few thousand people in California owning the Model S) and do SpaceX really well for a while and then we'll talk.
Edit 2: The more I get downvoted without an actual reply to my point being offered, the surer I'll be that it's a personality cult that's going on here. At least until I actually see more than one Tesla on the road here or some manned regular spaceflights. Let's keep in mind that it took four attempts for Falcon I to succeed, but the current score of my comment seems to suggest that apparently the attention span here isn't that long. All the best of luck (and at his skill level, luck doesn't have much to do with it any longer) to Elon Musk however, and I 100% support everything he has been doing. Although PayPal.
He's been pretty open about his plans.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/03/elon-musk-says-ticket-t...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/03/15/elon_musk...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/04/11/elon_musk...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/01/elon-musk-s...
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/04/26/elon-musk-we-...
Why does it have to be a "Personality Cult" or "Reality Distortion Field"?
Over-admiration resulting in a "personality cult" are the result of wanting to be led rather than having to think through difficult problems. It's about wanting to be able to latch on to success so that you can follow the leader's direction and share in their success -- even if it's only loosely by perception of association like when wearing a winning team's jersey.
The other side of the coin where visionaries like Musk and Jobs are harshly criticized as being "cults of personality" seems to stem mostly from insecurity. Personal insecurity seeing that certain individuals are successful and praised for it as well as insecurity that their philosophy of "success is all due to luck" is in jeopardy.
Nope, that's not it. I don't feel insecure due to other people's successes, and I don't believe for one second that either Steve Jobs' or Elon Musk's or Richard Branson's or Jesus' successes where in any way due to luck. They deserved the majority of their success. Sure, not without some stepping on some people's feet or making some enemies or doing some unethical things or by standing on the shoulders of the work that thousands of people have done for them.
But luck didn't have much to do with any of these stories, and I certainly don't have a philosophy of "success is all due to luck". Still, well put :)
YES!, NO!
I'd love to see millions of Elons in the world, all pursuing the coolest most innovative solutions to society's problems. America proved that societal success isn't a zero sum game. The more people participating, the larger the overall pie of success gets.
Maybe all we need (can sustain) is a handful like him and the wealth they create will make all our lives markedly better, without us personally being involved ab initio?
No.
That's all we need is to put a few "masterminds" in control of everything so they can plan out our perfect little lives. Did you have some sort of test so that only the more ethical, intelligent, and successful few achieve those positions of power over us?
The question you're asking is really a version of an old one: "What form of power structure in society works better; bottom up or top down?"
Mark Levin has a decent read on the subject that goes into the history of the philosophy of Liberty vs Utopianism. http://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/14...