All that to say, perhaps other people don't prioritize values like you do. The technical excellence that companies repeatedly achieved under Musk is incredible.
I'd rather listen to Lars Blackmore (the engineer who is largely responsible for SpaceX powered descent). Or Gwynne Shotwell who actually oversees the business day-to-day. I'm really not interested in what the money guy has to say, especially since he is primarily interested in cultivating his public image-- how can you trust anything he says? The dude pays people to play a videogame for him 24/7 so he can pretend he is the best player in the world. That's not a metaphor -- he actually does that.
https://www.vulture.com/article/fake-gamer-was-elon-musk-che...
But you're not giving Musk enough credit. All engineers and other professionals told him that landing rockets is bullshit, and what is interesting here is that he went and made it happen anyways.
I'm not talking just about the engineering, everything is interesting here - the project management, the hiring, the investments, the business side... Musk has a lot of input and influence in all of these, he was the one who decided and paid for it.
Every company has some kind of mythology where someone says "you'll never make it in this town!". The reality is that uncrewed propulsive landing was technologically feasible since the soviets landed a rover on the moon. NASA propulsively landed a rover on Mars back in 2011.
Like I said, listening to billionaires is probably interesting if your goal is "acquire boatloads of money". But we already know how to do that. 1. Appear confident 2. Lie 3. Have no morals or ethics 4. Prioritize the pursuit of power above all else
Mars is completely off topic, as they didn't land the booster there. We had Space Shuttle before and it didn't say much about landing rocket boosters.
> All engineers and other professionals told him that landing rockets is bullshit
Where did you hear that?
Even if that's true, there's still every engineer and every other professional in the world you haven't spoken with. To take an example, I'm an engineer, I didn't say it. That disproves the claim.
That seems less impressive than saying 100%, doesn't it? But hey, this is hacker news, not a math exam, and 100% is pretty much < 0.00001%, lol.
Also the head of ULA said they'd need to do 10 rides of a booster before it makes financial sense to reuse. SpaceX claims it's one
What didn't happen? I didn't provide you a narrative, I gave 2 examples of uncrewed propulsive landing which literally happened.
> There is an incredible gap between the tech demo you're speaking about, and actually landing a heavy orbital rocket, and then doing it 100 times in a row without a hiccup.
I agree. Now please point to me which part of the self-landing booster Elon built.
He built the company that built the booster, which to me is at least as interesting as building the booster itself.
It's not just about money - Bezos has much more money available than SpaceX had in 2002-2015, and yet his rockets still don't land.
I do agree though that SpaceX has used their money much more efficiently and moved a lot faster in general than BO.
Didn't Apollo 11 land on the moon using a rocket, then take off from the moon again, back in the 1960s?
Not exactly a tech demo. And the Apollo missions had the additional challenges of being crewed, and targeting an atmosphere and gravity they couldn't reproduce on earth for test purposes.
The SpaceX stuff is neat though, compared to the defence industry clowns they're competing with.
To do what Apollo 11 did without discarding the boosters you also need orbital refueling and probably rapid turnaround (or a huge inventory of boosters), which SpaceX plans to develop next. Awesome stuff.
You know, this bit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module that descended to the moon, landed, some guys walked out and grabbed some moon rocks, then they took off again and made it back to earth.
That's a rocket-propelled space vehicle gently landing tail first, and ready for immediately reuse.
Given that it clearly had been done, I doubt anyone who knew what they were talking about was telling Musk it couldn't be done.
You literally responded to a guy citing Lars Blackmore, who is the engineer that designed their landing algorithm--which was developed at NASA's JPL lab (before SpaceX existed).
Musk bet on landing rockets _because_ engineers told him that it was possible.
In fact it was one of the reasons red dragon was cancelled.
The group studying hypersonic retro propulsion of boosters at NASA was let go because that's what SpaceX did to land
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2005-6682
Lars and Beschet wrote their groundbreaking paper on lossless convexification of the powered descent problem at JPL before Lars went to SpaceX:
http://www.larsblackmore.com/CarsonAcikmeseBlackmoreACC11.pd...
And I don't see any rocket actually coming back with an orbital payload? Where's the demonstrator? Like that quiet supersonic thing Lockheed is demonstrating.
Even Lars didn't deliver at the first attempt. So it's not like it was something available off the shelf. Like some cryptography library you include in your code.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19980237254/downloads/19...
Those were still winged boosters, but were not helicopter-caught and did RTLS.
Musk didn't invent the concept.
I know only one company landing orbital boosters.
Musk sucks, attack him for valid reasons like racism instead of some made up bullshit about cheating at video games.
People who like Musk aren't going to care that he is racist, they will argue about what actually constitutes as racism (erm pushes up glasses --actually have u read the bell curve???).
Having definitive proof of him paying others to play videogames for him is an example of how he just lies about everything. If he lies about videogames what else does he lie about?
Just playing on an account that I didn't level up myself is not lying. I know that some competitive amateur players think it's the end of the world but no, nobody cares.
He stated on Joe Rogan he was one of the best Diablo players in the world (top 20 or thereabouts). The only way to do that is to grind the game with long hours, because it gets exponentially more difficult to level up. I don't remember exactly how many hours of playtime he'd need to achieve the level he was at, but it was excessive. Something like 14+ hours a day.
Then he recently live streamed his Path of Exile 2 account. It was one of the highest leveled accounts in the world. Similar to Diablo, that's not possible without grinding the game for many hours. However, it was clear from the stream that Musk barely understood how to play the game. He was having trouble just finding things in the UI.
The point is: he paid someone (or multiple people) for a leveled up account. Then he publicly claimed to be one of the top players in the world.
It's both shocking and revealing that he's willing to put forth such a blatant lie, for something that matters so little (a video game).
Why do you talk about hours per day? Does it matter if you play less hours per day, but more days?
Because the only way to level up your character is to grind through a dungeon. You'll get experience for doing so. Every time you level up your character, it takes exponentially more experience to hit the next level.
I don't remember the exact number of hours per day that are required to hit the levels his characters are at, but it's in excess of 14+ hours/day.
Combine that with the evidence from his live streaming that he doesn't actually know how to play these games, and it's clear that he can't have achieved the character levels he has on his own.
This youtube video has a decent breakdown of the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N-WW0UDrVQ
To be clear, I don't think anyone really cares that he's paying for a leveled up account. What people care about is that he's taking credit for achieving the high level on his own, when that's obviously not true.
Q: Why would a person with $300 billion feel the need to lie about being good at a video game?
A: Likely because deception has become habitual/reflexive for them.
This one is considerably shorter, and I feel does a good and quick breakdown.
It's sad that people can see a good thing and think it cancels out all bad things.
It's sad that people can see a good thing and think it cancels out all bad things
> Elon Musk stated that the SpaceX Falcon 9 development was "... continuing the great work of the DC-X project."
So...