4 ms·

It's human nature to attacks a reality-distortion field. If he would have said "You know guys. We're going to Mars. But right now, we're working on making rock

by nixos 10y ago

It's human nature to attacks a reality-distortion field. If he would have said "You know guys. We're going to Mars. But right now, we're working on making rockets that go up, on time, in one piece. When we finish with that, we'll show how to go. It'll be hard. Here are the technical and sociological issues involved. When we're getting close to being ready to go, we'll get working on them."

mikeash 10y ago
He was completely up front about how early they are in this project. He even acknowledged his overambitious timelines, saying that the one he presented was the most optimistic and probably wouldn't happen. I can't understand how this kind of openness gets labeled "a reality-distortion field."
- nixos 10y ago
  I don't know, probably it's the blender videos pushing the wider internet audience into it (so it's not all his fault). While he's going good, and is launching rockets, but right now he's behind OldSpace in doing what he's actually doing - launching rockets.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Behind on things like launching on time and not exploding, ahead on things like recovering hardware and being cheap. In any case, it's not like he infused the whole thing with a "we are the best at space" attitude, so why does that even matter?
  - nickik 10y ago
    Behind OldSpace? Im sorry that is an absurd claim. OldSpace has not devloped a new rocket or rocket engine or rocket in a while. OldSpace has almost completely been pushed out of the international launch market. OldSpace launches cost at least 2x more, and for a number of missions more like 4x more. SpaceX is flying a young rocket that is seeing huge amounts of improvement still, while Old Space is flying Old Rockets that don't really improve all that much. They are not just 'launching rockets'. SpaceX is flying an active Space ship, Dragon 1, and are working on another one. OldSpace company Boing is for 4.2 Billion for the Commercial Crew contract, SpaceX only 2.3 Billion. For that money SpaceX will have to perform extremely complex tests, that the Boing craft will not even be capable of. Plus, Boing has actually tried to get around even the more basic tests. Additionally to that Boing is already far behind on their schedule, even thought they were specifically picked over SNC Dreamchaser because 'they are the most likely to finish development in time'.
    - nixos 10y ago
      > OldSpace has not devloped a new rocket or rocket engine or rocket in a while. OldSpace has almost completely been pushed out of the international launch market. OldSpace launches cost at least 2x more, and for a number of missions more like 4x more. SpaceX is flying a young rocket that is seeing huge amounts of improvement still, while Old Space is flying Old Rockets that don't really improve all that much. 1. I consider Arianespace and Proton "OldSpace" - Old established players who exist to make a buck. 2. What counts is success at your business. If you're good at that, you can take time off to do R&D. If not, you're rightfully seen as a not-focused, unreliable company. It's like if Firefox Os. If Firefox was a great, secure, light browser and then they want to also came up with an OS, fine. If their browser needs work but instead they write experimental OSs, they got their priorities wrong. Now it's true that OldSpace has been tremendously lucky with the latest rocket incarnations, but except the three Delta_III launches, they were tremendously successful. Delta II was 151/153 Delta III was 1/3 Delta IV is 32/33 That's 184/189. That's five mistakes in 17 years.
    - reddog 10y ago
      Here's a rundown on what "OldSpace" is doing right now: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current They are in space, orbiting Jupiter and Saturn, driving around the surface of Mars, flying by Pluto and escaping the solar system. And that's just NASA. While its true that they haven't landed a rocket on a barge, I'd say SpaceX is far, far, far behind.
onewaystreet 10y ago
But why do you care if Musk and SpaceX have a reality-distortion field? Worst case (or best case for you) is that he fails and you get to gloat.
- nixos 10y ago
  The same reason Apple bothers me. Today, I don't care. His clients know what they're getting involved with, and if they don't care, I don't either. My concern is when he does go to Mars, he'll have hundreds of people signing up not realizing that he's putting lives on a beta rocket.
  - mentando 10y ago
    Oh, he clearly stated that lives would be at risk for the first flights. I can only imagine the contracts you have to sign, when signing up. If those people do not read them, you cannot blame Musk.
  - hx87 10y ago
    He's very upfront about the risks to the first visitors/colonists. His first screening questions for applicants is literally "Are you prepared to die?"
- lmm 10y ago
  Popular false beliefs always seem harmless until they suddenly aren't. The principle of explosion means that one false belief can justify literally any course of action, and by the time people start on a harmful course it's too late.
  - hx87 10y ago
    For the principle of explosion to work you have to actually confirm that a belief is false, or at least calculate a justifiable probability that it is false. You can't just assume that it is false and extrapolate from there.
    - 10y ago

by nixos 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

He was completely up front about how early they are in this project. He even acknowledged his overambitious timelines, saying that the one he presented was the most optimistic and probably wouldn't happen. I can't understand how this kind of openness gets labeled "a reality-distortion field."

nixos 10y ago
I don't know, probably it's the blender videos pushing the wider internet audience into it (so it's not all his fault). While he's going good, and is launching rockets, but right now he's behind OldSpace in doing what he's actually doing - launching rockets.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Behind on things like launching on time and not exploding, ahead on things like recovering hardware and being cheap. In any case, it's not like he infused the whole thing with a "we are the best at space" attitude, so why does that even matter?
- nickik 10y ago
  Behind OldSpace? Im sorry that is an absurd claim. OldSpace has not devloped a new rocket or rocket engine or rocket in a while. OldSpace has almost completely been pushed out of the international launch market. OldSpace launches cost at least 2x more, and for a number of missions more like 4x more. SpaceX is flying a young rocket that is seeing huge amounts of improvement still, while Old Space is flying Old Rockets that don't really improve all that much. They are not just 'launching rockets'. SpaceX is flying an active Space ship, Dragon 1, and are working on another one. OldSpace company Boing is for 4.2 Billion for the Commercial Crew contract, SpaceX only 2.3 Billion. For that money SpaceX will have to perform extremely complex tests, that the Boing craft will not even be capable of. Plus, Boing has actually tried to get around even the more basic tests. Additionally to that Boing is already far behind on their schedule, even thought they were specifically picked over SNC Dreamchaser because 'they are the most likely to finish development in time'.
  - nixos 10y ago
    > OldSpace has not devloped a new rocket or rocket engine or rocket in a while. OldSpace has almost completely been pushed out of the international launch market. OldSpace launches cost at least 2x more, and for a number of missions more like 4x more. SpaceX is flying a young rocket that is seeing huge amounts of improvement still, while Old Space is flying Old Rockets that don't really improve all that much. 1. I consider Arianespace and Proton "OldSpace" - Old established players who exist to make a buck. 2. What counts is success at your business. If you're good at that, you can take time off to do R&D. If not, you're rightfully seen as a not-focused, unreliable company. It's like if Firefox Os. If Firefox was a great, secure, light browser and then they want to also came up with an OS, fine. If their browser needs work but instead they write experimental OSs, they got their priorities wrong. Now it's true that OldSpace has been tremendously lucky with the latest rocket incarnations, but except the three Delta_III launches, they were tremendously successful. Delta II was 151/153 Delta III was 1/3 Delta IV is 32/33 That's 184/189. That's five mistakes in 17 years.
  - reddog 10y ago
    Here's a rundown on what "OldSpace" is doing right now: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/?type=current They are in space, orbiting Jupiter and Saturn, driving around the surface of Mars, flying by Pluto and escaping the solar system. And that's just NASA. While its true that they haven't landed a rocket on a barge, I'd say SpaceX is far, far, far behind.

onewaystreet 10y ago

But why do you care if Musk and SpaceX have a reality-distortion field? Worst case (or best case for you) is that he fails and you get to gloat.

nixos 10y ago
The same reason Apple bothers me. Today, I don't care. His clients know what they're getting involved with, and if they don't care, I don't either. My concern is when he does go to Mars, he'll have hundreds of people signing up not realizing that he's putting lives on a beta rocket.
- mentando 10y ago
  Oh, he clearly stated that lives would be at risk for the first flights. I can only imagine the contracts you have to sign, when signing up. If those people do not read them, you cannot blame Musk.
- hx87 10y ago
  He's very upfront about the risks to the first visitors/colonists. His first screening questions for applicants is literally "Are you prepared to die?"
lmm 10y ago
Popular false beliefs always seem harmless until they suddenly aren't. The principle of explosion means that one false belief can justify literally any course of action, and by the time people start on a harmful course it's too late.
- hx87 10y ago
  For the principle of explosion to work you have to actually confirm that a belief is false, or at least calculate a justifiable probability that it is false. You can't just assume that it is false and extrapolate from there.
  - 10y ago