4 ms·

> what are you trying to argue here? If you are not clear about my argument even now, I give up. Have a nice day!

Cogito 9y ago
Sorry I wasn't clear; I was hoping you had more to add in support of your position. I believe your argument, to use your words, has been that "this Elon Musk character is [not] genuine" and that "his intentions are [not] really taking human beings to mars". Your reasoning to come to this outcome is "what happened with Hyperloop". After he "threw some ideas" he apparently "disappeared from the picture" and didn't even bother to invest in it by "[attempting] to build a prototype"!! That is, you have no argument against going to mars, only that you think Musk is not genuine in his intent. Even if Musk dropped the ball on hyperloop (and I am not judging if he has) that doesn't imply that hyperloop is a bad idea. Furthermore, your argument for why we should mistrust him is because, apparently, having ideas is a bad thing (unless you also spend an appropriate amount of your time and money on all of your ideas). I think these are deeply flawed arguments, and so I expanded on them further up the chain, in the hope that you might have something more substantial behind them.
- babyrainbow 9y ago
  >having ideas is a bad thing.. No. Having "ideas" that are solely meant for generating publicity and attract investors money is a bad thing. >you have no argument against going to mars, only that you think Musk is not genuine in his intent. I have argument against spending huge amount of money in the name of Mars colonization. I also think Musk is not genuine in his intent, and this "idea" is solely meant to rise his and his companies good will among the technically inclined but gullible crowd (which transforms into more investments) ... Is it clear now?
  - Cogito 9y ago
    Thanks for coming back. I agree that overselling ideas, with the intent of duping people, is a bad thing. Be it snake oil or a piece of technology that can't actually change the world, there are a lot of ways to mislead people into parting with their cash. I also think that Musk et al do tend to be overly optimistic about what they can deliver. Falcon Heavy has been 6 months away for a few years now. I will even agree that not a lot has yet come from hyperloop despite the large amount of playtime the idea got, especially here on HN (unlike all the other ideas that are popular here). The hyperloop and a mission to mars are both big dreams (of quite different scales though) and they do seem to raise "his and his companies good will among the technically inclined". The thing is no matter how great those dreams are, when you're chasing the minds of the technically inclined there's nothing more convincing than success. Plenty of people have planned to go to mars, but not many of them have launched a rocket and landed it on a barge. You can go out today and by a fully electric car, and charge it with a solar roof built to look like roof tiles. Perhaps these successes are just part of a long con though. It's possible that Musk had planned this all out in 2001 when he was first talking about "Mars Oasis", but that seems incredibly unlikely. Whenever Gwynne Shotwell (President/COO SpaceX) has spoken of their mission, mars is there. Every iteration of the rockets has been talked about as the next step to mars. Their plans may be flawed or their funding inadequate, but the actions and words of SpaceX show that they truly are trying to get to mars. Your "gullible crowd" wouldn't be half as excited otherwise. Put that aside for a second. Spending a large amount of money just to colonise mars may be a bad idea. From what I can tell so far SpaceX is managing to raise funds to cover R&D costs fairly well, by providing a useful launch service. There is meant to be an announcement about how mars will be funded soon, so I'm waiting to see that. Ideally the bulk of the costs will be born in infrastructure that has commercial uses outside of just going to mars and will be able to pay for themselves, just as the current rockets are funding re-usability research. Lastly, I'd like to ask what you think Musk's real intent is? Say that he wasn't genuine, that all of this is a ruse, what do you think the end game is? My only real guess here is that by building good will or fervour among clients and potential employees you can sustain higher employee/customer churn rates. The thing is, it seems like customers are genuinely happy with the products they are receiving, be it orbital launches or electric cars etc. and the employees I've heard speak are genuinely excited to be working on the problems they work on. Musk is doing a great job of aiming for mars, and even if he misses he sure looks like he'll get close.
    - babyrainbow 9y ago
      >not many of them have launched a rocket and landed it on a barge... Are you saying this was something thought to be impossible before? >I'd like to ask what you think Musk's real intent is? Spacex is a space transportation company. Its business is getting things into space. The more it's reach, the better. Right? So ultimately they might get to mars. It is a business target. But the problem is that it is now being painted as a mission to save humanity. As a business, spacex wants to reach there as soon as possible, but for humanity, there is no urgent need to go to mars or anywhere. And what Musk is doing is creating a boogeyman of a "catastrophe" and generate fear and proclaim himself as a savior that could save us all. And this generates a lot of good will, which translate to a lot of funding. Imagine asking for funds by saying you want to run a business mining asteroids. It will get a lot less funding than a project to "save humanity. So basically, these funding is based on generated fear, funds that could have put to a better use right here and now.... >Musk is doing a great job of aiming for mars, and even if he misses he sure looks like he'll get close. Note that aiming for a business of asteroid mining or aiming to get things further into space generally will look a lot like aiming for mars. I mean, they can milk this cow as long as possible, because they are not really promising the investors that they will colonize Mars, right. It is just good will based on their "ambitions". They can discard the colonization idea, just like they did with Hyperloop, and the people will forget it just as easily....

Sorry I wasn't clear; I was hoping you had more to add in support of your position. I believe your argument, to use your words, has been that "this Elon Musk character is [not] genuine" and that "his intentions are [not] really taking human beings to mars". Your reasoning to come to this outcome is "what happened with Hyperloop". After he "threw some ideas" he apparently "disappeared from the picture" and didn't even bother to invest in it by "[attempting] to build a prototype"!! That is, you have no argument against going to mars, only that you think Musk is not genuine in his intent. Even if Musk dropped the ball on hyperloop (and I am not judging if he has) that doesn't imply that hyperloop is a bad idea. Furthermore, your argument for why we should mistrust him is because, apparently, having ideas is a bad thing (unless you also spend an appropriate amount of your time and money on all of your ideas). I think these are deeply flawed arguments, and so I expanded on them further up the chain, in the hope that you might have something more substantial behind them.

babyrainbow 9y ago
>having ideas is a bad thing.. No. Having "ideas" that are solely meant for generating publicity and attract investors money is a bad thing. >you have no argument against going to mars, only that you think Musk is not genuine in his intent. I have argument against spending huge amount of money in the name of Mars colonization. I also think Musk is not genuine in his intent, and this "idea" is solely meant to rise his and his companies good will among the technically inclined but gullible crowd (which transforms into more investments) ... Is it clear now?
- Cogito 9y ago
  Thanks for coming back. I agree that overselling ideas, with the intent of duping people, is a bad thing. Be it snake oil or a piece of technology that can't actually change the world, there are a lot of ways to mislead people into parting with their cash. I also think that Musk et al do tend to be overly optimistic about what they can deliver. Falcon Heavy has been 6 months away for a few years now. I will even agree that not a lot has yet come from hyperloop despite the large amount of playtime the idea got, especially here on HN (unlike all the other ideas that are popular here). The hyperloop and a mission to mars are both big dreams (of quite different scales though) and they do seem to raise "his and his companies good will among the technically inclined". The thing is no matter how great those dreams are, when you're chasing the minds of the technically inclined there's nothing more convincing than success. Plenty of people have planned to go to mars, but not many of them have launched a rocket and landed it on a barge. You can go out today and by a fully electric car, and charge it with a solar roof built to look like roof tiles. Perhaps these successes are just part of a long con though. It's possible that Musk had planned this all out in 2001 when he was first talking about "Mars Oasis", but that seems incredibly unlikely. Whenever Gwynne Shotwell (President/COO SpaceX) has spoken of their mission, mars is there. Every iteration of the rockets has been talked about as the next step to mars. Their plans may be flawed or their funding inadequate, but the actions and words of SpaceX show that they truly are trying to get to mars. Your "gullible crowd" wouldn't be half as excited otherwise. Put that aside for a second. Spending a large amount of money just to colonise mars may be a bad idea. From what I can tell so far SpaceX is managing to raise funds to cover R&D costs fairly well, by providing a useful launch service. There is meant to be an announcement about how mars will be funded soon, so I'm waiting to see that. Ideally the bulk of the costs will be born in infrastructure that has commercial uses outside of just going to mars and will be able to pay for themselves, just as the current rockets are funding re-usability research. Lastly, I'd like to ask what you think Musk's real intent is? Say that he wasn't genuine, that all of this is a ruse, what do you think the end game is? My only real guess here is that by building good will or fervour among clients and potential employees you can sustain higher employee/customer churn rates. The thing is, it seems like customers are genuinely happy with the products they are receiving, be it orbital launches or electric cars etc. and the employees I've heard speak are genuinely excited to be working on the problems they work on. Musk is doing a great job of aiming for mars, and even if he misses he sure looks like he'll get close.
  - babyrainbow 9y ago
    >not many of them have launched a rocket and landed it on a barge... Are you saying this was something thought to be impossible before? >I'd like to ask what you think Musk's real intent is? Spacex is a space transportation company. Its business is getting things into space. The more it's reach, the better. Right? So ultimately they might get to mars. It is a business target. But the problem is that it is now being painted as a mission to save humanity. As a business, spacex wants to reach there as soon as possible, but for humanity, there is no urgent need to go to mars or anywhere. And what Musk is doing is creating a boogeyman of a "catastrophe" and generate fear and proclaim himself as a savior that could save us all. And this generates a lot of good will, which translate to a lot of funding. Imagine asking for funds by saying you want to run a business mining asteroids. It will get a lot less funding than a project to "save humanity. So basically, these funding is based on generated fear, funds that could have put to a better use right here and now.... >Musk is doing a great job of aiming for mars, and even if he misses he sure looks like he'll get close. Note that aiming for a business of asteroid mining or aiming to get things further into space generally will look a lot like aiming for mars. I mean, they can milk this cow as long as possible, because they are not really promising the investors that they will colonize Mars, right. It is just good will based on their "ambitions". They can discard the colonization idea, just like they did with Hyperloop, and the people will forget it just as easily....