6 ms·

Elon Musk and his companies are master in unveiling and announcing visions but not in delivering. I wonder if there is a special word for that in marketing... l

Elon Musk and his companies are master in unveiling and announcing visions but not in delivering. I wonder if there is a special word for that in marketing... let's see if they will make it till 2023... wish them luck though.

aargh_aargh 8y ago
underdelivery (perhaps deliberate) https://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/underdelivery/ https://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/underdelivery/
- brennebeck 8y ago
  This doesn’t feel like what the OP is really trying to convey. At least not with the strict definition provided at the link. My interpretation of OP is something akin to “selling the sizzle”, I.e. being able to get any project bought into, unveiled, etc. with little/nothing, but it’s not quite at the level of vapor ware. Just my take.
  - therealmarv 8y ago
    you got me! Thanks... exactly my thoughts.
chrisper 8y ago
>I wonder if there is a special word for that in marketing Snakeoil?
aloisdg 8y ago
> In the computer industry, vaporware (alt. vapourware) is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
- brennebeck 8y ago
  I replied below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18013579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18013579 And the OP replied to clarify, so I think vaporware is an unfair characterization. But I think that regardless, to be clear.
JoachimS 8y ago
What isn't SpaceX delivering?
- wongarsu 8y ago
  They have been developing the BFR for more than two years and won't launch one in the next two years /s Maybe people have wrong expectations from working in software. SLS has a longer development time with a more tried-and-true design, and yet their deadlines slip as bad as those of SpaceX
_ph_ 8y ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that SpaceX is regularly delivering and returning cargo to and from the ISS and is the major launch provider for commercial sattelites. Also, the F9Heavy had its maiden flight this year. Tesla is not only selling the Model S and X for many years, and has with the Model 3 in the meantime the best-selling electrical car in the US. So how are they not delivering? As rocket science is.. rocket science, I do expect delays on the schedule. Especially safety concerns can easily make a development schedule slip. Yet, the SpaceX schedule slips seem to be small compared to other space ventures. The production of the first BFS prototype is under way, we are going to see the first test hops next year.
- robryan 8y ago
  It is probably fair to say that their promises are massive, making their under delivery still impressive.
  - inawarminister 8y ago
    Promise to the stars, delivery to the moon? ... This idiom is better in my native language.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      It's still pretty good in English. (If you wanted something that was a bit more polished, you could say "Promise the stars, deliver the moon." or as a complete sentence, "They promised the stars, then delivered the moon.")
- lozaning 8y ago
  They're not delivering on timelines. -Signed someone with a day one Model 3 reservation still waiting for the 35K version.
  - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
    Rocket?
mjamesaustin 8y ago
SpaceX is a cutting edge pioneer of the modern space race. Their Falcon 9 rocket represented more than 50% of all US rocket launches in 2017. When they announced their vertical landing program, critics across the industry laughed at them. Only a couple years later, their landings are so routine they don't even warrant press anymore.
- sschueller 8y ago
  Vertical landing is a parlor trick that isn't that hard and has been done before (McDonnell Douglas DC-X). It is a huge waste of fuel. You loose half of the payload capacity in order to land these things. In the long run it is not economically sustainable.
  - Jonnax 8y ago
    So how else do you propose to have a reusable rocket? Smashing it into the ground or sea doesn't quite work.
    - sschueller 8y ago
      Add parachutes and dump them in the sea.
      - olex 8y ago
        That actually adds more mass than the extra fuel required for propulsive landing. And significant refurbishment of engines is needed after they've contacted salt water.
        dexen 8y ago
        We were using parachutes for the Space Shuttle SRBs, but there are certain important distinctions - the SRBs were, to a first approximation, "big dumb pipes", and had much less of a problem with saltwater damage due to water landing needed to cushion the impact. There were 3 parachutes, for a total of 3x 990kg [1] for the SRB's empty mass of 91'000kg. While Falcon Heavy's first stage is lighter (25'600 kg empty, each [2]), you would need disproportionately larger parachute size to achieve soft landing on the ground as opposed to SRB's water landing, to avoid salt water damage. And to possibly handle passenger flights. Off of the top of my head, with parachute landing you add mass because both: - the large parachutes are quite heavy themselves as above (add some overhead for covers and support installation; I can't find any numbers) - needs increased structural integrity to handle the tug during deployment and the much faster touch-down on landing; with propulsive landing you can essentially touchdown at 0/0/0 vertical/horizontal/angular velocities, as soon as you nail down the math of flight characteristics and engine control - possibly some sort of reaction control, to achieve proper deployment attitude - probably a smaller drogue chute(s) to handle supersonic flight, with all the complexity it adds Moreover, using chutes: - completely prevents RTL flights - complicates abort modes; you'd need to dump fuel and oxidizer quick (without mixing and igniting, good luck) to be able to rely on the chutes alone. However I guess the overriding concern for Musk was quick turn-around. With a parachute landing you have less control over the touchdown point [3]; the logistics of recovery, refurbishment and relaunch become much more involved, possibly spanning an ocean [4]. And with longer turn-around you need more flight hardware, and more ground support, to handle given amount of orbital or surface-to-surface traffic. Call it reducing the capex by going for somewhat costlier option that ensures much higher flight hardware utilization. Lastly, using parachutes would create an image of low reliability; it's not something we would consider as to be routinely performed by commercial passenger flights. You don't want to ship passengers to "somewhere near your destination"; you want to deliver them to the airport, right next to the jet bridge (call it rocket bridge?) and promptly usher them to the passenger terminal. Yes, yes, the routine BFR passenger travel is coming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Descent_and_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boo... [2] http://www.spaceflight101.net/falcon-9-v11.html http://www.spaceflight101.net/falcon-9-v11.html [3] Gemini-style Rogalo wing would help, if it could be scaled. See https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b0/84/87/b08487e18f16402e4867981ffe5e5bf1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b0/84/87/b08487e18f16402e4867981ff... and https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rogallo-wing-model.jpg https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rogallo-win... Not as preposterous as it may seem, given that Buran's side-boosters were to glide to landing on deployable wings; see http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/gk175-5.jpg http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/gk175-5.jpg [4] you could bulk up the 1st stage enough to let it coast suborbitally all the way around globe to RTL, but that's another matter - and again uses up valuable fuel, and you run up against the rocket equation pretty quickly.
xrayzerone 8y ago
Yeah - like not delivering Falcon, or vertical landing, or first stage reuse, or Falcon Heavy. /s
coralreef 8y ago
60 out of 62 successful launches in ~8 years, of rockets that navigate themselves to land on floating barges. Yeah what are they doing for space exploration anyway?
martijn_himself 8y ago
SpaceX has delivered reusable rockets, which is one of the holy grails of space travel.

aargh_aargh 8y ago

underdelivery (perhaps deliberate) https://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/underdelivery/ https://www.marketingterms.com/dictionary/underdelivery/

brennebeck 8y ago
This doesn’t feel like what the OP is really trying to convey. At least not with the strict definition provided at the link. My interpretation of OP is something akin to “selling the sizzle”, I.e. being able to get any project bought into, unveiled, etc. with little/nothing, but it’s not quite at the level of vapor ware. Just my take.
- therealmarv 8y ago
  you got me! Thanks... exactly my thoughts.

chrisper 8y ago

>I wonder if there is a special word for that in marketing Snakeoil?

aloisdg 8y ago

> In the computer industry, vaporware (alt. vapourware) is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

brennebeck 8y ago
I replied below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18013579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18013579 And the OP replied to clarify, so I think vaporware is an unfair characterization. But I think that regardless, to be clear.

JoachimS 8y ago

What isn't SpaceX delivering?

wongarsu 8y ago
They have been developing the BFR for more than two years and won't launch one in the next two years /s Maybe people have wrong expectations from working in software. SLS has a longer development time with a more tried-and-true design, and yet their deadlines slip as bad as those of SpaceX

_ph_ 8y ago

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that SpaceX is regularly delivering and returning cargo to and from the ISS and is the major launch provider for commercial sattelites. Also, the F9Heavy had its maiden flight this year. Tesla is not only selling the Model S and X for many years, and has with the Model 3 in the meantime the best-selling electrical car in the US. So how are they not delivering? As rocket science is.. rocket science, I do expect delays on the schedule. Especially safety concerns can easily make a development schedule slip. Yet, the SpaceX schedule slips seem to be small compared to other space ventures. The production of the first BFS prototype is under way, we are going to see the first test hops next year.

robryan 8y ago
It is probably fair to say that their promises are massive, making their under delivery still impressive.
- inawarminister 8y ago
  Promise to the stars, delivery to the moon? ... This idiom is better in my native language.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    It's still pretty good in English. (If you wanted something that was a bit more polished, you could say "Promise the stars, deliver the moon." or as a complete sentence, "They promised the stars, then delivered the moon.")
lozaning 8y ago
They're not delivering on timelines. -Signed someone with a day one Model 3 reservation still waiting for the 35K version.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
  Rocket?

mjamesaustin 8y ago

SpaceX is a cutting edge pioneer of the modern space race. Their Falcon 9 rocket represented more than 50% of all US rocket launches in 2017. When they announced their vertical landing program, critics across the industry laughed at them. Only a couple years later, their landings are so routine they don't even warrant press anymore.

sschueller 8y ago
Vertical landing is a parlor trick that isn't that hard and has been done before (McDonnell Douglas DC-X). It is a huge waste of fuel. You loose half of the payload capacity in order to land these things. In the long run it is not economically sustainable.
- Jonnax 8y ago
  So how else do you propose to have a reusable rocket? Smashing it into the ground or sea doesn't quite work.
  - sschueller 8y ago
    Add parachutes and dump them in the sea.
    - olex 8y ago
      That actually adds more mass than the extra fuel required for propulsive landing. And significant refurbishment of engines is needed after they've contacted salt water.
      - dexen 8y ago
        We were using parachutes for the Space Shuttle SRBs, but there are certain important distinctions - the SRBs were, to a first approximation, "big dumb pipes", and had much less of a problem with saltwater damage due to water landing needed to cushion the impact. There were 3 parachutes, for a total of 3x 990kg [1] for the SRB's empty mass of 91'000kg. While Falcon Heavy's first stage is lighter (25'600 kg empty, each [2]), you would need disproportionately larger parachute size to achieve soft landing on the ground as opposed to SRB's water landing, to avoid salt water damage. And to possibly handle passenger flights. Off of the top of my head, with parachute landing you add mass because both: - the large parachutes are quite heavy themselves as above (add some overhead for covers and support installation; I can't find any numbers) - needs increased structural integrity to handle the tug during deployment and the much faster touch-down on landing; with propulsive landing you can essentially touchdown at 0/0/0 vertical/horizontal/angular velocities, as soon as you nail down the math of flight characteristics and engine control - possibly some sort of reaction control, to achieve proper deployment attitude - probably a smaller drogue chute(s) to handle supersonic flight, with all the complexity it adds Moreover, using chutes: - completely prevents RTL flights - complicates abort modes; you'd need to dump fuel and oxidizer quick (without mixing and igniting, good luck) to be able to rely on the chutes alone. However I guess the overriding concern for Musk was quick turn-around. With a parachute landing you have less control over the touchdown point [3]; the logistics of recovery, refurbishment and relaunch become much more involved, possibly spanning an ocean [4]. And with longer turn-around you need more flight hardware, and more ground support, to handle given amount of orbital or surface-to-surface traffic. Call it reducing the capex by going for somewhat costlier option that ensures much higher flight hardware utilization. Lastly, using parachutes would create an image of low reliability; it's not something we would consider as to be routinely performed by commercial passenger flights. You don't want to ship passengers to "somewhere near your destination"; you want to deliver them to the airport, right next to the jet bridge (call it rocket bridge?) and promptly usher them to the passenger terminal. Yes, yes, the routine BFR passenger travel is coming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Descent_and_recovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Boo... [2] http://www.spaceflight101.net/falcon-9-v11.html http://www.spaceflight101.net/falcon-9-v11.html [3] Gemini-style Rogalo wing would help, if it could be scaled. See https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b0/84/87/b08487e18f16402e4867981ffe5e5bf1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b0/84/87/b08487e18f16402e4867981ff... and https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rogallo-wing-model.jpg https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rogallo-win... Not as preposterous as it may seem, given that Buran's side-boosters were to glide to landing on deployable wings; see http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/gk175-5.jpg http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/gk175-5.jpg [4] you could bulk up the 1st stage enough to let it coast suborbitally all the way around globe to RTL, but that's another matter - and again uses up valuable fuel, and you run up against the rocket equation pretty quickly.

xrayzerone 8y ago

Yeah - like not delivering Falcon, or vertical landing, or first stage reuse, or Falcon Heavy. /s

coralreef 8y ago

60 out of 62 successful launches in ~8 years, of rockets that navigate themselves to land on floating barges. Yeah what are they doing for space exploration anyway?

martijn_himself 8y ago

SpaceX has delivered reusable rockets, which is one of the holy grails of space travel.