3 ms·

>> Businesses need to ensure they can make profit before throwing money at huge problems, otherwise they'll just lose money and go out of business. Can you say

>> Businesses need to ensure they can make profit before throwing money at huge problems, otherwise they'll just lose money and go out of business. Can you say this is true about Tesla and/or SpaceX? It doesn't particularly seem like Elon cared about those things all that much when he launched them.

anonytrary 8y ago
It doesn't need to be said for Musk, since a visionary entrepreneur is the exception, not the rule. Musk's choices can be explained away -- a smart domain expert like Musk probably has a better understanding of the risks and rewards in his domain of work than most other people. There are always exceptional people in the world who can not only imagine futures, but make them reality. Hiring a think tank to solve a problem is a brute force search; almost like a random walk in the solution space. That's a huge risk for someone with lots of money and no domain expertise, but perhaps less a risk for an Einstein who has relevant knowledge and skills. Lots of solutions were found in the proverbial garage, and perhaps would have never been the product of a billion dollars and the best MIT grads you could hire. Nonetheless, spontaneity is, by definition, not something you can really throw money at and expect to happen. Even a trillion dollars will not help you find the next Einstein who can solve the exact problem you are working on.
- hef19898 8y ago
  Well, I think I have to disagree with a couple of points here. First, Musk is not a domain expert in building rockets (by no means deminishing SpaceX technical achievements) nor in building cars (which is showing itself clearly as of late). Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge. SpaceX itself is not a real moon shot (figuratively speeking, literally they are) but rather catching up with 60s and 70s space tech. And electrical cars have been around since the 1900s, so again nothing resembling a moon shot. Automotive mass production on the other hand is a very well understood problem space, one Tesla failed exploit so far in any meaningful way so far.
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjectives I used to describe Musk are not relevant here. > Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge "Easy to solve" means something different for a scientist, engineer and businessman. Something which can be theoretically or technically solved may not be practically solved (the supersonic commercial jet example I mentioned earlier). I agree with you that most of the time, it's pretty clear whether or not something will require new science or can be built with existing knowledge, and most business are in the business of doing the latter. I would add that new science is capable of turning impractical solutions into practical ones, and a multi-billion dollar business can spend easily spend unpredictable amounts of money trying to do so -- which makes it a very risky investment.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.
      - anonytrary 8y ago
tobyjsullivan 8y ago
Yes, you can. There were existing high-value ($100B/$1T+) markets before either of those companies started. Focussing on SpaceX specifically, Musk has always been clear that his business goal was to provide space transport at 10% the current cost. There's a story that he'd worked out (based on his existing rocket-building knowledge) that it seemed entirely practical to build a rocket for far less than going rate - on a plane while flying back from Russia. He had a business case before he spent his first dollar. There's obviously remaining uncertainty but it would be foolish to start a project without some idea of how you'd profit.

anonytrary 8y ago

It doesn't need to be said for Musk, since a visionary entrepreneur is the exception, not the rule. Musk's choices can be explained away -- a smart domain expert like Musk probably has a better understanding of the risks and rewards in his domain of work than most other people. There are always exceptional people in the world who can not only imagine futures, but make them reality. Hiring a think tank to solve a problem is a brute force search; almost like a random walk in the solution space. That's a huge risk for someone with lots of money and no domain expertise, but perhaps less a risk for an Einstein who has relevant knowledge and skills. Lots of solutions were found in the proverbial garage, and perhaps would have never been the product of a billion dollars and the best MIT grads you could hire. Nonetheless, spontaneity is, by definition, not something you can really throw money at and expect to happen. Even a trillion dollars will not help you find the next Einstein who can solve the exact problem you are working on.

hef19898 8y ago
Well, I think I have to disagree with a couple of points here. First, Musk is not a domain expert in building rockets (by no means deminishing SpaceX technical achievements) nor in building cars (which is showing itself clearly as of late). Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge. SpaceX itself is not a real moon shot (figuratively speeking, literally they are) but rather catching up with 60s and 70s space tech. And electrical cars have been around since the 1900s, so again nothing resembling a moon shot. Automotive mass production on the other hand is a very well understood problem space, one Tesla failed exploit so far in any meaningful way so far.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  My main point was actually that Musk is not really worth mentioning here at all, because the vast majority of businesses do not operate like Musk's. The adjectives I used to describe Musk are not relevant here. > Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge "Easy to solve" means something different for a scientist, engineer and businessman. Something which can be theoretically or technically solved may not be practically solved (the supersonic commercial jet example I mentioned earlier). I agree with you that most of the time, it's pretty clear whether or not something will require new science or can be built with existing knowledge, and most business are in the business of doing the latter. I would add that new science is capable of turning impractical solutions into practical ones, and a multi-billion dollar business can spend easily spend unpredictable amounts of money trying to do so -- which makes it a very risky investment.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    Businesses can also fail at implementing existing solutions and burn huge amounts of mones trying to do so. And yes, Musk is relevant in a discussion about SpaceX and to degree Tesla. Have both endevours been "visionary" to a certain degree? Sure. At SpaceX I'd agrue that it was not Musk himself who designed, say, the Falcon 9 all by himself. Sure his education and background helped a lot. At Tesla, the approach was disruptive as well. Especially tackling the lacking charging infrastructure as well. That gave him a huge head start, mass-production cost a lot of that head start already. SpaceX profited a lot from vertical integration, Tesla did not. Seeing Musk as some kind of genius in everything he does is doing two things, none of them good: 1) Reinforcing Musks pre-existing sense of superiority (again, based to a not inconsiderable amount in truth) to levels that are hurting and 2) making people an approach that worked once (vertical integration at SpaceX for example) will work elsewhere as well. This is in effect suppressing diferent opinion and the free exchange of ideas. Reality usually punishes you for that at one point or another. And it would really be a pitty if either one, Musk, Tesla or SpaceX would be in the future.
    - anonytrary 8y ago

tobyjsullivan 8y ago

Yes, you can. There were existing high-value ($100B/$1T+) markets before either of those companies started. Focussing on SpaceX specifically, Musk has always been clear that his business goal was to provide space transport at 10% the current cost. There's a story that he'd worked out (based on his existing rocket-building knowledge) that it seemed entirely practical to build a rocket for far less than going rate - on a plane while flying back from Russia. He had a business case before he spent his first dollar. There's obviously remaining uncertainty but it would be foolish to start a project without some idea of how you'd profit.