4 ms·

Tesla is not about being good for the env. It's about making money. Same thing with SpaceX not being about going to Mars. It's about making money too! The goi

by cies 6y ago

Tesla is not about being good for the env. It's about making money. Same thing with SpaceX not being about going to Mars. It's about making money too! The going to Mars/ good for env stories are to get some public goodwill behind them from a certain crowd.

criley2 6y ago
If we're being honest, SpaceX is designed to gobble up government contracts. That's it. That's the whole business model. If NASA offered contracts exploring the ocean depths then Elon Musk would be sinking Tesla's in submersibles.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  That was ULA before SpaceX came around. They had a monopoly on government launch and they won almost no commercial contracts on the global market because they were uncompetitive. SpaceX has totally reversed both of those. They have saved the government $Bs by undercutting ULA and is the top commercial launcher in the world.
- cies 6y ago
  Not only govt contracts. Also private satellite launches, their own satellite internet network, and prolly more. Of there was an untapped market in deep sea, it might have been tapped by him as well. But judging from the oil+gas exploration there I think that's not quite as untapped (pun maybe intended).
  - criley2 6y ago
    Their financials have nothing to do with private launches. They are doing them at a loss funded by government contracts. The satellite internet project is a piggyback on government contracts. Starlink is only viable if SpaceX exists, and SpaceX can only exist as long as the NASA billions are flowing in. They don't have the money to invent the SpaceX to make the Starlink, and Starlink won't be so profitable as to be able to shoulder the cost of inventing private space flight, so they need the government funding to create the private space flight foundation that could make Starlink some day profitable without having to fund that foundation. I'm not against the government creating new markets like this, NASA has been doing it for a long time.
Tepix 6y ago
Both companies were unlikely to succeed (and nearly failed). To me that is a strong indicator that profit is not the primary objective.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  What is the logic behind claiming A indicates B here? All sorts of profit-seeking enterprises are unlikely to succeed. Venture capital in general is often about making big bets with high failure rates. Speaking more broadly, new for-profit businesses typically fail in general - "According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20% of U.S. small businesses fail within the first year. By the end of their fifth year, roughly 50% have faltered. After 10 years, only around a third of businesses have survived" according to one source. If profit really weren't Elon's primary objective, he would have started charities, co-ops or at least B Corporations (ignoring that those are basically a scam)
  - cableshaft 6y ago
    People who are only in for the money would have likely rode their golden parachute out of those companies a long time ago when things first got tough. If someone isn't in it for the money, that doesn't therefore mean they're trying to be just generally 'charitable'. Elon clearly wants to be known for facilitating in bringing humanity to the next step (or steps) of its technological future. Pretty much every venture he's done (electric cars, mars colonization, high-speed people movers, chips in brains) have been towards that goal. There aren't charities he can donate to that would do these things, or if there are, they aren't moving as fast as he has been by tackling it himself. Probably at best he could donate to cure some disease like Bill Gates is doing, which, while worthwhile and great, is clearly not something Elon cares about all that much (especially with his kind of shitty views about the Coronavirus pandemic, which I'm sure is mainly because it did its best to put the brakes on all of his ventures).
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      I didn't say donate to charities, I said start one. You even cite an example - Bill Gates doesn't just hand out money, he's involved in organizations with specific mandates, and there's an organization with him and his wife's name on it that does stuff. If Elon wants to change the world there are many options at his disposal other than buying the title "founder" of a for-profit electric company he didn't found
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I have my doubts about Tesla, but overwhelming evidence still points towards SpaceX being true to its word Mars venture.

by cies 6y ago

criley2 6y ago

If we're being honest, SpaceX is designed to gobble up government contracts. That's it. That's the whole business model. If NASA offered contracts exploring the ocean depths then Elon Musk would be sinking Tesla's in submersibles.

thinkcontext 6y ago
That was ULA before SpaceX came around. They had a monopoly on government launch and they won almost no commercial contracts on the global market because they were uncompetitive. SpaceX has totally reversed both of those. They have saved the government $Bs by undercutting ULA and is the top commercial launcher in the world.
cies 6y ago
Not only govt contracts. Also private satellite launches, their own satellite internet network, and prolly more. Of there was an untapped market in deep sea, it might have been tapped by him as well. But judging from the oil+gas exploration there I think that's not quite as untapped (pun maybe intended).
- criley2 6y ago
  Their financials have nothing to do with private launches. They are doing them at a loss funded by government contracts. The satellite internet project is a piggyback on government contracts. Starlink is only viable if SpaceX exists, and SpaceX can only exist as long as the NASA billions are flowing in. They don't have the money to invent the SpaceX to make the Starlink, and Starlink won't be so profitable as to be able to shoulder the cost of inventing private space flight, so they need the government funding to create the private space flight foundation that could make Starlink some day profitable without having to fund that foundation. I'm not against the government creating new markets like this, NASA has been doing it for a long time.

Tepix 6y ago

Both companies were unlikely to succeed (and nearly failed). To me that is a strong indicator that profit is not the primary objective.

kevingadd 6y ago
What is the logic behind claiming A indicates B here? All sorts of profit-seeking enterprises are unlikely to succeed. Venture capital in general is often about making big bets with high failure rates. Speaking more broadly, new for-profit businesses typically fail in general - "According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 20% of U.S. small businesses fail within the first year. By the end of their fifth year, roughly 50% have faltered. After 10 years, only around a third of businesses have survived" according to one source. If profit really weren't Elon's primary objective, he would have started charities, co-ops or at least B Corporations (ignoring that those are basically a scam)
- cableshaft 6y ago
  People who are only in for the money would have likely rode their golden parachute out of those companies a long time ago when things first got tough. If someone isn't in it for the money, that doesn't therefore mean they're trying to be just generally 'charitable'. Elon clearly wants to be known for facilitating in bringing humanity to the next step (or steps) of its technological future. Pretty much every venture he's done (electric cars, mars colonization, high-speed people movers, chips in brains) have been towards that goal. There aren't charities he can donate to that would do these things, or if there are, they aren't moving as fast as he has been by tackling it himself. Probably at best he could donate to cure some disease like Bill Gates is doing, which, while worthwhile and great, is clearly not something Elon cares about all that much (especially with his kind of shitty views about the Coronavirus pandemic, which I'm sure is mainly because it did its best to put the brakes on all of his ventures).
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    I didn't say donate to charities, I said start one. You even cite an example - Bill Gates doesn't just hand out money, he's involved in organizations with specific mandates, and there's an organization with him and his wife's name on it that does stuff. If Elon wants to change the world there are many options at his disposal other than buying the title "founder" of a for-profit electric company he didn't found

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I have my doubts about Tesla, but overwhelming evidence still points towards SpaceX being true to its word Mars venture.