10 ms·

But that's exactly the modus operandi of Musk's companies. Figure out the big picture of something based on first principles, assume that the industry is stuck

But that's exactly the modus operandi of Musk's companies. Figure out the big picture of something based on first principles, assume that the industry is stuck on some local maximum, and try to do it in a different way. Sometimes it works, sometimes it may not. I mean, there would've been plenty of knowledgeable people in the relevant industries telling Musk why landing rockets and reusing them is not going to work, and why battery powered mass market electric vehicles is a pipe dream.

alkonaut 6y ago
> Sometimes it works, sometimes it may not. The way this should work is: Sometimes it works and a company is successful, and sometimes it doesn't and the company isn't successful. Musk's apparent mode of operation is: if it works, my company is successful, and if it doesn't work, a lot of customers (or even would-be-customers) will take part of the hit and the company won't be that unsuccessful. That's not how it should work.
verbify 6y ago
I think it's generous to attribute reusable rockets to Musk - the Space Shuttle Columbia went on 17 missions - Musk didn't develop the first reusable rocket. As for electric cars, I believe the limiting factor was battery technology, which has improved in leaps and bounds in the past decade. Tesla wasn't the only company developing electric cars - Renault-Nissan Alliance achieved the sales milestone of 350,000 all-electric vehicles delivered globally in August 2016, ranking second was Tesla Motors with over 139,000 electric cars sold between 2008 and June 2016. It's also not clear that Musk founded Tesla, but I'm not clear on the history there. Tesla do have the strongest branding in electric cars though, and I would attribute that to Musk's ability as a showman.
- hef19898 6y ago
  And batteries can be attributed to a large degree to Panasonic.
- jgilias 6y ago
  There is a categorical difference between the Space Shuttle boosters and the Falcon 9 rockets. First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. The solid rocket boosters were, but only after they were recovered from splash-landing into the ocean, requiring extensive and expensive refurbishing before further launches. Which Falcon 9 boosters largely avoid by landing vertically. And the Shuttle itself was reusable, but that's sort of besides the point, as that's a space-plane, not a rocket used to bring things into orbit. Whether capsules or space-planes is a better concept for the spacecraft itself is a different discussion altogether. The per kg cost to orbit of Falcon 9 launches is an order of magnitude less than it was for Space Shuttle, so credit should be given where credit is due.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. To be fair, the Falcon 9 similarly discards its entire second stage. I really wish they'd have boosted the Shuttle tank to stable orbit and used it for space stations.
    - rzzzt 6y ago
      What would be the use for an external tank in orbit?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        It's an enormous, sealed, empty metal tank that they were already taking mostly to orbit already. One would make a pretty serviceable space station. 100+ would make one hell of a space station if you designed them to be strung together. Some early NASA concepts: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html
        rzzzt 6y ago
        Cool! Did it contain anything hazardous while in regular use? I'm only seeing liquid H2 and O2. Maybe wall thickness would be a concern for habitation.
- Maken 6y ago
  Musk did not founded Testa, but was one of the first investors.
- irthomasthomas 6y ago
  Elon Musk certainly DID NOT FOUND TESLA INC. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla inc in 2003. Sorry for the caps, but Musk invested later, after the first prototype (2004). Musk then ousted the original inventors from the company and sued them to for founder status. So, it's interesting that Musk is legally defined now as a founder of a company which he definately never founded.
azernik 6y ago
The space launch industry was uniquely dysfunctional; SpaceX could get away with starting near the bottom of the learning curve. Tesla, by contrast, is up against companies that build products at large scales in a thick market while competing against the best the international economy has to offer. There's much less room for error there.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  I don't know any other company that offers vertical energy integration just like Tesla. I was just talking yesterday to a guy who loves his Model 3 and is waiting for his Tesla batteries in his house for over a year now (and can pay more if needed). He isn't thinking of using another company, as vertical software integration is more important for him than timing / price.
  - azernik 6y ago
    Yeah, that integrated offering is a great market differentiator. Still a much higher bar than the basic competence that SpaceX has had to display to eat everyone else's lunch.
hef19898 6y ago
ESA / Ariana Space did some studies on reusable rockets in the early 200s (if memory serves, and for the love of god I can't find the study anymore...). Their conclusions were: - technically feasible - economically not feasible due to limited number of launches And weather or not i is econommically feasible for SpaceX is impossible to tell without their financials. It does seem so, that Starlink is increasing SpaceX launches. There is truths to Tesla, but to be honest, Tesla was considerably close to running out of money some while ago. The art of Musk is to have Tesla seen as a tech company, and not as a car maker.
- fundatus 6y ago
  I mean, McDonnell Douglas had a working prototype already in the 90s: https://youtu.be/JzXcTFfV3Ls?t=76 https://youtu.be/JzXcTFfV3Ls?t=76
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Damn, didn't know about that! Impressive thing!
  - andy_jensen 6y ago
    So had Spectre in 1967 https://youtu.be/Dnaorqo6krg https://youtu.be/Dnaorqo6krg
  - himinlomax 6y ago
    It was barely a prototype, more of a proof of concept, as it couldn't lift anything much but itself. Also it was not just reusable (though not reused) but SSTO. And SSTO is almost certainly a dead end for chemical rockets. In part but not exclusively because aerospikes seem to be impractical, but also because fully reusable and inexpensive boosters are obviously working just fine. The case for sending a lot of deadweight up the gravity well is simply too poor, even if you could do it with great efficiency.
    - dingaling 6y ago
      A PooC seems a reasonable moniker, but the sole reason it didn't proceed to anything more practical was the lack of government funding. Big Space had become so dependent on gov contracts that they couldn't envisage doing anything on their own initiative: that was the true innovation of SpaceX, not landing rockets. Frankly Delta Clipper was even more impressive given that it came from MDC who were by far the most conservative defense contractor. That sort of thing would have been more typical of Northrop.

alkonaut 6y ago

> Sometimes it works, sometimes it may not. The way this should work is: Sometimes it works and a company is successful, and sometimes it doesn't and the company isn't successful. Musk's apparent mode of operation is: if it works, my company is successful, and if it doesn't work, a lot of customers (or even would-be-customers) will take part of the hit and the company won't be that unsuccessful. That's not how it should work.

verbify 6y ago

I think it's generous to attribute reusable rockets to Musk - the Space Shuttle Columbia went on 17 missions - Musk didn't develop the first reusable rocket. As for electric cars, I believe the limiting factor was battery technology, which has improved in leaps and bounds in the past decade. Tesla wasn't the only company developing electric cars - Renault-Nissan Alliance achieved the sales milestone of 350,000 all-electric vehicles delivered globally in August 2016, ranking second was Tesla Motors with over 139,000 electric cars sold between 2008 and June 2016. It's also not clear that Musk founded Tesla, but I'm not clear on the history there. Tesla do have the strongest branding in electric cars though, and I would attribute that to Musk's ability as a showman.

hef19898 6y ago
And batteries can be attributed to a large degree to Panasonic.
jgilias 6y ago
There is a categorical difference between the Space Shuttle boosters and the Falcon 9 rockets. First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. The solid rocket boosters were, but only after they were recovered from splash-landing into the ocean, requiring extensive and expensive refurbishing before further launches. Which Falcon 9 boosters largely avoid by landing vertically. And the Shuttle itself was reusable, but that's sort of besides the point, as that's a space-plane, not a rocket used to bring things into orbit. Whether capsules or space-planes is a better concept for the spacecraft itself is a different discussion altogether. The per kg cost to orbit of Falcon 9 launches is an order of magnitude less than it was for Space Shuttle, so credit should be given where credit is due.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > First of all, the external tank of the space shuttle didn't get reused. To be fair, the Falcon 9 similarly discards its entire second stage. I really wish they'd have boosted the Shuttle tank to stable orbit and used it for space stations.
  - rzzzt 6y ago
    What would be the use for an external tank in orbit?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      It's an enormous, sealed, empty metal tank that they were already taking mostly to orbit already. One would make a pretty serviceable space station. 100+ would make one hell of a space station if you designed them to be strung together. Some early NASA concepts: http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html http://www.astronautix.com/s/stsexternaltankstation.html
      - rzzzt 6y ago
        Cool! Did it contain anything hazardous while in regular use? I'm only seeing liquid H2 and O2. Maybe wall thickness would be a concern for habitation.
Maken 6y ago
Musk did not founded Testa, but was one of the first investors.
irthomasthomas 6y ago
Elon Musk certainly DID NOT FOUND TESLA INC. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla inc in 2003. Sorry for the caps, but Musk invested later, after the first prototype (2004). Musk then ousted the original inventors from the company and sued them to for founder status. So, it's interesting that Musk is legally defined now as a founder of a company which he definately never founded.

azernik 6y ago

The space launch industry was uniquely dysfunctional; SpaceX could get away with starting near the bottom of the learning curve. Tesla, by contrast, is up against companies that build products at large scales in a thick market while competing against the best the international economy has to offer. There's much less room for error there.

xiphias2 6y ago
I don't know any other company that offers vertical energy integration just like Tesla. I was just talking yesterday to a guy who loves his Model 3 and is waiting for his Tesla batteries in his house for over a year now (and can pay more if needed). He isn't thinking of using another company, as vertical software integration is more important for him than timing / price.
- azernik 6y ago
  Yeah, that integrated offering is a great market differentiator. Still a much higher bar than the basic competence that SpaceX has had to display to eat everyone else's lunch.

hef19898 6y ago

ESA / Ariana Space did some studies on reusable rockets in the early 200s (if memory serves, and for the love of god I can't find the study anymore...). Their conclusions were: - technically feasible - economically not feasible due to limited number of launches And weather or not i is econommically feasible for SpaceX is impossible to tell without their financials. It does seem so, that Starlink is increasing SpaceX launches. There is truths to Tesla, but to be honest, Tesla was considerably close to running out of money some while ago. The art of Musk is to have Tesla seen as a tech company, and not as a car maker.

fundatus 6y ago
I mean, McDonnell Douglas had a working prototype already in the 90s: https://youtu.be/JzXcTFfV3Ls?t=76 https://youtu.be/JzXcTFfV3Ls?t=76
- hef19898 6y ago
  Damn, didn't know about that! Impressive thing!
- andy_jensen 6y ago
  So had Spectre in 1967 https://youtu.be/Dnaorqo6krg https://youtu.be/Dnaorqo6krg
- himinlomax 6y ago
  It was barely a prototype, more of a proof of concept, as it couldn't lift anything much but itself. Also it was not just reusable (though not reused) but SSTO. And SSTO is almost certainly a dead end for chemical rockets. In part but not exclusively because aerospikes seem to be impractical, but also because fully reusable and inexpensive boosters are obviously working just fine. The case for sending a lot of deadweight up the gravity well is simply too poor, even if you could do it with great efficiency.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    A PooC seems a reasonable moniker, but the sole reason it didn't proceed to anything more practical was the lack of government funding. Big Space had become so dependent on gov contracts that they couldn't envisage doing anything on their own initiative: that was the true innovation of SpaceX, not landing rockets. Frankly Delta Clipper was even more impressive given that it came from MDC who were by far the most conservative defense contractor. That sort of thing would have been more typical of Northrop.