4 ms·

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. A

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 5y ago
And batteries can be attributed to a large degree to Panasonic.
jgilias 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    What would be the use for an external tank in orbit?
    - ceejayoz 5y 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 5y 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.
        TimBurr 5y ago
        I'm not sure what was on the Shuttle tank, but other vehicles carry hydraulic fluid (for engine gimballing) & hydrazine (for small thrusters). They're usually vented at the end of a mission to safe the vehicle. If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks. https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/ https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
        ceejayoz 5y ago
Maken 5y ago
Musk did not founded Testa, but was one of the first investors.
irthomasthomas 5y 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.

hef19898 5y ago

And batteries can be attributed to a large degree to Panasonic.

jgilias 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  What would be the use for an external tank in orbit?
  - ceejayoz 5y 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 5y 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.
      - TimBurr 5y ago
        I'm not sure what was on the Shuttle tank, but other vehicles carry hydraulic fluid (for engine gimballing) & hydrazine (for small thrusters). They're usually vented at the end of a mission to safe the vehicle. If you're wondering about practicality, Skylab was a Saturn V tank. Unlike the external tank suggestions, Skylab was built on the ground and never had fuel in it. But it was basically the same structure as the Saturn's third stage. Like ISS, Skylab had some micrometeorite shielding outside of the main tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab More recently, Nanoracks has looked at refurbishing ULA's Centaur upper stage into a habitat. Like the Shuttle, Centaur runs on a H2 + O2 cycle. Their plan is to lift an equipment kit onboard the Centaur. They'd cut a hole after the end of the mission and use on-orbit welding (not mature yet) to install all the floors/decks/airlocks. https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/ https://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
        ceejayoz 5y ago

Maken 5y ago

Musk did not founded Testa, but was one of the first investors.

irthomasthomas 5y 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.