5 ms·

I didn’t say they were new to the game I said they probably aren’t looking super reliable all of a sudden. Things that tend to matter a lot in that world are c

by mhoad 4y ago

I didn’t say they were new to the game I said they probably aren’t looking super reliable all of a sudden. Things that tend to matter a lot in that world are credibility, stability and reliability. New information has come in via a very public set of car crashes and that relationship is now looking like a liability.

Cyberdog 4y ago
Could you elaborate for those of us who don’t typically follow space news? Has Space-X had some trouble recently?
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  He is saying spacex=tesla
- mhoad 4y ago
  I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. In a national security context that would be generally thought of as a completely unacceptable amount of leverage for your main enemy to have over your national security infrastructure. This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. Translation: "I think you're committing wrongthink to be asking such a question, but I'll magnanimously say 'let's operate on good faith'". >The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco Ah yes, the world's wealthiest man has invested 20% of his net wealth in something that may or may not work out. Proof that he is a danger to national security!!!1!!11!!!!! PS - Two questions to ponder: Q: Wasn't Twitter supposed to have collapsed and died like a month ago? A: Yes. Q: Isn't Twitter functioning apparently quite well during the current mega world event known as the FIFA World Cup? A: Yes. >but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. Oh, good grief. Musk said that Ukraine might have to give up land to end the war with Russia. A) A negotiated settlement is how 90% of wars in world history have ended, and B) such a settlement has always been the most likely scenario for ending the current war. Maybe it'll be a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, maybe it'll also include parts of eastern Ukraine. Now, maybe Ukraine's recent successes on the ground will let it regain control over all of its territory, maybe even Crimea. I hope that happens, but (again, even with the recent pushback of Russian lines) that still remains a relatively unlikely outcome. >This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec. There is nothing wrong, from a legal or moral perspective, in Musk publicly stating what he said. He is an American and the US is not actually a combatant in the war. Musk is free to say anything he wants, and those who immediately claim that anything short of demanding "Ukrainian forces roll into Moscow and Zelensky personally swings the axe that cuts off Putin's head" = Russian sympathizer/"problem with natsec" just make themselves look stupid.
    - mhoad 4y ago
      - TMWNN 4y ago
        Sorry for committing wrongthink in your presence
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    What does the Twitter purchase or Musk’s opinions on the war in Ukraine have to do with Space-X’s capabilities to successfully put satellites into orbit?
- s5300 4y ago
  Musk has had some trouble recently, but I thought it was pretty well known that Shotwell pretty much runs the show at SpaceX & has for some time. I may be completely incorrect, but I think Musk is mostly just a mascot/figurehead/hype-man for SpaceX & has been for a bit. Regarding most of the day-day stuff that is, he probably still has some input on very long term matters. But I think if Musk were to die in a mysterious Tesla fire tomorrow, not much would change for the worse at the company for quite some time.
  - mhoad 4y ago
    I’m specifically referring to the 80% voting rights he has at SpaceX.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    It is well known that Shotwell runs the business side and Musk runs the engineering/R&D side. Eg. Falcon Heavy was almost cancelled because the engineering side turned out to make it more expensive to develop than expected (with the original plan for fuel crossfeed) and F9 had improved so much that it ate up most of FH's potential market. So Musk's preference was to cancel it. But because it was favorable for the business side (I think they might've even already bid on some launches with it by then), Shotwell pushed for them to keep it, which is how we got the current variation of FH which just has F9s with a reinforced center-core.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      It wasn't important to the business side -- they'd only sold a couple launches or so. But Shotwell convinced Elon that it was important to their reputation. Musk has since cratered his, but Shotwell's is intact.
      - dotnet00 4y ago
        I feel like that's nitpicking, when the company's reputation is obviously a business issue.
caconym_ 4y ago
Musk has been a complete trainwreck for years, and it hasn't stopped SpaceX from winning a bunch of government (including defense) contracts, nor---crucially---from delivering on them. The recent Twitter stuff has gotten a lot of airplay, but I'm not sure what's supposed to have happened that would fundamentally change the equation.

by mhoad 4y ago

Cyberdog 4y ago

Could you elaborate for those of us who don’t typically follow space news? Has Space-X had some trouble recently?

mensetmanusman 4y ago
He is saying spacex=tesla
mhoad 4y ago
I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. In a national security context that would be generally thought of as a completely unacceptable amount of leverage for your main enemy to have over your national security infrastructure. This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >I can’t tell if you’re being cute and trying to carve out some exemption here when it’s clear what I’m talking about I think but let’s operate on good faith. Translation: "I think you're committing wrongthink to be asking such a question, but I'll magnanimously say 'let's operate on good faith'". >The owner with an 80% voting control of the company has had some very serious issues in judgement lately not limited to the Twitter fiasco Ah yes, the world's wealthiest man has invested 20% of his net wealth in something that may or may not work out. Proof that he is a danger to national security!!!1!!11!!!!! PS - Two questions to ponder: Q: Wasn't Twitter supposed to have collapsed and died like a month ago? A: Yes. Q: Isn't Twitter functioning apparently quite well during the current mega world event known as the FIFA World Cup? A: Yes. >but has also made a number of public moves that were very friendly towards what the US has called their biggest national security threat repeatedly for the past half decade or longer. Oh, good grief. Musk said that Ukraine might have to give up land to end the war with Russia. A) A negotiated settlement is how 90% of wars in world history have ended, and B) such a settlement has always been the most likely scenario for ending the current war. Maybe it'll be a formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, maybe it'll also include parts of eastern Ukraine. Now, maybe Ukraine's recent successes on the ground will let it regain control over all of its territory, maybe even Crimea. I hope that happens, but (again, even with the recent pushback of Russian lines) that still remains a relatively unlikely outcome. >This isn’t some mindless Elon bashing post, I’m presenting this as an actual honest to god problem for natsec. There is nothing wrong, from a legal or moral perspective, in Musk publicly stating what he said. He is an American and the US is not actually a combatant in the war. Musk is free to say anything he wants, and those who immediately claim that anything short of demanding "Ukrainian forces roll into Moscow and Zelensky personally swings the axe that cuts off Putin's head" = Russian sympathizer/"problem with natsec" just make themselves look stupid.
  - mhoad 4y ago
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      Sorry for committing wrongthink in your presence
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  What does the Twitter purchase or Musk’s opinions on the war in Ukraine have to do with Space-X’s capabilities to successfully put satellites into orbit?
s5300 4y ago
Musk has had some trouble recently, but I thought it was pretty well known that Shotwell pretty much runs the show at SpaceX & has for some time. I may be completely incorrect, but I think Musk is mostly just a mascot/figurehead/hype-man for SpaceX & has been for a bit. Regarding most of the day-day stuff that is, he probably still has some input on very long term matters. But I think if Musk were to die in a mysterious Tesla fire tomorrow, not much would change for the worse at the company for quite some time.
- mhoad 4y ago
  I’m specifically referring to the 80% voting rights he has at SpaceX.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  It is well known that Shotwell runs the business side and Musk runs the engineering/R&D side. Eg. Falcon Heavy was almost cancelled because the engineering side turned out to make it more expensive to develop than expected (with the original plan for fuel crossfeed) and F9 had improved so much that it ate up most of FH's potential market. So Musk's preference was to cancel it. But because it was favorable for the business side (I think they might've even already bid on some launches with it by then), Shotwell pushed for them to keep it, which is how we got the current variation of FH which just has F9s with a reinforced center-core.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    It wasn't important to the business side -- they'd only sold a couple launches or so. But Shotwell convinced Elon that it was important to their reputation. Musk has since cratered his, but Shotwell's is intact.
    - dotnet00 4y ago
      I feel like that's nitpicking, when the company's reputation is obviously a business issue.

caconym_ 4y ago

Musk has been a complete trainwreck for years, and it hasn't stopped SpaceX from winning a bunch of government (including defense) contracts, nor---crucially---from delivering on them. The recent Twitter stuff has gotten a lot of airplay, but I'm not sure what's supposed to have happened that would fundamentally change the equation.