4 ms·

Damn as much as I find Musk annoying he is making 10x the impact on the world even in contrast to other CEO/tech magnates. Why can nobody else keep up?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ShakataGaNai 3y ago
Probably because in order to make those sorts of 10x impacts he's doing... He's pushing the boundaries of whats legal, ethical and/or moral. Yes, some of it is simply his ability to "think different" and be willing to work outside the box. Sometimes those boxes are fully ok to break, sometimes those boxes are legal or ethical standards that he also breaks with vigor. Also a lot of the things he does is not 10x. Look at twitter. He's turned it from the worlds town square to a square filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats.
- good8675309 3y ago
  Wow, but muh Twitter and everyone I don't like is in the KKK! Every single time. You need to get a new thing to be outraged about. Let's stay on topic here and not try to start a flame war.
- spacephysics 3y ago
  That’s a bit of a straw man regarding twitter. Could easily discuss the mass left-wing censorship happening before, and now a different problem cropped up that Musk is trying to resolve. I think if he rolls out the $1 per year to post we’ll see a dramatic drop in bot activity.
- Method-X 3y ago
  > filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats Huh? Are we using the same Twitter?
callalex 3y ago
Public funding does a lot of the work as well.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Yeah but guess what, lots of other companies get lots of public funding as well. And lots of SpaceX most important things were mostly private. So to say its all public funding doesn't really work.
hot_gril 3y ago
He's one of the few (co)founder-CEOs left in big corps. The market is less about growth and more about profits than it used to be. Also, the companies he cofounded aren't really tech. Auto and space industries were a lot less played out than tech.
robotnikman 3y ago
A lot of credit also goes to the many engineers and other employees dedicated to making such a product possible as well.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  That's true, and something I think about. If SpaceX didn't exist, would the engineering talent that worked there from 2003 until now have made equivalent net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now? Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere, or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?
  - abound 3y ago
    I don't think talented engineers are some fungible asset, if they didn't put 1,000 engineering points into SpaceX, I don't think it's necessarily true that they'd have distributed those 1,000 engineering points elsewhere. Not specific to SpaceX, but there's definitely a 'force multiplier' for having the correct environment (managers, organization, compensation, resources, etc) to build things larger than the sum of their parts.
    - cbm-vic-20 3y ago
      I'm sure "old-tech" space companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have great engineering talent, but their management and business structure prevents them from taking the kinds of risks that SpaceX has. I give credit to Musk for letting talented people do the kinds of things that would get shut down immediately at the other places.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now No we wouldn't be anywhere close to it. I fact we would be, much, much, much worse off. Simply factually speaking, neither ULA, Arianespace or Russia were actually innovating. The chance that any rocket like Falcon 9 existed without SpaceX is essentially 0%. Many of the young engineers at SpaceX would have simply been stuck in the bloated companies that were not innovating. Tom Mueller himself is also a good example. He was basically the best engine guy on the planet, but he was at TRW and despite being technically better in many cases, lobbying didn't allow to get many contracts. We can talk about the rest of the leadership, many like Hans Königsman were working at a rocket startup that had very limited chance of every becoming even a modest success. We can also see it in the simple efficiency of these companies, and their capability to waste talent. Consider that the complete Falcon program, including engine upgrades, re-usability, human-rating, Falcon Heavy and all the 1000s of upgrades likely cost somewhere in the order of 3-4 billion $. Now consider that the Ariane 6, a minimal upgrade over the Ariane 5 that mostly consists of reusing developments already done for Ariane 5 ME is gone end up costing 5+ billion $. So if all these engineers were not at SpaceX the industry would simply be smaller, many working on cars or whatever. And those that were in the industry would be working on low impact projects that waste lots of government money. > Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere SpaceX relied on leadership from young engineers who would have been responsible for managing like 1 screw on F-35 instead. The idea that these people would have anywhere close to the same impact if not for SpaceX just doesn't hold up to even minimal investigation. > or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise? I don't think anybody that looks at the space industry before SpaceX could realistically come to the conclusion that SpaceX was compelte step change for space flight. The largest one arguably since the R-7. And that's just SpaceX itself, the New Space industry that got inspired and funded largely based on SpaceX success is gigantic. The amount of private investment between 2010-now is incomparably larger then in any other time. And guess what, many of these young engineers from SpaceX are in leadership position in all of these companies. So SpaceX kind of acted like a seed to expand the whole industry. I think human history has shown over and over in many domains that leadership, vision and strategy are absolutely vital to achieve difficult goals.
mhotchen 3y ago
If you listen to the people who have worked closely with him from SpaceX[1], themselves heavy hitters in space industry which is a heavy hitting industry full of ridiculously smart people, it's clear he is simply on another planet. He might not be the world's most knowledgeable person about rocket engine design, but he's up there, and he's up there on every facet of the engineering of an unbelievably complex machine. And manufacturing, and modeling, industrial design, physics, electrical engineering, analytics, software engineering, and many, many related disciplines. And he has a vision beyond what anyone else can see. He makes bold moves that don't always pay off, but do more often than not He's simply a monster. That's why no-one else can keep up I think it's a real shame how he represents himself in public, and how the public sees him https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  This is the Occam's razor explanation for his success imo, makes more sense than him being the most successful fraud in human history
- aeternum 3y ago
  I think that putting low value on what other's think is one of the aspects that makes him so successful. If he gave more credence to popular/public opinion, he would never have started a rocket company, car company, nor would have made some of the seemingly crazy (but ultimately successful) design choices that people said were insane.
- kennethrc 3y ago
  > it's clear he is simply on another planet ... or as some figure, trying to build up enough tech here to get back to it :)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ShakataGaNai 3y ago

Probably because in order to make those sorts of 10x impacts he's doing... He's pushing the boundaries of whats legal, ethical and/or moral. Yes, some of it is simply his ability to "think different" and be willing to work outside the box. Sometimes those boxes are fully ok to break, sometimes those boxes are legal or ethical standards that he also breaks with vigor. Also a lot of the things he does is not 10x. Look at twitter. He's turned it from the worlds town square to a square filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats.

good8675309 3y ago
Wow, but muh Twitter and everyone I don't like is in the KKK! Every single time. You need to get a new thing to be outraged about. Let's stay on topic here and not try to start a flame war.
spacephysics 3y ago
That’s a bit of a straw man regarding twitter. Could easily discuss the mass left-wing censorship happening before, and now a different problem cropped up that Musk is trying to resolve. I think if he rolls out the $1 per year to post we’ll see a dramatic drop in bot activity.
Method-X 3y ago
> filled with a bunch of white dudes in pointy white hats Huh? Are we using the same Twitter?

callalex 3y ago

Public funding does a lot of the work as well.

panick21_ 3y ago
Yeah but guess what, lots of other companies get lots of public funding as well. And lots of SpaceX most important things were mostly private. So to say its all public funding doesn't really work.

hot_gril 3y ago

He's one of the few (co)founder-CEOs left in big corps. The market is less about growth and more about profits than it used to be. Also, the companies he cofounded aren't really tech. Auto and space industries were a lot less played out than tech.

robotnikman 3y ago

A lot of credit also goes to the many engineers and other employees dedicated to making such a product possible as well.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
That's true, and something I think about. If SpaceX didn't exist, would the engineering talent that worked there from 2003 until now have made equivalent net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now? Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere, or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise?
- abound 3y ago
  I don't think talented engineers are some fungible asset, if they didn't put 1,000 engineering points into SpaceX, I don't think it's necessarily true that they'd have distributed those 1,000 engineering points elsewhere. Not specific to SpaceX, but there's definitely a 'force multiplier' for having the correct environment (managers, organization, compensation, resources, etc) to build things larger than the sum of their parts.
  - cbm-vic-20 3y ago
    I'm sure "old-tech" space companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have great engineering talent, but their management and business structure prevents them from taking the kinds of risks that SpaceX has. I give credit to Musk for letting talented people do the kinds of things that would get shut down immediately at the other places.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > net contributions to other space companies that would have led us to the position we are now No we wouldn't be anywhere close to it. I fact we would be, much, much, much worse off. Simply factually speaking, neither ULA, Arianespace or Russia were actually innovating. The chance that any rocket like Falcon 9 existed without SpaceX is essentially 0%. Many of the young engineers at SpaceX would have simply been stuck in the bloated companies that were not innovating. Tom Mueller himself is also a good example. He was basically the best engine guy on the planet, but he was at TRW and despite being technically better in many cases, lobbying didn't allow to get many contracts. We can talk about the rest of the leadership, many like Hans Königsman were working at a rocket startup that had very limited chance of every becoming even a modest success. We can also see it in the simple efficiency of these companies, and their capability to waste talent. Consider that the complete Falcon program, including engine upgrades, re-usability, human-rating, Falcon Heavy and all the 1000s of upgrades likely cost somewhere in the order of 3-4 billion $. Now consider that the Ariane 6, a minimal upgrade over the Ariane 5 that mostly consists of reusing developments already done for Ariane 5 ME is gone end up costing 5+ billion $. So if all these engineers were not at SpaceX the industry would simply be smaller, many working on cars or whatever. And those that were in the industry would be working on low impact projects that waste lots of government money. > Is being a good CEO just taking the better share of workers who would have made the same contribution anywhere SpaceX relied on leadership from young engineers who would have been responsible for managing like 1 screw on F-35 instead. The idea that these people would have anywhere close to the same impact if not for SpaceX just doesn't hold up to even minimal investigation. > or was there something specific about the management/organization/vision at Elon's companies that lead to a higher outcome/worker than would be expected otherwise? I don't think anybody that looks at the space industry before SpaceX could realistically come to the conclusion that SpaceX was compelte step change for space flight. The largest one arguably since the R-7. And that's just SpaceX itself, the New Space industry that got inspired and funded largely based on SpaceX success is gigantic. The amount of private investment between 2010-now is incomparably larger then in any other time. And guess what, many of these young engineers from SpaceX are in leadership position in all of these companies. So SpaceX kind of acted like a seed to expand the whole industry. I think human history has shown over and over in many domains that leadership, vision and strategy are absolutely vital to achieve difficult goals.

mhotchen 3y ago

If you listen to the people who have worked closely with him from SpaceX[1], themselves heavy hitters in space industry which is a heavy hitting industry full of ridiculously smart people, it's clear he is simply on another planet. He might not be the world's most knowledgeable person about rocket engine design, but he's up there, and he's up there on every facet of the engineering of an unbelievably complex machine. And manufacturing, and modeling, industrial design, physics, electrical engineering, analytics, software engineering, and many, many related disciplines. And he has a vision beyond what anyone else can see. He makes bold moves that don't always pay off, but do more often than not He's simply a monster. That's why no-one else can keep up I think it's a real shame how he represents himself in public, and how the public sees him https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...

atleastoptimal 3y ago
This is the Occam's razor explanation for his success imo, makes more sense than him being the most successful fraud in human history
aeternum 3y ago
I think that putting low value on what other's think is one of the aspects that makes him so successful. If he gave more credence to popular/public opinion, he would never have started a rocket company, car company, nor would have made some of the seemingly crazy (but ultimately successful) design choices that people said were insane.
kennethrc 3y ago
> it's clear he is simply on another planet ... or as some figure, trying to build up enough tech here to get back to it :)