6 ms·

Would any of it have happened without Elon Musk? Sure, there are many people who work in the organisation that he built that help him achieve his vision, but n

Would any of it have happened without Elon Musk? Sure, there are many people who work in the organisation that he built that help him achieve his vision, but none of that would have existed without him challenging the world to an impossible dream ("live on Mars!"). Without Elon Musk, the space industry would still have been focused on SLS-style projects: slow to develop and impossibly expensive, the domain of only one or two governments, and always at the mercy of the next administrations' priorities. Instead, if he succeeds, humanity will be transformed, from a species that barely dips its toes into space, to one that can finally begin to truly explore the solar system. It's as much the start of a new age as was the voyage of Columbus. Giving Elon Musk credit for this is certainly not misplaced. Denying him that credit because you disagree with him politically (as another poster suggested)... I have no words for that, it's just so ridiculous. This is the pinnacle of human development right here, and you would deny it because the guy votes Republican? You know, like literally half the people in the country?

defrost 3y ago
> You know, like literally half the people in the country? I have no opinion on Musk or the rest of your comment, but as a simple matter of factual data it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) and four decades since they had any significant support. For a good while Republican voters have been less than half the country and were it not for the uneven weighting of geographic areas and a domination of party controlled gerrymandering oportunities they would have even less political success than they have seen. That's just simple psephology fo you.
- philwelch 3y ago
  In 2022, the nationwide popular vote for the House of Representatives was 54,506,136 for Republicans and 51,477,313 for Democrats. By percentage the Republicans won 50.6% of the vote and Democrats won 47.8%.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Leaving aside the non primary year figures you dug up; the US Census Bureau estimated that in 2020, 168.3 million people were registered to vote in 2020 .. that 54 million voting Republican falls well short of cracking half the registered voters, let alone eligible voters.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      I’m addressing the standard you originally set in your comment: > it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) This is false; the “percentage of entire voting population” that voted for Republicans in the House of Representatives in 2022 was not only a “slight edge” over the percentage voting for Democrats, but an outright majority. The fact that Republicans won a majority of the popular vote for House seats also means that their control of the House is not, in fact, a product of “uneven weighting of geographic areas and a domination of party controlled gerrymandering oportunities” [sic] as you claim. If you apply the percentages of the popular vote to the number of seats in the House, you’d expect Republicans to control 220 seats and Democrats almost 208 seats. In actuality, the Republicans won 222 seats and the Democrats won 213, meaning both parties got “extra” seats (at the expense of independents and third parties) but the Democrats got more. Moreover, it’s not accurate to say the Republicans are unique in benefitting from the gerrymander. In Illinois, Republicans won 43% of the popular vote but less than 18% of the seats thanks to a Democratic gerrymander. Meanwhile in New York, the courts actually threw out an attempted Democratic gerrymander and as a result, the GOP gained three seats and the Dems lost four.
      - defrost 3y ago
        The original comment that I addressed was (paraphrased) "Republican voters are half the country". I looked only at Presidental elections which have the greatest turnout, these have rarely seen a 50% Republican showing in total active votes in recent decades. Including the mid term elections we see even lower voter engagement which helps the Republican showing in active votes, sure. However of all the people that could vote in the US (those eligable), or even of just those people that indicate they'd probably vote (registered), it's still the case that well short of half the country votes Republican. That the same can be said of US Democrats (although they generally in recent decades have had the edge in total active votes) - but it still remains that well short of "hal the the country" supports the Republican platform - they don't have a popular mandate.
- rmak 3y ago
  well if you have single-day voting and hand counts they could easily win almost all states and whatever you call the popular vote wins.
  - defrost 3y ago
    So, .. only if the system is gamed to favour the affluent that can take a day off and have well serviced voting areas then? FWiW I'm an outsider of the US election system, it's a hot mess with multiple shortcomings that restrict franchise .. and the US Republicans appear to be more skilled at restricting access to democracy to particular demographics.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    That's genuinely a horrible argument and there is no redeeming quality about single day voting. And you're implying electronic machines are being hacked, a claim for which you have no evidence.
    - adolph 3y ago
      It is interesting to think about which systems are untrusted until verified truthful, and which systems are trusted until verified false. https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
      - unethical_ban 3y ago
        The only thing that makes me doubt electronic voting is the relative lack of distributed counting and thus audit-ability. That said, I rank conspiracy theories on how many people would be involved in carrying it out, and the idea of a malicious voting machine system capable of having votes altered would take too many knowing participants at various levels of the tool chain. I would welcome learning more or else implementing more "spot audits" of results in order to minimize the likelihood of any changing of votes.
        adolph 3y ago
- gwright 3y ago
  This response seems to be spinning a narrative that Democrats have a significantly broader support in the US than Republicans, but I think that is somewhat misleading. Independents have stronger support than either of the major parties. Here is some data going back to at least 1988: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen...
  - defrost 3y ago
    I am in no way suggesting that US Democrats have broader support. I am stating that the US Republicans do not have the support of "half of the US"; either by half of total population, half of eligable voters, or half of registered voters. US Independents should have stronger support but that's not really going to put much of a dent in what's iteratively evolved to become a two party bicameral political system thanks to the shortcomings of repeated "First past the post" voting. What was a bright idea hundreds of years ago hasn't scaled well and converged to unrepresentative gerentopoly.
    - gwright 3y ago
      > but as a simple matter of factual data it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) and four decades since they had any significant support. That certainly comes across as you suggesting that Democrats have broader support. Intentional or not, I found your comment misleading by not incorporating the substantial size of independents.
- agent327 3y ago
  This is missing the point so badly that I don't know where to begin. The point was that Elon Musk's political views are neither extremist, nor rare: they are shared by roughly half of the people in the US. To take that statement and try to refute it on the basis that it is not exactly half of the voting population, but merely a rough approximation, is either a sign of incredibly ill will, or a very bad case of autism.
marmakoide 3y ago
I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. Credit where credit is due, SpaceX seems to be a very well managed operation. I don't believe in providential people, at all. I don't know why my political beliefs are mentioned, I am not even American, I am French living in France. Starship happens because of * the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) * a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost. Say a servo motor mass produced now vs. a servo motor in 70's made in tiny batches * the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects * it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing That's not a very romantic point of view tho
- zpeti 3y ago
  Like it happened with... Blue Origin? Ariane Space? Electron? NASA? China? India? Russian N1 rocket? No, it didn't happen, in multiple cases without Musk, and with more funding. You are delusional in your hate of Musk.
  - marmakoide 3y ago
    I say he is not a providential man, that it's a team effort, and that it's in line with current industrial needs and capacity. That is not an expression of hate, I think.
    - chpatrick 3y ago
      I'm no Musk fanboy but I think even if you have the technological capability and demand you still need someone to actually do it. I think if it wasn't Musk it would be someone similarly crazy.
- signatoremo 3y ago
  > I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. This is a meaningless statement. It would happen, but when? about now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? You keep saying team effort. Do you think Blue Origin or Arianne Group have less talent than SpaceX? Why do they achieve much less? > I don't believe in providential people, at all. SpaceX almost went bankrupt in 2008. Without Musk gambling with his finance to rescue the company, SpaceX would have been a footnote in the space history. It wouldn't have survived long enough to have the NASA's money. The team that they’d built would have been spread to who knows what kind of companies. > the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) So why did SLS take that long? Arianne 6? New Glenn? What about a plethora of small launchers that are still not yet widely available? > a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost Essential hardware is only a small part of a rocket program. Arianne 6 was supposed to be Europe's answer to Falcon 9, 50% cheaper than Arianne 5. Supposed to debut in 2020, it still has yet to launch. So it costs Europe tax payers est. 5b euros for a rocket that is technologically inferior to Falcon 9, lower cadence, yet more expensive to build and operate. - [1] > the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects That market didn't exist. Looks at the chart in this article about the number of objects (satellites) sent to space - [0]: The number skyrocketed after 2016, once Falcon 9 has become established. SpaceX has enabled the market, not the other way around. SpaceX just launched 1,000 tonnes of payload in 2023, four times larger than the second place (China the country). > it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing SpaceX was built 20 years ago with nothing but a vision of Mars colony. There was no pool of experienced engineers readily available back then. They are now a powerhouse and they can hire whoever they want. The question is, why there hasn’t been another Starship? [0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-... [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the...
Reubachi 3y ago
Why bring politics into this? You're pushing your own prejudices and opinions on a topic that doesn't need it to make "sides", at your own detriment. Well established fact that Musk is a figure head, and like any other other figurehead, they matter significantly less to the end result than the giant teams of engineers and supply chain managers do. Of course he is an intelligent, financially sound business man. But it's very much a fact that the bit's you're romantically idealizing would exist without Elon Musk. Apple was not steve jobs. Ford was not Henry Ford. Toyota was not a single Toyoda.
- agent327 3y ago
  Did you, by any chance, miss all the political anti-Musk rhetoric in this thread? Why are you singling me out, and not telling all those other people to leave politics out of it? As for your "facts": without Musk, there would be no SpaceX, no giant teams of engineers, and no supply chain managers. Same as without Steve Jobs (do you hate him so much that you can't even capitalize his name?): without him there would be no Apple, no Mac, no iPhone. You seem to believe that companies and products spring fully formed from the ground, that nobody has to take the initiative to create them. Giant teams of engineers and supply chain managers don't just decide to come together to spend years and millions (if not billions) of their own time and money to build a car, or a computer, or a rocket. Can you point to even a single example where such a thing happened? How would the 'bits' have come to exist without Elon Musk? Who would have taken the initiative, who would have paid for it? If you're right, why is SpaceX the only game in town? Surely there are plenty of other engineers and supply chain managers that would be up for building the worlds largest reusable launcher in their own time, with their own money?
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    I believe there may have been some rocket projects back in the 60s that worked quite well without him. Or anyone like him.
    - agent327 3y ago
      That's not what we were talking about, and you know it. Elon Musk transformed the space industry with his cheap, reusable launchers, something that nobody before him has done, that was in fact considered to be impossible since launchers were widely considered to be multi-billion dollar, one-shot vehicles. That transformation can be credited ENTIRELY to Elon Musk, and nobody else, and without him, it might never have happened, as neither governments, nor government contractors have any reason to not choose the well-trodden path, and to not pork-barrel the hell out of any project of this type. It took a person who had both a vision and a hell of a lot of money to make it happen, and there aren't so many of those around.

defrost 3y ago

> You know, like literally half the people in the country? I have no opinion on Musk or the rest of your comment, but as a simple matter of factual data it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) and four decades since they had any significant support. For a good while Republican voters have been less than half the country and were it not for the uneven weighting of geographic areas and a domination of party controlled gerrymandering oportunities they would have even less political success than they have seen. That's just simple psephology fo you.

philwelch 3y ago
In 2022, the nationwide popular vote for the House of Representatives was 54,506,136 for Republicans and 51,477,313 for Democrats. By percentage the Republicans won 50.6% of the vote and Democrats won 47.8%.
- defrost 3y ago
  Leaving aside the non primary year figures you dug up; the US Census Bureau estimated that in 2020, 168.3 million people were registered to vote in 2020 .. that 54 million voting Republican falls well short of cracking half the registered voters, let alone eligible voters.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    I’m addressing the standard you originally set in your comment: > it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) This is false; the “percentage of entire voting population” that voted for Republicans in the House of Representatives in 2022 was not only a “slight edge” over the percentage voting for Democrats, but an outright majority. The fact that Republicans won a majority of the popular vote for House seats also means that their control of the House is not, in fact, a product of “uneven weighting of geographic areas and a domination of party controlled gerrymandering oportunities” [sic] as you claim. If you apply the percentages of the popular vote to the number of seats in the House, you’d expect Republicans to control 220 seats and Democrats almost 208 seats. In actuality, the Republicans won 222 seats and the Democrats won 213, meaning both parties got “extra” seats (at the expense of independents and third parties) but the Democrats got more. Moreover, it’s not accurate to say the Republicans are unique in benefitting from the gerrymander. In Illinois, Republicans won 43% of the popular vote but less than 18% of the seats thanks to a Democratic gerrymander. Meanwhile in New York, the courts actually threw out an attempted Democratic gerrymander and as a result, the GOP gained three seats and the Dems lost four.
    - defrost 3y ago
      The original comment that I addressed was (paraphrased) "Republican voters are half the country". I looked only at Presidental elections which have the greatest turnout, these have rarely seen a 50% Republican showing in total active votes in recent decades. Including the mid term elections we see even lower voter engagement which helps the Republican showing in active votes, sure. However of all the people that could vote in the US (those eligable), or even of just those people that indicate they'd probably vote (registered), it's still the case that well short of half the country votes Republican. That the same can be said of US Democrats (although they generally in recent decades have had the edge in total active votes) - but it still remains that well short of "hal the the country" supports the Republican platform - they don't have a popular mandate.
rmak 3y ago
well if you have single-day voting and hand counts they could easily win almost all states and whatever you call the popular vote wins.
- defrost 3y ago
  So, .. only if the system is gamed to favour the affluent that can take a day off and have well serviced voting areas then? FWiW I'm an outsider of the US election system, it's a hot mess with multiple shortcomings that restrict franchise .. and the US Republicans appear to be more skilled at restricting access to democracy to particular demographics.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  That's genuinely a horrible argument and there is no redeeming quality about single day voting. And you're implying electronic machines are being hacked, a claim for which you have no evidence.
  - adolph 3y ago
    It is interesting to think about which systems are untrusted until verified truthful, and which systems are trusted until verified false. https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      The only thing that makes me doubt electronic voting is the relative lack of distributed counting and thus audit-ability. That said, I rank conspiracy theories on how many people would be involved in carrying it out, and the idea of a malicious voting machine system capable of having votes altered would take too many knowing participants at various levels of the tool chain. I would welcome learning more or else implementing more "spot audits" of results in order to minimize the likelihood of any changing of votes.
      - adolph 3y ago
gwright 3y ago
This response seems to be spinning a narrative that Democrats have a significantly broader support in the US than Republicans, but I think that is somewhat misleading. Independents have stronger support than either of the major parties. Here is some data going back to at least 1988: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen...
- defrost 3y ago
  I am in no way suggesting that US Democrats have broader support. I am stating that the US Republicans do not have the support of "half of the US"; either by half of total population, half of eligable voters, or half of registered voters. US Independents should have stronger support but that's not really going to put much of a dent in what's iteratively evolved to become a two party bicameral political system thanks to the shortcomings of repeated "First past the post" voting. What was a bright idea hundreds of years ago hasn't scaled well and converged to unrepresentative gerentopoly.
  - gwright 3y ago
    > but as a simple matter of factual data it's been two decades since US Republicans could claim a slight edge on US Democrats in the popular vote (percentage of entire voting population) and four decades since they had any significant support. That certainly comes across as you suggesting that Democrats have broader support. Intentional or not, I found your comment misleading by not incorporating the substantial size of independents.
agent327 3y ago
This is missing the point so badly that I don't know where to begin. The point was that Elon Musk's political views are neither extremist, nor rare: they are shared by roughly half of the people in the US. To take that statement and try to refute it on the basis that it is not exactly half of the voting population, but merely a rough approximation, is either a sign of incredibly ill will, or a very bad case of autism.

marmakoide 3y ago

I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. Credit where credit is due, SpaceX seems to be a very well managed operation. I don't believe in providential people, at all. I don't know why my political beliefs are mentioned, I am not even American, I am French living in France. Starship happens because of * the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) * a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost. Say a servo motor mass produced now vs. a servo motor in 70's made in tiny batches * the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects * it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing That's not a very romantic point of view tho

zpeti 3y ago
Like it happened with... Blue Origin? Ariane Space? Electron? NASA? China? India? Russian N1 rocket? No, it didn't happen, in multiple cases without Musk, and with more funding. You are delusional in your hate of Musk.
- marmakoide 3y ago
  I say he is not a providential man, that it's a team effort, and that it's in line with current industrial needs and capacity. That is not an expression of hate, I think.
  - chpatrick 3y ago
    I'm no Musk fanboy but I think even if you have the technological capability and demand you still need someone to actually do it. I think if it wasn't Musk it would be someone similarly crazy.
signatoremo 3y ago
> I believe it would have happened, with or without Musk. This is a meaningless statement. It would happen, but when? about now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? You keep saying team effort. Do you think Blue Origin or Arianne Group have less talent than SpaceX? Why do they achieve much less? > I don't believe in providential people, at all. SpaceX almost went bankrupt in 2008. Without Musk gambling with his finance to rescue the company, SpaceX would have been a footnote in the space history. It wouldn't have survived long enough to have the NASA's money. The team that they’d built would have been spread to who knows what kind of companies. > the current state of manufacturing technology : we can automate a lot of operations that were done by hand in the 70's, we can iterate prototype much faster) So why did SLS take that long? Arianne 6? New Glenn? What about a plethora of small launchers that are still not yet widely available? > a lot of essential hardware is now much cheaper, reducing the initial investment cost Essential hardware is only a small part of a rocket program. Arianne 6 was supposed to be Europe's answer to Falcon 9, 50% cheaper than Arianne 5. Supposed to debut in 2020, it still has yet to launch. So it costs Europe tax payers est. 5b euros for a rocket that is technologically inferior to Falcon 9, lower cadence, yet more expensive to build and operate. - [1] > the market ie. there's a market to send many tons of hardware into orbit, money can flow into such projects That market didn't exist. Looks at the chart in this article about the number of objects (satellites) sent to space - [0]: The number skyrocketed after 2016, once Falcon 9 has become established. SpaceX has enabled the market, not the other way around. SpaceX just launched 1,000 tonnes of payload in 2023, four times larger than the second place (China the country). > it's now possible to test some rocketry ideas in your garage, it's not a closely garden anymore. The pool of very experienced rocketry engineers is increasing SpaceX was built 20 years ago with nothing but a vision of Mars colony. There was no pool of experienced engineers readily available back then. They are now a powerhouse and they can hire whoever they want. The question is, why there hasn’t been another Starship? [0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-... [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the-ariane-6-rocket-may-not-offer-europe-any-launch-savings/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/oops-it-looks-like-the...

Reubachi 3y ago

Why bring politics into this? You're pushing your own prejudices and opinions on a topic that doesn't need it to make "sides", at your own detriment. Well established fact that Musk is a figure head, and like any other other figurehead, they matter significantly less to the end result than the giant teams of engineers and supply chain managers do. Of course he is an intelligent, financially sound business man. But it's very much a fact that the bit's you're romantically idealizing would exist without Elon Musk. Apple was not steve jobs. Ford was not Henry Ford. Toyota was not a single Toyoda.

agent327 3y ago
Did you, by any chance, miss all the political anti-Musk rhetoric in this thread? Why are you singling me out, and not telling all those other people to leave politics out of it? As for your "facts": without Musk, there would be no SpaceX, no giant teams of engineers, and no supply chain managers. Same as without Steve Jobs (do you hate him so much that you can't even capitalize his name?): without him there would be no Apple, no Mac, no iPhone. You seem to believe that companies and products spring fully formed from the ground, that nobody has to take the initiative to create them. Giant teams of engineers and supply chain managers don't just decide to come together to spend years and millions (if not billions) of their own time and money to build a car, or a computer, or a rocket. Can you point to even a single example where such a thing happened? How would the 'bits' have come to exist without Elon Musk? Who would have taken the initiative, who would have paid for it? If you're right, why is SpaceX the only game in town? Surely there are plenty of other engineers and supply chain managers that would be up for building the worlds largest reusable launcher in their own time, with their own money?
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  I believe there may have been some rocket projects back in the 60s that worked quite well without him. Or anyone like him.
  - agent327 3y ago
    That's not what we were talking about, and you know it. Elon Musk transformed the space industry with his cheap, reusable launchers, something that nobody before him has done, that was in fact considered to be impossible since launchers were widely considered to be multi-billion dollar, one-shot vehicles. That transformation can be credited ENTIRELY to Elon Musk, and nobody else, and without him, it might never have happened, as neither governments, nor government contractors have any reason to not choose the well-trodden path, and to not pork-barrel the hell out of any project of this type. It took a person who had both a vision and a hell of a lot of money to make it happen, and there aren't so many of those around.