|
Ytlaya posted:Musk receives push-back because he's both a very stupid (and bad) person and has a large number of people who think the complete opposite (so arguments are more likely to occur than they would with a person who everyone agreed was stupid). It's kinda like Israel in that regard; there are other bad countries, but Israel discussions are more likely to take place due to there often being an "other side" to them. Is the idea that he personally is so very smart or is the idea that it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be "unprofitable". I'm sure someone somewhere thinks he is personally doing the R&D but that isn't really why anyone likes him. It's the funding of moonshot stuff instead of declaring it economically infeasible and then investing in mutual funds or something.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the idea that he personally is so very smart or is the idea that it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be "unprofitable". I'm sure someone somewhere thinks he is personally doing the R&D but that isn't really why anyone likes him. It's the funding of moonshot stuff instead of declaring it economically infeasible and then investing in mutual funds or something. nothing he's doing is 'very good' or untouched by others. every automaker is experimenting with electric cars, nissan has still sold more EVs than tesla. jeff bezos got involved in reusable rockets before elon musk did. solar city is small time compared to the many, many other players in the solar market. it's a weird strawman to say "well at least he's not just stacking his money in cayman island funds!" when you have other plutocrats like bill gates who have devoted themselves fully into plowing billions into ground level charity projects, for better or worse. i'm pretty sure elton john is more of a philanthropist than elon musk
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:only because someone is definitely going to bring it up, earth sensing satellites and other geoscience doodads are a critical part of combating climate change OwlFancier posted:If you want that to change then you're looking at the overthrow of capitalism, not billionaires with half baked ideas. Though you're still not going to have cities on the moon. 1) Space R&D is a socially and economically (except under short-term capitalism) sensible investment, even before taking cultural value into account. You're sending a hunk of metal and computer chips into orbit, but all the research, development and advanced fabrication investment stays on Earth. 2) Mass produced poo poo like telecom sats, Earth observing sats, and a fleet of targeting telescopes for the anti-asteroid artillery are perfectly adequate use cases for cheap, oversized launch systems. Beyond the first in a series, these sorts of things are uninteresting from a R&D perspective and should be built as cheaply as possible. That includes not wasting money on super expensive super light parts to squeeze the mission into an overpriced Atlas V's payload capacity. I want to see these things become overweight steel cylinders packed with however many sets of cheap-rear end hardware are required to provide sufficient redundancy for the planned lifespan, with at most some of the sensors being expensive top-tier parts. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
luxury handset posted:nothing he's doing is 'very good' or untouched by others. every automaker is experimenting with electric cars, nissan has still sold more EVs than tesla. jeff bezos got involved in reusable rockets before elon musk did. solar city is small time compared to the many, many other players in the solar market. it's a weird strawman to say "well at least he's not just stacking his money in cayman island funds!" when you have other plutocrats like bill gates who have devoted themselves fully into plowing billions into ground level charity projects, for better or worse. i'm pretty sure elton john is more of a philanthropist than elon musk Every auto maker failed to consider the possibility of making an electric car that's cool to the average douchebro, opening up a wider market segment. Now that Tesla is suffering under heavy doses of Musk mismanagement competitors are easily overtaking Tesla but I'd be very surprised if the early overpriced sports car Teslas (a fast car which you can use to pick up chicks, but it runs on 5000 laptop batteries taped together) didn't speed up electric car mass appeal by several years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Ban them and research into them in perpetuity. Next. Ban Elon Musk, too. From life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Every auto maker failed to consider the possibility of making an electric car that's cool to the average douchebro, opening up a wider market segment. Now that Tesla is suffering under heavy doses of Musk mismanagement they're easily overtaking Tesla but I'd be very surprised if the early overpriced sports car Teslas (a fast car which you can use to pick up chicks, but it has batteries) didn't speed up electric car mass appeal by several years. ehhh if musk's big accomplishment in electric vehicles was making them sexy enough to appeal to the average american, who we all agree is pretty bad by global standards, then i can live with that  but the model S is still matching the volt in terms of all time sales, so tesla would have to keep up this pace for a while to become dominantbut this is a pretty narrow achievement given musk's boasts about combating climate change considering tesla is a fairly american phenomenon and the big EV market is china, which is largely consuming domestically produced vehicles
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:nothing he's doing is 'very good' or untouched by others. every automaker is experimenting with electric cars, nissan has still sold more EVs than tesla. jeff bezos got involved in reusable rockets before elon musk did. solar city is small time compared to the many, many other players in the solar market. it's a weird strawman to say "well at least he's not just stacking his money in cayman island funds!" when you have other plutocrats like bill gates who have devoted themselves fully into plowing billions into ground level charity projects, for better or worse. i'm pretty sure elton john is more of a philanthropist than elon musk I mean, are they useless technologies that will never do anything and are a waste of time or are they cut throat hyper competitive markets that everyone is racing to capture? You wanna get the government to fund this stuff and I'll be all on board on that in an instant but science R&D does not seem like an issue anyone is pushing for anything but cutting for decades so weirdo private companies seems like what we get. I'd rather someone be writing the checks to build this stuff than have no one do it. Like demanding we need electric cars yesterday to save the earth from climate change and then getting all fussy and picky about if we have the exact right role model writing the checks to fund electric car R&D seems stupid as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean, are they useless technologies that will never do anything and are a waste of time or are they cut throat hyper competitive markets that everyone is racing to capture? are you getting confused about your own argument now? it's not my job to help you keep your own strawmen straight you said "it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be "unprofitable"" and i pointed out this statement is not true, everyone is working on these things. it's not up to me to help you formulate a weak response to this rebuttal. do your own work oocc
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you said "it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be "unprofitable"" and i pointed out this statement is not true, everyone is working on these things. it's not up to me to help you formulate a weak response to this rebuttal. do your own work oocc Is he working on useless things that are unprofitable or is he working on hyper competitive things that are funded very well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is he working on useless things that are unprofitable or is he working on hyper competitive things that are funded very well? why do you think that forcing me to address your false dichotomy is a good argument? is this the best you can do? i'm not sure what you're trying to say, and i think that's because you also are not sure what you're trying to say. why don't you give it some time and try again. whatever argument is going on in your mind is not based on what people have said in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the idea that he personally is so very smart or is the idea that it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be "unprofitable". I'm sure someone somewhere thinks he is personally doing the R&D but that isn't really why anyone likes him. It's the funding of moonshot stuff instead of declaring it economically infeasible and then investing in mutual funds or something. There are definitely a very, very large number of people who think the man himself is very smart/skilled. At the very least, many view him as a "visionary," even if they don't directly ascribe engineering/scientific skills to him. Someone on these forums was recently talking about how Musk definitely understood a lot about rockets, and the broader public is even worse in terms of thinking he's some sort of Tony Stark figure. But even the "he's funding good things" people usually assume some level of good intent and basic understanding on Musk's part, when in reality Musk actively makes things worse any time he directly intervenes himself. Ultimately, the negative posts about Musks are primarily a response to unearned positive coverage of a man who is very obviously not a good or smart person. There are obviously plenty of people even worse than Musk, but they don't tend to receive nearly the same level of positive attention (and from people on the liberal side of the aisle nonetheless).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i'm not sure what you're trying to say, and i think that's because you also are not sure what you're trying to say. why don't you give it some time and try again. whatever argument is going on in your mind is not based on what people have said in this thread Electric cars, space travel, solar panels, medical bionics, they are all good research topics that need funding, who cares if the wrong guy funds it? Do we need to wait forever till just the right most perfect guy comes and decides to fund rocket research or electric cars? Is the idea that one guy is already funding it so we shouldn't have two because they might get too much funding? or is the idea that because someone doesn't think space travel might be economically valuable that you are worried about him (a bad guy) losing money for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Electric cars, space travel, solar panels, medical bionics, they are all good research topics that need funding, who cares if the wrong guy funds it? Do we need to wait forever till just the right most perfect guy comes and decides to fund rocket research or electric cars? Is the idea that one guy is already funding it so we shouldn't have two because they might get too much funding? or is the idea that because someone doesn't think space travel might be economically valuable that you are worried about him (a bad guy) losing money for some reason? my complaint is not that musk is spending money on these things, but that he is doing so poorly, and that people hail him as some sort of genius for investing in technology like literally every other rich white man in the united states does, every day one of the sad and strange defenses of musk is that he is somehow like the only guy involved in electric cars or rockets. this seems to be what your argument is based around. it is a bad, non-factual argument and i can only assume you continue to make it because of an emotional connection to what musk represents as an amoral plutocrat who manages to say the right words to trick gearheads into thinking he's somehow good and cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:one of the sad and strange defenses of musk is that he is somehow like the only guy involved in electric cars or rockets. Is the requirement he must be the literal only person? He is clearly not. He is a person who is spending a lot of money on things that are projects like space exploration and electric cars that are not funded nearly enough. There is only so many people spending a billion dollars on rocket R&D, electric cars and neural implants, do you think people don't also like the other ones that are?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is the requirement he must be the literal only person? He is clearly not. He is a person who is spending a lot of money on things that are projects like space exploration and electric cars that are not funded nearly enough. There is only so many people spending a billion dollars on rocket R&D, electric cars and neural implants, do you think people don't also like the other ones that are? thank you for slowly convincing yourself to read my posts and agree with them as you try to argue with them in odd ways there are far more organizations spending money to research and develop these things, but for some reason you are hung up on the idea of celebrity billionaires being essential to the process of building rockets and cars instead of multinational corporations. musk uses this simplistic Great Man thinking as an essential part of his nerd charisma to convince people that he's not an amoral plutocrat, the far more valuable thing for a billionaire to do is to act as a visible indicator of philanthropy as we should be applauding the giving of money back to society rather than the acquisition of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:my complaint is not that musk is spending money on these things, but that he is doing so poorly, and that people hail him as some sort of genius for investing in technology like literally every other rich white man in the united states does, every day But to an extent it is an accurate argument (I guess Jeff Bozo funds rockets too but he's just billionaire with space toys #2). Every time NASA comes up with a decent plan two of the following happen: Congress underfunds it just enough to keep it in development hell until it dies to feature creep/"""""totally unforeseeable"""""" cost overruns (or, worse, it turns into the Shuttle/SLS), Congress mandates it keeps existing contractors in business, in anticipation of Congress interference it's pre-planned to have a production line stretching through 20+ states and launch twice per decade inflating the cost by 300%. e: Rarely, when NASA gets its way a little bit, it goes and does a moonshot project like the Venture Star (because, gently caress it, you're not going to get another opportunity to build another big clean sheet project for 25 years, go hog wild), and they try to shoehorn too many new features into the one prototype they're allowed to have instead of incrementing upwards and blowing poo poo up until things work. If NASA was actually allowed to spend its budget efficiently instead of being treated as a vehicle for dumbass pork spending you'd have a point but they haven't been for a long time and won't be until US politics gets fixed. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:But to an extent it is an accurate argument (I guess Jeff Bozo funds rockets too but he's just billionaire with space toys #2). i get this is your area of expertise but i think you're mixing up in house nasa rocket development vs. the expanded scope of contract launches, of which of course the MIC was best suited to take advantage of that program when it was first released. and still, you've got like, what, northrop-grumman, lockheed, lockheed-boeing, and spacex? neither musk or bezos would really be doing what they're doing without nasa dangling those incentives out there, even richard branson had his own weird thing going on independent of nasa for space tourism regardless it doesn't matter if some wealthy manchild is funding rockets or not, rockets are still being funded by defense contractors even if they're not exciting enough rockets to have their progress tracked on imgur oocc's original claim is "it's good that someone is funding a bunch of very good things that are generally unfunded on the declaration they would be unprofitable"." and i would like to know at what point in the last fifty years has there been no rocket development because there wasn't enough money in it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:
Underfunded doesn't mean zero budget. 50 years ago we had a space program that was funded the equivalent of 45 billion dollars and was given relatively singular goals, now we got like 18 billion dollars to do everything. There is a couple companies that are working in that field, each with budgets of like 1-2 billion dollars, which is real cool. But even that isn't much compared to what funding was or could be. Same with electric cars. That stuff is serious, the funding is so vastly lower than it should be. So a few companies putting a few dollars into it is pretty much all the hope there is right now. Get full communism now, hyper fund science and absolutely people will go be excited about that instead of the million dollar here, million dollar there scraping up kickstarters to do basic science and engineering stuff society is down to now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware (I'm not an actual rocket scientist but thanks) rocket development has been kinda slow for a while because there's always enough money for ~national security~ so Lockmart/Boeing, i.e. ULA could just iterate the same overpriced rocket slightly to fit all types of spy sats, the whole point of Ariane was to be space pork for the EU so while it improved it never became cost efficient, and until SpaceX became a thing Proton was good enough to sustain some commercial launch activity. Doing something radical like, oh, reviving an existing and already partially proven concept for more efficient space launch like the DC-X (which became a starting point for Musk and Bezos btw) doesn't really seem in the interests of a near-monopoly mainly interested in continuing to benefit from invariably forthcoming cost-plus contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Underfunded doesn't mean zero budget. 50 years ago we had a space program that was funded the equivalent of 45 billion dollars and was given relatively singular goals, now we got like 18 billion dollars to do everything. private companies have little to do with nasa's budget. part of why nasa's budget can be cut is because they've offloaded rocket development to defense contractors and other private entities, such as elon musk. do you even understand your own argument? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Same with electric cars. That stuff is serious, the funding is so vastly lower than it should be. So a few companies putting a few dollars into it is pretty much all the hope there is right now. Get full communism now, hyper fund science and absolutely people will go be excited about that instead of the million dollar here, million dollar there scraping up kickstarters to do basic science and engineering stuff society is down to now. how are you determining what funding "should be" for development of these things? your own personal preferences in that more technology is inherently a good thing? i think your perception of the world is greatly distorted by a heavy diet of science fiction in youth, which is probably one of the prerequisites for being an elon musk supporter suck my woke dick posted:As far as I'm aware (I'm not an actual rocket scientist but thanks) rocket development has been kinda slow for a while because there's always enough money for ~national security~ so Lockmart/Boeing, i.e. ULA could just iterate the same overpriced rocket slightly to fit all types of spy sats, the whole point of Ariane was to be space pork for the EU so while it improved it never became cost efficient, and until SpaceX became a thing Proton was good enough to sustain some commercial launch activity. Doing something radical like, oh, reviving an existing and already partially proven concept for more efficient space launch like the DC-X doesn't really seem in the interests of a near-monopoly mainly interested in continuing to benefit from pork spending. this is more a problem with bureaucracy, not musk daring to achieve the impossible. ULA could have done reusable rockets if they had the right incentives. one of those incentives is definitely grifting public funds, but another could be lack of demand for launches. if there's a small, steady, regular growth in the launch market then spacex can come along and eat everyone's lunch with cheaper technology, but it doesn't follow that the built in capacity for more launches is necessarily going to stimulate demand. like what does it matter if spacex can support 120 launches a year with reusable rockets, versus 40 ULA single use rockets, if there's only 40 launch contracts a year and no more? Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:private companies have little to do with nasa's budget. part of why nasa's budget can be cut is because they've offloaded rocket development to defense contractors and other private entities, such as elon musk. do you even understand your own argument? But... NASA's budget has not declined due to the commercial crew and commercial cargo contracts. If anything, early on, Congress tried to slash these parts of the NASA contract specifically to try and force NASA to go all in on the Senate Launch System (plus forever buying Delta IV Heavy launches) and spread pork through all the districts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:But... NASA's budget has not declined due to the commercial crew and commercial cargo contracts. i know, nasa's budget has declined because of austerity, but oocc is complaining about funding reductions in the public sector as a method of trying to talk about why there isn't enough development funding in the private sector. these are different things, it's a strange argument, i don't see any value in talking about nasa's budget compared to what the MIC is up to. he's coming at this from the perspective of "increase all the funding, double it, triple it, all over and all the time" which is uh not sophisticated or really helpful
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:how are you determining what funding "should be" for development of these things? your own personal preferences in that more technology is inherently a good thing? i think your perception of the world is greatly distorted by a heavy diet of science fiction in youth, which is probably one of the prerequisites for being an elon musk supporter How are YOU determining what should be funded? Why shouldn't electric cars or space be funded? The point is is that it's NOT particularly highly funded, the US spends more on star wars than elon does on actual spaceships, what reason do you have to fret so much that it gets funded some amount that is so extremely low? Like is the goal to stomp it out entirely because a nerd was mean to you once so you want to get vengeance by removing things a nerd might like? If someone is gonna care about space at all a couple small timers of dubious quality are the choices, your side already definitely won, they don't research stuff like space much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How are YOU determining what should be funded? Why shouldn't electric cars or space be funded? The point is is that it's NOT particularly highly funded, the US spends more on star wars than elon does on actual spaceships, what reason do you have to fret so much that it gets funded some amount that is so extremely low? Like is the goal to stomp it out entirely because a nerd was mean to you once so you want to get vengeance by removing things a nerd might like? If someone is gonna care about space at all a couple small timers of dubious quality are the choices, your side already definitely won, they don't research stuff like space much anymore. haha pretty good how i can just roast elon musk for a while and you will convince yourself that i'm actually saying space is bad and i hate rockets "your side" give me a break and try not to get so agitated when people make fun of elon loving musk
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:private companies have little to do with nasa's budget. part of why nasa's budget can be cut is because they've offloaded rocket development to defense contractors and other private entities, such as elon musk. do you even understand your own argument? Step 1: set a goal (e.g.: build a cheep&cheerful rocket to send up all the telecom satellites) Step 2: make an initial plan and estimate a budget timeline to achieve maximum rocket per dollar (or minimum dollar per rocket for a fixed rocket specification) Step 3: if not wildly unacceptable, fund at the planned level, with minor adjustments up or down as needed Step 4: get reliable rocket with minimal delays at reasonable cost "Is": Step 1: set a goal (e.g.: build a cheep&cheerful rocket to send up all the telecom satellites) Step 2: make an initial plan and estimate a budget timeline to achieve maximum rocket per dollar (or minimum dollar per rocket for a fixed rocket specification) Step 2a: get lobbied by ULA Step 2b: realise ~jobs~ in the rocket engine subcontractor's mounting bolt factory subcontractor's parts suppliers' subcontractors in 15 districts will be at risk if the cheep&cheerful rocket actually works, so you earmark $millions for the subcontractor's subcontractor's subcontractors (20 different congresspeople do this) Step 2c: realise that someone will have to launch asstronauts and spy sats and you don't want to fund three rocket development programs at the same time, so you tack on man rating and national security requirements Step 3: remember you're a fiscal conservative so you allocate half of what the initial planned funding level was Step 4: get fiddly rocket 10 years late at 400% cost overrun and 300% higher launch price (if you're lucky. If not, get no rocket and cancel the project after $10billion has been spent). quote:this is more a problem with bureaucracy, not musk daring to achieve the impossible. ULA could have done reusable rockets if they had the right incentives. one of those incentives is definitely grifting public funds, but another could be lack of demand for launches. quote:if there's a small, steady, regular growth in the launch market then spacex can come along and eat everyone's lunch with cheaper technology, but it doesn't follow that the built in capacity for more launches is necessarily going to stimulate demand. like what does it matter if spacex can support 120 launches a year with reusable rockets, versus 40 ULA single use rockets, if there's only 40 launch contracts a year and no more? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
I just wanted to know how to avoid/adapt to potential cyberpunk futures. Not a roast on Musk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:"your side" give me a break and try not to get so agitated when people make fun of elon loving musk Because like, you won, you stopped space funding and we don't do it anymore. What further good is there in rooting out the stuff like spaceX and trying to stop it? Like we systematically destroyed all the infrastructure we had to ever go to space and have no plans to build any more and no one born after 1935 has been out of low earth orbit already. A private company trying to recreate it all but worse isn't what anyone wants, but like, we clearly aren't going back to having science funding. Likewise climate change is happening and there is almost no progress towards getting away from gasoline cars. Just a lot of "we need to do X" then not doing it. There really is only a small number of companies even trying to make electric cars a thing. There isn't much to be excited about there and like, how much more can close till we just have nothing at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Yes, and when Congress stops making GBS threads itself twice a day you will have a point. Before then, Musk/Bozos going "I'm rich and I don't care, build me a new rocket" is able to produce better results faster. for a certain definition of better, sure - more cost effective for sure, but it's not like musk's rockets are going places we haven't been able to go before. it's just getting into orbit cheaper, which is not directly useful in the short term - we have to rely on the assumption that cheaper launches will be the thing that finally kicks off the private development of low earth orbit for industrial purposes when there are probably other roadblocks there, such as there still being no clear profitable widget or material to manufacture in space suck my woke dick posted:I would be very surprised if SpaceX doing 40 Falcon 9 plus 1-2 bigger rocket launches per year forever won't be sustainable as a profitable enterprise, so in the very worst case SpaceX... save customers a few billion per year. Which, while not exactly world-shaking, is a decent outcome in terms of getting rid of one of the many military industrial complex money pits. i agree with you it's good to streamline and bypass the MIC to achieve better cost efficiency, but as you say this is small potatoes compared to some of the claims being made that we will have reusable rockets, then ????????, then moon/mars colonization. or that it is an inherent moral good to just shovel as much money as possible at rocket development when it's very possible we've reached a nearly optimal level of rocket r&d per year right now relative to what it might gain for private industry Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because like, you won, you stopped space funding and we don't do it anymore. you have lost your mind, friend Owlofcreamcheese posted:Likewise climate change is happening and there is almost no progress towards getting away from gasoline cars. Just a lot of "we need to do X" then not doing it. There really is only a small number of companies even trying to make electric cars a thing. There isn't much to be excited about there and like, how much more can close till we just have nothing at all? shitloads of car companies are doing electric cars. like, all of them are doing it. what the gently caress are you talking about Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you have lost your mind, friend The youngest person to leave earth orbit is 83 right now and was born in 1935. SpaceX and similar sized companies are about all there is that might possibly change that. You can now say space flight is for nerds and not cool jocks or whatever, but like, spaceX is a 1 billion dollar a year company, that is ultimately teeny tiny, even if seeing people in space is simply a recreational thing we spend that much on just movies about fictional space travel. If china or india step up with real space programs no one will care about musk ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you want that to change then you're looking at the overthrow of capitalism, not billionaires with half baked ideas. Though you're still not going to have cities on the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 Owlofcreamcheese posted:The youngest person to leave earth orbit is 83 right now and was born in 1935. SpaceX and similar sized companies are about all there is that might possibly change that. You can now say space flight is for nerds and not cool jocks or whatever, but like, spaceX is a 1 billion dollar a year company, that is ultimately teeny tiny, even if seeing people in space is simply a recreational thing we spend that much on just movies about fictional space travel. If china or india step up with real space programs no one will care about musk ever again. also you should at least google financials before you claim stupid things SpaceX is at a 30x valuation of what's stated in your dumpsterdive of a post WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jan 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
double oops
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4 Silicon Valley valuations don't really mean anything, the company spent like $1billion of actual money through the first decade existence, now that they're actually operating a twice-monthly launch service and are developing a superheavy rocket toy, $1-2 billion per year is realistic, which still rounds down to nothing in MIC contractor terms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
My vision is augmented
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
The thread has derailed and will now get a day's rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 01:19
|
|