The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 26,426
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay“Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.
It was its tendency to bend at the knees.”
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay“Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.
It was its tendency to bend at the knees.”
You claim to have impeccable sources of truth. I have asked already but you don't reveal them.Careful, your MDS is showing!
I haven't called anyone here a fanboy. Much of youtube is fanboys.So you say, but is it true?
I've seen no evidence that that Musk is any more hateful than the average person. I've seen far more hate directed at him than from him, and many of the haters appear to crave it.
Here's one example:-
Elon Musk haters vandalized dozens of Tesla Cybertrucks
[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1476&pictureid=14065[/qimg]
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's almost impossible to discuss about anything related to SpaceX or Tesla these days without the haters chiming in, derailing the conversation with their childish name-calling and ignorant negativity. And if we rebut them they call us fanboys or worse. Engaging them doesn't help because their minds are firmly closed - they've found a 'legitimate' target to hate on and nobody's going to reason them out of it!
You claim to have impeccable sources of truth. I have asked already but you don't reveal them.
Thankfully, there are other forums around where actual rocket scientists and engineers, including people actually working on some of the projects under discussion, are participating.
I have asked already but you don't reveal them.
To be fair, it's not the fact that he's a multi-billionaire that makes him hateable. It's because he's an utter ****.
I agree, he is an *******.
However, grown-ups are capable of seeing beyond those flaws
They aren't flaws. they are the pathology of a malignant narcissist..
Oops!I haven't called anyone here a fanboy. Much of youtube is fanboys.
And there it is.Musk calling the men who saved the boys in Thailand "pedos" was the wakeup call for me. The MDS starts with Musk.
I could explain to you how this context matters and what it means about Musk's personality, but there's no point because you would just dig your heels in. Instead I refer you to these two posts:-Vernon Unsworth was seeking $US190 million ($NZ289m) in damages from the Tesla founder, over the tweet sent last year...
Mr Unsworth, an experienced 64-year-old cave explorer, splits his time between the UK and Thailand. During the rescue, which captured the world's attention, he helped recruit expert cave divers who were instrumental in freeing the boys safely.
Mr Musk sent Tesla engineers and a small submarine to help with the Thai rescue effort, but the vessel was never used.
Instead, he and Mr Unsworth got into a public war of words after the diver branded the offer of help a "PR stunt".
During an interview with CNN, he suggested the billionaire "stick his submarine where it hurts".
Mr Musk, who has 22 million followers, responded with a series of tweets about Mr Unsworth - including the one calling him "pedo guy". It was later deleted.
That can be the Achilles heel for a lot of highly intelligent people. Can't admit when they are wrong.
Seems your 'wokeness' evolved over time. In October 2019 (a year after the 'pedo man' tweet) he had an 'Achilles heel'. By May 2020 he was a 'highly intelligent jerk' - both reasonably fair evaluations IMO. Now he's a 'malignant narcissist', an extreme epithet that I don't believe is deserved.Musk is a highly intelligent jerk and Trump thinks he is highly intelligent and is a jerk. I don't think Musk ever ran a beauty pageant so he could perve at the young contestants.
Many liberals also deride his moving to the right, but this too is totally expected for someone in his position. What those liberals don't realize is that they are helping to push him there, many to the point of compromising their own values as they dial up the hate. That was my wake-up call.
As Musk gets older and more experienced he is becoming more mature
Maybe worth sharing here, I found this image showing the number of Falcon9 launches since 2019 to be pretty compelling. While Starship is in development, Falcon9 continues to improve along the simple metric of total number of launches and mass launched to LEO, with an increase of ~40% /year.
https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/02/s...florida-and-competitors-arent-happy-about-it/
SpaceX is aiming to go do many launches on what is essentially public property that other launch providers are going to have drastically reduced access to launch times. I also don't know if they would want to share the launch infrastructure as a landing platform as well.
I can't open the link, but I assume they or their customers are paying to use the launch facilities in question?
I don't doubt that they are paying their way, the competitors are complaining about their launches being impacted.
Okay. Seems like a pretty normal thing. Launch facilities are in short supply. When there's a shortage of supply and high demand, people will compete for that limited commodity. Usually the way markets deal with this is by increasing the price, leading to both rationing by value and new suppliers being incentivized to enter the market and increase supply.
I don't really see how this is a SpaceX problem. If they are doing some sort of political deals to leverage connections to get access to launch facilities based on corruption rather than merit (or just being willing to pay a higher price), then that's the kind of accusation that I could see as meaningful, but it doesn't sound like you're making that sort of accusation. You're just saying "they've increased demand", which is, well, not bad?
Also, when you noted that this is "public property", what were you trying to convey? It was your highlighting of the "public property" aspect here that seemed to imply that there was some issue with paying for the use, otherwise, what's the importance of it being public rather than private launch facilities?
I don't doubt that they are paying their way, the competitors are complaining about their launches being impacted.
One of these competitors being ULA, that petitioned for government assistance when SpaceX started competing with them on price and taking away their business.
Seriously, what exactly is SpaceX supposed to be doing wrong here? Besides just existing and launching rockets?
That's not what was said at all.I admit I'm strangely captivated by the idea of wicked, wicked SpaceX, squatting illegally on public land, hogging all the launch pads so that Legitimate Businessmen cannot conduct their Legitimate Businesses.
That's not what was said at all.
No, it's only what was implied. And you're still trying to imply that SpaceX is somehow a problem, because it's hiring existing space launch infrastructure to deliver payloads for paying customers. It's good that you're walking it back, but you still have a ways to go, before you concede that there is nothing wrong with SpaceX being the biggest customer of space launch infrastructure right now. Just like there's nothing wrong with SpaceX beating ULA on price, and taking a lot of their clientele.
It's like a commercial airport with slots for flights. Smaller companies or new companies can't get slots. It kills competition.
Pulling up the ladder once you made it is what Capitalism is all about.
Can you elaborate on exactly what SpaceX has done that you are describing as "pulling up the ladder"?
SpaceX hasgainedearned a monopoly in the space industry. No one else can compete with the prices they are offering and still make a profit. But SpaceX hasgainedearned the ability to offer cheap, reliable spaceflights. They will learn how to launch heavier loads into space. In a few years they will be launching humans beyond low earth orbit.
What is your specific critique here? SpaceX is engaging in anti-competitive practices by paying for the use of launch sites at market rates, thus driving up the price? Or is there some deeper allegation here, of preventing other parties from getting access, even at the market price?
If its the former, it basically comes down to criticizing SpaceX for launching rockets, which just seems completely backward to me. If it's the latter, please elaborate.
Blocking launch sites would be one.
Just because you can pay for it doesn't mean that you should - they were a startup once, and they got a ton of help to get where they are.
paying forward would be the thing to do if they valued innovation over profit.
Another BIG THING is blocking a massive part of the orbit space for Starlink.
It look very much like creating fact on the proverbial ground to make it nigh impossible for newcomers to compete.
I'm just providing a link. The number of launches proposed doesn't seem realistic.
If they do achieve it, it will be at the expense of the competition. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't give a **** about ULA.
The launch capacity of the site is all I'm wondering about. It's like a busy airport, you have a limited number of slots.
Blocking launch sites would be one.
Just because you can pay for it doesn't mean that you should - they were a startup once, and they got a ton of help to get where they are.
paying forward would be the thing to do if they valued innovation over profit.
Can you please explain to us all how SpaceX is "blocking launch sites".
Which ones are they blocking?
Space X |LC-39A (KSC), SLC-40 (CCSFS) SLC4E (VSFB)|
ULA | SLC-41 & 37B (CCSFS), SLC-3 (VSFB)|
Rocketlab | LC-1 (Mahia) and LC-2 (Wallops)|
NASA |LC-39B (KSC)|
Firefly | Launch Pad 0A (Wallops)|
Astra | SLC-46 (CCSFS) and Launch Pad 3B (PSCA)|
Blue Origin | LC-36A and LC36B (CCSFS) + LC-11 (Under renovation)|
Relativity Space | LC-16 (CCSFS) (under renovation)
The launch capacity of the site is all I'm wondering about. It's like a busy airport, you have a limited number of slots.