• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Elon Musk the PT Barnum of Technology in the 21st century?

ChristianProgressive

Master Poster
C
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
2,860
Given all his wildly improbable (and outright impossible) schemes, I don't understand why people keep believing him. He's very good at re-branding and repackaging old ideas with new names but they're the same old failed ideas. Even the ones that work "on paper" have obstacles that make them virtually impossible to realize in actuality (see Hyperloop, surface to surface rocket travel, and the "tunnel" scheme for examples).
 
I tend to agree that Musk has a lot of pie in the sky ideas, some of which have been proposed for decades or centuries and not built as per the OP. I applaud is enthusiasm and decry the rather irrational enthusiasm others seem to have for his crazy ideas.

Seriously, the something like the hyperloop has been in issues of popular mechanics since its inception. Its the flying car of trains.

The tunneling thing, he thinks he can build them 10x faster than folks that have actually built tunnels.
 
Eh, Tesla Model 3 is far from perfect, but they've got production up to (ETA: almost) 4000 per week and have a large backlog of orders. Space X just about dominates the launch market. He's got a lot of pie-in-the-sky projects, but he's also got some that have worked pretty well. Not as good as originally promised, but still strongly innovative and generally practical.

His Solar power operation also seems to be going pretty well.

Time will tell, I suppose.

They've done one launch of the Falcon 9 "block 5", which is supposed to be the last major redesign. That one needed to be dismantled after landing for metallurgy testing, so it won't relaunch. If the block 5's are as reusable as hoped (ten launches per rocket with no significant refurbishing, 100 launches total per rocket), Space X will have proven its worth (even as it still has more ambitious plans for the BF Rocket).

Tesla Model 3 is getting mixed reviews, but they are ramping up production. Time will tell. Maybe he won't get production up high enough to meet goals, maybe people will start cancelling orders due to poor reviews. We'll know soon enough.

Tesla Solar uses much of the same technology as the cars (the batteries), and they have started installation.

So he's got one venture that is clearly successful (SpaceX), and we'll know within the next year if it is truly revolutionary (if the Block 5 lives up to promises). Even if the BF rocket never comes to fruition, a successful block 5 and associated Falcon Heavy would be considered very successful by any standard.

He's got two other projects (Tesla cars and Tesla solar) right on the edge.
 
Last edited:
Does some great stuff. Also talks crap sometimes. I often wonder whether the crap-talk might just be pimping the good stuff.
 
ahhell said:
I tend to agree that Musk has a lot of pie in the sky ideas, some of which have been proposed for decades or centuries and not built as per the OP. I applaud is enthusiasm and decry the rather irrational enthusiasm others seem to have for his crazy ideas.

Seriously, the something like the hyperloop has been in issues of popular mechanics since its inception. Its the flying car of trains.

The tunneling thing, he thinks he can build them 10x faster than folks that have actually built tunnels.
Click to expand...

The tunnelling project has a ton (pardon the near pun) of issues involving the problems of the lift wells, etc.

I like this guy's takedown of the tunnel scheme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBtL3qDvdZc

He debunks a lot of Musk's nonsense.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
The conventional rocketry program, has a place and purpose. BS like powered rocket site to site is another story.
Click to expand...
Why? What obstacles do you see to this plan? I've yet to see a killer argument against it, other than "you'll never get rockets to airline safety levels" which is just an argument from incredulity.

Offshore landing platforms eliminates the sonic boom issue I know someone will bring up. Anything else?
 
Octavo said:
Why? What obstacles do you see to this plan? I've yet to see a killer argument against it, other than "you'll never get rockets to airline safety levels" which is just an argument from incredulity.

Offshore landing platforms eliminates the sonic boom issue I know someone will bring up. Anything else?
Click to expand...

g-forces? I'm reading that astronauts experience about 3g, but it lasts a long time and they're trained and wearing special suits.

Cost? A commercial airliner is good for 10's of thousands of flights. Can a BFR be reused enough times to offset the hardware cost?

The free-fall phase of the flight?

Added: Toilets, catering, emotional support peacocks ... ;)
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
g-forces? I'm reading that astronauts experience about 3g, but it lasts a long time and they're trained and wearing special suits.
Click to expand...


Just a product of acceleration and therefore you can have as many or as few G as you like - If you're prepared to accept a less than optimum launch profile.

Airliners might pull 1.2 G. Roller-coasters, the big ones, do up to 6.


Cost? A commercial airliner is good for 10's of thousands of flights. Can a BFR be reused enough times to offset the hardware cost?
Click to expand...

Probably


The free-fall phase of the flight?

Added: Toilets, catering, emotional support peacocks ... ;)
Click to expand...

None of this is insurmountable even with current technology. The question is "Can you charge enough per ticket to cover the costs plus a little for profit?"
 
3point14 said:
Just a product of acceleration and therefore you can have as many or as few G as you like - If you're prepared to accept a less than optimum launch profile.
Click to expand...

"Space Exploration: Why can't we just slowly rise to space? Why do you have to go so fast?

Going fast uses less fuel - a lot less. As soon as you leave the launch pad, part of the fuel you use is just counteracting 1G of gravity, it isn't doing anything but holding you up while the rest of the thrust pushes you up..."

Can SpaceX technology manage this? No. Could it? Maybe, but at huge cost for an entirely different rocket. Basically, Musk's claims in this area are a load of hot air.

3point14 said:
None of this is insurmountable even with current technology. The question is "Can you charge enough per ticket to cover the costs plus a little for profit?"
Click to expand...

That kind of claim always worries me ;) Astronauts are trained in using space toilets, but Joe X who fancies trying the rocket flight from NY to Beijing won't be.
 
GlennB said:
"Space Exploration: Why can't we just slowly rise to space? Why do you have to go so fast?

Going fast uses less fuel - a lot less. As soon as you leave the launch pad, part of the fuel you use is just counteracting 1G of gravity, it isn't doing anything but holding you up while the rest of the thrust pushes you up..."
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, hence the 'If you're prepared to accept a non-optimum launch profile'. Saturn V left the pad really, really slowly with a TWR at launch of about 1.2. Okay, that went up a teensy bit during the flight*, but, if one is prepared to spend the fuel (and this is an orbital vehicle re-purposed for suborbital flight, so there might be a fair bit to spare.) then there doesn't necessarily need to be astronaut levels of G during the flight.


Can SpaceX technology manage this? No. Could it? Maybe, but at huge cost for an entirely different rocket. Basically, Musk's claims in this area are a load of hot air.



That kind of claim always worries me ;) Astronauts are trained in using space toilets, but Joe X who fancies trying the rocket flight from NY to Beijing won't be.
Click to expand...


They won't need to, outside of emergencies. The flight time from the UK to Australia won't be long enough that anyone would need to.



*In this instance teensy means lots. :)
 
I'd say he is more like Eddison than PT Barnum in that he directs researchers and engineers and so on, some of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky etc. but some have already paid off.
 
GlennB said:
"Space Exploration: Why can't we just slowly rise to space? Why do you have to go so fast?

Going fast uses less fuel - a lot less. As soon as you leave the launch pad, part of the fuel you use is just counteracting 1G of gravity, it isn't doing anything but holding you up while the rest of the thrust pushes you up..."

Can SpaceX technology manage this? No. Could it? Maybe, but at huge cost for an entirely different rocket. Basically, Musk's claims in this area are a load of hot air.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've checked the notional BFR specs. Limiting g-loading to 3g up and down is the plan and well within the delta-v budget.

Toilets on a 40 minute flight, where 20 minutes of flight you need to be strapped in (probably the whole flight - you don't really want 200 novices floating around in zero-g, trying to get back to their seats)? I'm not seeing the need.

No training or pilots necessary, except maybe a demo on how to use a barf-bag in zero - g
 
Octavo said:
Why? What obstacles do you see to this plan? I've yet to see a killer argument against it, other than "you'll never get rockets to airline safety levels" which is just an argument from incredulity.

Offshore landing platforms eliminates the sonic boom issue I know someone will bring up. Anything else?
Click to expand...


Um, how about, it's a ridiculous waste of non-renewable resources designed to pander to a level of profligate vanity that makes ancient Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors seem like ascetics by comparison?
 
Myriad said:
Um, how about, it's a ridiculous waste of non-renewable resources designed to pander to a level of profligate vanity that makes ancient Egyptian pharaohs and Roman emperors seem like ascetics by comparison?
Click to expand...


You're talking about air travel in general, right?
 
Octavo said:
I'm not sure if you've checked the notional BFR specs. Limiting g-loading to 3g up and down is the plan and well within the delta-v budget.
Click to expand...

I'm only going by what I've read, and that suggests that protracted 3g can be handled by trained astronauts in g-suits. On their backs during acceleration/deceleration.

Octavo said:
Toilets on a 40 minute flight, where 20 minutes of flight you need to be strapped in (probably the whole flight - you don't really want 200 novices floating around in zero-g, trying to get back to their seats)? I'm not seeing the need.
Click to expand...

Fair point, though now I'm wondering how long they'll be loaded and waiting on the pad. Even how to load passengers at all. Maybe they'll load passengers with the rocket horizontal and crank it up to vertical? Hmmm ...

Octavo said:
No training or pilots necessary, except maybe a demo on how to use a barf-bag in zero - g
Click to expand...

Ah yes.

"When we first get to space, we feel sick," Hadfield said to a group of students back on the planet. "Your body is really confused. You're dizzy. Your lunch is floating around in your belly because you're floating. What you see doesn't match what you feel, and you want to throw up."

Sounds like it's a regular experience, though in this case our passengers are strapped in. Will preparing for one of these flights be like preparing for serious surgery? Fast for 12 hours and nil by mouth for the final 6 (or whatever the guidelines are)?

Not even Musk believes these flights are going to happen. He has a solid track record of announcing wild, unrealisable projects, and that's what we're discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom