(to be applauded by kane no less…ouch! 
)
2 Likes
(yikes. never saw this SNL, but is he trying a tom-cruise-impression?!? yikes.)
2 Likes
… presumably he has just “told a joke” and is trying to get the crowd to laugh at it 
2 Likes
Just don’t expect a Musk fanboi, or really any Libertarian, to understand it if the economics are remotely grounded in reality.
6 Likes
I’ll grant partial credit, but the mission control team for the other space rocket companies tend to not break out and cheer when the thing explodes in mid air. (or on the pad, or during stage seperation, etc…)
Yup. I had forgotten about neuralink. Those poor chimps…
As far as Tesla goes, I’m not sure why one of the big five/six auto companies have had a go and buying tesla yet. Tesla was not the first to market with EVs outside of a test program, IIRC that was the Honda Insight, but it was a sub-compact car about the size of a jellybean, and that’s not quite what the US market was looking for when it was introduced. If anything, Tesla was first to market with a full size car, and had a bunch of loud advertising surrounding it. They were not the first to announce a full EV truck (IIRC, Rivian clipped them on that, along with ‘first to shipping’)
But yeah. If Musk’s name is attached to the product in any way, shape, or form? no thank you., I’ll find a different company.
5 Likes
The touch of that Invisible Hand must be fabulously erotic, dear boy… 
2 Likes
It feels icky, to be honest.
8 Likes
Tesla’s market cap is way, way over any single automaker. There’s no way stockholders would approve.
7 Likes
Like this?
1 Like
Yeah. I don’t know what the fuck that is but it sure ain’t charisma.
3 Likes
That’s because Tesla stock is ridiculously overpriced.
2 Likes
I disagree. The Shuttle economics was nuts because of the amount of overhaul required per launch and because of the cost of having the program at all. There’s a per-year cost of the capability that will apply whether the vehicle is reused or not.
3 Likes
They’re tests, though, not missions - they’re trying radically new things and seeing how far they can get and where the failure points are. It does seem to be all working as intended. My understanding is that they’re rigged to blow up because that’s better than a rocket plummeting back to Earth intact (and towards human populations), so the second any component is operating out of parameters, boom! The longer it stays in the air, that means the more things were going perfectly.
The history of rocketry involved a lot of missions - crewed and uncrewed - exploding. We’re not so sanguine about the loss of human life, now. The current strategy seems to be to get all the explosions out of the way before starting in with the missions.
1 Like
Im sorry, but…are you serious?!?
öhm, every rocket has a so called flight-termination-system; otherwise they dont get permission to fly at all. thats not an “invention” from spacex. what are you talking about?!?
they’re trying radically new things
äh, no, they fucking dont?!?
1 Like
I’m not trying to be a Gwynne Shotwell fanboy here, I’m just pointing out that despite Elno pretending to be in charge of it, SpaceX isn’t the disaster that people want to portray it as, right now. From what I read (from Musk-hating rocket-heads), they’re doing better than fine. They’ve made some innovations and as a result the price to launch payloads is now a fraction of what it had been previously, and the rockets exploding in tests aren’t some metaphor for the company.
Yeah, but I never said it was? I was just pointing out that it’s what they’re supposed to do, as experimental rockets. They’re innovating (okay, it’s only “radical” compared to how staid the rocket industry has been), and everything doesn’t work perfectly in tests and it’s not expected to, and that doesn’t make it a disaster. There have been some clear fuck-ups, e.g. the rocket exploding on the pad and destroying it (because it wasn’t properly equipped), and that particular fuck-up seems to have been down to Elno. The company as a whole, though? It sure looks to have been pretty successful. They’d also clearly be better off without Elno.
5 Likes
yeah, and this monstrosity isnt a falcon; its entirely elnos feverdream, so its poised to fail.
that is very debatable, they still need a month to get one of their booster flying again, 80% of their payloads are their own fucking satellites, I dont actually believe their numbers and shotwell is as full of shit as musk.
ohyes, in case of “starship” it should, and its actually a disaster for artemis; its at least 3 billion tax-money down the loo. there will be no moonlanding with starship, the whole concept is nuts and dead on arrival…if its ever even come to this.
oh, and…
but he is, obviously, otherwise this insanity by him called “starship” would not exist; shotwell is his puppet.
1 Like
Launch costs are a fraction of what they were before SpaceX existed. I don’t know, maybe they’re losing a lot of money on each launch and it’s not remotely sustainable, but it’s still true at the moment.
There’s literally a whole team there devoted to managing Elno and minimizing his input in the company (and keeping him from screwing things up). They let him waste his time on nonsense (e.g. gluing rockets back together) but keep him out of most of the important decision making, by all accounts. (Though even his rare intrusions - e.g. Ukraine, Starlink - and Elno just being Elno may add up to being serious enough to eventually tank the company.)
2 Likes
you got a source for that?
e/ @Shuck; still waitin…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
