TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Elon and the collective

93 pointsby theaeolistover 6 years ago

15 comments

arijunover 6 years ago
&gt; when one of the SpaceX boosters will have flown 100 times with between flights maintenance at an economical level, then it will be an actual success<p>Talk about moving the goalposts! They <i>already</i> reuse boosters, and they <i>already</i> give discounts for doing so! And using the shuttle as proof that reusability is not tenable is disingenuous: we know the reasons why the shuttle was expensive and absolutely could design a version where it was not.<p>Looking through the rest, it&#x27;s clear this guy has goggles on where he sees everything around Musk in a negative light. There is absolutely stuff to criticize about about Musk, and there for sure exists a cult around him. But I think this guy is in another cult, where Musk can do no right.
评论 #18787597 未加载
评论 #18787585 未加载
评论 #18787550 未加载
bischofsover 6 years ago
This article started out good but got pretty lazy toward the end. &quot;This idea is stupid&quot; is not a good description.<p>Also I think Elon is generally looking at problems we have (traffic congestion, expensive space travel, fossil fuel cars) and trying different things to fix them with his considerable funding. Why is this a problem?<p>It&#x27;s much easier to criticize others ideas on a blog then it is to generate and execute ideas yourself.
评论 #18787127 未加载
评论 #18787169 未加载
m0zgover 6 years ago
&quot;People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.&quot;<p>Dude literally is, to quote the author, &quot;the next Steve Jobs, but better&quot;. Is he occasionally an idiot? Yes. Is he occasionally an asshole? Also yes. But he&#x27;s on track to have done not one, not two, but _three_ things others widely consider impossible (SpaceX, Tesla, StarLink) and may even squeeze in 2-3 more of those things in his remaining lifespan. If that&#x27;s not genius, I don&#x27;t know what is.
评论 #18787047 未加载
评论 #18787105 未加载
alexandrosover 6 years ago
Many of the flaws with the article have been pointed out, but can I just point out the author is so lazy that he doesn&#x27;t even remove the weight of the fuel from the Boeing 737, nevermind the jet engine and the many other optimisations that can be done when designing from scratch without the ICE constraints. His thought experiment is literally a Boeing 737 with a 25T battery attached to it, and he takes that to be the best case of what Elon is proposing... What makes smart people write things so trivially dumb?<p>And in case the author objects to me dissecting his rough sketch of an argument and drawing conclusions about him from it, he should have thought of that before taking 5 sentences spoken in a podcast and assuming he understands what the complete idea someone else has in mind is.
评论 #18787500 未加载
standardUserover 6 years ago
&quot;No one in the engineering community ever questioned whether it would be technically feasible to land a rocket booster on a barge.&quot;<p>Not to be pedantic, but it was technically impossible to land a rocket booster on a barge. SpaceX did the R&amp;D to make it happen. They made it technically feasible by developing the technology for a task that was previously <i>not</i> technically feasible.
评论 #18787236 未加载
评论 #18787694 未加载
评论 #18788341 未加载
skilledover 6 years ago
I get the impression that this post repeatedly tries to make it sound like &#x27;we&#x27; are the dumb guys for believing Musk. I think he&#x27;s done some good things, is a likeable marketing personality, and genuinely cares for a lot of the projects he&#x27;s working on. And this is me saying this without ever having owned a product of his.<p>There&#x27;s a bit of emotion in this post, but that&#x27;s alright.
评论 #18787403 未加载
评论 #18788458 未加载
ricardobeatover 6 years ago
&gt; Wind, tiny earthquakes or even birds walking along the roof displace the tiles ever so slightly and they loose contact. Once the circuit is broken it is difficult to find and fix the fault. Even worse a short circuit can lead to heating and fire danger. Turns out regular solar panels are way easier and cheaper to work with.<p>How can you say this much about an unreleased product to which you have zero insight on technical details? This is even more bs than if the tiles never come to market...<p>Also, you can’t call a machine-bored tunnel a “tube” and expect to be taken seriously. Questioning lofty, sci-fi-is goals? Fine and reasonable. Gaslighting actual, tangible products? Sounds shady.
评论 #18789751 未加载
gfodorover 6 years ago
Some fair critiques but the tunnel one is way off base. Showing that mass transit is more efficient than cars in tunnels has nothing to do with the question of if building cheaper tunnels for cars will result in a virtuous cycle of commercial investment and development of underground tunnel infrastructure. One of the core theses of boring as far as I understand it is that people prefer cars over subway trains for the most part from a comfort standpoint and so if anything drawing on some of the on-paper benefits of underground rail but transferring them towards passenger vehicles seems like a no-brainer if the economics and logistics work.
derekp7over 6 years ago
On the reusable boosters -- has Spacex released any information on what the inspection &#x2F; refurbishment costs (and time) are for the ones that have been reused already (or is there any educated guesses)? Also, if they end up being highly reliably reusable, wouldn&#x27;t that slow down the production of new boosters, thereby making them much more expensive to produce?
评论 #18787766 未加载
评论 #18787141 未加载
评论 #18789251 未加载
评论 #18787347 未加载
myegorovover 6 years ago
Don&#x27;t have experience with most of the industries that Musk dabbles in, but did spend a decade in construction. I have no doubt in my mind that Musk&#x27;s roofing and tunneling ventures are sham.
rick22over 6 years ago
When writing about Elon negatively start the core argument in the first line. Go straight to the core of the argument instead of wining about elon fan&#x27;s e.t.c. The reason is simple, the people who write negatively about Elon have accomplished very little compared to Elon and so the reader will give as little time to judge your argument and if you waste your first few lines with BS then there is no chance of getting people to read the entire article.
evrydayhustlingover 6 years ago
Here&#x27;s a much more thorough look at SpaceX economics: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;spacex&#x2F;comments&#x2F;7lp52o&#x2F;a_thorough_examination_of_the_economics_of_falcon&#x2F;&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;spacex&#x2F;comments&#x2F;7lp52o&#x2F;a_thorough_e...</a><p>tl;dr - Recoup on development costs is slow right now, but the post-development economics of rocket reuse are a big game change. Space shuttle comparison is flawed because both the nature of the system and the need for teardown were significantly impacted by being manned.<p>Comparing tunnels to planes is weird too - the target is an order of magnitude greater passenger throughput at a majorly reduced energy cost. The speed comparison is superficial.
TheChaplainover 6 years ago
I can&#x27;t imagine what Elon goes through, the amount of trash talk he receives on social media is just insane.<p>On Twitter there are people whose existence is only to bring anything about Elon&#x2F;Tesla into a negative light and whip up storms in teacups. Sure, he&#x27;s probably not a saint but man that must be tiring.
评论 #18788478 未加载
tbabbover 6 years ago
- Comparison to the space shuttle: Not remotely apt. The space shuttle, among other reasons, was a failure when it came to its design requirements because those requirements were expanded in incompatible directions by a congress that doesn&#x27;t understand engineering. &quot;It was done badly before, therefore it is not possible to do well&quot; isn&#x27;t a good argument.<p>- &quot;Rockets are irreconcilably more dangerous than planes&quot;: That might actually be true, at least for many more decades. Rockets are at least 10^5 times more dangerous than planes and the failure modes are much, much worse. That doesn&#x27;t mean that SpaceX can&#x27;t revolutionize space transport for satellites, unmanned commercial endeavors, and limited manned missions. A tenfold decrease in the cost of space access would make entire new industries economically feasible, even after accounting for risk. SpaceX is currently kicking ass, and I have no reason to doubt they will continue at it.<p>- &quot;Earth-to-Earth passenger rockets are insane&quot;: Yes, they may well be. I did a detailed analysis here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bzarg.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;some-numbers-about-the-spacex-passenger-rocket&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bzarg.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;some-numbers-about-the-spacex-passen...</a> As before, safety needs revolutionary changes, probably several times over. Economics and engineering will be very difficult, and the hardest part-- still totally unsolved-- is making something that can withstand re-entry many dozens of times without being totally rebuilt.<p>- &quot;The advertised orbital travel times are wrong&quot;: This is likely garbage. The details of flight navigation are something SpaceX has down pat and would not reasonably lie to themselves or the public about. Without a proper orbital analysis to back up this claim, I would not give it much credence. The point about transport to and from the launch pad adding time is likely valid, though-- his figure of a 5 mile journey from city center would actually be more like 10 miles, minimum. In a ferry this would be multiple dozens of minutes, which would add up at either end, especially once you account for travel to the ferry terminal itself. 30-40 minutes would be launch-to-landing time only, not door-to-door.<p>- Colonizing mars: Mars being inhospitable is a solvable problem. Radiation can be avoided by living underground, and temperature and pressure can be maintained inside a habitat. The unanswered question is economics and logistics-- It would require many billions of dollars of infrastructure-- flight costs <i>not</i> included-- to get a colony going. SpaceX isn&#x27;t working on these logistics; their attitude is &quot;someone else will figure that out.&quot; It&#x27;s not clear what pot of gold would drive that initial investment, and by whom.<p>- &quot;Extinction danger is a bad reason to go to Mars&quot; - Agree that this is mostly BS; even the worst Earth is much more comfortable than Mars. But I would say there are plenty of other, better philosophical reasons to try-- What is the economic and social value of an <i>entire inhabited planet</i>? We should treat the failure to pursue it as an opportunity cost of that magnitude.<p>- &quot;We should go to the moon first&quot; - Going to the moon is not mutually exclusive with going to other places in the solar system.<p>- &quot;Hyperloop is infeasible&quot; - Maybe. I&#x27;ll believe it when I see it, but happy to let them try.<p>- &quot;Neuralink is garbage&quot; - Neuroscientists I&#x27;ve spoken to would love to see more advanced neural probes. Money toward that problem could reasonably do a lot of good and make a lot of progress. Right now we can get about 100 neuron readings from a small area, and this is already used in humans with various degrees of paralysis to control artifical limbs. We are a long way from a &quot;seamless brain-computer interface&quot;, and it is probably 10 times harder than Elon imagines-- I doubt he understands it-- and healthy skepticism is in order. But investment in the problem would give real returns, especially for the quality of life of disabled people. A limited consumer brain-computer interface within the next three decades is probably not terribly outlandish if resources are dedicated to making it happen. A hell of a lot can happen in 30 years.<p>- &quot;Boring company is dumb&quot; - Solution to mass transit? I agree that the idea is probably not very thoroughly thought through. Are 10x gains in the efficiency of tunnel drilling possible? I could believe it. If Elon and his company have to convince themselves that subterranean packet-routed car skates are the future, only to arrive at mass transit later on, so be it if that results in making infrastructure 10 times cheaper to construct.<p>- &quot;Self-driving is dangerous&quot; - Self driving does not have to be impeccable to be a benefit-- it only has to be better than the average driver, which is often quite bad in some pretty trivial&#x2F;preventable ways. About 50,000 Americans die in cars per year, so there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of potential good. As a society, we should try to make this work. I do agree that Elon way oversells its capability, and that&#x27;s dangerous&#x2F;disingenuous. I also think that many car localization and navigation problems are very solveable, but Tesla does not seem to be solving them effectively-- see examples of autopiloted cars hitting dividers earlier this year. The hard part is getting machines to participate in the nonverbal social environment that is a road full of human drivers... but Tesla seems to be struggling on problems several tiers below this.<p>- Problems in Tesla management - From the outside, it looks as if Musk&#x27;s stubbornness may have lead to his underlings being unable to convery to him what is realistic to accomplish, resulting in repeated missed deadlines, as predicted by the people who appear to have been oustered for saying so. He does not seem like someone who it is easy to give bad news to, which means he and his company are going to have a hard time seeing and reacting to peril. I do not side fully with the shorts, though; Tesla is positioned to completely change the auto industry. I just hope they can execute without shooting themselves in the foot.<p>- Elon&#x27;s childish toxicity - Completely agree. Not behavior becoming of a leader at his level, let alone any emotionally well-adjusted adult. It&#x27;s a huge liability, c.f. the SEC fiasco, which Musk still doesn&#x27;t seem to comprehend. Musk supporters frustratingly seem to attribute his companies&#x27; success as being due to these flaws instead of in spite of them.
sidcoolover 6 years ago
It seems the article was written as an experiment to gauge people&#x27;s reaction on a critical Elon article. Not much credibility.