Comment by mft_

1 day ago

That’s a little bit revisionist. I don’t like Musk much either but to be fair:

- no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible. Sure, there may have been individuals, but it didn’t make it into corporate strategy or product delivery. The Model S plus the Supercharger network changed the face of the car industry.

- none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality. They had an infinite head start vs. SpaceX and failed to innovate. Even now, having their lunch money regularly stolen by SpaceX, where is the reusable competition?

7 comments

mft_

Reply
kibwen  1 day ago

> no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible

No executive in the established "expert" car companies had any reason to rock the boat. Establishing EVs as a credible alternative to ICEs required a build-out of charging infrastructure that none of them were willing to commit to. But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existed.

> none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality

All of them would have told you that there's nothing impossible about a reusable rocket, only that their customers were happily served by their current offerings. Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.

  • stymaar  20 hours ago

    > But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existe

    Yes. And in fact, Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”.

    Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts.

    • mft_  5 hours ago

      > Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”.

      The world is scattered with the skeletons of failed car startups. Outside of China, there hadn’t been one to succeed at a meaningful level for a long time, and no one gave any new entrant much hope of survival, much less one that was also trying to create a whole new sector and the infrastructure to support it.

      Like it or not, Tesla’s survival let alone its level of success has been extraordinary.

      It’s impossible to know whether it would have succeeded without Musk’s involvement; but… the probabilities suggest perhaps not.

      > Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts.

      I assume this barb is aimed at me.

      I’m far from a Musk “shill”. I strongly dislike the person he’s become, the way he behaves, and the huge opportunities he’s squandered as a result and along the way. I refuse to buy his products.

      However, I’m just not emotionally involved in either direction and try to be factual and neutral. He’s a horrible person who has led companies that have achieved extraordinary things.

      Ironically, people who can’t see past their emotions and spend time on the internet throwing insults around in discussions exist on both sides, whether they’re a “shill” or an anti-shill, or hater, or whatever terms fits (you) best.

  • mft_  1 day ago

    Yes. Musk and his colleagues revolutionised two technical and entrenched industries. You make it sound like this wasn't a difficult proposition.

    > Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D.

    Not sure about this analysis.

    a) SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 relatively cheaply - ~$300m to it simply being a viable launch platform (i.e. without reuse, Dragon, etc.)

    b) NASA contributed to some of the costs.

    c) SpaceX was already offering launch services cheaper than their competition before perfecting reuse or conceiving of Starlink.

    Therefore it's likely that they'd have had a positive (albeit lower) business case and made back R%D costs over time, simply by offering launch services and capturing a majority of the market thanks to their lower prices. Reusability lowered their launch costs, when it came. Starlink was an answer to the question of how to capitalise on all of the cheap surplus launch capacity they'd made available.