Posted on 11/26/2018 4:06:46 PM PST by EveningStar
Which of this generation's biggest tech luminaries and innovators will ultimately be remembered for having the greatest lasting effect on the world?
It's a tough question, especially when you consider the role that people like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg play in our everyday lives. But, if you ask renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the answer is simple: Elon Musk.
"As important as Steve Jobs was, no doubt about it — [and] you have to add him to Bill Gates, because they birthed the personal computing revolution kind of together — here's the difference: Elon Musk is trying to invent a future, not by providing the next app," deGrasse Tyson tells CNBC Make It about the Tesla and SpaceX CEO.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Now you see, NDGT, that’s why we can’t have nice things anymore.
Priorities and values have been turned upside down.
And you are just making it worse.
If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him...
Elon Musk is the most brilliant shyster ever.
Musk’s only achievement was recognizing that liberals are stupid enough to throw cubic tons of other people’s money down a rat hole in the pursuit of an unachievable utopia. And then capitalizing on it.
Neil has to be running a close second...
Neil deGrasse Tyson is not as cool and groovy as he thinks he is
Listening to the Luddites and “Holy Joes” on this forum, I am amazed that this country is making any progress at all!
SpaceX has reignited a sense of achievement and optimism in this country, but on this forum, people cannot wait to piss all over him.
But there is good reason to be skeptical about SpaceX’s track record, too. A closer examination of the company reveals that even its best known successes have been overstated. Given that its continued operations are sustained in large part from government subsidies, any predictions that Tesla’s success will mirror that of SpaceX should be taken with a grain of salt.
Though SpaceX has undoubtedly renewed public interest in space exploration, both the company and the media tend to overstate its accomplishments to date. Not mentioned in the triumphant pieces about the Falcon Heavy launch was the fact that Musk originally announced that it would take place in 2013 or 2014. Also conspicuously absent was Musk’s uncertainty about the viability of the launch; when asked, he joked that what would take place would either be “an exciting success or an exciting failure.” When the Falcon Heavy finally launched in February, after years of delays, columnists at both the Wall Street Journal and the American Thinker highlighted concerns that neither SpaceX nor the U.S. government would ever find much use for the rocket.
The successful Falcon Heavy launch was also enough to wipe the numerous SpaceX launch failures that preceded it from public memory. The Washington Post chronicled several of these incidents last year. In November 2017, a SpaceX engine exploded during a test at a Texas facility. Before that, in September 2016, a Falcon 9 exploded while on the launchpad during a test. And nearly a year before that, another Falcon 9 blew up just a few minutes after liftoff.
None of these incidents is damning on its own, but they do raise concerns when you consider that SpaceX is sustained by various forms of government favoritism. According to the L.A. Times, Tesla, SolarCity Corp., and SpaceX have benefited massively from government privileges, to the tune of $4.9 billion. But while Tesla and SolarCity are public and therefore regularly disclose their financials, SpaceX is privately held and thus under no obligation to report on its financial performance. Subsidies aside, SpaceX takes a substantial amount from its contracts with NASA and the U.S. Air Force, which are worth $5.5 billion.
Economists often point out that when companies are supported by taxpayer dollars, they are partially insulated from the costs of their failures. Because executives don’t bear the full risk of their ventures, they’re more likely to make decisions they might not otherwise make. It is entirely possible that the $20 million SpaceX received from Texas has led the company to pursue unprofitable ventures that in its absence would have seemed less attractive.
Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/elon_musk_and_spacex_wearing_out_their_welcome.html
Because he smokes dope while being interviewed maybe?
True.
Defense bills, like those related to agriculture and manufacturing, tend to be filled with special carve-outs and privileges for individual firms. The recently passed 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is no exception. Among its many provisions is one that effectively protects SpaceX, Elon Musk’s brainchild, from competition from other rocket-manufacturers.
The provision in question, Section 1603, requires the secretary of defense to submit written justification for utilizing “space launch services for which the use of reusable vehicles is not eligible.”
In other words, by introducing obstacles to the Pentagon’s future use of expendable rockets, Congress created for the military a default preference for reusable rockets. The problem? SpaceX is the sole domestic supplier of reusable rockets.
Given NASA’s track record with reusable rockets and SpaceX’s numerous budget and design issues, this preference isn’t justified. For Congress to make the most of this new layer of oversight, it should hold SpaceX to a much more exacting standard of quality and cost-effectiveness.
Though conceptually, reusable rockets are revolutionary, so far, their execution has been less than stellar, threatening both our national security and our budget. NASA’s partially reusable Space Shuttle was retired in 2011, but not before it delayed approximately 40% of its missions, ballooned costs by over 15,000 percent from original projections, and suffered two major disasters in which 14 astronauts died due to quality control failures.
So far, there is no reason to expect SpaceX’s reusable rockets to fare any better.
SpaceX has delayed rocket launches on several occasions. As one example, Falcon Heavy was intended to launch in 2013 or 2014, but the launch didn’t occur until February of this year.
SpaceX’s launches aren’t without their problems, either. In June 2015, after SpaceX received a $110-million contract, one of its Falcon rockets exploded while on a mission to resupply the International Space Station.
Then, in September 2016, after SpaceX received a $62-million grant from the government, the Falcon exploded and in the process destroyed a $205-million Facebook satellite. The explosion was likely caused by SpaceX’s dangerous “load and go” fueling strategy that some aerospace experts warn against – a strategy SpaceX uses to this day.
Several recent government audits of SpaceX raise additional concerns about the reliability of its rockets. In a December 2017 report, the Department of Defense inspector general found that SpaceX had 33 major unconformities – 50% more than its leading competitor....
Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/cronyism_in_orbit.html
Don’t agree whatsoever. Musk is the Henry Ford and Warnher von Braun of our time rolled up into one. None of what he’s doing is vaporware.
https://youtu.be/l5I8jaMsHYk
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/the-next-fifteen-years-with-spacex-mars-and-space.html
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/10/tesla-model-3-is-crushing-bmw-audi-and-mercedes-sales.html
BINGO !
Let me introduce to you the six BILLION dollar man.
Not until you personally see Zucks Data Center in Roenoke,TX.
Dumping my account for sure.
I preferred it when we hired the contractor firms to build stuff for us (NASA) rather than us subsidizing private companies so they can p’wn our “Space technology” and sell it to all nations.
I myself like Musk better.
Well said.
It’s jealousy and the perpetual free Republic scold
Musk is a visionary ...no question
Jobs and Gates dropped acid and they did ok
Hey Redleg,
I guess I can understand what you are saying. I mean, now we all know what a HORRIBLE human being Steve Jobs was (at least if you take into account how he treated people around him on a daily basis.... and that is just for starters).
And we also now realize how Harvey Weinstein was thoroughly brilliant in producing movies as he simultaneously acted like a selfish pig towards women (even though the vast majority of women who turned on him were more than willing to “sell” their bodies to get into movie roles, etc.).
So maybe Musk will prove to be more consequential than any of those other people - as he plays his PR game and looks for new ways to get money from the US gov’t and states and cities.
But to me the most consequential people in America are the ones who helped to get Trump elected as President.
You see, even though Trump is a “deeply flawed” person, that is true of all people.
But with Trump you get someone who is working for the good of America and Americans. I am not sure you can say the same about Musk, or Zuck, or Jobs, or Bezos
Yes, SpaceX has had test and launch failures, while NASA has an unblemished record of only success! s/
I am old enough to remember the constant stream of launch failures leading up to the first success by the Army. The Navy’s Vanguard constantly failed and the Army’s Explorer just worked.
NASA used to be a “Can-Do!” engineering organization. Now, it is a “Can’t-Do!” bureaucracy. SpaceX has put several well-deserved kicks in NASA’s kiester. Maybe they will finally turn away from Muslim Outreach and PC Diversity and get down to business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.