Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elon Musk is a total fraud
New York Post ^ | 7-21-2018 | Maureen Callahan

Posted on 07/21/2018 11:40:05 PM PDT by deek69

One disastrous tweet has finally revealed Elon Musk for what he is: a fraud.

Enraged that a British cave diver called his idea to rescue the Thai soccer team for what it was — “a p.r. stunt [with] absolutely no chance of working” — Musk took to Twitter and called him a “pedo.”

Just like that, Tesla’s market value plummeted by $2 billion.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: elonmusk; falcon9; falconheavy; homosexualagenda; maureencallahan; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkcompost; newyorkpost; spacex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 last
To: Moonman62
“Anyway, if you were confident in your position, you wouldn’t be taking personal shots at me.” Naw, that’s not it. You started it. And, it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. Besides, you’re kinda fun 😊
121 posted on 07/22/2018 5:04:52 PM PDT by snoringbear (W,E.oGovernment is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

That’s not how railroads got to the Mississippi at first. And again, the end result of land grants (not limited to railroads) was not a fascistic public-private arrangement but full privatization, something that Woodrow Wilson simply could not stand for (hence the creation of his USRA for example).

I will say in Musk’s favor that he is all for an end to subsidies.


122 posted on 07/22/2018 5:53:03 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ozark Tom

MBA? Nope.


123 posted on 07/22/2018 5:58:36 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (Hillary: Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect 2 trillion dollars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear

I am kinda fun.


124 posted on 07/22/2018 7:54:02 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Give a man a fish and he'll be a Democrat. Teach a man to fish and he'll be a responsible citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
What's really bothering that particular media liar?
There's a few other snarky things online -- some shill on CNBC complained that Musk shouldn't have released the quarterlies using Twitter, that it's grounds for his removal (sound familiar?). A teardown shows a crazy level of profitability due to cost control in the Model 3. And Tesla's been leasing parking lots of vacant plants and warehouses and such, and parking brand new Model 3s all over, mostly in remote areas, thousands of them. Once Tesla hits 20,000 sold in one year -- that'll be 2018 -- the $7500 fed incentive starts to phase out. My guess is, the company will ship most of its output to Canada, to fill those backorders first, then unleash in the US to correspond to the usual Big Three model year rollout.

125 posted on 07/22/2018 11:38:33 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

You people are insane. Delta clipper was pioneering but so too was the Falcon 9. Where is the delta clipper’s actuating titanium grid fins, designed to withstand the searing heat of re-entry and provide control authority at supersonic speeds as it descends back into the atmosphere after ejecting the second stage which is continuing on into orbit? Oh, it didn’t do all those things? Then I guess the Falcon 9 IS a new design and IS a major accomplishment. Just because other vehicles paved the way in various aspects does not mean the new vehicle is not a major accomplishment in its own right. The hatchet piece on SpaceX is unwarranted and an assault on US private sector innovation and efficiency. It goes against everything this forum is supposed to stand for.


126 posted on 07/26/2018 11:34:07 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

Use lots of lotion and shave palms regularly, pal.

I’ll send you a bill, too.


127 posted on 07/26/2018 12:31:17 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

“The US Air Force has announced a deal with SpaceX, Elon Musk’s rocket company, to fly three of the newest generation of Global Positioning System satellites into space, at an average cost of $97 million per flight.”
https://qz.com/1229463/elon-musks-spacex-wins-lucrative-new-contracts-to-fly-gps-and-earth-imaging-satellites-for-the-us-air-force/

That’s about half the cost of flying them on expendable ULA vehicles. You’re welcome for the savings.


128 posted on 07/26/2018 1:16:57 PM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

I know your type: Your enthusiasm for space technology is directly-proportional to the thickness of your rose-colored glasses. I bet you want us to go to Mars, too.

Go ahead and try to put words in my mouth, so-to-speak, as it shows more about you than I. You went straw man on me by shifting the argument to efficiency & competition. I never wrote one damned word about it. With that you conceded that your argument has no merit.

But I’ll bite: You want to talk efficiency? Alrighty then. Let’s talk about price per kilogram for cargo to ISS.

First, I would be the last one to dispute that NASA’s legacy manned spaceflight procurement model was grossly-inefficient for modern commercial launch needs - let alone that competition is a good thing - but the fact remains that Falcon 9 was not designed from the outset to be a reusable launcher and most of the technology was already developed before the Delta program’s cancellation.

You & I paid for the Falcon development - not Musk or his investors - an extension of the Delta program’s research & accomplishments. If this is truly to be a commercial venture, then you should certainly agree that it be financed with private $$, not public $$.

You lose.

Until SpaceX’s financials are public record, we will never know what sort of shell game Musk is playing and no one - certainly not you - is going to mute my critique of space programs, be they NASA, private or this new paradigm of public/private partnership.

From where I sit, much of the $$ spent on spaceflight fantasy & meeting commercial needs this century could be better spent. Had billions not been squandered upon renewable energy and subsidies, we might now have a next-gen battery, not this archaic chemical crap (lithium).

Furthermore, I believe that we could possibly see a breakthrough in physics in my lifetime...should $$ not continue to be squandered on frivolous programs (such as this spaceflight trifecta BS you refer to with “efficiency”, aka CSR2...a NASA move).

Insofar as your straw man “efficiency” the root numbers break down a contract for cost-per-kilogram of cargo under Commercial Resupply Services, the only way to equitably factor “efficiency”.

Here are the facts: The shuttle flew cargo for a per kg cost of just under $14k. The CRS contracts (CRS1) awarded in 2008 governed 93,800 kilograms of cargo to the ISS over 31 missions for a total cost of $5.93 billion; that’s over $63k/kg. CRS2 is worse: 87,900 kilograms to ISS on 21 missions for a projected cost of $6.31 billion, or almost $72k/kg. Even taking into consideration the reduced capacity of the shuttle’s Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, the cost/kg is still nearly 50% and NASA’s management of this program is driving up costs, not down.

You would be honest if you would just state that you’re a space tech junkie/cheerleader (and possibly a Musk megopolis shareholder), but perhaps now you’d like to elaborate on your cheap shot with facts in-hand.

Gaslighting is a favored tactic of the left, believing that they can have their cake & eat it too.

Eat it, buddy.


129 posted on 07/26/2018 7:16:27 PM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: logi_cal869

“but the fact remains that Falcon 9 was not designed from the outset to be a reusable launcher and most of the technology was already developed before the Delta program’s cancellation.”
That’s a complete lie. It was designed from the outset to be a reusable vehicle which is why the engines are capable of multiple restarts. The block 5 in particular is designed from the ground up to not only be reusable but also to incorporate everything learned by the previous iterations to maximize the ease of re-use. Those are lessons that NO ONE knew prior to its existence. SpaceX offers the cheapest price per kg which is why they are the most utilized company for getting to space now, by either commercial entities or our government. The commercial resupply program for ISS primarily paid for its development, but guess what? THE CONTRACT GIVEN TO RESUPPLY ISS USING DISPOSABLE ROCKETS AND A DISPOSABLE RESUPPLY VEHICLE COST MORE MONEY FOR FEWER MISSIONS!
“The first CRS contracts were signed in 2008 and awarded $1.6 billion to SpaceX for 12 cargo transport missions and $1.9 billion to Orbital Sciences for 8 missions”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services

Your math is fucked and dishonest; there have been only 15 CRS missions from SpaceX so far, the rest have been performed by Orbital Sciences using disposable vehicles. Dragon offers a maximum of 6000 kg of payload to orbit, whether NASA elects to use the full capacity or not. At 133 million per mission / 6000 kg = about 22k per kg to orbit for the full contract if the full capacity were utilized. The shuttle was far more expensive than you claim, 60k per kg to orbit on average over the course of its lifetime, on par with your stated numbers for the cost of payload to orbit under CRS.
“When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

Lately, the extensions to these contracts to SpaceX average about 140 million a mission:
“NASA has awarded five additional space station cargo-supply missions to SpaceX in a late-December contract with an undisclosed value that industry officials estimate at around $700 million.”
https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-5-new-space-station-cargo-missions-in-nasa-contract-estimated-at-700-million/
If NASA elects to use the full payload capacity of Dragon on each of those missions, that will equal a price of about 4.6k per kg to orbit. Even if they only use half the capacity of Dragon they will be at 9.2k per kg, far lower than shuttle.

So again, you’re welcome for the savings. There was no strawman there. Suck on it.


130 posted on 07/27/2018 4:41:44 AM PDT by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: messierhunter

You took the bait.

I’ll let you gel on that for a day until I have time to tear you a new one.


131 posted on 07/27/2018 8:57:53 AM PDT by logi_cal869 (-cynicus-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson