It’s really sad because prior to being acquired by Musk the company was actually doing something really interesting and disrupting an industry badly in need of a shakeup. Then muskrat comes in, ousts the founder, steals the credit, and proceeds to fuck everything up.
So far Space-X has managed to avoid Musk screwing things up, I guess actual rocket science is too technical for Musk to micromanage it to death. In a perfect world they would manage to oust him from the company completely and continue doing good work, but I guess we’ll see how it turns out. Hopefully when Musk gets tired of breaking his new toy over at Twitter he finds something else to fuck up and doesn’t head back to Space-X.
I guess I disagree with the premise that we needed the shakeup. Plug in hybrids were already a thing that multiple manufacturers were migrating to.
Instead, the idea became full electric or bust but also that you need massive capacity to go anywhere and do forth.
We’ll never truly know but I am of the opinion that all Tesla did was prevent widespread adoption of hybrids while increasing battery anxiety. And we are probably within a few years of the switch to full battery electric anyway.
And SpaceX has led to a cult that hate the space shuttle (and other space planes) for the wrong reasons (and there were plenty of right ones to choose from…). And the concept of reusable rockets have most of the same issues that the shuttle did. All while poaching talent from NASA
I guess I disagree with the premise that we needed the shakeup. Plug in hybrids were already a thing that multiple manufacturers were migrating to.
Hybrids have always been a terrible half step. They’re better than a non-electric in terms of pollution but that’s literally the only metric that they’re superior on. You have all the expense and problems of a battery pack that has a limited lifetime, plus all the complications, maintenance, failure points, and pollution of ICE. It’s all the advantages AND disadvantages of both, which considering that the advantages of one tend to be the disadvantages of the other means they cancel out and you end up with something that’s in many ways worse than either approach on its own.
Instead, the idea became full electric or bust but also that you need massive capacity to go anywhere and do forth.
That’s a VERY important step in convincing Americans to adopt electric vehicles. The biggest argument against full electric vehicles for most Americans has always been one of limited range (followed by long recharge times, and then the expense of replacing old batteries). While the vast majority of people rarely drive more than 100 miles in any given day, that’s certainly not guaranteed and there are plenty of people that either occasionally or even regularly travel 200, 300, or even farther. You’re never going to convince one of those people that they’re going to be OK owning a vehicle that can only go 100 miles on a charge, nevermind something anemic like the Leaf that could barely manage 70 even on a brand new battery. My own daily commute to and from work is just shy of 70 miles round trip (and my employer definitely does not offer charging at the office).
And SpaceX has led to a cult that hate the space shuttle (and other space planes) for the wrong reasons (and there were plenty of right ones to choose from…). And the concept of reusable rockets have most of the same issues that the shuttle did. All while poaching talent from NASA
Now this is an interesting perspective. I guess I’ve not personally seen any hate for the space shuttle, although I do know of some of the people that Musk has pulled in from his orbit that believe any government organization is inherently inferior to a private sector one (something I vehemently disagree with). Long term non-reusable rockets are just too expensive and time consuming to support a healthy and productive space based infrastructure and industry. We need reusable rockets, but even those are a stopgap. Even longer term we need to come up with some more advanced launch mechanism, perhaps shuttles launched from rail guns or something similar. It would be very cool to get space elevators working, but the materials science for something like that just doesn’t exist in any way shape or form today, so who knows if that will take decades, centuries, or even longer to develop if it’s even possible at all.
More to the point though, Space-X along with Boeing and yes even NASA has kicked off competition in the space industry we haven’t seen in decades, something that was desperately needed. NASA was always there plodding along doing science and steadily improving, but they’re a very conservative risk averse organization (although some of the things they’ve managed to pull off with essentially shoestring budgets recently are quite impressive). For an organization responsible for the lives of people that’s a very good thing, but it puts a real damper on rapid innovation. As long as they’re only risking payloads and not people we need organizations that are willing to try risky things, and for better or worse that’s not NASA.
Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
As for plug-in being a half measure? They completely are. But it still would have reduced pollution and get people to understand range.
The Tesla propaganda on range being the worst part. I like the ioniq5 because it means I would recharge most of a battery on a full day of road trip. That means plugging it in while I get lunch and maybe take a piss and stretch my legs around 2 or 3. Which is not at all dissimilar from an ice. But Tesla sells big batteries and supercharger!
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
While I do not doubt there’s a certain amount of lobbying involved, it’s also in the nature of being a public agency. NASA is tax payer funded which means that it’s successes and more importantly for this discussion failures are potential ammunition to be used by politicians. If NASA pulls off some mission that leads to a breakthrough discovery you better believe any politician that voted in favor of increasing their budget recently is going to take the opportunity to try to steal credit for that hard work. Conversely though that also means any significant failures are potential ammunition their rivals can use against them with attack ads accusing them of frivolously wasting tax payer dollars. All that means that NASA can’t really afford to be blowing up billions of dollars worth of rockets unless there’s a lot of public support for that mission. The very nature of what NASA does means that their failures are very public, while their successes are really only known about in the scientific community unless they spend a lot of money on publicity to rope in media coverage.
The early days of NASA were the perfect set of circumstances, there was a lot of public fear over the USSR getting the ultimate high ground and a strategic advantage over the US so there was a lot of public will for getting access to space. Importantly most of that will extended not to the science involved or the commercial opportunities, but to the ability to project military strength through space. This unfortunately lead to a lot of compromises that damaged the scientific mission of NASA (the shuttle itself was in fact a bit of a boondoggle because of the air force involvement with its development, not because shuttles are bad, but because the air force insisted on certain design criteria for their own needs that ran counter to the scientific mission of NASA). While the cold war was still in full swing, there was still public support for NASA, even though it was somewhat tepid. With the end of the cold war, space access became primarily a commercial concern and shuttle launches had become common place to the point where outside of the unfortunate tragedies most people stopped paying attention to them entirely. Public support of NASA thus hit an all time low making slashing its budget for political reasons, or at the urge of lobbyists for their own goals an easy thing for politicians to do. With dwindling budgets NASA became even more concerned with stretching the dollars they were getting, the very last thing they wanted to be seen to be doing is “wasting” money on risky projects that could result in lost spacecraft.
The very fact that lobbyists can influence the budget of NASA is why they need to be conservative, they absolutely must manage their public image as public outcry at attempts to cut their budget is the only weapon they have to combat those lobbyists.
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
To a certain extent this is true, but you also need to consider that not everyone will be able to charge when away from home. That’s changing, but back when Tesla and the other early electric vehicles first hit the market it was somewhat rare to see public charging stations. You have to remember that for most people a car is a significant purchase, it’s the sort of thing they buy once a decade and need to be able to handle all their needs both expected and unexpected. As such they don’t necessarily make the decision based on what they actually need now, or are even likely to need in the future, but instead of what they imagine they might conceivably need. It’s that fear that leads to range anxiety. In many ways it’s more like a range phobia, because it is in many ways an irrational fear, but it exists nonetheless.
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
Also, no doubt true, but also kind of irrelevant in some ways. It’s an excellent argument to make for why longer ranges are irrelevant, but it’s not something most people think about. I know the handful of times I’ve done long road trips I didn’t rent a car for it. I probably should have, but I didn’t. Most people don’t factor in wear and tear on the cost of a trip, only gas and time. Adding in rental fees on top of that is going to look like a net loss even if ultimately you come out slightly ahead that way.
You are literally regurgitating the propaganda that led to this narrative.
Private sector alternatives don’t grow their staff out of nothing. They come from the government agencies. They are trained by those. They don’t become smarter or better at their job once their paycheck triples.
Instead, they are finally allowed to do their job. Because you learn fast that anything too novel will be killed by an upper level manager who drives a really nice car. Or the middle manager who wants that job. And, in the best cases, someone at the competition will suddenly have the same idea
Because politicians are Teflon. If government lab a or company b fucked up, someone else pays. If they succeed? American ingenuity so vote for him.
It’s really sad because prior to being acquired by Musk the company was actually doing something really interesting and disrupting an industry badly in need of a shakeup. Then muskrat comes in, ousts the founder, steals the credit, and proceeds to fuck everything up.
So far Space-X has managed to avoid Musk screwing things up, I guess actual rocket science is too technical for Musk to micromanage it to death. In a perfect world they would manage to oust him from the company completely and continue doing good work, but I guess we’ll see how it turns out. Hopefully when Musk gets tired of breaking his new toy over at Twitter he finds something else to fuck up and doesn’t head back to Space-X.
I guess I disagree with the premise that we needed the shakeup. Plug in hybrids were already a thing that multiple manufacturers were migrating to.
Instead, the idea became full electric or bust but also that you need massive capacity to go anywhere and do forth.
We’ll never truly know but I am of the opinion that all Tesla did was prevent widespread adoption of hybrids while increasing battery anxiety. And we are probably within a few years of the switch to full battery electric anyway.
And SpaceX has led to a cult that hate the space shuttle (and other space planes) for the wrong reasons (and there were plenty of right ones to choose from…). And the concept of reusable rockets have most of the same issues that the shuttle did. All while poaching talent from NASA
Hybrids have always been a terrible half step. They’re better than a non-electric in terms of pollution but that’s literally the only metric that they’re superior on. You have all the expense and problems of a battery pack that has a limited lifetime, plus all the complications, maintenance, failure points, and pollution of ICE. It’s all the advantages AND disadvantages of both, which considering that the advantages of one tend to be the disadvantages of the other means they cancel out and you end up with something that’s in many ways worse than either approach on its own.
That’s a VERY important step in convincing Americans to adopt electric vehicles. The biggest argument against full electric vehicles for most Americans has always been one of limited range (followed by long recharge times, and then the expense of replacing old batteries). While the vast majority of people rarely drive more than 100 miles in any given day, that’s certainly not guaranteed and there are plenty of people that either occasionally or even regularly travel 200, 300, or even farther. You’re never going to convince one of those people that they’re going to be OK owning a vehicle that can only go 100 miles on a charge, nevermind something anemic like the Leaf that could barely manage 70 even on a brand new battery. My own daily commute to and from work is just shy of 70 miles round trip (and my employer definitely does not offer charging at the office).
Now this is an interesting perspective. I guess I’ve not personally seen any hate for the space shuttle, although I do know of some of the people that Musk has pulled in from his orbit that believe any government organization is inherently inferior to a private sector one (something I vehemently disagree with). Long term non-reusable rockets are just too expensive and time consuming to support a healthy and productive space based infrastructure and industry. We need reusable rockets, but even those are a stopgap. Even longer term we need to come up with some more advanced launch mechanism, perhaps shuttles launched from rail guns or something similar. It would be very cool to get space elevators working, but the materials science for something like that just doesn’t exist in any way shape or form today, so who knows if that will take decades, centuries, or even longer to develop if it’s even possible at all.
More to the point though, Space-X along with Boeing and yes even NASA has kicked off competition in the space industry we haven’t seen in decades, something that was desperately needed. NASA was always there plodding along doing science and steadily improving, but they’re a very conservative risk averse organization (although some of the things they’ve managed to pull off with essentially shoestring budgets recently are quite impressive). For an organization responsible for the lives of people that’s a very good thing, but it puts a real damper on rapid innovation. As long as they’re only risking payloads and not people we need organizations that are willing to try risky things, and for better or worse that’s not NASA.
I used to do government work.
Almost all of the “slow moving government agency” nonsense is a direct result of lobbyists associated with the private sector.
NASA stagnation is very much a function of lobbying to make private sector space travel the not option. It predated musk. He just took advantage once Russia wouldn’t sell him an icbm
As for plug-in being a half measure? They completely are. But it still would have reduced pollution and get people to understand range.
The Tesla propaganda on range being the worst part. I like the ioniq5 because it means I would recharge most of a battery on a full day of road trip. That means plugging it in while I get lunch and maybe take a piss and stretch my legs around 2 or 3. Which is not at all dissimilar from an ice. But Tesla sells big batteries and supercharger!
Day to day? Charge is irrelevant if I don’t spend the night somewhere or can charge at the office
And the other aspect people don’t understand: road trips are actually really expensive. They put significant wear on a vehicle and, if you can afford the upfront, it is almost always cheaper to rent. Weird as it is
While I do not doubt there’s a certain amount of lobbying involved, it’s also in the nature of being a public agency. NASA is tax payer funded which means that it’s successes and more importantly for this discussion failures are potential ammunition to be used by politicians. If NASA pulls off some mission that leads to a breakthrough discovery you better believe any politician that voted in favor of increasing their budget recently is going to take the opportunity to try to steal credit for that hard work. Conversely though that also means any significant failures are potential ammunition their rivals can use against them with attack ads accusing them of frivolously wasting tax payer dollars. All that means that NASA can’t really afford to be blowing up billions of dollars worth of rockets unless there’s a lot of public support for that mission. The very nature of what NASA does means that their failures are very public, while their successes are really only known about in the scientific community unless they spend a lot of money on publicity to rope in media coverage.
The early days of NASA were the perfect set of circumstances, there was a lot of public fear over the USSR getting the ultimate high ground and a strategic advantage over the US so there was a lot of public will for getting access to space. Importantly most of that will extended not to the science involved or the commercial opportunities, but to the ability to project military strength through space. This unfortunately lead to a lot of compromises that damaged the scientific mission of NASA (the shuttle itself was in fact a bit of a boondoggle because of the air force involvement with its development, not because shuttles are bad, but because the air force insisted on certain design criteria for their own needs that ran counter to the scientific mission of NASA). While the cold war was still in full swing, there was still public support for NASA, even though it was somewhat tepid. With the end of the cold war, space access became primarily a commercial concern and shuttle launches had become common place to the point where outside of the unfortunate tragedies most people stopped paying attention to them entirely. Public support of NASA thus hit an all time low making slashing its budget for political reasons, or at the urge of lobbyists for their own goals an easy thing for politicians to do. With dwindling budgets NASA became even more concerned with stretching the dollars they were getting, the very last thing they wanted to be seen to be doing is “wasting” money on risky projects that could result in lost spacecraft.
The very fact that lobbyists can influence the budget of NASA is why they need to be conservative, they absolutely must manage their public image as public outcry at attempts to cut their budget is the only weapon they have to combat those lobbyists.
To a certain extent this is true, but you also need to consider that not everyone will be able to charge when away from home. That’s changing, but back when Tesla and the other early electric vehicles first hit the market it was somewhat rare to see public charging stations. You have to remember that for most people a car is a significant purchase, it’s the sort of thing they buy once a decade and need to be able to handle all their needs both expected and unexpected. As such they don’t necessarily make the decision based on what they actually need now, or are even likely to need in the future, but instead of what they imagine they might conceivably need. It’s that fear that leads to range anxiety. In many ways it’s more like a range phobia, because it is in many ways an irrational fear, but it exists nonetheless.
Also, no doubt true, but also kind of irrelevant in some ways. It’s an excellent argument to make for why longer ranges are irrelevant, but it’s not something most people think about. I know the handful of times I’ve done long road trips I didn’t rent a car for it. I probably should have, but I didn’t. Most people don’t factor in wear and tear on the cost of a trip, only gas and time. Adding in rental fees on top of that is going to look like a net loss even if ultimately you come out slightly ahead that way.
You are literally regurgitating the propaganda that led to this narrative.
Private sector alternatives don’t grow their staff out of nothing. They come from the government agencies. They are trained by those. They don’t become smarter or better at their job once their paycheck triples.
Instead, they are finally allowed to do their job. Because you learn fast that anything too novel will be killed by an upper level manager who drives a really nice car. Or the middle manager who wants that job. And, in the best cases, someone at the competition will suddenly have the same idea
Because politicians are Teflon. If government lab a or company b fucked up, someone else pays. If they succeed? American ingenuity so vote for him.
And this is intentional.
The railroads have been using hybrid locomotives for decades. I don’t think they’re as fragile as you think.