Top products from r/EnoughMuskSpam

I'll commend the added effort on this one and give it another once-over.

>Before the DC-X, nobody believed rockets could land themselves with precision and reliability.

I will have to mark this one with a big fat [citation needed]. Although I can't quite speak for the folks who worked rockets in the 90's, in principle I see little reason why seasoned experts would be inclined to think of the task as impossible. Intriguing perhaps, difficult certainly, but the problems involved in that kind of landing functionality are well-defined in the propulsion and control theory literature from which a solution must be derived.

What the DC-X provides is an important proof of concept - I see little benefit in trying to analyze how useful that design is relative to any other given one. Although, as a point perhaps of historical interest: there was a "Delta Clipper" full-size vehicle in the plans as a follow-on to the DC-X, with some rather familiar promises of low-cost access to space and large savings through reusability. Some things are just posters, some things become prototypes, and some things end up as something more - that's the reality of aerospace designs if not engineering designs in general. I do have to say that based on the studies I've seen from the 90's, shelving the Delta Clipper concept was definitely the correct decision at that time.

>At this point, reuse was likely not saving over a couple million per launch, as pre-B5 boosters were not optimized for reuse.

I would like to draw attention to a pattern of thought I've coined "the refinement fallacy." That is, the general assumption that the next version will iterate away the relatively fundamental problems with this one. Although the next version could certainly support improvements, it's easy to assume that such improvements will lead to radically different performance even when there is little evidence to support that that is the case. Bottom line: improvements and refinements do not by default resolve fundamental problems.

For the next segment, I'd like to start by collecting a couple of questionable assertions:

1.

>Musk said that reuse was 50% cheaper, however, by the end of this, it would likely be more accurate that the final pre-B5 reuse only saved up to 30%, and that was the expectation from B5.

2.

>Block 5 is the final version of Falcon 9. It is reportedly built for 10 flights with minimal refurbishment and 100 flights over its lifetime, although there is speculation that B5 will be used through 200-300 launches IF Starlink becomes a thing.

3.

>All of these help improve rapid reusability and the amount of times a booster can be used. it is likely only now, when B5 is being mass-produced (in rocket terms) and reuse is down that reuse of the booster can create cost saving with reuse being worthwhile. This is also the point where that 50% savings over making a new one can be reached, which would probably give up to 25% total cost reduction (this takes into account the costs of maintaining and using the ships and their respective equipment).

The problem with each of these claims is largely the source material: not what the average individual would describe as credible. The first and third claims seem relatively tame on their face - statements of economics and of the efficiency of a certain project. The second one is significantly more absurd - one that couples absurdly optimistic performance assumptions with associated claims of economies of scale. Generally, it's easy to make anything seem feasible if you take highly optimistic assumptions about future growth and best-case performance, and that can honestly be somewhat meaningless.

In truth, we have a credibility problem to address here. We don't have detailed financial information about a private company's business, so we have to look at the evidence we do have:

1. Significant economic benefit is claimed. It's not a bad first-order assumption to take such claims at face value, although it might not be a bad idea to have some degree of skepticism, especially if the company in question is known for hyperbole and showmanship.
   
   
2. Known financial results do not paint a particularly flattering picture. Incomplete a metric though this may be, very large and important efficiency gains would generally lead to a very healthy bottom line. This doesn't seem to really be the case at the moment.
   
   
3. Studies from other individuals external to the claimant on the viability of the approach. Although there is some contention here, the external studies largely seem to be far more reserved in their claims on economic benefit. Though individually there is some question of credibility, when many parties independently reach the same conclusion it might beg the question of, why? Although it is far from proof, multiple experts corroborating the same story do make a case.
   
   The lack of verifiable numbers, and the consistent rightward shift of the "next iteration will wave a magic wand and erase the problems" mentality is a key facet of the refinement fallacy approach to these topics. Although there is not exactly hard proof available one way or the other (which does leave lots of leeway for speculation), the partial evidence provided does provide sufficient room to warrant significant skepticism.
   
   >A common rebuttal to reuse and SpaceX making money is that ULA makes way more profits than SpaceX. While true, this statement does not take into account the lower prices that SpaceX offers compared to ULA and where that money is going.
   
   What is perhaps more meaningful here is the matter of structural profitability. Generally, more budget services do make a smaller per-unit profit than the more expensive units; the former makes up for the difference in volume. But more meaningful is the more fundamental factors: is the business, including its forward-looking development plans, funded primarily by its operating profits, or by an influx of external capital? Investment is always a staple of large capital expenditures, but there is a massive difference between supplementing a healthy business profit with some external cash for faster development and relying on that money to just keep on top of the current batch of tasks without clearly achievable milestones to turn the trend around (often depending instead on pie-in-the-sky promises of grand successes). One may ask, which do we actually see here?
   
   >Currently, SpaceX is the only launch provider with commercially viable reusable launch vehicles. But it won't be that way much further into the 2020s. Future competitors include: Blue Origin's New Glenn, ULA's Vulcan-Centuar, and possibly China and India.
   
   Launch vehicle reusability has been a long-pursued topic in well-developed space programs all over the world. That has been the case for many decades, it will continue to be the case for years to come. However, two things become quickly clear:
   
   
4. It doesn't mean that it will prove to be a value-added pursuit; they could just as well explore that option until it becomes clear that the benefits are not sufficient to implement it further.
   
   
5. It doesn't mean that the task is a priority; research and opportunities for potential improvement that may only materialize years or decades into the future are staples of the R&D core of space, but it's no guarantee that any certain approach matters sufficiently to emphasize it right now. For example - the detachable engine idea had long been theorized and explored in detail, and may even prove to be viable, but is a far lesser concern than many more immediate factors of rocket design.
   
   Bold claims about a radically different future generally are far too presumptuous, assuming a world of highly optimistic possibilities without sufficiently considering the more immediate (and generally more mundane) economic and political conditions under which they operate. Again, some things end up as just proposals or prototypes, some things become something more; what a different world we would live in if all the promises of the past decades came true. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
   
   Sources
   
   Just me, but I do have a book recommendation: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics - a fairly elementary, but highly informative, book on the principles of orbital mechanics. Great both for learning the basics at an engineering (as opposed to hobbyist) level, and as a reference if you happen to work with the stuff on a daily basis.

I like your comment. Fair enough. The main reason is a certain frustration due to reading incorrect claims that people repeat because they heard it before, but spent absolutely zero time validating.

I've had a few chats where I tried to educate and share but realized the other person never really researched it much and just kept repeating the same common myths over and over again. "It's a ponzi" "Tulips" "Miners control it" "Same as any other coin" "too slow for coffee" "Criminals" etc, etc without the slightest interest in putting some time to check the facts.

Now and then, someone appears and really wants to learn, which can be satisfying. I'm still learning a lot and also dismissed it as nonsense years ago (wasted time), but at least never claimed to be sure before researching - it was more of a "Meeehhh don't think so, seems nonsense" and that was it. it's fine to be skeptical, I am too, but I don't think it is fine to dismiss things so publicly with these claims, without putting any time into validating them. That is noise. Fake news.


Of course it doesn't help that the "Crypto" scene is full of scams and absolute nonsense. I'm not into "crypto" or "blockchain" in general anymore because with time I realized only BTC (the oldest, longest original chain) was worth taking seriously. All the other tokens/shitcoins are an absolute waste of resources in almost all cases.

If you're curious, I'd recommend checking out these three sources for a start, as they are technically competent and legit:


-Saifedean Ammous' book (mostly about money, but also partially about BTC)

-Andreas Antonopolous videos (half are technical, the rest a bit higher level)

-Jameson Lopp's list of resources (a mix of content)

The learning curve is steep, but very rewarding. After just a bit you won't be producing these posts anymore because they won't feel accurate. That doesn't mean BTC is flawless or guaranteed to succeed, it's still highly experimental, but certainly not the nonsense some claim it to be before looking into it.

Hey Ben! Thanks for taking interest in me, but I know where this is going to go so I'll leave you after that :)

I haven't taken an interest in you. The reverse is true.

Before I go, a small point. Please, stop with your grammar nazi act.

Nazi should be capitalized. It's a noun and and the Germans capitalize all their nouns.

You should know that this is the surest way of looking like you are loosing any argument online.

""Loosing? Losing. You certainly just lost this argument. And I've never lost an argument on Reddit.

Especially when your own writing style is far from flawless (for example: you make a remark about good punctuation separating one from the mongrel races while not using the Oxford comma in that sentence? WTF I say, lol).

Oxford comma is optional. I've never liked it or used it, so I don't. It's not a hard and fast rule. It's style.

Enjoy the rest of your sad day!

Today I am looking for 14 modern Malibu girls to recreate this photo that is on the cover of a Malibu book I did.

https://www.amazon.com/Malibu-Images-America-Ben-Marcus/dp/073857614X

The same publisher wants me to do Malibu: Past and Present, which is modern angles of vintage photos.

That's not a sad day, looser. That's a fun day, and tomorrow's Sunday.**

Haha. I can agree with you on all that. I have no idea what the initial Series A split was, but I agree with your percentages on principle.

I also agree with your other comment that Elon should have been told no. I just hate to see Eberhard get such bad treatment by Muskies whenever Tesla wouldn't exist without him either. I don't recall Elon publicly stating an intention to build an electric car prior to his involvement with Eberhard and Tarpenning, but if you know anything about that I'd honestly like to know. [I haven't read any books on Tesla or Elon, but I did enjoy "Steve Jobs & The NeXT Big Thing" when I read it 20 years ago]

There's lots of articles about how Elon wanted to make "the fundamental change to clean energy" from say 2006 onward, but try to find any public statement or interview of Elon prior to January 2004 that mentions an electric car. I tried using Google Search + Tools with a custom date range, but I haven't found anything so far.

I do believe Elon deserves credit were it's due.

Because people pay me to write and people tell me I'm good at it.

Some very famous people, in fact.

People love this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Malibu-Images-America-Ben-Marcus/dp/073857614X

I did a book signing at Malibu and met a lot of people whose work I like: Minnie Driver, James Remar, Steven Spielberg, Sting, Katharine Ross, Leonard Maltin - all because of a silly little history book.

26 books are not by chance.

This one was translated into French and the publisher didn't even tell me:

https://www.amazon.com/Skateboard-Ben-Marcus-ebook/dp/B0055Q6DEQ

This guy reviewed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEs3SPy0bKk

It was nominated for Sports Book of the Year by the Sportel Awards in France.

A book I didn't know had my name on it.

They were going to fly me to Monaco and put me up in the Monte Carlo Bay Hotel, but I was in Hawaii and it was too far - 24 hours on a plane for one night in a hotel.

I probably wouldn't have gone anyway. so I sent the photographer. Lucia, who was in France.

She went with her dad, who was in Venice.

We didn't win.

A pity, because I could have used the 3000 Euro prize.

All of that suggests to me I know what I'm doing.

Having a book translated into French I didn't even know about.

And I had another one translated into German.

Meanwhile, you haven't produced anything.

Except mucus, methane, moaning and carbon dioxide.

You just hide behind avatars and whine at the world.

If you ever do anything remotely that interesting, you let the world know, will you?

There's a great biography of Claude Shannon for those interested in further reading. It's called A Mind at Play.

You're not Norwegian. Norwegians are intelligent and polite and well-mannered

Or maybe you let America turn you into a crass Rompehull.

The Hiltons are Norwegian. They're good people.

The nicest billionaires I've met. And I've met quite a few: OS, AVF, SMac, etc.

Steve and Dave Hilton helped me with the skateboard book. The part about Hobie making a deal with VitaPakt Orange Juice in the 1960s, which was owned by Barron Hilton.

https://www.amazon.com/Skateboard-Good-Gnarly-Illustrated-History/dp/0760338051

This is the book that got translated into French - without me knowing it - and they were going to fly me to Monaco for the Sportel Awards Sports Book of the Year Award in 2017, I think it was.

https://www.amazon.com/Skateboard-rue-rampe-Ben-Marcus/dp/2366025408

But I was in Hawaii, so I sent Lucia instead, because she was in Hossegor with her dad and she shot all the portraits for the book.

Can't believe I didn't accept a free trip to Monaco, but Honolulu to Monaco would have been a 24-hour flight for a one-day stay.

Lucia worked hard on that book, so she earned it.

Ellon's just a big fan of Kim Stanley Robinson.

https://www.amazon.ca/ION-Cassette-Adapter-Bluetooth-Receiver/dp/B00I3YLHAC yeah exactly

Here, read this: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Business-America-ebook/dp/B004X2IJ72

Too late to copywrite it...

https://www.amazon.com/Elon-Musk-SpaceX-Fantastic-Future/dp/006230125X

I guess
https://www.amazon.com/Steve-Jobs-Computer-Internet-Biographies/dp/0766019705
http://broadsideonline.com/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-occupy-wall-street-and-the-virtues-of-capitalism-4041/

Boy have I got the shitty book for you

Ten years before Elon Musk gave his rant about "the machine that builds the machine" toyota literally wrote the book on manufactering.
They created "The machine that changed the world"
It is the machine that builds the machine.

Tesla is not a leader in the automotive world, they are a lagger.
An overly expensive one at that.

Take a stroll over to Tesla Motors Forums and notice that they all have to wait months for simple repairs.
And Tesla just keeps saying we are young we will get better.... for TEN YEARS NOW.

>Don't you get it? You're demanding what no other company claimed or achieved.

What on earth are you yammering about now?
The chevy bolt is a fine electric vehicle for inner city driving.
And it don't cost 100K

>But I realize, maybe this is the wrong sub to call for realism

Like getting you to realize they don't know how to produce cars.

> I receive downvotes

I never downvote anyone, just argue with them while playing video games

No no I will not. Your sub could be called John Maynard Keynes for all I care, but if that sub is advocating austerity during a recession it is does not fit the definition Keynesian economics. Your sub and people of your following who identify as "neo-liberals" have co-opted an economic term. That is why the books written on the subject feature such famous political figures as Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

You know my personal reasoning, why things didn't went "2001 - A Space Odyssey" after Apollo.

Aldrin has my sympathy, but he (like many others) sadly don't get that this "gap" since Apollo, never has been an "anomaly", as they believed.

It's been almost 50 years now.

To quote from Stephen Baxter's "Moonseed".

>"In a way Apollo fooled us. Apollo wasn’t a lunar exploration system. All Apollo could do was deliver two guys to a place on the near side of the Moon, not too far from the equator, for three days, at a certain time in the lunar morning. And that was it, and even for that you had to fire off a Saturn V every time. There was no real expansion capability, no logical follow-on.”

And please don't come with "But.. NERVA". NERVA never flew. The successful ground tests didn't proof, that this tech would also work as believed in space.

Heck, just watch this new video put out by Thunderf00t, where he also talks about Apollo and that actually EVERY Apollo mission had a defect, that could have lead to a potential lethal incident. And it almost happend with Apollo 13. And according a book, i have once read, lots of NASA managers were actually secretly glad that the program was ended, before a real lethal incent would have happend. They knew that they had reasoned the technical limits of their time.