Elon Musk teases Mars breakthroughs as Starship design radically changes [video] | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk teases Mars breakthroughs as Starship design radically changes [video]

teslarati.com

65 pointsevo_937 comments

Open articleView on HN

A lot of haters here, while Space X is launching rockets on rockets and selling Tesla like hot cakes.

If the design changed radically, it did change radically, I guess we'll again be amazed when it'll be revealed.

Being good at marketing is essential for keeping people interested in space exploration in those dark times.

I'm sometime very tired of the pessimist sentiment here.

> Being good at marketing is essential

This claim is dubious. That you can sell people space exploration by hyping it up.

It does not show in money, or people going to STEM field. It probably increases interest for scifi books or videos.

> I'm sometime very tired of the pessimist sentiment here.

You want to be inspired/entertained as a consumer. People who must be constantly emotionally propped and mentally supported are not the ones who are willing to go and work toward Mars.

Damn, of course I'm a consumer of space. I would not even be half that interested on how to actually go on Mars if it was not for Space X.

You know, research money is not coming from nowhere, you have to actually advertise what you're doing in order to get money. I even bet the the bigger the crowd is, the more money you can raise.

You know, if the public opinion is favorable to what you're doing, it get a lot easier to actually do it.

> It does not show in money, or people going to STEM field

Anecdotally, I know many a kid who has taken an interest in space and rocketry after watching a SpaceX launch.

What empirical data have you to show that there is no correlation between space awareness (whether by Musk or anyone else) and STEM enrollment?

> Anecdotally, I know many a kid who has taken an interest in space and rocketry

I was personally inspired to go to physics partially because of my love of sci-fi and all space related. That's completely orthogonal to the skeptical sentiment or lack of moon landings in my lifetime.

Real "space awarenes" comes with facts, not with hype. You can drive only so much motivation from outside.

And the facts, as stated in this article, are that the Starship design has changed, which you seem to conflate with marketing. So which is it.

I was not discussing the article.

It's the frequent meta comments like dimillian above about "hate" and "negativity" that I find negative and harmful. They try to steer the tone of discussion to direction that the commentator feel more comfortable with.

Wanting protect feelings from getting hurt even in discussions related to technology and science are absurd.

'Say only positive things or the fragile Mars mission will collapse.'

Right but to be able to absorb facts you first need to be excited. Like all the efforts for more kids/blacks/women in STEM/programming don't start with "this is a variable, the program will crash if you add a boolean to a string" but instead start with flashy things like games or robots or large salaries to get them excited and interested first.

> selling Tesla like hot cakes

That would be great if they could make enough of them to deliver to the people who bought one.

I think what you mean is "make enough of them to deliver to people who paid $1000 to reserve a place in line"

It shouldn't be that hard for people to understand that Musk has enemies in the most wealthy and powerful industries on Earth in automobiles, oil, and aerospace, and as such, creating a negative impression of him through astroturfing on social media and forums is a given. While he and his companies have flaws, the negativity is vastly out of proportion, and most either have an agenda or are unwittingly parroting those that have an agenda.

And yet Musk has repeatedly overpromised and underdelivered on self-driving functionality for Tesla. He aims high and while Tesla has delivered spectacularly on the dream of a viable electric car, it's so far failed at the promise of a self-driving computerized chauffeur. But why would it? The two problem sets are wildly different, and there's no reason that success in one implies success for the other.

Likewise, SpaceX has done some amazing things so far for private launches and the promise of reusability. But that doesn't imply that they are going to be able to solve the challenges required to get people to Mars. That's a wildly different problem set.

Not sure what you are implying. Should companies only work on scaling problems they've already solved?

It'll probably change several more times before something actually gets constructed.

I hear that SpaceX has some excellent simulations for their rocket design process. These constant changes preceding actual production are probably their engineers refining designs in simulation before putting anything on the pad. Usually you don't see this process at other companies (they do it behind closed doors.)

SpaceX does really seem to enjoy hyping up their fans so we get to see a lot of their early iterations. Here's hoping there isn't some huge limitation that is slowing down the "Spaceship" showing up in simulations.

No actual data other than "What exactly those breakthroughs could be is entirely unclear."

An Elon company exaggerating their current progress?

Say it aint so!

I liked Elon about 3 years ago before we found out he was a master Marketer. I feel played.

Ya, it is really sad that nothing positive ever came out of Space X or Tesla.

> I liked Elon about 3 years ago before we found out he was a master Marketer. I feel played.

What’s wrong with him being a master marketer?

He doesn't really do much of the things he markets. He frequently makes a big announcement for something huge in 1-2 years. Then, 1-2 years later, he makes another big announcement to keep the previous announcement out of the news.

The most relevant example is actually his recent public statements about a Mars base. He actually stated in 2016 that he would be sending an unmanned rocket to Mars in 2018. 2018 is almost over, so he quietly pushed plans back until about 2023, and started hyping up his Mars base stuff for the far-future.

> If the rich wanted Mars or lunar bases as “escape hatches”, there are dozens of multibillionaires that could singlehandedly fund Musk’s estimated $2-10B price tag for the completion of the entire BFR development program while still retaining 50-90% of their net worth.

This is a bit of a naive view of how wealth and capital expenditure works.

Tell us how.

I don't think the guy you are replying to actually thinks that the dozens of multibillionaires out there are holding their billions as cash that they could hand over to Musk tomorrow. Their wealth is held in assets with varying levels of liquidity, and, most notably in the case of stock, trying to convert them to cash would decrease the value of the remainder. But if Bezos wanted to get his hands on 10 billion to fund Musk, why could he not? (Ignoring the fact that he has his own aerospace thing going on.)

As a Musk hater, let me clarify:

* My view about Elon Musk is net positive. He has serious failure modes and his seems like asshole as a person, but he can also do interesting stuff that lives past his companies.

* My view about Musk fanboys is completely negative. They fill discussion forums with discussion that is fit only for sports fan or religious people. Only positive thinking or you are a hater.

It's actually good that he says that people are going to Mars to work themselves to death and die in accidents etc. Because when others try to say it, Musk fanboys are thinking they can play computer games there and the main issue is boredom.

Come now. Let's not draw people with broad strokes regardless of whether they are sports fans, religious people, or fans of Elon Musk. When you make harsh statements about groups that big you're the one that looks bad, not them and your point gets lost.

I would like to argue that the so called "Musk haters" are not a group made of haters. Wast majority has neutral or analytic approach but labeled as Musk haters.

The Musk fanboys on the other hand form more clearly defined segment.

I'm confused by this edit

I'm a big fan of NASA running space programs for the good of the American people and I'm pretty cynical about the relentless Barnum & Bailey marketing from Musk. Teslerati is essentially an oligarch fan site.

Has NASA developed reusable, landable rockets and then successfully landed 2 of 3 launched as a triple booster heavy rocket package?

Out of Musk's companies, SpaceX is the farthest from a hype circus. They are delivering on real science and engineering.

I'd like NASA to develop reusable, landable rockets rather than a private company, and to be answerable to the American people.

Well they don't and they aren't so

"the ad for going to Mars would be like Shackleton’s ad for going to the Antarctic."

A widely-spread myth? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/shackleton-probabl...

Then it will read like the mythical ad. God. The pedantry around here is astounding.

I think it’s intended to be a joking introduction into a side topic rather than a “well, actually”

I have grown weary of statements based on truthiness.

Shackleton's failed expedition goes around in business circles because it was a successful failure. No one died, despite the ship being caught in the ice, the men holed up on Elephant Island, and the incredible voyage of the James Caird to South Georgia and trek across the mountains to the whaling station.

The mythical ad builds on pop culture resonances, like the 2003 book "Shackleton's Way: Leadership Lessons from the Great Antarctic Explorer", and "Leading at The Edge: Leadership Lessons from the Extraordinary Saga of Shackleton's Antarctic Expedition", plus scores of other books and movies.

Tell me, downvoters, why don't we see 'mythical ads' for real failures, like the Scott's Terra Nova Expedition? Presumably they would have been just as heroic, no?

Or, would you interpret that fake ad the same if you replaced Shackleton's name with Scott's?

In a similar vein, Mallory's justification for attempting Mount Everest is often repeated. He died in the attempt.

We hear about heroic failures too.

Indeed. The Terra Nova Expedition I mentioned is one of those failures.

Would you have the same interpretation if Musk had referenced a similar fake advertisement but recruiting people for Scott's final expedition instead of Shackleton's famed one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com