Elon Musk was very lucky, NASA saved his behind !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Elon Musk is doing what the big guys won't and can't because all they care about is their own bottom line.


And do you really think Musk is not? He does it out of the goodness of his heart? Don't be silly.
lol.gif

He recognized that there is a gap in the market that the established automakers are reluctant to fill in. He also recognized that the very generous EV grants, handouts and carbon credits just might make his business plan viable before he can lower the manufacturing costs.
He has a huge potential to make billions here and corner the market. And if the always hungry for a new idol masses start adoring him as Earth's savior, while he makes his fortune, it's a freebie for him. He can then pull off all kinds of shenanigans like Jobs did and still be worshipped.


The celebrity worship in this country is amazing. It's a cult like thing, seems to stem from the media creating our idols...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Elon Musk is doing what the big guys won't and can't because all they care about is their own bottom line.


And do you really think Musk is not? He does it out of the goodness of his heart? Don't be silly.
lol.gif

He recognized that there is a gap in the market that the established automakers are reluctant to fill in. He also recognized that the very generous EV grants, handouts and carbon credits just might make his business plan viable before he can lower the manufacturing costs.
He has a huge potential to make billions here and corner the market. And if the always hungry for a new idol masses start adoring him as Earth's savior, while he makes his fortune, it's a freebie for him. He can then pull off all kinds of shenanigans like Jobs did and still be worshipped.


The celebrity worship in this country is amazing. It's a cult like thing, seems to stem from the media creating our idols...

No, I think its because the guy has shown a little bit of vision in bringing new technology forward while risking his own money and atleast gives the perception that he's trying to make the world better while getting rich.
The regular business guys who just care about adding 000's to their bank accounts often are to societies detriment, lobbying to monopolize their industries, and stagnate technology development when it might change the status quo. GM and the EV1 comes to mind...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


The celebrity worship in this country is amazing. It's a cult like thing, seems to stem from the media creating our idols...


Now you are being ridiculous...
crackmeup2.gif
 
Last edited:
He's not in it to get rich. He was rich after Paypal. He risked it all to create SpaceX and Tesla. Not for fame or wealth. He had the wealth already and could have paid for fame.

He's looking forward, not for profits, but for new advancements. Something that an industry that is tied to its 100 year old infrastructure cannot do. From the pumping of oil out of the ground, to its delivery to gas stations, and making of cars in union shops to selling via dealerships - ALL of those people do not want change. Their money comes from the existing system. Change is bad for them.

Tesla haters are usually "anti Big Gov't", but how come you are fine with such a large industry that is directly tied to a large government? Campaign donations, lobbyists, tax breaks, etc.
Your hatred is misplaced.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Record showed that he received many helps from various government agencies over the years, but both companies are doing well now mainly because of him.

I didn't deny the fact that Elon Musk and his companies received many helps from various government agencies over the years, as I posted above.

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
How is this different from someone investing their entire life saving to start their own little business? You make it sound like Musk is one of the very few willing to take risks and investing his own money and you are idolizing him for it.

Musk is a smart businessman and he is only interested in making money. So let's not act like a young school girl that is about to wet her panties on the thought of meeting her favorite boy band and look at things logically.

Many people invest their life saving of thousands of dollars to start their own business because they may not survive comfortably with current job they have.

Like any investor, he thought that he could make good money in these 2 area, space travel and zero emission vehicle. He probably thought that his chance of success was more than 50-60%, but both ventures was almost go under.

Musk had hundreds million already after eBay bought Paypal. This fortune was more than enough to retire. But he didn't, and he almost lost it all if he didn't get last minute contract from NASA.

That why I titled this" "NASA saved his behind"

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
His car venture is only held together by government money and the carbon credits, as every single car he makes looses big money. Musk went in fully knowing this and he is hoping that the government and the carbon credits will keep the business afloat until the electric car takes off or the public is forced into it. The pre-payment for the model 3 is just another scheme to get the extra money now. Tesla is doing just that full time.
How can other established car makers follow such a model when their EV is just a small division of the company with a very limited budget.

Any company, new or old, will receive "carbon credit" for producing zero emission vehicle. Tesla isn't the only one to receive the credit, they may receive more because they only make zero emission vehicle.

Elon Musk is a businessman after all, his companies are like any other company they all have lawyers and accounting. They're all looking to get maximum revenue and minimum expense as allowed by laws(Federal, state and local). Both Space-X and Tesla are public companies, the CEO and board directors are responsible to make most money for share holders. That why people invest in the companies.

What are "government money" that Tesla received that no other car company can get ? If you count the $465M loan Tesla received from Dept of Energy in 2010 and paid off in 2013 with interest is "free government money" you're wrong.

A car company that received $50B (billion with a B, not million) was GM in 2008, how much did GM paid back ? As far as I remember government got back $38B, so the taxpayer lost $12B(billion with a B) in saving GM, but you don't care because GM is an established company with more than 100 years experience.

How about US government loan money to Japanese automaker Nissan in the tune of $1.4B ?


Quote:
Tesla is also crowing about the fact that it’s the first American automaker that has fully paid back the feds through the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program. But then again, Tesla didn’t take much compared to Ford ($5.9 billion) and Japanese automaker Nissan ($1.4 billion).


http://www.wired.com/2013/05/tesla-pays-off-fed-loans/


Originally Posted By: KrisZ
These companies still have to allocate resources to their regular bread and butter projects in order to stay competitive. That is why their efforts seem lackluster, but this is not an indication that Musk and Tesla possess some superior technology not known to others. Plus the bigger the corporations, the harder it is to change their direction or focus. Something that Musk doesn't have to deal with.

I command Musk and wish his endeavors success, but the idolization of the guy and making him the next Steve Jobs by some is borderline crazy.

Whatever the reasons, all I know is not a single car companies in the world has EV close to either Tesla Model S and X.

More than a dozen companies with billions in R&D a year couldn't do any vehicle as good as Tesla did, EV or not EV, only model S broke the Consumer Report rating scale at 103 over 100. Now CR needs to change their rating scale so no vehicle in future will break that new scale.

Personally I don't care for Steve Jobs. To me he was just a CEO of a multi-billion company. Apple was so success mainly because of their employees and low to mid level managers. CEO and upper managers didn't do anything to make their products so successful.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Thermo1223
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


The celebrity worship in this country is amazing. It's a cult like thing, seems to stem from the media creating our idols...


Now you are being ridiculous...
crackmeup2.gif



I feel exactly the same way about your drooling diatribes about your heroes. These guys are media creations!
 
Last edited:
Mr. Musk dreams big, and has the stuff to put everything on the line in pursuit of them.

This country used to have many like him. People like Mr. Musk made this country into a great industrial power.

Now we have Wall Street paper pushers, and people who buy their paper dreaming of nothing bigger than their own personal retirement.

We need more people like Mr. Musk. Many more. And a lot less paper pushers.
 
I don't care who what when and where it's happening. I just want MORE space exploration. These are exciting times to be alive. So much technology is in the pipeline.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Record showed that he received many helps from various government agencies over the years, but both companies are doing well now mainly because of him.

I didn't deny the fact that Elon Musk and his companies received many helps from various government agencies over the years, as I posted above.

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
How is this different from someone investing their entire life saving to start their own little business? You make it sound like Musk is one of the very few willing to take risks and investing his own money and you are idolizing him for it.

Musk is a smart businessman and he is only interested in making money. So let's not act like a young school girl that is about to wet her panties on the thought of meeting her favorite boy band and look at things logically.

Many people invest their life saving of thousands of dollars to start their own business because they may not survive comfortably with current job they have.

Like any investor, he thought that he could make good money in these 2 area, space travel and zero emission vehicle. He probably thought that his chance of success was more than 50-60%, but both ventures was almost go under.

Musk had hundreds million already after eBay bought Paypal. This fortune was more than enough to retire. But he didn't, and he almost lost it all if he didn't get last minute contract from NASA.

That why I titled this" "NASA saved his behind"

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
His car venture is only held together by government money and the carbon credits, as every single car he makes looses big money. Musk went in fully knowing this and he is hoping that the government and the carbon credits will keep the business afloat until the electric car takes off or the public is forced into it. The pre-payment for the model 3 is just another scheme to get the extra money now. Tesla is doing just that full time.
How can other established car makers follow such a model when their EV is just a small division of the company with a very limited budget.

Any company, new or old, will receive "carbon credit" for producing zero emission vehicle. Tesla isn't the only one to receive the credit, they may receive more because they only make zero emission vehicle.

Elon Musk is a businessman after all, his companies are like any other company they all have lawyers and accounting. They're all looking to get maximum revenue and minimum expense as allowed by laws(Federal, state and local). Both Space-X and Tesla are public companies, the CEO and board directors are responsible to make most money for share holders. That why people invest in the companies.

What are "government money" that Tesla received that no other car company can get ? If you count the $465M loan Tesla received from Dept of Energy in 2010 and paid off in 2013 with interest is "free government money" you're wrong.

A car company that received $50B (billion with a B, not million) was GM in 2008, how much did GM paid back ? As far as I remember government got back $38B, so the taxpayer lost $12B(billion with a B) in saving GM, but you don't care because GM is an established company with more than 100 years experience.

How about US government loan money to Japanese automaker Nissan in the tune of $1.4B ?


Quote:
Tesla is also crowing about the fact that it’s the first American automaker that has fully paid back the feds through the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) program. But then again, Tesla didn’t take much compared to Ford ($5.9 billion) and Japanese automaker Nissan ($1.4 billion).


http://www.wired.com/2013/05/tesla-pays-off-fed-loans/


Originally Posted By: KrisZ
These companies still have to allocate resources to their regular bread and butter projects in order to stay competitive. That is why their efforts seem lackluster, but this is not an indication that Musk and Tesla possess some superior technology not known to others. Plus the bigger the corporations, the harder it is to change their direction or focus. Something that Musk doesn't have to deal with.

I command Musk and wish his endeavors success, but the idolization of the guy and making him the next Steve Jobs by some is borderline crazy.

Whatever the reasons, all I know is not a single car companies in the world has EV close to either Tesla Model S and X.

More than a dozen companies with billions in R&D a year couldn't do any vehicle as good as Tesla did, EV or not EV, only model S broke the Consumer Report rating scale at 103 over 100. Now CR needs to change their rating scale so no vehicle in future will break that new scale.

Personally I don't care for Steve Jobs. To me he was just a CEO of a multi-billion company. Apple was so success mainly because of their employees and low to mid level managers. CEO and upper managers didn't do anything to make their products so successful.


I find it interesting that you tout CR's review of Tesla (when it's great) but bash them for their current horrible reliability review and no recommendation today.

Hmmmmmm......
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I find it interesting that you tout CR's review of Tesla (when it's great) but bash them for their current horrible reliability review and no recommendation today.

Hmmmmmm......

No, I didn't bash CR for not recommending Tesla model S for unreliable. I may pointed to some trivia problems and Tesla quickly fixed those and owners were mostly satisfy with the service they received.

I do trust CR in reliability survey of any product, especially car.

Originally Posted By: roadandtrack.com
Consumer Reports, the most trustworthy, data-driven outlet for reliability ratings on cars and everything else, just released its annual report naming the most and least reliable cars on the U.S. market today. And in a rather surprising twist, the Tesla Model S that Consumer Reports gave a better-than-perfect 103-point rating less than two months ago gets a "not recommended" thanks to what CR calls "declining reliability."


Originally Posted By: roadandtrack.com
How could a better-than-perfect score erode so quickly? Well, this is a different test from the one that the Model S P85D aced back in August. That 103-out-of-100 score was part of CR's new-car testing, where the organization tests a car's acceleration, handling, ride quality, and things like that.

The report that came out today is CR's annual reliability data crunch (subscription required), based on a comprehensive survey sent out to hundreds of thousands of CR readers every year. This survey, which the publication says is the largest of its kind, asks subscribers to detail the service and reliability problems they've had with their specific make and model. In all, more than 740,000 individual vehicles were represented in this year's survey.


Originally Posted By: roadandtrack.com
The report, which you can read here, indicates that the biggest headache for new-car buyers is "new technology"—infotainment systems, advanced safey features, computer-controlled transmissions, and the like.

So it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the Tesla Model S, a clean-sheet design from an essentially brand-new automaker that's chock-full of new technology, doesn't rate as highly as some of the more traditional offerings from more established automakers.


Originally Posted By: roadandtrack.com
The approximately 1,400 Model S owners surveyed by CR "chronicled an array of detailed and complicated maladies," the organization reports. The most prevalent complaints had to do with squeaks and rattles from the body, but respondents also mentioned issues that required replacement of the car's electric motors. Warping brake rotors and difficulties with the complex, electrically-operated retracting doorhandles were also mentioned by numerous owners. Other problem areas included inoperable windshield wipers, leaking battery cooling pumps, trunklid alignment, and suspension alignment.

Despite these problems, CR reports that Tesla owner satisfaction is still very high, with a full 97 percent of owners saying they would definitely buy their car again. Surveyed owners also commended Tesla's quick response when cars developed problems: "Almost every survey respondent made note of Tesla's rapid response and repair time, despite the lack of a traditional dealer service network."


http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car...on-reliability/
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Both Space-X and Tesla are public companies, the CEO and board directors are responsible to make most money for share holders.


Tesla is public, but Space-x is not.
 
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I read an article few weeks ago, it said that Space-X is lowest cost to launch anything into orbit, as little as $100 mils while Being demands $200 mils or more.

Wrong article. His Intelsat was just cancelled (after being delayed for 4 years) and went to Russians, where Protons work for $70M. His Via Sat contract was also cancelled and went to Arianne 5. He is doing fine with NASA

According to SpaceX's published list of launch prices, an average Falcon 9 launch currently costs $61.2 million. (The new Falcon Heavy, which will make its maiden voyage later this year, will cost a bit more.) That's already half the best price that Boeing and Lockheed Martin charge for a launch over at United Launch Alliance. It's cheaper, too, than the $77 million that Airbus' joint venture Airbus Safran Launchers will charge for its new Ariane 6 rocket.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...profitable.aspx

--------------------

For someone who claimed SpaceX would not exit without free government money, this article may shock you.

Quote:
The Air Force, you see, has a singular relationship with an entity called United Launch Alliance -- the joint venture formed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to handle space launches for the U.S. government. Every year, whether they launch a rocket or not, ULA charges the government about $1 billion to remain "on call." Then the government (that's you and me, the taxpayers) has to fork over additional cash in the event we want to, you know, launch a rocket.


Quote:
For example, in September of last year, the Air Force awarded United Launch Alliance a contract worth $938.4 million to pay for "fiscal 2015 EELV launch capability," ensuring that ULA would be ready and able to launch a rocket should the government so desire. Then, four months later, the Air Force gave ULA another contract -- for $382.9 million this time, to pay for launch vehicle configuration on three rocket launches (one Delta IV and two Atlas Vs).

That's $128 million per rocket, not counting the cost of the actual launch -- and not counting the retainer. And if this sounds like a lot of money, it is. Because SpaceX can do the same job for less than $85 million.


http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...-from-boei.aspx
 
What some people in this thread seem to be forgetting, is that Musk isn't an "armchair CEO" that lets others do the heavy lifting. He is one of the chief designers of the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. He taught himself rocketry and DESIGNED them. He is also in the control room during launches, and takes an active part in it. He himself did a tour of the SpaceX factory a few years ago (it's on Youtube). He's a very hands-on CEO, and seems to have a genuine passion for this stuff, especially with Space. That's why people admire him. He isn't afraid to dream big, and put his money where is mouth is, and get his hands dirty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top