
Elon Musk: The Man With His Mind in the Future - guynamedloren
http://pandodaily.com/2012/07/12/elon-musk-the-man-with-his-mind-in-the-future/
======
confluence
I've been following Musk since before it was cool (hacker hipsters unite) and
I deeply respect everything he's done - he's one of my personal heroes.

But, I am seeing the beginnings of a personality cult by some on HN which I
thoroughly dislike and I have seen before with the rise of Steve Jobs and
Apple.

I just want to state - let's not start feeling that Musk, and Musk alone did
these things. This has been the work of thousands of people over many years
(not all at SpaceX/Tesla) with _critical_ aid provided by the much maligned
and mocked US government. Musk is great - but let's not make it too personal.
Let's celebrate the fact that such a situation can exist in such dark times
(depending on your viewpoint :D).

For more details see here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4134729>

~~~
ballooney
I rather agree with this. I love that there exists one person with a lot of
cash, and technical chops, and the right attitude. That's rare and powerful.
But as someone fairly familiar with the space industry I do see a lot of
gushing nonsense on HN whenever SpaceX comes up, about how [rocket feature
xyz] 'could never' be invented by a government agency when infact in several
such cases of drunk-on-koolaid the [rocket feature xyz] isn't new and
specifically was invented by NASA or the russians in the 60s. Or similar. Once
or twice I've tried to correct these comments [1] but I usually don't as it
just feels like pissing into the wind. SpaceX more or less got what was left
of the FASTRAC engine[2] work given to them by Nasa as a starting point.
Infact, the turbopumps in SpaceX's merlin engines, which most rocket engineers
will tell you is the hardest bit to design in a rocket engine, are built by
someone else (Barber Nichols), who also made the one for FASTRAC [3].

But this isn't a criticism - it's precisely what they should be doing and what
I would do in the same situation! It would be madness not to start from a
known working configuration (designing a rocket engine is a massive game of
high dimensional parameter whack-a-mole, it's very difficult to get a passable
configuration without a lot of iteration and forwards-backwards passes).
They're trying to massively lower the cost of space access, and you don't do
that by trying to redevelop everything from first principles. It's bloody
clever to learn everything you can from people in Nasa who are willing to help
you and are pissed off that their own beaurocracy won't let them do it
themselves. But it's a far cry from the narrative that people on this site
sometimes try and suggest, which is that Musk came out of the woods one day
with technically revolutionary launcher-industry-disrupting rockets, catching
Nasa by surprise. It is simply not true. He has some technical chops of course
but his real strength was getting good people already doing interesting things
(eg Tom Mueller, SpaceX head of propulsion) and get them all under one roof
with his money and focus, and talking to as many people as possible to keep
the string taught and avoid going down dead-end allies. This can't be done in
a vacuum.

So the reason for this comment is to illustrate that people seem to be
discarding their critical faculties when it comes to Musk, and getting carried
away with excitement to the point of being irrational. That simply shouldn't
be allowed to happen in a community like this, whose signal to noise ratio is,
in other respects, among the highest on the web.

I don't know why it is, maybe it's because people think he's a good example of
someone winning the game that they're playing (web widgets for a huge payout
so they can work on something they think is more meaningful) but I'm sure he's
the exception that proves the rule about web start-ups. I've certainly seen
comments on SpaceX threads where people get defensive about their social
thingamie because one day the payoff will let them work on _real_ problems
too. But this seems silly to me if that's the actual reason, as improbable as
a hobby tennis player making a career plan that requires him to win Wimbledon.
If you actually want to work in some field that holds you passion, and that's
not what you're doing now, consider carefully if your long term plan is as
unrealistic as my caricature above. Especially if it's space, stuff is really
damn exciting right now. Take a look at something like Reaction Engines [4] in
the UK, who just this week announced successful testing of their precooler.
Have a look at the video on their website - this really really is
revolutionary stuff, not taking existing tech and doing it
faster+better+cheaper, but inventing really game-changing, throw-out-the-rule-
book technology (I'm gushing now, irony). If I wanted to do something exciting
in space, I think I'd be far more likely to be able to make a dent in the
universe by going to work for someone like these guys or SpaceX than by some
dream about billion dollar buyouts.

Whatever, I've digressed from my point which is that I think a lot of people
are wearing the kool-aid version of beer-goggles, which are distorting their
vision. Elon has done same fabulously praise-worthy stuff, his accomplishments
stand up on their own merits without us (seemingly sometimes wilfully) losing
perspective or distorting the context in which they were achieved.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3723065> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastrac_(engine)> [3] [http://www.barber-
nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopu...](http://www.barber-
nichols.com/products/rocket-engine-turbopumps) [4]
<http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/>

~~~
waterlesscloud
It's not that hard to understand.

There's a lot of talk on this site about changing the world. I think there's
some good reasons that happens with this crowd that sort of get back into the
history of computing, but in any case, that mindset is a driving force for
many in this community.

Musk is doing it. He is, in fact, changing the world, driving change in the
directions he wants to see things move. He's being as audacious as hell about
it, and he's actually pulling it off.

That's a personal trait, and it's absolutely worth admiring and attempting to
emulate.

No one thinks he's engineering the rockets or the cars, but he's shaping the
visions and driving them forward, and most crucially- he's making it happen.

Anyone with any sort of vision (90% of this site) knows how hard that is to
do, so seeing someone pull it off on that scale gets our attention.

Leadership, true leadership, motivating people to do their best and to reach
beyond, is rare as hen's teeth, and people get excited when they see it.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Having said that, I'm with you on the so-called plans to make social widgets
and then cash out and THEN start on the big plans. That's a plan that's going
to end in tears, and it won't be all the much fun along the way, either.

~~~
MikeCapone
> No one thinks he's engineering the rockets or the cars, but he's shaping the
> visions and driving them forward, and most crucially- he's making it happen.

Well, he is lead designer on the Falcon rocket and made a lot of engineering
decisions on the Tesla too, afaik. He's more than just a manager/visionary for
sure.

------
akandiah
Elon Musk actually stated his idea for an electric jet in his cameo appearance
on Iron Man 2: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuG2AVFB-g0>

Musk was also the inspiration behind the characterisation of Robert Downey Jr
in the Iron Man films.

~~~
tocomment
How does an electric jet work? I couldn't find a wikipedia page. I always
figured it needed some kind of fuel to explode.

~~~
danielweber
My guess (which I repeat is just a guess) is that it doesn't store any fuel at
all (excepting some amount for emergencies) but relies on beamed power from
the ground.

A fully-fueled 747 weighs something like 5x an empty 747 so you might get some
real efficiencies from not having any at all. Plus, this would give all those
solar and windfarms in (literal) flyover country a nice place to sell their
power without running lines.

You can launch with a sled or some crazy version of an extension cord.

~~~
stcredzero
_My guess (which I repeat is just a guess) is that it doesn't store any fuel
at all (excepting some amount for emergencies) but relies on beamed power from
the ground.

A fully-fueled 747 weighs something like 5x an empty 747 so you might get some
real efficiencies from not having any at all._

That would be frickin amazing. For cargo flights, especially. Something like
that could reduce the cost of air freight by a huge factor.

------
ABS
anyone can point me to something explaining "The Hyperloop"? not much luck
after a few searches

~~~
chrisboesing
He talked about it a little bit in the video mentioned in the post. He thinks
about "open sourcing"(his words) or patenting the idea and giving the patent
to someone who has the financial resources to build it. I guess because of
that he hasn't gone into much detail but here is a list of things about the
Hyperloop I remembered:

-from downtown LA to downtown SF in 30 Minutes

-cheaper than airplane ticket

-solar panels on the top to make it self sustaining

-energy would be saved without batteries to run at night

-under no influence of the weather

-safe

(-Sarah Lacy made a reference to a TV show/movie with a tube as transportation
system, and Elon said it was kind of like that [can't remember the title])

-Sarah Lacy: "Is it possible?" Elon Musk: "Yes!"

~~~
stcredzero
That could be a non-launch version of the Lofstrom Loop.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop>

Because it's not subject to the rocket equation, it would basically have the
same effect on space access costs as a space elevator.

It is possible in principle for such a device to bring a vehicle up to
hypersonic speeds, then _regeneratively brake_ the same vehicle to a stop and
recover a fraction of the energy.

~~~
ableal
Good reading there, but the part about the difficulties notes that it holds
nuke-scale energies and states _"Therefore for safety and astrodynamic
reasons, launch loops are intended to be installed over an ocean near the
equator, well away from habitation."_

That would exclude the downtown-to-downtown feature.

~~~
stcredzero
_the part about the difficulties notes that it holds nuke-scale energies_

Nuke scale energies get dissipated in the atmosphere on a regular basis by
thunderstorms. I suspect it may be possible to ensure that most of the mass
burns up in the atmosphere and is dispersed.

 _That would exclude the downtown-to-downtown feature._

A rocketplane could "rendevous" with the electromagnetic loop at high altitude
and then be accelerated and decelerated for the bulk of the cross-ocean trip,
then land at an airport.

------
raganesh
True visionary. Lucky for the rest of us, he has the determination & financial
muscle to make his visions a reality.

~~~
melling
Everytime someone says this on HN, I've gotta give my obligatory "why are _we_
doing more as a 'group'?"

Sure, it's great that one person has lots of money and some vision, but why
aren't more people pooling their resources, both time and money, to accomplish
more?

Ok, I'll keep it short this time. Back to surfing HN. Enjoy.

~~~
techdmn
Not to completely disagree with your sentiment, but I think there is a large
difference between having the resources to execute your own vision as opposed
to having to partner with a large group of people and find a common vision.
Especially when you start getting down to details. Grand plans are a lot less
alluring when you don't get to be the boss. Not that we should let that be an
excuse. :)

~~~
melling
I agree that coordinating an army of people is difficult. Still I think more
can be accomplished. There are lots of problems that need to be solved and I
still think some problems should be solvable by groups of tens of thousands
rather than one visionary. The next level of crowd sourcing?

~~~
yaix
Those groups would spend 95% of time in redundant discussions.

There is a reason why Linux and other large projects came up with the "BDFL"
to cut discussion short at some point and actually get things done.

------
firefox
Musk is one of the greatest entrepreneurs alive, tackling some of the largest
and most difficult problems. If starting one company is hard enough, he's
disrupting three industries that have managed to stay alive without
significant innovation for decades. Musk FTW.

------
m67ski
I love Elon, he is amazing, but I'd rather motivate other wealthy people to be
creatively ambitious and altruistic, rather than deify an individual
personality.

He is a great human being, no doubt. But some of Elon's friends are not great
people. And I hope he no longer hangs out with them socially (other
billionaires).

------
lectrick
I challenge anyone here to take their futuristic ideas and try to execute on
them given whatever financial resources are available.

------
danieldrehmer
He has finally satisfied part of my curiosity about how his electric vtol jet
would work

~~~
tocomment
Do explain

------
alpine
The thing that interests me most about the Elon Musks of this world is our
economy's carrying capacity for such talented and ambitious people. Can we
support 100 EMs? Would we run out of things to do? Perhaps this is the wrong
way to look at things. Maybe all we need (can sustain) is a handful like him
and the wealth they create will make all our lives markedly better, without us
personally being involved ab initio?

~~~
guynamedloren
> _Can we support 100 EMs? Would we run out of things to do?_

Absolutely. When we run out of things to do, we go to Mars (no sarcasm). I
honestly think we can do it. More importantly, Elon Musk thinks we can as
well, and he has the means to make it happen.

~~~
quink
I think I can either smell a personality cult coming up or a reality
distortion field. Or it may be both.

Can we please leave it up to Elon Musk whether he wants to go to Mars or not,
without presupposing the notion? I'm fairly sure he might have something to
say about the matter if he really does think we can do it (I feel dirty just
typing this).

Edit: He has said that he is going to Mars, I know that, and I know the
replies to my post here missed this. I'm saying that it's up to him to do it,
without fervently believing that he is the second coming of Jesus and will in
fact do this. I'm just saying that our reaction to this is not entirely
outside the field of personality cult. While knowing that he did say all this,
I'm also pretty sure that he will eventually accomplish that goal, and I wish
him the best of luck. I'm just not sure that we should see him as the second
coming of Jobs, Branson and Jesus combined, which is what this is starting to
smell like.

Let the man do electric cars really well first (i.e. outside a few thousand
people in California owning the Model S) and do SpaceX really well for a while
and then we'll talk.

Edit 2: The more I get downvoted without an actual reply to my point being
offered, the surer I'll be that it's a personality cult that's going on here.
At least until I actually see more than one Tesla on the road here or some
manned regular spaceflights. Let's keep in mind that it took four attempts for
Falcon I to succeed, but the current score of my comment seems to suggest that
apparently the attention span here isn't that long. All the best of luck (and
at his skill level, luck doesn't have much to do with it any longer) to Elon
Musk however, and I 100% support everything he has been doing. Although
PayPal.

~~~
raganesh
Maybe once in a while, people just want to appreciate a visionary like Elon
Musk. No critique or judging, just appreciation.

Why does it have to be a "Personality Cult" or "Reality Distortion Field"?

~~~
crusso
As usual, competing psychological forces result in overbalances in either
direction.

Over-admiration resulting in a "personality cult" are the result of wanting to
be led rather than having to think through difficult problems. It's about
wanting to be able to latch on to success so that you can follow the leader's
direction and share in their success -- even if it's only loosely by
perception of association like when wearing a winning team's jersey.

The other side of the coin where visionaries like Musk and Jobs are harshly
criticized as being "cults of personality" seems to stem mostly from
insecurity. Personal insecurity seeing that certain individuals are successful
and praised for it as well as insecurity that their philosophy of "success is
all due to luck" is in jeopardy.

~~~
quink
> Personal insecurity seeing that certain individuals are successful and
> praised for it as well as insecurity that their philosophy of "success is
> all due to luck" is in jeopardy.

Nope, that's not it. I don't feel insecure due to other people's successes,
and I don't believe for one second that either Steve Jobs' or Elon Musk's or
Richard Branson's or Jesus' successes where in any way due to luck. They
deserved the majority of their success. Sure, not without some stepping on
some people's feet or making some enemies or doing some unethical things or by
standing on the shoulders of the work that thousands of people have done for
them.

But luck didn't have much to do with any of these stories, and I certainly
don't have a philosophy of "success is all due to luck". Still, well put :)

------
hastur
direct link to video:
[http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1064818/events/987074/vid...](http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1064818/events/987074/videos/1908918)

~~~
ehsanu1
Anybody know what his 5th mode of transportation is? The description at first
made me think of [http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_t...](http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm)

~~~
dojomouse
I don't know - no - but I'd bet a large chunk of change that the HyperLoop is
some variant of vacumn tube maglev. Not an idea Musk came up with by any
stretch, but he's someone who might actually be able to make it happen which
would be very awesome. His patent is going to hit a fair bit of prior art
though.

