
The Truth About Google X: A Look Behind The Secretive Lab's Closed Doors - cryptoz
http://www.fastcompany.com/3028156/united-states-of-innovation/the-google-x-factor
======
dang
The original url ([http://www.fastcompany.com/3029138/world-changing-
ideas/goog...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3029138/world-changing-ideas/google-
x-confirms-the-rumors-it-really-did-try-to-design-a-space-elevat)) was just a
teaser for this much longer piece, so we changed it. Thanks to primigenus for
the tip
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7593039](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7593039)).

HN prefers the most substantive variant of any story. User comments pointing
to better urls for a story are helpful—so helpful, in fact, that I'm working
on a bit of software to semi-formalize them, so we'll be more likely to see
them all. It should be ready soon, and we'll post about it.

~~~
dannyr
Unfortunately, the other top comments are about space elevators.

Not many are actually discussing the real article.

~~~
dang
Yes, that's a problem whenever you redirect or unify ongoing threads. It's a
tradeoff. We'd rather have the best stories on the front page. In most cases,
comments eventually grow around the new content.

In this case, though, the space elevator content does come from the real
article, so these comments are on topic. The original url was basically self-
blogspam—full of links back to the long piece.

~~~
omegant
Wouldn't be possible (worth) to split a converstion and make it a first page
post on it's own, if: -it's not directly related to the thread (hijacking) -a
certain cuantity of upvotes are received, -and a minimum converstion lenght is
reached? Some times very interesting topics or meaningful comments are lost on
moderate or low (to first page standart) interest news.

------
Zikes
They hit the same wall everyone else who's ever looked at space elevators hit:
the cable materials aren't currently feasible.

What else did Google do around this? Did they go about designing the elevator
apparatus itself? Did they devise plans for launching the cable/tether into
orbit? Did they explore options for what would anchor the tether in space?
Without any further details on this "project", it's as good as a lunchtime
spitballing session any one of us might have had recently. One might as well
say I've also tried to design a space elevator.

~~~
zacharyz
It is a bit annoying. Arthur C Clark suggested using nano tubes in a space
elevator over 20 years ago - so what exactly did google x bring to the
discussion?

~~~
alooPotato
This comment is a bit annoying. Had they set out to build an elevator, looked
at the problem from a different angle, came up with a different solution that
had a chance at working we would all be praising them for going after a
problem so many people had failed at before.

The fact that they came to the same conclusion (infeasibility) we now question
their intentions/motivations and whether it was a good idea or not.

We either applaud attempts or we don't - but we can't choose based on the
outcome of those attempts.

~~~
Zikes
There's no evidence they put any serious effort into actually trying to build
a space elevator. The article doesn't discuss any alternate cable materials
they explored/considered, nor does it even mention any of the many other
aspects of designing a functioning space elevator.

If they were even remotely serious, they'd be continuing work and research on
everything else relating to building a functioning space elevator and waiting
for materials science to catch up, or better yet directly contributing to the
advancement of the materials.

Edit: I'm not criticising Google for looking at space elevators. Hell I do
applaud that, and I think it'd be a great direction for them to explore. What
I'm upset about is Fast Company's journalistic standards about covering it.
Google X mentions they looked at space elevators and Fast Company would have
you believe they threw millions of dollars and man-hours at it and actually
tried to design one.

Journalists apparently have no idea how to cover scientific topics. If someone
reports they've found a chemical that's shown to target and destroy a specific
strain of cancer cells in a petri dish under laboratory conditions then Fast
Company would be reporting that they've cured cancer.

~~~
dekhn
Realistically, what Dan Piponi was probably doing was demonstrating use of
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-
envelope_calculatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-
envelope_calculation) to rapidly rule out implausible approaches. I doubt they
had to spend more than a few minutes looking up materials properties and doing
some basic math.

------
joecurry
It's a joke that the media has continued to dig and dig on as a serious
consideration.

Google X's Chief of Moonshots (effectively the CEO), Astro Teller, alludes to
the space elevator being a fun joke in his SXSW 2013 speech [1], including
confirmation of it never being taken seriously by the team.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8mTHgaLQ7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8mTHgaLQ7w)

------
primigenus
Make sure you read the article and interview this was quoted from:
[http://www.fastcompany.com/3028156/united-states-of-
innovati...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3028156/united-states-of-
innovation/the-google-x-factor)

~~~
dang
Thank you. This article is so much more substantive that I've changed the
current post to point to it, even though the space elevator side-piece wasn't
bad.

------
jmelloy
How secretive is something that Google trots whenever they want some goodwill?
I think I've seen an "article" about Google X every six months for the last 3
years.

~~~
habosa
Honestly pretty damn secretive. I worked at Google for the summer and that was
the only building on the campus I couldn't go into (I could even go right up
to Larry's office door but not to X). My good friend was an intern on X and he
never told me a word about what he worked on or who he worked with. That's
just an intern. So even though they do reveal some projects for PR once in a
while, it's definitely a very secretive part of an otherwise fairly
transparent company.

~~~
Oculus
That's crazy. Did your friend mention how he managed to land the internship?
Was it a software based role?

~~~
habosa
He was a student at a design school (I believe it was the Art Center [1] in
Pasadena). Incredibly talented at designing cars and also an insane work
ethic. 99% sure he was on the self driving car project as an industrial
designer but he never confirmed. He said they came to his school to find
someone. For a normal job you can go to Google, but from what I've heard
Google X comes to you. They know who they want.

1 -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Center_College_of_Design](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Center_College_of_Design)

~~~
hatred
That might be true for niche fields like designing. For other customary roles
like software engineering at Google X. I don't think this is the norm.

Source: My co-worker sitting besides me used to work at X as an engineer.

------
waterlesscloud
By far the most interesting piece of Google, and likely the most satisfying to
work for.

Also good to see people that aren't 20-somethings driving innovation. Hope for
us oldsters yet.

~~~
michaelochurch
The ageism, to me, is the biggest sign that most of Silicon Valley
"innovation" is bullshit.

It takes time to get to the forefront of an already-explored area, and to
become a good software engineer. People who get there by 25 are extremely rare
(maybe 1 in a few million). Some people peak early and some peak late, but the
median (across the arts, sciences, mathematics, and technology) is around
45-55 and for technology it should be, if anything, later.

But most Silicon Valley "innovation" is bullshit and doesn't need high-power
people. It needs an image of "newness" and that requires youth. It needs
people who can exploit the chickenhawk instinct of venture capitalists, and
that requires youth as well.

~~~
drstewart
Strong words. I assume you feel the same way about the field of mathematics
then -- that it's all "bullshit chicken-hawking?"

[http://legendofpi.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/do-
mathematicians...](http://legendofpi.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/do-
mathematicians-peak-in-their-late-20s/)

[http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/science/la-sci-sn-
nu...](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/science/la-sci-sn-numbers-
age-20120625)

[http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rmclachl/overthehill.html](http://www.massey.ac.nz/~rmclachl/overthehill.html)

[https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~rdc26/zoop2.pdf](https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~rdc26/zoop2.pdf)

~~~
davidw
> Strong words

This is the same guy who says "No, not everyone who's rich deserves to die":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5625397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5625397)

~~~
selmnoo
I'd agree with michaelochurch, interestingly. Capital has been taken hostage
by the rich -- the system we live in is rigged. And that is not a
controversial or unsubstantiated statement at all at this point, it's good
science, e.g., per Piketty's new findings and analyses, which are
scientifically rigorous and heavily data-backed.

~~~
davidw
> Capital has been taken hostage by the rich

Err... yeah? Previously who did the capital belong to?

------
nashashmi
There is one thing that always annoys me as of late, once I figured it out,
that reporters always represent {A} by {B} and over-sensationalize {B} to the
point where I cannot recognize it as normal or I see {A} through a lens
unbefitting of it.

Take for example the following line: Google X head Astro Teller embraces
failure. Sometimes literally: In group meetings, he has been known to give
hugs to people who admit mistakes or defeat. Here embracing failure is over-
sensationalized, I think, when in the end it is only a hacker's attempt at
trial-and-failure. And then for some reporter to come and say, because they
are trying to find gems in the story, that hackers embrace failure sounds just
plain old gibberish.

~~~
bambam12897
If my boss hugged people in meetings, I think he'd be reported to HR. That's
just weird and creepy...

------
hawkharris
I wonder what situation at Google prompted Teller to make the strategic
decision to be featured in this article. Maybe it has to do with the fact that
Google X has been somewhat notorious for upsetting shareholders.

~~~
jey
> Maybe it has to do with the fact that Google X has been somewhat notorious
> for upsetting shareholders.

Evidence or sources?

~~~
jfoster
Larry Page gets questioned about it occasionally on their earnings calls. (not
in a completely negative way; just on when the projects will pay off, etc.)

It depends on the shareholder, really. Most of the big fish are not interested
in holding Google stock for 10 - 20 years waiting for these initiatives to pay
off. They operate on annual bonuses, whereas Google X invests in projects that
will take more than 1 year to pay off.

~~~
enneff
Those investors should know what they're getting in to.

From the very start the Google founders have been clear on how their company
should operate. They are taking long bets and will not be told to do
otherwise. See their IPO letter from 2004:

[http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-
lette...](http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html)

------
Mangalor
The coolest takeaway is that they didn't really dismiss the idea, just waiting
for better manufacturing of currently feasible materials.

------
VikingCoder
Could you weave those nanotubes together, to go from nanotubes less than 1
meter, to something the required length?

~~~
Zikes
I think they'd have to work with strands much longer than the 1 meter ones
currently available in order to make a sufficiently resilient "rope". Also,
the article didn't mention it, but that 1 meter strand was probably made under
strict laboratory conditions after a great deal of trial, and it's not likely
able to scale up to manufacturing standards just yet.

~~~
Balgair
Some issues come from phonon effects. These ropes would be a single crystal in
effect. From thermal 'noise' you get phonons in the crystal. Since the crystal
is a big tube, these phonons can only travel up, down, or create standing
waves around the tube (essentially). When these phonons interact, there may be
enough energy present to break the crystal/rope. This happens a lot since
atoms are real small. Doping the crystal may help, but that'll weaken it.
Cooling it may help, but that's costly. Much more basic research is needed.

~~~
thret
Just out of curiosity, could we build a space elevator on the moon with
current materials?

~~~
neolefty
Yes, with Kevlar -- to L2 or L1:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator)

------
mrfusion
I think people place way too much emphasis on space elevators. There are so
many technologies between current day rockets and futuristic space elevators
that would work for dramatically lowering the cost to orbit.

For example this fellow thinks a space gun would be very viable [1]. He's even
built them before, and it sounds like he's just one successful kickstarter
campaign away from building one. (Maybe someone here could help him set up a
successful kick starter?)

[1] [https://medium.com/looking-up/b3b2af5bbf71](https://medium.com/looking-
up/b3b2af5bbf71)

~~~
TrainedMonkey
I think there is a very big difference between putting raw material and
sophisticated electronics into orbit. One of them can't survive sudden
acceleration to 8k meters per second.

There is some potential, but it would be hard to realize it.

~~~
warfangle
Even if you shoot something on a ballistic trajectory, it must alter its
delta-v after the initial launch.

Or it comes right back down again.

IANARS

~~~
mrfusion
Yeah, he mentions that in the article. His proposed space gun would basically
replace the 1st stage of a rocket. Still a big win IMO.

~~~
warfangle
For anything that can undergo that kind of acceleration, sure. Unfortunately
most of the things we need to send into space kinda get squishy when that
happens.

~~~
mrfusion
I don't know about most. Water and fuel are two big things that should survive
a high G trip. I believe satellites and rovers can also be designed to survive
such a trip.

------
neil1
It seems as though a big part of google x is waiting for academies to do a lot
of the hard lifting and then when something has all of the part's completed
and researched, putting them all together.

~~~
jfoster
It did cross my mind that perhaps they should consider longer carbon nanotubes
as a Google X project rather than waiting on someone else to do it for them. I
imagine there are plenty of areas other than space elevators where they would
be useful.

~~~
dekhn
My thought exactly. As an end-goal, space elevators are still science fiction
even if you have the materials because the construction would still require a
bunch of other technologies.

While better physical materials can be immediately applied to terrestrial
problems.

------
saosebastiao
Given how weird Google's hiring practices are, how does one actually go about
getting hired at Google X? Would you have to interview for a few thousand
positions before you get the right one?

~~~
beambot
Go to Google's jobs site and look for listings labelled "Special Projects"
[1]. These are (often) Google[x] listings.

[1] [http://www.google.com/jobs](http://www.google.com/jobs)

~~~
foobarqux
What part of Google does Titan Aerospace fall into?

------
roberthahn
So, the article said they need a material 100x stronger than steel. I'm not
strong on materials science, so can anyone tell me: why not use 100 steel
cables?

I was imagining assembling the cables into a rope-like structure. After all,
rope is an excellent example of how you take relatively weak fibres and
assemble them into something much stronger.

~~~
ufmace
One of the core challenges with the space elevator concept is that they need a
cable that can reach from the earth's surface to somewhere beyond
geostationary orbit, with exactly how far depending on how they want to
arrange the counterweight. The midpoint of that cable will have to support the
weight of all of the cable that's below it, and that's around 10-15k miles of
cable. So we need a material out of which you can make a 15k mile long cable
that can hang free, supporting its own weight. Making it thicker doesn't help,
because then you just add more weight that you'll have to support. We need a
better material that has this level of strength when manufactured at scale.

~~~
mrfusion
Has anyone looked into the idea of tapering the cables? It would seem like at
the bottom on the cable they wouldn't have to support as much weight as at the
middle?

So could you make them thin at the bottom to save weight and then gradually
make them thicker at higher altitudes?

~~~
cdash
It has been looked at and the figures used might even include tapering. One
thing is sure though, even with tapering it is not possible today for a earth
space elevator.

------
mrfusion
Does anyone know how the hovercraft would work? I'm pretty curious.

~~~
zafka
I am pretty sure they are talking about diamagnetics. Bismuth demonstrates
this, and graphene also. These are materials that are repelled by a magnetic
field.

------
sscalia
I'd love for them, you know -- to design radical new ways of visualizing and
accessing the wealth of human knowledge, rather than spend their time with
geeky pet projects that will never see the light of day.

Google search interface has been fundamentally unchanged since it launched in
the 90's.

But you know, glass and self-driving cars and all that shit.

~~~
samplonius
You are assuming that you'd recognize innovation as innovation as innovation,
if you saw it. Would you?

Because self-driving cars are a huge deal. It would eliminate the range issue
of electrics, because you could send your car to a charging station and get in
another. Plus, reduce overall transportation costs. Parking costs in a large
city can be $300/month. Self-driving cars plus car sharing will make that
obsolete.

~~~
JabavuAdams
Don't forget the 45k+ traffic _fatalities_ (not injuries) per _year_ in the
US.

------
stephenr
Google Space Elevator: the first modern elevator in history not to have phone
support.

------
coldtea
> _Captain of Moonshots-- "moonshots" being his catchall description for
> audacious innovations that have a slim chance of succeeding but might
> revolutionize the world if they do._

Moonshots, huh? I'd call them "useless PR stunts".

Stuff that's neither useful and product oriented (like from Apple), nor deep
or interesting enough (like Xerox Parc, IBM or AT&T of old) but is guaranteed
to buy some expensive positive news coverage and bring some goodwill towards
Google for their "innovations".

~~~
dannyr
So a self-driving car would not be useful?

It's crazy that we complain when companies build apps that we don't think is
meaningful enough.

But when a company aims to build something trying to achieve a lofty goal, we
call it a "useless PR stunts".

~~~
coldtea
> _So a self-driving car would not be useful?_

Not for 10+ years or more. And at that point it might not even come from
Google (other companies also conduct research on that, just less publickly).
So the current spectacle and premature announcements are pure PR.

> _It 's crazy that we complain when companies build apps that we don't think
> is meaningful enough. But when a company aims to build something trying to
> achieve a lofty goal, we call it a "useless PR stunts"._

How is that "crazy"? It's like saying, "It crazy how we call people to not be
overweight, but when they stop eating altogether we call them anorexic".
Comdemning one extreme doesn't mean we should applaud the other extreme.

I mean, there's a whole spectrum between "non meaningful crap" and "useless PR
research" that companies could be aiming for...

