
Elon Musk is pushing the human race forward - murtza
http://murtza.org/2011/12/27/elon-musk-pushing-human-race-forward/
======
SeoxyS
Elon Musk is my ultimate role model as an entrepreneur.

This article, for me, is somewhat bittersweet. I look up to Elon Musk and what
he's doing, because it's really making a difference in the world. That's what
I aspire to do someday. But my day to day job is as the first engineer of an
advertising startup, where we make boatloads of money helping compagnies
better monetize and promote crappy mobile games. Sometimes I wonder if I'm
creating any value in the world.

Hopefully this'll be a stepping stone towards financing a startup that'll be a
little more meaningful.

~~~
lionhearted
> Sometimes I wonder if I'm creating any value in the world. ... Hopefully
> this'll be a stepping stone towards financing a startup that'll be a little
> more meaningful.

I think almost everyone thinks this, but y'know what?

It's a lie. People keep saying they'll do what really motivates and engages
them real, real soon... just as soon as this obviously-must-be-done thing is
done.

But life, life is a series of obviously-must-be-done things. At some point,
you need to stop doing them and start doing what actually matters to you.

You can break away from the grinding routine in a responsible, steady way.
Easiest way to start? Wake up 1-3 hours earlier, and spend your peak creative
time on something incredibly meaningful to you. Could you do that?

I don't trust the future. Everyone says they're going to do things in the
future, and most people don't do 90% of them. If you're really serious about
changing the world, the best time to start is yesterday, but the second best
time to start is right now.

~~~
JamesBlair
Although I am probably not the intended audience of your message, I can't
agree with the sentiment. Akrasia has to have a reason, even if it makes no
rational sense, and all my believing in "stop doing [unimportant things] and
start doing what actually matters" seems to do is make me feel guilty and
worthless for being unable to find the motivation to do what actually matters
to me. I know what I'd like to be doing, but I also know I'm not motivated to
do it. What's a _real_ solution?

~~~
josephg
> I know what I'd like to be doing, but I also know I'm not motivated to do
> it.

You just contradicted yourself. Being motivated to do something _means_
wanting to do it.

The problem is that "What do I want to do" actually has two meanings. It means
"What would I like to be doing each day" and it means "What do I want to have
done". These are very different questions, and they have different answers.
I'd like to have fed the poor, but I would not enjoy standing on the street
asking for donations from passers-by. I want to be designing computer games,
but I won't be particularly proud of writing Battlefield N+1.

I've spent years optimizing for how my life will look in retrospect. This came
as a revelation to me, but if I look back at my fondest memories over the past
few years, none of them have involved big goals. Instead, they've all been
things that were fun to do, like gamejam and trapeze lessons. This year I've
got a new plan: -Ofun. I might not change the world, but maybe if I'm enjoying
myself a lot more that'll be ok.

------
codeonfire
I think SpaceX's success had more to do with the military and space business
needing a new public face. SpaceX's executive bios read like a who's who of
the space industry. I think people seem to think that Musk reinvented rocketry
in three years, which is unrealistic. It's a nice made for TV story, but most
corporations probably couldn't swing hundreds of millions in fed contracts
without some serious connections.

~~~
cloudwalking
He hasn't reinvented rocketry, he's reinvented rocket manufacturing.

~~~
Joakal
A lot of reinventing seems to be done due to ITAR and monosponies.

------
AznHisoka
While not anyone has the luxury of bootstrapping a space company in their
20's.. I still think most startups have lots of other opportunities to tackle
bigger problems. The problem is we hang out in tech, and aren't exposed to
those problems. But if we hang out with biologists, doctors, teachers, etc..
they'll all tell you problems that need solving. Technology can't solve
everything, but paired with the insight of someone from those other fields, it
can make a dent.

------
dogfood123
Nissan and Chevy are already shipping electric cars. There are other private
companies pursuing private space flight. Elon gets the love from the Valley
because he's from here, but he's an entrepreneur just trying to make money on
what's hot. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's hold off on the
deification.

~~~
maaku
I'm in the space business, and there are no other organizations in the world
doing space the way Elon is with SpaceX. The framework is entirely different,
which is far more important than you might give credit. None of his
competitors are doing business in a way that will credibly open up space as an
entrepreneurial frontier like we have here in the valley.

~~~
damoncali
Can you elaborate? I used to work in the space industry, but it's been some
time.

I spent some time at Orbital at a time when they were trying to launch
ORBCOMM. What they were doing seems similar in feel to SpaceX. I also noted
that ORBCOMM is one of the first scheduled launches for SpaceX.

Interestingly, Orbital was started by an entrepreneur with a vision of small
launch vehicles and he managed to actually pull it off- it was not some huge
spinoff of an existing giant. I wonder how much the two are talking.

Friends of mine who worked on the early days of Orbital's Pegasus described a
situation that sounded very startup-like to me. (I worked there in the late
90's, but on Hubble, not Orbital's commercial projects).

Orbital had modest success (if an IPO can be considered modest). So it seems
not only plausible, but likely that a new approach is what is needed here.
Perhaps SpaceX is the next iteration of a leaner approach that will actually
scale to the meet the grand vision.

~~~
maaku
In the quickest summary, SpaceX is structuring their business in such a way as
to grow fast, get profitable, and remove the need for external funding. They
are using COTS (government funding) in much the same way as a silicon valley
company would use a VC to provide capital needed for rapid growth. They've
been using that money coming in the door to create a non-government market and
to make their technology very cost effective in order to grow the space
market. Orbital has structured their COTS approach in such a way that they
will be able to meet objectives and stay profitable, but it is not an
evolutionary path towards a general space architecture.

------
sown
I've been reading about intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation. I don't know if
that's a bunch of pop-psychology but I would bet he has much of the former. I
wish I could summon those kinds of energies.

------
cdjarrell
Elon Musk will be one of the most influential people in the world for the next
20-30 years, not just directly from his companies but also from others in the
industries he's pushing.

Let's not forget Elon is also Chairman of the Board for SolarCity as well,
which is leading the distributed solar PV market.

He's pushing the human race forward in many areas, all at the same time.
Pretty remarkable

------
ranman
The problem with Elon Musk is this... no one will ever live on mars for
extended periods of time because mars is not suitable for human life for the
following reasons: 1\. weak magnetic field 2\. 1/3 of earth's gravity 3\.
about 100 other reasons that just make the first 2 harder to deal with.

Mars is not somewhere to live, it's somewhere to explore.

------
MikeCapone
What I'm most looking forward to is Tesla's third and fourth generation
platform. I'm really curious to see how low they can bring the prices and how
high the driving range will be at those mainstream prices.

As for SpaceX, I think they're doing amazing work and it was about time the
private sector got into this field with ambitious goals.

------
zerostar07
If I dare ask, why does the human race want to leave the earth? There's no
reason or benefit. There are more interesting, more pressing issues having
mostly to do with our biology.

~~~
jscn
tldr; To mitigate existential risks.

There are at least a couple reasons: 1) A lot of the conflict that destroys so
many lives is motivated by limited resources such as land. Getting off this
planet could make that kind of conflict disappear (eventually). 2)
Diversification. If climate change/oil scarcity/nano/GE get out of hand, it'd
be good to have someplace else to go. Even if you're sceptical about the
environmental risks from climate change and oil scarcity, GE and nano pose big
risks. The easier nano and GE get, the more likely some bio-/nano-hacker
somewhere creates an irreversible problem for us (whether accidentally or
intentionally).

~~~
zerostar07
But none of these scenarios seem particularly pressing. 1) Population growth
rates fall as living standards improve, the UN predicts a rise up to 9 billion
humans followed by a drop to more or less back to 7bil. 2) It would be easier
to work on reversing climate change than finding a planet that supports life.

The way i see it we 're still in 'space exploration' not colonization. Perhaps
if we master biology, life and intelligence first, we 'll have our drones do
that for us.

------
Canada
Tesla has yet to accomplish anything notable except for getting a half billion
dollars from the government. Hopefully they are successful in producing and
supporting their Model S.

~~~
jurjenh
I believe they have quite some involvement with Toyota with regard to
transmissions / battery packs or something along those lines. Commercially it
seemed a successful deal for them.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Tesla is building the drivetrain and batteries for Toyota's new all-electric
Rav4.

------
prewett
The article says "in addition to reducing carbon emissions" in regard to the
Tesla. I can't see how electric cars actually reduce pollution/emissions of
any kind.

Typical coal -> electricity is 33% efficient, but can be up to 50% [1],
electricty to battery is 75% [2], and electric motors are about 92% [3]. The
typical efficiency will be .33 * .75 * .92 = 23%, with a maximum of 35%.
Gasoline engine efficiency is 25 - 30% [4], so we aren't really improving
pollution much with electric cars, until wind/solar makes up a substantial
part of our grid.

Now it will certainly _move_ the pollution from the cars in the cities to the
power plants elsewhere (which is a good thing), but it really isn't preventing
pollution.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-
fuel_power_station#Basic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-
fuel_power_station#Basic_concepts)

[2] <http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006554.html>

[3] [http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficienc...](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-
d_655.html)

[4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency>

~~~
jonknee
You're counting all the deficiencies of electricity through the life cycle of
how it gets into your car, but not for how oil gets turned into gas and then
into your tank.

Less than half of electricity in the US is from coal. Also, because of how
power plants / grids work, there is excess capacity available that electric
cars can use (overnight charging) without increasing power generation.

~~~
eps
> _Less than half of electricity in the US is from coal._

And the rest is from Canada :)

------
BerislavLopac
"This car will be able to go 160 miles on one charge of its battery pack."
Meh: <http://www.rimac-automobili.com/concept_one/battery-system-9>

~~~
maxmcd
I was going to simply counter your "meh" with another "meh" regarding battery
vaporware, but unless that site is straight up lying those are some impressive
stats. I've always been more a fan of battery replacement stations instead of
batter charging, but with a 20min charge and 150km range who cares.

~~~
lloeki
From their performance page [0]:

    
    
        POWER: 1088 hp
        MOTOR TORQUE: 3.800 Nm
     
        BATTERY CAPACITY: 92 kWh
        RANGE: 600 km
     
        ACCELERATION 0-100 kph: 2,8 sec.
        TOP SPEED: 305 kph
    

The battery capacity for the Tesla Roadster is 53kWh, weights 450kg and is
advertised to last 350km on a charge (and Roadster's world record at 500km).
92x350/53 magically gives us 600km. It also gives us a little short of 800kg
of batteries (although they're LiPo instead of Li-ion as in the Roadster, but
that should not change the weight much) and the x-ray renderings indeed show
batteries take a good deal of the volume of the car. Note that weight,
critical for a sports car, is not mentioned. The complete car will probably
end up around 2t, and with 1000hp this makes a contender for Veyron class
cars.

For reference the one in Model S is 42kWh and the Nissan Leaf has a 24kWh
unit. This is expected given the audience, which requires a practical car, so
volume has to be surrendered by the batteries to the passengers and the boot.

All in all it's not _groundbreaking_ by any stretch of the imagination and you
can safely "meh" the GP on the distance-on-a-charge ground. By saying so I'm
not downplaying the most important fact here and that's each one of those cars
show a nascent market expanding both ends, and I'm looking forward to that.

[0] <http://www.rimac-automobili.com/concept_one/performance-10>

~~~
BerislavLopac
I agree with your last statement completely.

Here are two more tidbits about the Concept One:

1\. You may see it in (very limited) action here:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkpetEjePUo>

2\. The company is from Croatia, where Nikola Tesla was born. ;)

------
amorphid
Elon Musk does seem to be pretty good at going for it. It is nice to see
people executing on big ideas.

------
zackattack
The sheepish feeling about app development made me think of Buckminster
Fuller's _Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth_ :

"For every 100,000 employed in research and development, or just plain
thinking, one probably will make a breakthrough that will more than pay for
the other 99,999 fellowships".

------
ThaddeusQuay2
"Musk recently said that he will put humans on Mars within ten to twenty
years."

Uh-huh. I said it before, got downvoted, and will say it again, because I
think it's important.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3389824>

~~~
divtxt
Your original comment should read:

> The number of dead people whose ashes _got a known-to-be small but definite
> odds at being put into space_ by Elon Musk? 208.

It's well known that new launch platforms fail a lot initially. Soyuz still
fails after 757+ launches, and the fatality rate for _humans_ is still 2%.

So, when you get on launch #3 of a new platform for which launch #1 & #2
failed, you've got no excuse for to complain about failure.

Links:

<http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/log2011.html#rate>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-
related_acc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-
related_accidents_and_incidents#Percentage_of_fatal_spaceflights)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#Launch_history>

~~~
ThaddeusQuay2
What does "definite" mean? Greater than zero? That's useless here. Either you
made it to orbit or you didn't. Either you're pregnant or you're not. Either
you are alive or you are dead. There is quite a lot of binary stuff happening
in the universe, and none of it relies on things like "0.24% likelihood".
SpaceX's record is abysmal, and you forgot a few facts.

1) Soyuz is a government project with the pride of a nation at stake. SpaceX
is a personal project with the pride of an egomaniac at stake. If SpaceX
fails, it's merely another startup gone bad. If Soyuz fails, it's quite a lot
more.

2) Did Musk spend any of his billions on purchasing any of that hard-earned
Soyuz flight data from Russia? If not, then he does not care to learn from
history, which means that the long-term failure rate of SpaceX vehicles will
likely be higher than that of Soyuz.

3) If I am right about #2, then the fatality rate for humans under SpaceX will
be higher than 2%, and even 2% of a million people is already quite high,
especially when you consider that most of them will not be trained to the
levels of the people who have already gone up.

4) If Musk was grounded in reality, he would shoot for the moon, then Mars.
Risking fewer people, closer to Earth, is certainly a much better strategy
than what he has announced. If something goes wrong on the moon, help is a few
days away. That might still not be good enough, but it's far better than the
stretch of time required to wait for help on Mars.

5) Musk has very little experience building rockets, and none at all when it
comes to building habitats for extreme environments. Take the full
documentation (parts, computers, software, maintenance, and whatnot) of the
latest Boeing jet, multiply that by about 100, and you might have what it
takes to successfully fly to Mars and live there. This kind of endeavor will
require a deep rethink of how we handle big projects. SpaceX does not have
this ability.

A few years ago, we had the era when Google could do no wrong, and any
criticism of Google would not be tolerated by its many fans. Now, that same
mindset applies to Musk, except this time, people will die.

~~~
damoncali
If you don't try to do things differently, there will be no innovation. The
current system (NASA, et. al.) does not scale up to what is needed, so
different strategies are required. It's really as simple as that.

Will he succeed? Highly unlikely. But I'm glad he's trying, and anyone who
kills themselves on one of his rockets will know what they're getting into.
Flying in space is inherently dangerous.

~~~
ThaddeusQuay2
Musk is in a unique position of responsibility. If he fails, and particularly
if he does so in a spectacular fashion, public sentiment may turn and go in
the other direction, saying that such big projects really should be done by
governments, because they are the only entities powerful enough to make grand
goals happen. I am not against him or SpaceX or settling Mars, but it is quite
irresponsible for him to say that he will put 10,000 people on Mars in only 10
to 20 years. Anyone with two neurons to rub together should be alarmed at such
a statement, and should think twice about getting into a rocket built by him.
Put 10 people on the moon, and have them survive for a year. Then, and only
then, make some cautious, speculative statements about Mars. A space
entrepreneur grounded in reality is more likely to succeed, but if he fails,
said grounding will give those who follow a greater likelihood of success,
rather than having their opportunity snatched away by a government riding on a
new-found wave of public fear.

------
chauzer
Elon Musk is pretty badass. It's awesome that he takes such a big role in the
technical design and development at Tesla and SpaceX rather than just "running
the company" like most CEOs.

