In 2019, Elon tweeted[0] that the price of one Raptor engine is under $1M with the goal going under 250K for the next version. Any recent info where there are now?
I'm still surprised they moved to this orbital fly so quickly without doing more tests. Going from 3 engines to almost 30 is crazy. Also, If I understand it right, both booster and starship will end up in the ocean. I hope they will be able to reuse at least a few engines.
A whole industry bootstrapping itself to make semi-conductors doubling every 18 months, going from exotic, mission critical hardware to commodity; SpaceX is doing the same thing with flight hardware. Contrast that with previous generation engines (the RS-25 comes to mind) with a sticker price of 125 millions... per engine! [0]
> A whole industry bootstrapping itself to make semi-conductors doubling every 18 months, going from exotic, mission critical hardware to commodity;
Silicon Valley did not bootstrap itself. It received untold billions of dollars from the US government during the Cold War (and lots of stuff happened during the WW2 economy, when the US was the Allies' armorer). Do you think it a coïncidence that most spy satellites are launched from Vandenberg? Or that Skunk Works, located in California, developed so many secret aircraft?
Do a search for "The secret history of Silicon Valley":
The fact that the US was, post-WW2, the largest economy in the world, and the main developed nation that didn't see mass destruction, certainly didn't hurt.
The fact that the US government throws a lot of money around certainly helps private industry:
This also does not diminish the entrepreneurs that, once the baton is handed to them, charge forward. My main argument is that there's not as much "bootstrapping" as many people believe.
The government spent $211B on the shuttle program and got 133 launches. SpaceX will probably surpass that number this year at a fraction of the cost.
NASA's record on rockets since Apollo has been abysmal.
I don't think government is necessarily bad (the Russians did a much better job in recent decades!) but it leans into its failures and often has bad incentives. SpaceX fails fast, has great incentives, and has achieved an incredible amount on a (comparatively) shoestring budget.
SpaceX has had very impressive successes, some government programs have failed or run over budget. Some government programs were also impressive, both in the US and abroad.
I think we can all agree on those points. The point of the GP that I (and I think many others) react to is the "Only in America things like this can happen" part. I just don't get American exceptionalism I guess.
It's a "standing on shoulders of giants"-type figure of speech that American's use. Like, NASA is foundational to the accomplishments of SpaceX. Many countries on Earth do not have space programs at all. Our history with space as a nation is profound to our national identity whether we realize it or not.
Do you mean you don't understand why American's would think that America has done incredible things, or do you not believe America has done incredible things?
Saying that something "could only happen in America" (usually) indicates a view that America is somehow unique (as in the American exceptionalist view).
I'm not saying that America hasn't done great things, or that Americans shouldn't believe they have done great things. It's just that no country is unique in this manner, and Americans seem to often say they are in ways that I rarely see other countries do.
> Saying that something "could only happen in America" (usually) indicates a view that America is somehow unique (as in the American exceptionalist view).
Having had a bit of a ground-level view of this going back over a decade, yes, America is exceptional in this respect. Lots of people tried to do private launch overseas. Trivial barriers like explosives licenses stopped most at the gate. The sole success stories are in the U.K. (Skyline) and New Zealand (Rocket Lab), with the former stretching the definition of "success." Meanwhile, America has SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and a trove of others.
The permissiveness and commercial latitude the U.S. government affords Americans is unique. The protections American law and culture afford private property is similarly quite extreme. These facets come with downsides. But in 2001, I can confidently say that had Elon started SpaceX anywhere but in America, it would have dismally failed.
None of that would have happened without Werner von Braun and his crew. And Russia beat the US to space to begin with.
Yes, SpaceX could only happen in the United States. But let't not pretend that the whole American package warrants the 'favored and exceptional nation' badge that so many seem to want to bestow on it, which is what this American exceptionalism is all about. Shining city on the hill and more of that kind of crap.
> None of that would have happened without Werner von Braun and his crew
One cannot ignore that they did their later work here. Not there. As did many others whose own societies collapsed or otherwise failed them.
In any case, I’m arguing a narrow argument: that a company like SpaceX could only have been founded, when it was founded, in America. Because of its certain characteristics that are an exception in the set of the world’s cultures. (One among many: its unique ability to assimilate and positively appropriate from immigrants.) That doesn’t mean it’s faultless; that’s a straw man.
> its unique ability to assimilate and positively appropriate from immigrants
The US is not unique in that regard. Australia and New Zealand are very comparable in that way. Canada probably belongs in that list too.
I agree that, in the contemporary world, SpaceX could only have happened in the US. But that's because of economic factors (government funding for the space industry, easy and plentiful access to venture capital, a low regulation business environment.) That particular combination of economic factors is unique to the US. Being exceptionally welcoming to immigrants is rare but not unique.
Calling Werner von Braun an immigrant is a funny thing to do. Immigrants tend to have some choice in the matter. Von Braun and his band of rocket experts were given a pretty stark choice, surrender to the Russians or surrender to the Americans, they chose the latter.
But they did have a choice and they did choose. Just NOT the USSR, just like all those countless other people over the years all choosing similarly for some crazy reason…
Yes, hence my opinion that they should have gone through Nuremberg like the rest of the war criminals instead of being given an exemption because their knowledge came in handy. I see them at the same level as the engineers that designed the gas chambers.
I'm not sure they really had a choice in the first place. I don't think the Nazis were going to let him and his family leave the country and get a job in America.
The rhetoric of American exceptionalism annoys me a lot.
But occasionally I think it has some justification. And I think SpaceX is one of those rare cases. I just can't see a firm like SpaceX existing in any other country. The US offers a unique combination of easy access to capital, relatively low regulation, and high government funding for private space ventures, which I doubt you will find anywhere else.
> The US offers a unique combination of easy access to capital, relatively low regulation, and high government funding […]
Yes. And none of those things are historically unique.
They just happen to be true now in the US, partly because the US is the large economy in the world. But those things were true during different times in history in other countries.
Do you think it was a coïncidence that the Industrial Revolution kicked off in the UK, when they just happened to be one of the larger economies in the world at that time? Where did all the early research in electricity happened, in the US? Do you think Volta, Ampère, or Hertz are American names? Or the concept of interchange able parts (see the book The Perfectionists by Winchester)? Where was the internal combustion engine invented? The American space program was kickstarted by a bunch Germans.
Of course culture helps as well. Britain actually lost its initial lead in the chemical industry, even though things started there:
Fiddling with industrial chemicals was poo-pooed by the British intelligentsia, so the industry in Germany ended up surpassing Britain (e.g., BASF). See the book Mauve by Simon Garfield for a pretty good history on this:
> And none of those things are historically unique.
I never said it was historically unique, if by that you mean without any historical parallel. Of course if you look at other industries and other historical periods, you will see other cases where a certain industry in a certain country has pulled ahead. And US leadership in space (or any other industry) is not guaranteed to last forever, and is in fact unlikely to last forever. But the US does provide a supportive environment for private space entrepreneurship which is unique in the world today.
The US has both some unique strengths and unique flaws. It is a world leader in both the space industry and in mass incarceration. The first is something it can be proud of, and the second is something of which it should be ashamed. Neither lead is guaranteed to be permanent, so in neither way is it unique in an absolute historical sense, but in both ways it is unique relative to the world of today.
> Do you think Volta, Ampère, or Hertz are American names?
I feel like you are arguing, not against anything I actually said, but things you are imagining I said. I'm not an American. I'm perfectly capable of being critical of the US (there is much I could say on that topic) but I also think it has its strengths and SpaceX is evidence of some of them.
Historically, all three of the examples you site (Industrial revolution in the UK, Chemical manufacturing in Germany, and current commercial space industry in the US) are exceedingly rare*. The vast majority of both countries and time periods show a total absence of new technological development. Roman agricultural productivity was under 0.1% for the entirety of the empire. [1]
You're siting 0.1% historical outcomes when you look across all of the active civilizations across all of human history.
The conditions in the US currently, and Pax Americana more generally, are extremely rare in the history.
[1] Joel Moker's Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. I'd also highly recommend Moker's "The Gifts of Athena"
The point wasn't just about SpaceX. "A whole industry bootstrapping itself to make semi-conductors doubling every 18 months". That semiconductor manufacturing industry is largely overseas and has been for awhile.
I don't quite follow you here. Sure, lots of (non-Intel) semi-manufacturing happens outside the US in 2021. But when the industry built itself, a huge portion was in the... USA. Just like the space industry.
and is, oddly enough, coming back to the US. There's a semiconductor fab opening in Austin courtesy of Samsung, and a semi fab in arizona courtesy of TSMC. I guess they are taking advantage of labor and technical expertise due to intel's chandler site?
Russia, the EU, China. Basically every nation or political entity with enough launches to jump start a new launch program. Out of these only the US went with a private new comer. The EU choose to develop a new Ariane launcher, while China went with national program.
It costs way more to be the innovator than the fast- follower or optimizer.
The government (US taxpayers) were the ones that did the initial work to level the raw earth and pave the road. SpaceX may be doing amazing work improving the process, but comparing the two as you’re doing is not appropriate.
For what it’s worth, NASA doesn’t directly build much. Even the Apollo program was a huge web of private vendors (many who still exist today).
SpaceX is/was just another entry on the long list of private contractors commissioned to build things for NASA, DoD, et al. But different here is that SpaceX worked at very very different speed than Aerojet Rocketdyne, ULA, and all the other old-space fossils. Still, those old contractors are valuable for other things — good welders, technicians, and engineers take many years to train and these old legacy corps provide a steady income stream to maintain a certain level of manufacturing readiness.
and yet it would be nice to still have the shuttle program... so far nothing is capable of EVA like the shuttle was so any repairs in space are still not possible, like they did in the past with the shuttle.
The Space Shuttle costed $1.6 billion per launch. There's not a whole lot of things that would be cheaper to repair than to build a new one and launch it on a Falcon 9.
I agree that the Space Shuttle had a cool factor that nothing else does.
You start by saying the argument is annoying but then you don't refute it in the slightest. Illustrating that the gov also invests heavily in gov agencies does not sever the productive link between gov investment and private industry
> Do you think it a coïncidence that most spy satellites are launched from Vandenberg?
It's not a coincidence, it's geography.
It is desirable for reconnaissance satellites to cover the entire planet regularly. That means high inclination orbits. That means southward launches (as opposed to eastward). That requires a launch site with ideally lots of ocean and not a lot of population to the south/southeast.
The US does plenty of military launches into other orbits from the east coast.
technically you could also do northward launches, but if you look at the geography of the US, it does not cooperate and provide northward ocean in many places.
>> Notwithstanding the millions that NASA gave them in their early stages.
And the billions spent on the technologies that allow those engines to exist. SpaceX didn't invent rocket engines. It stands on the shoulders of many giants going back through Apollo to the early days. There are even traces of Soviet tech in the raptor (ie closed cycle). Nearly all of that work was funded by taxpayers ... and by whatever funded the soviet programs.
Building a better mousetrap is great, but that doesn't mean that all the previous mousetraps were not also great too.
Watching the Falcon Heavy take off & land was one of the coolest things in my life. Watching Starship take off, land, and blow up was neat. The fact that these things build on previous accomplishments doesn’t make them any less impressive. Enjoy the ride & don’t poop on the party.
Legitimate criticism of SpaceX fanboys is not "Pooping on the party". People who pretend that this is a ground-up space program, an icon of how private enterprise is always better at everything, need to be educated in the history of spaceflight. I myself could build a car in my garage that is better/faster/cheaper than everything available in decades past. That doesn't mean that I am one iota smarter, better organized or more innovative than the engineers who built those classic cars.
The problems is other who are standing on the same shoulder of the same giants, even the original giants themselves fail to turn this theoretical advantage into actually being
> better/faster/cheaper than everything
So do talking down SpaceX based on that makes no sense.
If you truly believe that you can make a car that is significantly better than the current state of the art AND turn it into a viable business at scale, then what are you waiting for? You’ll be a billionaire.
Just ... No. Read the history. At least read Wikipedia.
"Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949. The first staged combustion engine was the S1.5400 (11D33) used in the Soviet planetary rocket, designed by Melnikov, a former assistant to Isaev.[1] About the same time (1959), Nikolai Kuznetsov began work on the closed cycle engine NK-9 for Korolev's orbital ICBM, GR-1. Kuznetsov later evolved that design into the NK-15 and NK-33 engines for the unsuccessful Lunar N1 rocket. The non-cryogenic N2O4/UDMH engine RD-253 using staged combustion was developed by Valentin Glushko circa 1963 for the Proton rocket."
And way down at the bottom of a long engine list spanning more than half a century...
"Raptor—SpaceX LCH4/LOX engine in development, first flown in 2019[19][20]"
> The first flight test of a full-flow staged-combustion engine occurred on 25 July 2019 when SpaceX flew their Raptor methalox FFSC engine at their South Texas Launch Site.[8]
(Yes, there are others listed, but SpaceX was first to actually fly something.)
The "long engine list" is only 3 deep, none of which besides the raptor made it past the test stand. What matters is full-flow-ness, not staged-ness, which means running neither oxidizer- or fuel- rich, for maximum efficiency. And in any case the russian engine was N2O2/UDMH and the american prior art was hydralox, so it's not like spacex didn't have to do a TON of figuring out to get a methalox FF engine up and running.
I'm not trying to detract from the monumental achievement SpaceX's engineers have made with the development of the Raptor, but that development work didn't take place in a vacuum. Unfortunately, I don't have a credible source for this, but I have seen multiple reports that the Raptor program was explicitly a continuation of the IPD program, with SpaceX receiving technical data, hardware, and even hiring engineers who worked on it.
That the IPD was hydrolox and didn't proceed to the point of a full engine, let alone a flight is besides the point.
What you said was: "They kind of did invent full-flow engines though", which is completely false.
IIRC, the recent doublings have been happening in Taiwan. That's why people make such a big deal about TMSC. America (i.e. Intel) actually has some catching up to do.
EUV LLC. that their current nodes are based on was started in America through DARPA, DoE, and a US industry consortium. That's why we are still allowed to enforce export restrictions on EUV tech via ASML, even though it is European.
One problem with other countries is there is an industrial oligarchy that can't get shake itself out of the "The Innovator's Dilemma." Disruption is not considered valuable. The Russians have two aircraft design bureaus Sukhoi and MiG to help somewhat in preventing stagnation, but it would be impossible for a SpaceX to come out of nowhere in Russia like it did in the U.S. Elon even went to Russia in the early SpaceX days to buy an old ICBM and they told him to screw off.[1]
One related anecdote. I read somewhere a while ago about how Apple had a lot of internal security, even between teams. They said the reason for that is that if someone in the iPod department found out about the iPhone they'd realize the threat to their career and work to undermine it.
I never understood why Canada would restrict international players from disrupting sectors like telecom (a commodity really) but didn't seem to have any problem with Airbus taking over the CSeries program for almost nothing.
> but didn't seem to have any problem with Airbus taking over the CSeries program for almost nothing.
This is actually a somewhat amusing to bring up in this context, because US protectionism is what made that happen.
Boeing tried to kill off the C-Series by getting the US administration to impose 300% (sic!) import duties because ... it threatened US jobs. Airbus was targeting the program aggressively as well with tactics like price matching, so the CSeries was already struggling before that.
Bombardies only viable way out was to join a partnership with Airbus (which got 50.1%), so the planes could be manufactured in their Alabama plant and it could be positioned within the Airbus product range instead of competing.
The partnership was forced move, and quite a big middle finger to Boeing. The alternative would have probably been just shutting it down.
Bombardier already had a huge backlog of orders and the program was getting profitable. Since the tariffs were later ruled illegal, why not simply get the government support to weather the storm?
Could you imagine the French letting Dassault, Airbus or the US government letting Boeing fail?
Perhaps the government doesn't like foreigns tapping Canadians' communications? The NSA listens in on its own citizens with the coöperation of the US telcos, so what chance would foreigners have?
Telecoms are protected sectors in the same way that Banking and Entertainment are, they are strategic industries, and 'wire tapping' while somewhere on the list of issues, is down the list.
Canada's position on foreign ownership and trade is fairly consistent with norms in advanced countries, and fairly liberal, probably more so than most nations.
Non-market forces also play a huge role in this, for example, irrespective of what the auto-trade policies actually are between the US and Japan ... the Japanese would simply never allow US firms to compete on equal terms there.
Cultural factors, some more systematic and institutionalized than others, provide enough impetus that they represent at least as much of an issue as anything agreed upon formally by trade representatives.
Never understood putting barriers and quota on entertainment (as well as government subsidies). Companies like Disney and Marvel both made billions simply by making content people want to watch. Canada is pretty much free to export its content anywhere and sell it. Why not simply compete?
It's interesting to even fathom that someone would put cultural domain issues entirely within a capitalist context.
There are two fundamental reasons that content everywhere is subsidized and protected. They are of course related.
First, more obviously is the cultural aspect. The things we believe, the stories we tell, are part of our identities. With critical mass and investment those stories some will take root.
It's a little bit of a myth to suggest that a small creative team just 'makes something' and it goes big. This does happen, but generally speaking, it takes a machine. Many layers. 'Taylor Swift' should be thought of as a 'Brand and Production Company' - as opposed to a person.
You'll find that almost all truly creative endeavours are at least partly communitarian. The ballet exists only because Louis XIV, the most powerful man in the Western Hemisphere, personally created it.
Almost all such endeavours have a purely creative component, it's actually more rare than not that those works are purely commercial. The creative world is in constant tension between 'art and money'. You often hear famous movie stars say 'One for Me, One for the Studio' hinting at that.
Some cultures are stronger than others (aka European), and some have more of a critical mass in terms of audience (aka Indonesia), some have both (aka Japan). Some have contiguous histories of relative sovereignty (aka Thailand), some the opposite (aka Laos, Tibet) and so varying levels of support and protection are needed otherwise a lot of it would just evaporate.
Most countries provide fairly significant tax advantages etc. for creative works.
Second, is the fact that creative works on the commercial side, like anything, are an industry with similar kinds of underlying components and critical masses.
In that context it's a little bit glib to say to a group of people in a little region for example to 'compete' with a massive established industrial base. Whatever the industry.
Hollywood is big enough, has several very institutionalized layers of production, incredible degree of hyper-specialization (i.e. you will find more 'kinds of trades' and people who are really good at it there, than anywhere in that field). That includes access to capital, legal frameworks, specialized talent, workers guild specialization, harmonization with government (i.e. getting locations), talent agencies, distribution channels and relationships with Netflix etc..
This extends to the rest of the 'support' aspects of the industry like bookings on talk shows, morning shows, cover placements in magazines, media dockets etc.. It's all professionalized and mostly corporate.
Marvel films, in particular are a really good example of this - they are not particularly good films, but the production quality of them is basically '1st rate' at every turn, from writing, production design, direction, story narrative, the immense production support, post-production / effects, marketing.
Once you add in language and cultural barriers, i.e. the fact that a movie about 'Captain America' will have a strong enough audience domestically, with some acceptance abroad, and you have insurmountable competitive advantage. (Nobody is going to watch a film about 'Captain France', or 'Captain Japan' - or rather, many fewer).
The only other place that can compete really is the UK, which has many of those same foundational advantages, plus a long history of 'popular theatre' and especially the BBC which exists in part as a systematic support / lynch-pin under the auspices relevant to Point #1.
Canada, pound for pound, actually punches above it's weight relative to the US in a lot of production aspects. The new Dune film is Denis Villneuve, and his 'posse' of creatives are from Montreal. In some ways, it's a 'Canadian-led' film, but that just happens to be talent, it's not really part of the industrial base. Villneuve exists because Quebec strongly supports creative endeavours (and FYI for every Villneuve, there are 10 you've not heard of, 50 who never really had support or a shot, and 1000 who tried and failed).
FYI there is actually a lot of film production in Toronto/Van/Montreal, but mostly the 'labour' bits of production, not the choice roles.
The raw economics of entertainment, in the short run, optimize like anything else. Take a 'Large Open Economy' and put it next to 'Small Open Economies' and you'll see consolidation hugely disproportionately in the 'Large' economy, which is where all the talent, surplus, and good jobs end up.
Entertainment happens to be at least one sector, where due to 'Point #1' (i.e. culture), there's wide recognition of the need to support it via non-market forces, so at least there's that. But really the same applies to any sector.
If we really think that we should just all enjoy Marvel and Netflix - and that's that - well then all of that is fine - but it's such a hugely narrow aspect of creative output.
Finally, the true globalization of the industry has seen the biggest budgets move towards ever dumber films. Fast and Furious, Transformers ... they have to appeal not not just to 'working class Americans', but to 'the global working class' which is barely literate, and of course they're from diverse cultures so there's a lot less to draw upon for cultural reference. 'Transformers' , 'Godzilla' etc. are basically giant action sequences and that's it. Of course that's totally fine - but they suck up the budget and attention of other potential works, which don't get made. So ironically, this problem has manifested itself even for the 'Large Open Economy'.
For your reference, here are quotes from a few dozen industry luminaries on that subject [1]. It's a good read.
> Once you add in language and cultural barriers, i.e. the fact that a movie about 'Captain America' will have a strong enough audience domestically, with some acceptance abroad, and you have insurmountable competitive advantage. (Nobody is going to watch a film about 'Captain France', or 'Captain Japan' - or rather, many fewer).
That explains why Parasite and Money Heist flopped.
> The new Dune film is Denis Villneuve, and his 'posse' of creatives are from Montreal. In some ways, it's a 'Canadian-led' film, but that just happens to be talent, it's not really part of the industrial base. Villneuve exists because Quebec strongly supports creative endeavours (and FYI for every Villneuve, there are 10 you've not heard of, 50 who never really had support or a shot, and 1000 who tried and failed).
From what I've been told, Quebec is the only place in Canada that consumes its own culture.
"That explains why Parasite and Money Heist flopped."
It explains why thousands of films, just like 'Parasite' and 'Money Heist' flop, why they are not on Netflix or in theatres, and why you've never heard of them, and why neither Spain nor S. Korea are entertainment powerhouses in film.
KPop however, which is definitely a Korean export, has some strong 'industrial foundations' along the lines of what I'm talking about. It's a real industry there.
Here are 2021 'Canadian Films' - have a gander and see how many you recognize. [1]
Quebec consumes it's own content because they are a distinct from the rest of North America, and they invest a lot in culture. And a pretty good comparative basis for Ontario / Rest of Canada.
> It explains why thousands of films, just like 'Parasite' and 'Money Heist' flop, why they are not on Netflix or in theatres, and why you've never heard of them
That's true in America as well. There's only so many good movies!
> Quebec consumes it's own content because they are a distinct from the rest of North America, and they invest a lot in culture.
And they buy it, they don't need a government check to make it.
There's no import tariff for importing cars in Japan, and regulations aren't special (except Kei cars) but US cars aren't sold well (Except Jeep?). It's just because US cars/brands aren't attractive or not practical in Japan market (or Japan market is not attractive for US makers to invest). German cars are somewhat sold well despite expensive and not more practical (There's no Autobahn, max speed is recently increased 120km/h from 100k in new highway) compared to domestic cars.
> Perhaps the government doesn't like foreigns tapping Canadians' communications?
As if foreign countries needed to actually own the infrastructure to tap it [0]. All they need is to have employees inside with double allegiances [1] [2] [3]
In many locations, essentially once you get outside of major cities, it is not economical to run more than one line to each property - telecoms often ends up a monopoly, similar to power distribution or water supply. You can lessen the effects by having the physical infrastructure owned by a different entity to the service provided - like in the U.K. with BT Openreach for example, and in that case maybe the service is a commodity - but I don’t think the infrastructure ever really is.
Wireless, satelite, cable in own ducts, fibre through sewer.
There’s multiple ways to deliver ip packets to a property in the country.
A better solution could be to have ducts to run whatever owned by the council and available on a RAND basis - sane way roads are, but it’s not essential for competition.
Canada did prop up this program for quite a long time. It never achieved its sales goals. Moreover the money that they dumped into it was ruled illegal by the WTO. In true Trump fashion the White House overreacted and put 300% tariff to kill the program. Airbus rescued the program.
The comment about 'Canada blocking foreign investment out' is basically not correct.
Also, Telecoms, Banking and Communications are protected industries in every country, Canada is not special there.
If Canadian Telecoms Bell, Rogers and Telus went up for grabs, and even if Canada realistically had the same access to US markets - do you think Telus would be buying AT&T? Or the other way around?
It doesn't matter 'how well run' Canadian telecoms are (I don't think they are, but even if they were) - or how poorly US firms were run. The 'big' would eat the 'little'.
All of the 'good jobs' in Telecom like network planning, research, anything related to R&D, executive management - would go to the US. Canada would be left with 'Customer Service' and some local marketing.
There wouldn't really be that much gain for anyone, the net 'savings' would be marginal, and then, you'd be left with the Canadian government trying to regulate giant behemoths the size of entire sectors of the Canadian economy without much leverage.
That sector is verticalized with Entertainment and so with Bell, would go a whole bunch of TV / Cable stations etc.
Then AT&T/NBC would even more effectively be able to push their own programming, guests (who promote films, books, sports) and further push down anything remotely local towards hegemonic products.
So aside from the not-so-obvious economic advantages, there are quite a few externalities to worry about as well.
America in particular likes to push the concept of 'Free Markets' - because it has tremendous advantage in that context.
'Just Open Your Economy!' is the strategy of a 'Giant Economy' telling 'Little Economies' that 'We Will Devour Everything Of Value'. It's essentially a form of economic colonialism.
Adam Smith isn't exactly wrong, there can be many benfits to both sides, Canada has this kind of 'Gilded Cage' situation wherein it can maintain a very high standard of living by being next to the US, but it comes at the cost of losing the ability to do almost anything exceptional that in any way competes with the US.
The EU is not as unbalanced and they have different national constituents, with longer history and more potent foundational industries. Tiny Sweden makes Jet Fighters (!) which comes out of their cold war Air Force history of independence and a formerly relatively giant Air Force.
That America can have guys like 'Elon Musk' + Space X is a function of a few things, but at very least, it's scale.
The US is a huge market and only certain things can only be done at that scale. Most small countries do not have competitive automakers. Space X is essentially dependent on US Government contracts, at least indirectly.
Second, it's 'much bigger than it's peripherals'. This means that the US sucks all the talent and capital from neighbouring states into it's systems.
Think of the 'Silicon Valley' as not an 'American' place - think of it as an 'International Zone' that happens to be in the US. A 'super cluster' with a giant critical mass of talent.
Right now, arguably due at least partly to the inherent advantage that the Euro gives to Germany - Spaniards, French, Italians etc. are moving to Germany at considerably greater rates than in the other direction. That's where the industrial base will grow jobs from. Peripheral European states that don't manage to found their own competitive sectors will turn into places like Alabama and Louisiana where the talent vacates before it can establish into critical mass.
Third, another major artifact is inequality. Low-end jobs in American don't pay well, and they don't get benefits. The surpluses to the high side of the pyramid are huge. But when you take into consideration the 'off the books' economy, it's massive. California has almost 3 Million undocumented citizens, who are more likely to be young, more likely to be workforce participants, almost entirely working at the lowest end of the labour pool, and definitely earning far sub-minimum wage. Every manual activity from planting, to picking, to trucking, to food preparation and cleaning - everything but the 'front facing stuff' is often fulfilled by people 'off the books' and the consumer and corporate surpluses from that are gigantic. Add to that the downward pressure on wages ... and basically you have a giant wealth transfer machine with enormous surpluses floating into the hands of those with middle to upper class incomes.
Just consider what all of the US stats would look like if we accounted for those jobs, at those wages. What would GDP/capita start to look like, GINI coefficient, other measures of inequality and % 'uninsured', voting rights.
I'm not making a political comment here, it's a problem and a paradox, but pointing out the material advantages to the non-serfdom population.
This excess free cash-flow both on an individual level and corporate level enable so many things to happen, it's hard to fathom. It's so common in America for individuals to have hobbies i.e. drones, cars, travel, tech etc. that are 'really expensive', beyond the reproach of the middle class in other nations.
Relatively cheap energy, wide open spaces and relatively cheap land, especially compared to Europe for example, again, this has all sorts of 'unseen surpluses'.
So those are just a few of the differentiators and of course, there are so many more, it's complicated.
> The comment about 'Canada blocking foreign investment out' is basically not correct. Also, Telecoms, Banking and Communications are protected industries in every country, Canada is not special there.
... So they do block international investment. Therefore, the comment is correct.
> Second, it's 'much bigger than it's peripherals'. This means that the US sucks all the talent and capital from neighbouring states into it's systems.
Choosing innovation has the side effect of attracting talent. Other countries can simply compete on perks to retain their talent! I recall Musk, in an interview, saying that he felt going to Stanford was a better use of his time than military service for the (then apartheid)
regime.
> Think of the 'Silicon Valley' as not an 'American' place - think of it as an 'International Zone' that happens to be in the US. A 'super cluster' with a giant critical mass of talent.
And yet it's very much in America. And every time you are hearing "the Silicon Valley of X" it's someone trying to sell you something...
I've come to believe that the most important quality of capitalism isn't markets or some super-human intelligence that markets somehow possess, but simply the ability to bypass stagnant incumbents, entrenched interests, and bureaucracies.
In other words the most critical quality is permission-free innovation.
In all other systems from feudalism to socialism to communism there generally is just one department or agency responsible for each thing, and it's usually either the state itself or some state-blessed entity with an enforced monopoly. If that entity does it's job well, that's great. If it doesn't, tough shit. Nobody can go around it.
This is also why I disagree with market purists about anti-trust. If a private company gets so huge that it is able to occupy an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, it's important to do something to either break it up or incentivize other entrants. A private company allowed to remain super-dominant in one sector for too long starts to look and behave like a Soviet bureau.
> This is also why I disagree with market purists about anti-trust. If a private company gets so huge that it is able to occupy an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, it's important to do something to either break it up or incentivize other entrants. A private company allowed to remain super-dominant in one sector for too long starts to look and behave like a Soviet bureau.
I would say that if a private company gets so huge and can control an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, they will inevitably stagnate which leaves them open to competition. The biggest problem issue for such private companies is not that they can control entire market segments but that they can lobby the government for regulations that permanently entrench themselves by making competition illegal in some way. The regulations are almost always done in the name of safety (if we don't regulate this then new unsafe entrants who don't follow all our internal practices could enter the industry and kill people). So they get government regulations created that exactly follow the company's own internal regulations. That both accelerates the company toward stagnation (they can no longer update the regulations) and also puts up walls for new competition as the new entrants can't innovate if they have to follow all the legacy processes.
That further gets trade unions/teamsters involved who learned to follow those regulations in trades schools and further act to restrict any improvement as it would kill their jobs.
Them being a monopoly in and of itself is not a problem, as long as we can prevent them from putting up barriers that would protect themselves from competition once they stagnate.
Actually the US declared they were willing to spend money for commercial space flight at the end of the shuttle program. They literally said “I’m a demander for a good/service” and entrepreneurs got to work.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with American sub-culture, the US dollar, our crazy university system, and immigration. This is speculation on my part so take it with a BIG grain of salt.
The USA brings in 50 million or so people from other countries. Often they are bloody minded, stone cold, hard workers that will sacrifice everything to give their children the opportunity to be Americans. These people are some of the best in the world in my opinion.
The US dollar being used as a reserve currency for most of the world means that it is the center of international investment. This means that the billions of dollars that flowed into PayPal and Elon Musk's startups probably came in large part from foreign investment funds.
Our universities crank out some of the weirdest and least conventional engineers you can imagine. Most of them are half-crazy in the first place. The archetype of Mad Scientist can be found in physics departments and engineering labs all over the country. Conformity is often seen as a kind of perversity. We idolize professors like Feynman and read novels like Ignition! This is why you see bridges collapsing and power grids failing while we build some of the most advanced technology in the world. We hate boring maintenance and love to launches cars into space.
Finally in no small part is American sub-culture. Specifically the science fantasy of space travel and colonization that is in the heart of a lot of American engineers and scientists. The same fantasy that captured the heart of Elon Musk, a billionaire South African immigrant who made his fortune in Silicon Valley. In addition there is the added fact that few other countries would allow some random small company to build ICBMs in their metaphorical backyard. The USA is kinda loose like that...
> The USA brings in 50 million or so people from other countries. Often they are bloody minded, stone cold, hard workers that will sacrifice everything to give their children the opportunity to be Americans. These people are some of the best in the world in my opinion.
Over the last 40 years I've known and worked with some of these people, and I marvel at their tenacity and the sheer force of will they have to succeed. It just blows me away. Sadly, it seems to disappear from the next generation. I'll admit that I have a small sample size.
I've worked with a lot of people like that as well. It's always a bit awe inspiring.
I don't know what component is responsible for the difference between immigrants and natives. Maybe it's the selection, the change of environment, the adversity, or sheer diversity of individuals. If we could manage to build an education system that produced students as dedicated, creative and hard working as our best immigrants, the USA would secure a place in history that would make the 1400 years of the Roman Empire seem like a blip in comparison.
These people are actively undermining the American spirit - I am saying this as an immigrant to USA and a person of color. I am fine with understanding racism in USA, it is completely unacceptable to inject this into STEM education. The next generation is going to grow up learning more about race at the expense of learning mathematics.
This disgusts me. Some kids are stupid (Apologies for blunt language, but it's true, life is unfair.) or have poor home lives, so let's remove education that can help them have better lives because some of the struggling kids are black. Counterintuitive, oversensitive, and directly hindering
Dragging everyone down because some diversity quotas aren't met is awful. Unless there's clear evidence that teaching advanced math directly contributes to racism, teach it, make it harder. Make our kids work and succeed and fail again.
That's super cool, good for him. It's also an anecdotal example and relatively meaningless in the scheme of things.
I'm not even saying that black kids have any inherent disadvantages, but that people have become so sensitive to that perception as to seriously hinder actual education.
Seriously, people are worried about racial sensitivity in math. These two things do not go together, should not go together, and have almost zero reason to interact.
Come on, they are right next to a world class math department (Berkley).
Instead of paying for a committee of bureaucrats (with generous pensions!) to write about "racism in math", why not hire a couple of undergrads as extra tutors for students of color struggling with math?
Public education is the front lines of the culture wars. I've observed many waves of reform (fads).
Overcorrection is the norm.
Probably because incrementalism simply isn't possible. So when reform does happen, it releases decades of bottled up pressure. Like a dam bursting.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I've seen too many of these spasms to care too much.
That said, my hot take on bias training is two fold.
1) Bias training for teachers (and every other profession) is long overdue. This is indisputable.
2) I'm unaware of any validation which shows bias training for students is worthwhile. Maybe it is. But hippocratic oath dictates that we figure this out before committing.
Teachers et al should dog food their own training for a while. Lead by example. See how well it works.
My hunch is that students will pick up most of the important lessons thru osmosis.
Simply removing teacher-born biases, those negative role models, certainly couldn't hurt.
I just skimmed through that document. Based on your description I was expecting a polemic. But actually about 90% of what they recommend looks like really good ways to improve math instruction.
The big problem to me is that teaching math is hard, and teaching math well, as recommended in that booklet, is really hard. You can write all the pamphlets you want, but in the end the answer will be about the same - get really good teachers. Which probably means paying teachers a lot more than we do now.
The letter appears to be criticizing a different document: The California Mathematics Framework. That framework appears to be around a thousand pages, which I don't have time to read right now, unfortunately.
It is strange that you think that letter would change my opinion though. It doesn't really contain any analysis or arguments. It just says that the changes are bad, and here is a long list of people that agree. After having read the actual document, why would you think reading that letter would change my mind?
Respectfully, the onus is on you to understand what are the perils of such policies that erode the future of our kids, for those that oppose such policies are respected leaders in Mathematics education - perhaps you should question your stance based on what apparently is a marketing pamphelt precisely designed to pursuade people. Based on what you said i.e. "90% of what they recommend looks like really good ways to improve math instruction", I am pointing you to additional information that might convince you otherwise.
Respectfully, I'm having a hard time following your point.
Originally, you linked to a pamphlet and implied that the authors of the pamphlet were "actively undermining the American spirit". I pointed out that the packet appeared to provide good advice for math instruction. You responded "perhaps you should question your stance based on what apparently is a marketing pamphlet precisely designed to persuade people". Why did you link to it then?
What information are you pointing me to that would "convince [me] otherwise"? I read the letter you linked to, and it provides no arguments. As I said previously, it is mostly a list of names of people who are publicly stating their disagreement with a different document - literally appeal to authority fallacy.
I think you would be surprised how much we are aligned on the importance of math education. I'm an engineer from a family of engineers. I clicked your link because I have a son starting kindergarten in a California public school in two and a half weeks. But I was pleasantly surprised to see that the math education being advocated appeared better than the one I received, not worse.
It's important to show what the marketing material is - verbatim - and what kind of BS is being peddled by these people. Apparently, you didn't find it BS so I asked you to read up on it.
I am not following your logic in this entire argument chain. Let's move on.
Big time! The USA could use a lot more maintainers. People who want to see beautiful, well built, and carefully taken care of cities and streets. People who make sure the power is humming and pipes are clean. Unfortunately the political situation is more of a "Keep building shitty car dependent walled garden suburbs that no one can afford, except investors. Keep that up until the house of cards collapses under the weight of our poorly maintained and expensive infrastructure."
Those are all good points, but the rest of the world turns out, pound for pound, Engineers that are just as good and crazy.
But have access to fewer resources, networks, capital, markets etc..
Also, the % of US immigrants that are on the 'high end' is relatively smaller.
Migration to the US, when you include off the books migration, is a little bit towards the low skilled end.
But definitely the smaller relative portion of 'hardcore talent' is still actually quite large in real terms, and yes, they do disproportionately contribute. It frankly doesn't take a large quantity.
This is why I didn't just mention the engineers. It's the conflation of all those factors. Not just a single one. Crazy engineers can get a lot done with no capital, but mostly they will end up doing soul crushing Dilbert style jobs.
For instance, look at Russia! Their engineers are probably twice as crazy as Americans, but they have very little room to do crazy things with that talent. They don't have trillions of US dollars being sheltered in their tech startups by VC funds.
The US offers unlimited resources for pursuit if one is willing to venture after them with resilience. Having said that, it always comes down to passion and willingness of pursuit and this is why many with lesser means can still achieve greatness and even better in a country with the resources available.
" it always comes down to passion and willingness of pursuit"
I think this mostly populist myth.
It's definitely possible for people to do 'great things' but there are innumerable factors beyond that. 'Passion' I would say is not even an important or necessary element.
'Grit' is probably necessary, but not nearly sufficient either.
That anything is possible, doesn't mean that it's remotely likely to happen even with unlimited 'passion and grit', or even talent.
I think it certainly could happen anywhere else in the world.
After years of living abroad, I've come to realize one thing about America and Americans. We're a bit more willing to risk it and fail. Sure, loads of people would rather have a secure job and not make risky decisions. Still, I think there's a higher concentration of those who will. Compared to lots of places on Earth.
Also, for many who immigrate here, there's kind of no choice but to risk it and try to do something bold and crazy to make it.
US government space funding, as a percent of GDP, is the second highest in the world. The only country which beats the US at %GDP government space funding is Russia; but in absolute terms government space funding in the US is 7 times that of Russia, due to how much bigger US GDP than Russia's is. SpaceX has received a lot of business from the US government (both NASA and military) and is hoping to receive a lot more in the future.
US arguably has the world's easiest access to venture capital. Compared to the US, venture capitalists in other countries tend to be more cautious, demanding much more equity for the same investment, and often much more interfering as well.
A low regulation, low corruption business environment. Trying to start something like SpaceX in many other countries, the government will force you into various inefficiencies – using politically favoured suppliers, etc. The US has comparably little of these problems.
> Compared to the US, venture capitalists in other countries tend to be more cautious, demanding much more equity for the same investment, and often much more interfering as well.
Because there are a lot of other factors that are different. Other countries have different interest rates, tend to have much smaller markets to sell into, and tend to have much more tightly regulated labor markets. There's also an absence of large tech acquirers that exist in the US.
VC economics rely on a portfolio theory of a few gigantic winners making up for the other losses. So if different economic conditions creates a difference in the ultimate size of our 'winners' than you have to figure out how to have fewer (or smaller) losses.
Your points are true, but I think other factors also play a role. What makes, for example, Australian investors behave differently to American investors? No doubt differences in economy size, regulatory regimes, etc, make a difference. But I also think some of it is due to differences in national culture. People have been talking about "tall poppy syndrome" as an element of Australian culture for decades; people don't say the same thing about American culture. (That said, it looks to me like the concept, but not the name, is increasingly making inroads into the US.)
Certainly investor culture matters a ton. And US is a big place and certainly isn't monolithic. All the stories of early silicon valley speak of a clash with 'East Coast' investors who are viewed as being more conservative on both terms and stages.
It's a little goofy, but I have a personal hunch that the high level of sunlight in Silicon Valley help entrepreneurs there - as building companies is rough so it helps to persevere if it's always bright out.
(Background, I grew up in Boston, moved to Silicon Valley, and have tried to start companies with varying amounts of success.)
SpaceX has quite a few engineers that learned the practical details of rocketry on the government’s dime. Be it at NASA or Boeing or an aerospace department at a university that gets government funding. I don’t mean to detract from SpaceX’s accomplishment, but they “bootstrapped” themselves the way a rich kid starts a company using the resources and connections put in place by his “family”.
So Blue Origin... they started earlier yet lag behind SpaceX with an even richer person backing the company, so it doesn't seem to be rich kid starts a company that makes the difference
> Where in America are these magical semiconductors being made?
You're unaware that the US is one of the world's leading manufacturers of semiconductors?
For 2019 the US exported $44 billion worth of semiconductors. The third largest export for the US, behind airplanes ($130 billion) and oil ($152 billion for all oil products).
There are only a few major semiconductor manufacturing nations and the US is among them.
bootstrapping itself by extending tech designed decades ago? that doesn't sound right. Until today, the biggest rocket design was still the soviet N1 from the 60s. It's good to celebrate space achievement but rewriting history is annoying
Something kinda similar happened in Japan after the second world war - from cities burned to the ground in 1945 to first japanese nuclear power plant and bullet trains by the 1964 Olympics. Pretty remarkable IMHO.
This is hardly beyond standard practice in the industry.
The SLS is going to orbital flight with no flight testing. Heck the Falcon Heavy launched a car past Mars' orbit on it's first flight. I think SpaceX's main goal was to refine their manufacturing process and make sure they can achieve a certain level of consistency in building these things. The fact that they installed all these Raptors before even doing a pressure test tells you they are far more confident in their processes than they were even 6 months ago.
> hardly beyond standard practice in the industry. The SLS is
Perhaps explaining GP's surprise: I've heard SpaceX's testing philosophy contrasted against this sort of thing. That none of their tests are "too big to fail". On the other hand, according to this narrative they also stress iteration speed over success rate, and ramping up fast works to that end too.
Maybe they were getting diminishing returns (in terms of lessons learnt) in small scale tests though. No doubt there are phenomena you only see in larger tests, and (as you say) their confidence in getting the smaller stuff right might be quite high.
Keep in mind gold is a lot denser, so it'd be a miniature engine if you made it out of pure gold. If you take the volumetric space of all the materials that might lead to a different answer, but that's hard to do. (I guess you could make it out of gold foam.)
I LOLd but then had to do the math. Turns out that the dry weight of a SpaceX Merlin engine, in gold, costs almost exactly the same as a production RS-25.
Current spot price of gold is $1800/oz. Merlin dry weight is 1380 pounds. 1380 pounds of gold is right at 40 million dollars.
Those numbers are out of date now, they recently restarted production and it turns out each engine is about $150M now for the new production run for the SLS. (Which about the cost of a full expendable Falcon Heavy rocket launch along with all 27 of its Merlin engines.)
... surprisingly, this is not much of an issue. The key property for keeping a rocket engine from melting is not high melting point, but high thermal conductivity. Because of this, all the parts that touch the hot flame are made from a copper alloy, with a melting point not far from that of pure gold.
In the chamber, the hot gases are >3500K, and touching the inner walls with a melting point at ~1400K, yet the walls don't melt, because they are cooled with more power than they are heated.
"I'm still surprised they moved to this orbital fly so quickly without doing more tests."
I'll bet they're going to remove all 29 of these engines and re-attach them again later. I would expect they want much more testing than they've done to date (for example, pressure testing the tanks -- they have not done that with this booster, BN4, according to Reddit).
> Also, If I understand it right, both booster and starship will end up in the ocean.
You mean for the first test flight? Do you have a source?
Long term plan is definitely land landing, but I haven't seen anything about the first test flight.
I assumed that they would try and land it from the start, they've already landed starship a few times, and it seems like that's where a lot of the unknowns still are (e.g. they're apparently adjusting wing size down after the last landing)?
Basically both vechicles (the massive booster and the starship itself (2nd stage) are going to "land" on the water, which means a hover and then sinking into the water.
Booster - Boost and separate, boostback burn and splashdown off the coast.
Starship - 90 min orbit at about 120km, reentry and spashdown near Hawaii
It's fairly quite likely that both would crater on this first flight - for instance this is the first booster flight and also the first reentry for the starship itself.
The Falcon 9 booster also had similar flight plans until it could successfully fly a controlled trajectory to the surface of the ocean before they risked a drone ship too.
Yep, this is what I meant, thanks for the sources.
Although, I'm not sure about that "then sinking into the water" part. There are big LO2 and methane tanks and If they are empty enough and closed, both Starship and Booster shouldn't sink. I guest, we'll see it soon.
It's generally considered unlikely that the skyscraper-sizes rocket can fall over in the water and remain intact enough to float, although it did happen once to Falcon 9, so it's not impossible.
In a recent interview [1] Elon stated that empty booster "has the density of an empty beer can" which is a great mental aid. So it will certianly float.
But part of it will be underwater, initially the very expensive flamey part (engines). They will not "be the same" after the experience.
> The Falcon 9 booster also had similar flight plans until it could successfully fly a controlled trajectory to the surface of the ocean before they risked a drone ship too.
They also don't yet have any drone ships capable of landing the Starship or booster.
But yes, it'll very much "prove it can more or less land" prior to actually giving them anything (breakable) to land on.
The plan for the first test flight is to aim for a controlled water landing, but the odds of that being completely successful aren't high enough to risk a land landing. The new drone ships are still under construction: https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-...
I'm still surprised they moved to this orbital fly so quickly without doing more tests. Going from 3 engines to almost 30 is crazy. Also, If I understand it right, both booster and starship will end up in the ocean. I hope they will be able to reuse at least a few engines.
[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1179107539352313856