/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9985467
he hooked up with a crazy chick who turned him onto drugs and he ended up running his company into the ground as a consequence.

>>9985470
>>9985467
wow are you guys from the future?

>>9985551
Do you live under a rock?

>>9985551
Only women are time travelers.

>>9985647
That is fascinating technology, could you please teach me how to live under a rock? Surely you've observed this in society or reality.

>>9985467
Nothing, he's just trying to beat my Social Simulation High Score.

>>9985467
people are dumb bastards, that's the problem
>>9985662
pic related

>>9985669
This is not technology, this is a picture of a cave. Why is this allowed on this board?

>>9985671
>technology is needed to live under a rock

>>9985689
>cavemen says what?

>>9985467
Modern-day Howard Hughes

>>9985689
Economic Sharing Distribution Methodologies

>>9985467
nothing. Tesla won't become the new Toyota, but he will be remembered as the guy that invented a bunch of shit. Kinda like Nikola Tesla.

As for his other companies there is no way to know. SpaceX has already made history. They got big plans, and I don't think they will all come to fruition. Musk will be remembered as an innovator at the very least. Plus in 50 years when we are living in more progressive society Elon's behavior won't be as strange as it is now.

>>9985790
lol what has Tesla (company) ever invented?

>>9985797
They have proven the concept of self driving cars, they have proven the concept of having purely electric cars. Plus they do a bunch of shit in solar stuff that I don't know too much about, but yea.

You can say that some guy in China "invented" the first electric car or made the first self driving system, but Tesla has been the company to successfully really push this technology.

>>9985854
So, essentially nothing.

>>9985467
Nothing, space weedman just caught the attention of people who are constantly seeking an excuse to become hysterical, if it wasn't him it would have been something else.

>>9985854
The first electric car existed alongside the first internal combustion engine cars.

>>9985467
He's playing 5D chess.

>>9986001
Trump gave him "the technique" in secret

>>9985854
>They have proven the concept of self driving cars
they didnt do that

>they have proven the concept of having purely electric cars
they didnt do that

>solar
whatever

mercedes has had a self driving system for a long time and all it really does is follow lines on the highway to keep you in your lane. There is no practical application of self driving cars beyond that point.

>>9985467
ask his handlers

>>9986554
>they didnt do that
yes they did
>they didnt do that
yes they did
>mercedes has had a self driving system for a long time
no they didn't
>There is no practical application of self driving cars beyond that point.
yes there is

>>9985467
We had a meme president, we now have a meme CEO.

that's not the future we wanted

Capitalism eating itself.

>>9985790
invented what exactly?
Name one groundbreaking technology that one of his companies developed.
No landing a rocket is not a tech it is a maneuver we have done it before and nobody does it because it is not economically advantageous.

>>9986554
>there's no practical application to self-driving cars
Holy shit.

>>9985662
>>9985696
Simon, you need to chill.

>>9986838
>No landing a rocket is not a tech it is a maneuver we have done it before and nobody does it because it is not economically advantageous.

You dont know much about spaceflight, do you? Vertical landing was done back in the times of Apollo, but vertical landing of an orbital class booster as done by SpaceX is a new technology, and it is crucial if we want to increase launch rate and decrease launch costs. Also it is not true that nobody does it due to economics. Reusable rocketry was considered the holy grail. Nobody does it because everyone thought that hydrogen spaceplanes were the only way to have reusable rockets. NASA has spend decades and billions of dollars trying to develop that angle, and failed miserably. SpaceX succeeded where NASA failed, which only makes their accomplishment larger.

>>9986858
>vertical landing of an orbital class booster as done by SpaceX

> a new technology

No

>>9986860

Yes, I forgot about all those booster landings before 2015... Oh wait, there arent any

>>9986838
>Not ecenomically advantageous
You're a fucking retard, costs are almost cut in half by each launch due to spaceX's techniques relative to NASAs.
And on the topic of groundbreaking technology how about the capacitor driven acceleration in Tesla vehicles that allows them to accelerate so fast even at high speeds for quicker, safer overtaking on highways? The compact, high capacity/longevity batteries used in Tesla cars. Or the most sophisticated self driving technology in the world? All of these were developed by Musk's companies.

>>9986860
>No
>I'm so envious of Elon Musk, I must only speak against him, no matter how much he innovates and works towards an actual good future.

>>9986875
>>9986936
not that guy but the control system together with the precision is taken straight from icbms from the 80s.
even the fin design is the same.

>>9986933
>Or the most sophisticated self driving technology in the world?

Isnt Waymo better? With all that Google might behind them..

>>9986875
Because nobody gave a shit. The only one saying this is economically advantageous is Musk himself, and can you really trust that clown? 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely lmao

>>9986946
Tesla's self driving is shit tier. This is well documented, I don't know what these other Musk munchers are on about. Tesla still uses freaking cameras instead of radar to do "self driving". It is the same as if not worse than lane assist and adaptive cruise control from other manufacturers, they just have better marketing.

>>9986952

>Because nobody gave a shit.

Wrong, NASA gave enough of a shit to spend more than $100 billion and several decades trying to develop a reusable launch vehicle.

The rest of the industry indeed did not give a shit, because they were very much content launching once a month for $ hundreds of millions a pop and never improving, to keep them sweet tax dollars flowing.

Thank fucking God for Musk bringing some fresh air into this clusterfuck.

>>9986933
Source because we don't actually know how much money SpaceX makes or loses per launch they are a private company. Eon runs SpaceX like Tesla its a ponzi sheme they are probably broke andvlose money eith every launch just like Tesla loses money by selling cars.

>>9986984
>The rest of the industry indeed did not give a shit, because they were very much content launching once a month for $ hundreds of millions a pop and never improving, to keep them sweet tax dollars flowing.
Yeah fuck all those conservative companies doing their job.
No cult of personality no lies no vapoware BFR.
They keep their mouth shut and do their job how boring... 120launches without a failure? Hoe boring right?
LLeave this place you /futurology lurking piece of uneducated hipster trash.
Rocket science is a serious business and not a place for a drug addict ponzi sheme running faggot like musk now go suck his dick.

>>9986984
>NASA

They think Elon Musk is a meme.

>>9987132
the irony is nasa is the meme

>>9985790

Bore off you slime.

>>9986858
Landing isnt hard at all. New Glenn will nail the landing on its maiden flight.

>>9986984
Reusable launch vehicle is not the same as landing it. They landed the Space Shuttle countless times, but it's not reusable. SpaceX is also not really reusing their Falcons. They do it once for PR and that's it.

>>9987107
Look it up yourself, or ask yourself why NASA now employs spaceX to restock their space stations.

>>9985790
You mean 50 years from now everybody will be thin-skinned narcisists that call each other pedophiles on twitter?

>>9986956
Right. This comes straight from Tesla's website you moronic fuckwit:
"Eight surround cameras provide 360 degrees of visibility around the car at up to 250 metres of range. Twelve updated ultrasonic sensors complement this vision, allowing for detection of both hard and soft objects at nearly twice the distance of the prior system. A forward-facing radar with enhanced processing provides additional data about the world on a redundant wavelength that is able to see through heavy rain, fog, dust and even the car ahead."

Also, talk to me more about rival companies' self driving, be more specific so I can point out to you that those same other companies use Tesla's software.

>>9986946
Tesla and waymo are comparable, but neither is clearly better, they're using different methods ATM. Tesla is compiling data from the cars it currently has on the road to create software that can handle all the variables, while waymo is simulating and feeding that simulated data back into their cars.

>>9985790
No one will remember him unless he walks on Mars.

>>9987269
They've reused rockets multiple times, and the only reason they've been discarding them relatively quickly is because they're improving so much on the design.

>>9987287
Man, I can't wait to crash in a Tesla because their superior Tesla Autopilot © technologies didn't detect a stationary object on the highway and then burn to death because of their easily ignitable original Tesla Batteries ©.

This message was brought to you by Tesla, Inc.™.

>>9987317
>They've reused rockets multiple times, and the only reason they've been discarding them relatively quickly is because they're improving so much on the design.

Imagine being this deluded.

I mean, why do you have to lie? Even Elon, the probably most dishonest business man of our time, admits that refurbishment costs for a second reuse are simply too high.

>>9986830

not enough weed, or Teslas or rockets or nuclear bombs strong enough for america to give him his own country

>>9987287
>uses literal marketing as a source for claims of self driving dominance
astounding

>>9985467
He's one of the crazy ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFEarBzelBs

some people used this debaucle to grab some cheap shares

>>9986813
Kek

>>9986945
So you admit that it was literally never done before SpaceX did it?

Tesla stocks were worse in April, I don't see why you guys are making this out to be the end of the company.

>>9988330
Usually when you fall from a high of 380 to 250 in a matter of months it's a bad thing. Couple that with the fact that 90% of Tesla's market cap is based on hype, and we can see that the bubble is about to burst.

too much weed

>>9987686
>Can't read a simple statement and assumes it means something else.

I used the quote from Tesla's website to show someone that Tesla uses radar and ultrasonic sensors you absolute cuntbucket, maybe read before opening your dick holster. It was nothing to do with Tesla's 'self driving dominance'.

didn't this sub worship him as some kind of a god emperor like a few months ago and now everyone is suddenly against him wtf

>>9988789
>sub

Go back man

>>9988789
>sub
Fuck off your opinions dont matter and you should kill yourself.

>>9988679
Then it's irrelevent brainlet. Radar or not Tesla has shit autopilot

>>9988789
Between calling a rescue worker a pedophile because he was rescuing children at the time and dude weed lmao, he's really making a fool of himslf.

>>9987323
he is correct and you are spewing nonsense, Musk said no such thing, Block V is designed for 10 reuses

>>9989736
What I really don't understand is why would he double down so hard on calling that guy a pedo with goddamn child brides from Thailand. He has a brilliant mind, shouldn't he have at least some common sense to go along with it?

>>9989751
maybe he is really a pedo and Musk has some kind of evidence on him, we will see how the lawsuit goes

or Musk is just such a social sperg that he does not know or care about how he looks in the eyes of public

>>9989763
If Musk has that evidence, one should assume that everybody who knows that guy has evidence, which would raise the question why nobody is doing anything about it. It is much more likely Elon is just sperging out because he dared to call Elon a wanker.

>>9989765
>>9989763
>>9989751
>>9989749
>>9989736
The diver was a chip-on-his-shoulder grotty englishman and he deserves all the libel he gets.

>>9989751
He's learning the wrong lessons from Trump.

Insulting your sainted enemies and rivals - fine. Insulting widely admired, apolitical people who aren't in your field - idiocy.

>>9989763
Why would he have evidence when he's an armchair commentator like everyone else? This sort of thing makes me wonder whether he's actually suited to be a public figure, or if he should stick to shouting at his television in private like an alcoholic boomer.

>>9985467
He presented a threat to the status quo.

>>9989773
...Another thought:
Elon Musk would sooner lose a toe than be perceived as insulting Nelson Mandela.

He likes to pretend he has no limits, but oh boy does he have limits.

>>9989771
The diver is certainly an asshole and attacked Musk first, you should not tell someone who is trying to help to stick the submarine where it hurts. Still calling him a pedo is wrong without evidence. It is a classic case of two assholes meeting, and they deserve each other.

>>9989736
i mean, musk had some good points on why the diver might be a pedo

it is kind of fishy why a 40 something white man has been living in the pattaya beach, as a taxi driver.

>>9989751
>he has a brilliant mind
Elon Musk is not very smart. He has essentially a Reddit level intelligence; a little bit north of 110 IQ, smart enough to get an undergrad physics degree, but too dumb to know what the limits of his knowledge are. If you listen to interviews, he sounds like a dullard, and his stuttering just distracts you from how uninformed he is on the topic. He has no clue what he's talking about in regards to AI, engineering, or physics yet retards can't get enough because he says it in such a simplistic manner.

The only reason he has any hype whatsoever is because of his raging narcissism and relatability to Reddit "intellectuals". He is accessible to them because in reality he isn't really that much smarter than them.

>>9989783
You can't be serious. I think you're a pedo because you post on 4chan, so you probably are.

That's the extent of Musk's juvenile reasoning.

>>9989799
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EJaKvt4h00

>>9985467
He was a really great and admirable dude until he started dating Grimey. I think she poisoned him.

>>9987276
That guy was probably a peadophile though.

>>9989848
Damn sexy peas

>>9989799
The funny thing is Elons shill army does not seem to realize with each comment like that they are making things worse for their god-emperor. Unsworths lawyer is probably collecting comments exactly like this to proof that Elons comment did in fact drastically harnish his reputation, since there are millions of people around the globe now who think he is a pedophile because of Elons tweets and comments to the Journalist.

>>9989780
Offering to send a toy submarine is a textbook publicity stunt, anon.

Your mother's house is on fire, I offer to send a sprinkler. You understandably tell me to fuck off. I then say you have an Oedipus complex. I have every right to do this, because I offered to help, and also I own a sprinkler company and want to get on the news.

>>9989793
I can't argue with that desu. Now that I think about it, I never actually read any of his papers.
Does he actually do science on his own, or is he like Steve Jobs (an entrepreneur pretending to be an innovator)?

>>9986945
>It's not fair! You learned from the successes of others!

>>9989872
That's not the point. Shills keep saying that landing a rocket is insanely hard and only uber-genius Elon Musk could be able to do it. That's bollocks, vertical landing isn't that hard. The issue is not the landing, but the condition the rocket lands, this was clear after Space Shuttle (and vertical landing btw is way harsher on the rocket than horizontal landing).

>>9989864
He has done no science. Just read the laughable Hyperloop whitepaper. Pure science fiction. Just because you can throw some numbers down on paper that technically work out doesn't mean that the idea is good or even economically viable. Pressurized vacuum transport is not a new idea, it just doesn't offer enough advantages over high speed rail to account for the impracticality and unreliability of mainting a pressurized chamber. I seriously think Musk just likes to read science fiction and says "I want that" to every interesting concept he reads about. Very Reddit.

I actually think Steve Jobs was more "brilliant" than Musk. Jobs at least knew the extent of his own intelligence, and never called himself an "engineer" because he wasn't one. He knew his skills were as a marketer and idea creator. If Elon admitted that's all he really was, I would have more respect for the guy. Instead, Musk labels himself as the "head engineer" at his companies, even though he has done no real engineering. He also lacks Jobs' superb quality control and high standards. That's what made jobs great; he'd never ship a product that wasn't nearly perfect. Musk appears to just ship whatever silly idea pops into his head without refining that idea at all. He just likes to claim "first" to an idea. Every other car manufacturer knew that electric vehicles would not be a viable alternative and would not make profit until ~2020. Even Tesla is realizing this, and have yet to make any profit. That's why you see all of these manufacturers just now coming out with electric cars. It's not that Tesla is ahead in the technology department, it's that the market just wasn't ready for these EVs yet. Tesla could have had something great by sticking to the mid-luxury EV segment, but they've screwed it all up by rushing model 3 production just to be "first".

>>9989887
True. Reliability is very important in something like space flight. Just because a rocket can be reused doesn't mean it should. There's a reason why nobody else was pursuing this kind of thing. Also reusing rockets significantly decreases payload capacity.

>>9986838
>>9987107
>it is not economically advantageous.
>we don't actually know how
kekd based retard

>>9989899
Also, Steve Jobs, unlike Musk, actually created new markets and revolutionized old ones. He was a vital part in the computer industry, which became the most important new market of the modern era. He then went on to revolutionize the mobile phone market by introducing the Smartphone in 2007. Five years later, everybody was using smartphones.

Tesla though, which shills like to call a market revolutionizer, actually did not revolutionize the auto mobile market. Not only because they were actually not the first one to mass-produce electric cars (Nissan Leaf was available in 2010, Model S in 2012), but also because they simply didn't revolutionize the market. Still, almost nobody is driving electric cars.

SpaceX, the second so-called market-revolutionizer, is actually just better than other companies at lobbying the NASA. Space launching isn't acually a market, to be more precise, because it is so controlled by the government.

>>9985467
Elon_Blunt.webm

>>9989913
Don't be a brainlet. Those are two separate items. You could have a part of your company that isn't economically advantageous and still be making profit (that probably isn't the case here, but still)

DUUUUUUUDDDDE WEEEEEEEED LMAOOOOO

that's what happened

>>9989915
Steve Jobs revolutionised nothing. Ever. He capitalised and made a lot of money by being timely with his marketing and lead a very successful company until he died, those were his accomplishments in a nutshell. The computer industry would be just as advanced, if not more, without Steve Jobs. The only thing he did in the computer industry was make computers easier to use for less educated people (secretaries and such) when computers were already popular and gaining traction.

The smartphone industry was already booming before Steve Jobs came out with the iPhone in 2007, smartphones had been around since the mid 90s, LG also had created a smartphone with a large capacitive type touch screen and no keypad before apple. The only thing Steve Jobs did for the smartphone industry is market his phone really well, capitalise on the industry and earn lots of money.

Neither Elon Musk, nor Steve Jobs ever created new markets. The thing that Elon did for electric vehicles is pretty much exactly what Steve Jobs did with smartphones, he capitalised on the industry. Elon made EV's that didn't look retarded. They looked like normal cars, even somewhat attractive cars, that paired with the fact that electric vehicles alongside renewable energy generation made people feel like buying a Tesla was helping the environment.

Personally I think Elon's accomplishments are more impressive, simply because he manipulated social media and public attention (intentionally or not) such that he didn't have to ever spend on advertising his vehicles. And also because of the sheer magnitude and reach of the infrastructure he's creating (superchargers and whatnot).

>>9989887
People keep saying that landing a rocket is not difficult, and sure it's doable if you're an aerospace/mechanical engineer or a physicist and you're good at what you do, but it is a lot of effort, a lot of careful consideration and grueling maths goes into it. NASA doesn't just not do it because they're worried about the state of a rocket after a vertical landing, but also probably because they can't be bothered, it's a lot of effort.

>>9985467
He stepped on the wrong people's toes.

No one cares if someone smokes weed.

>>9990084
The difference is iPhones sold like crazy, the mobile phone market got completely transformed within a few years, and Apple became the world's most valueable company, having hundreds of billions in cash. Tesla created a lot of hype (especially on reddit), but six years after Model S, still barely anyone drives e-cars, and Tesla is facing bankruptcy.

>>9990084
I partly agree with this, but Apple seems to be the only company to be able to "revolutionize" markets by just creating a quality, not rushed, product and marketing it very well. And the Apple hype didn't just die with Jobs, people are still obsessed with Apple products to this day. Tesla hype is built up in Elon and nobody else. If Elon is ousted Tesla cannot survive. That's where the distinction is between Apple and Tesla I think. Tesla is not the Apple of the automotive industry, but they really really want to be, and like it or not Apple does at least deliver on their promises, unlike Elon and Tesla.

>>9989887

>The issue is not the landing, but the condition the rocket lands, this was clear after Space Shuttle (and vertical landing btw is way harsher on the rocket than horizontal landing).

We know that condition of landed Falcon is good enough to be reflown at least once, and Block V is designed to fly at least 10 times. There is no technical showstopper preventing multiple reuses, it is just a hard engineering problem to solve. Vertical landing is not harsher at all, you dont know what you are talking about. After you get rid of pesky hydrogen. the real issue is heating during reentry. SpaceX approach is to mitigating that is through low ballistic coefficient. It works great for first stage and has the potential to work for orbital stage, certainly better than the Shuttle.

>Just because a rocket can be reused doesn't mean it should. There's a reason why nobody else was pursuing this kind of thing.

NASA did pursue it vigorously. The rest of the industry is not interested in reducing launch costs because all they aim to do is launch a handful of satellites, and that is why they dont bother with reusability.

>>9989906

>Also reusing rockets significantly decreases payload capacity.

Not an issue for vast majority of launches, rockets are rarely utilized to full capacity.

>>9987276
>50 years from now everybody will be thin-skinned narcisists that call each other pedophiles on twitter?
well, social media has already delivered us the " thin-skinned narcissists" bit

>>9985467
Tesla

>>9985467

Nothing went wrong with based Elon

>>9990205
>We know that condition of landed Falcon is good enough to be reflown at least once

Yes, after intense refurbishment. Nobody knows how costly that is. SpaceX is marketing reflown rockets for roughly 10% cheaper, but that could well be a PR gag. Imagine the "reusable rocket company" wouldnt reuse their landed rocket even once. It would be a PR disaster. It is quite obvious why they would claim at least 1 time is profitable to refurbish instead of rebuild (by whatever margin).

>and Block V is designed to fly at least 10 times

So where all the other iterations, that doesnt mean much.

>NASA did pursue it vigorously. The rest of the industry is not interested in reducing launch costs because all they aim to do is launch a handful of satellites, and that is why they dont bother with reusability.

This is bullshit, if you are cheaper than anybody else you will get more market shares and make more profit. A profit oriented company would do this. What other rocket companies aren't doing is exploiting their labor force and getting away with it, because they succesfully made a meme out of themselves.

>>9990084
Your last points I don't agree with. Tesla has an advertising budget of $50 million per year, but it's not traditional advertising. They pay people to go on places like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Quora and probably 4chan to answer questions and essentially shill for Tesla. So technically they spend nothing on ads, but they spend a lot on PR. Also another thing that bothers me about the supercharger stations is that they are located in random spots like parking lots. To me, an easy way for a competitor to undermine Tesla's efforts would be to cut a deal with a major gas station chain and put a charger in every gas station. Places to refuel cars already exist, why try to reinvent the wheel?

>>9990227

>So where all the other iterations, that doesnt mean much.

Nope, other iterations were never intended for more than one reflight. It is only in 2015 that a stage landed for the fist time. They are obviously not going to refly what is essentially a test stage ten times after a proof of concept landing. Only Block 5 is intended for 10+ reuses.

>>9990230
The huge selling point for electric cars actually always used to be that you don't have to go somewhere to "refuel" at all, you can just reload your car at home like you reload your Smartphone, at night while you sleep. In my hometown (Stuttgart, Germany) Mercedes has spent a lot of money to put small charging stations on basically any street, and you can charge there for free. This means if you have one in front of your home, you can charge your car completely for free at night. This is a way bigger selling point than having very few Super Chargers on highways.

>>9990227

>This is bullshit, if you are cheaper than anybody else you will get more market shares and make more profit. A profit oriented company would do this. What other rocket companies aren't doing is exploiting their labor force and getting away with it, because they succesfully made a meme out of themselves.

Bullshit. Case in point: SpaceX is still not much more profitable than old space companies despite being less expensive. They just launch more. Also, calling launch market a market is quite a stretch. If all you want to do is to earn more profit, then the old space approach of never improving IS the optimal one. The only reason why SpaceX is not doing this is because Musk wants to colonize Mars.

>>9990237
I mean, you could argue that they simply know much more now, and that because of this the newest iteration has better chances to actually be reflown more than once. But that does not mean that Musk said to his team 10 years ago "Okay guys, we want to make a rocket land, but don't design so that it can be reused, I want to save that for some iterations down the road. 1 Reuse max, or you guys are fired."

>>9990227

>What other rocket companies aren't doing is exploiting their labor force and getting away with it

Such a myopic, US centric view. Rest assured that engineers in Russia, India or China are paid peanuts compared to SpaceX wages. Yet SpaceX is cheaper than their rockets.

>>9990243
That's a good point actually, I hadn't considered that. Still I think a hybrid approach would be better in the future. Small chargers near your house AND fast superchargers at existing gas stations for road trips and such. Not Tesla's model, that's for sure.

>>9990251
You don't seem to get the point. Obviously, any company that can reduce it costs, will reduce it costs. The reason why SpaceX is cheaper than other western companies is because they pay their employees much less. And the reason they can do this is, and the others dont, is because they shill on sites like reddit and have succesfully turned themself into a meme. Because of this, they find enough young engineers willing to work for them despite earning wages than are considerably below industry standards.

>>9990227
>What other rocket companies aren't doing is exploiting their labor force and getting away with it, because they succesfully made a meme out of themselves.

this. SpaceX employees get paid in hype.

>>9990261

It depends on what you mean by "designed for reuse". Obviously Falcon in general was designed with future multiple reuse in mind. However, individual stages and iterations were not intended to actually be reused multiple times until Block 5 came. This means that you cannot judge the viability of multiple reuse by looking at older stages.

>>9990279
>Obviously, any company that can reduce it costs, will reduce it costs.

yes, because defense contractor companies working mostly for the government are famous for their drive to reduce costs, and not to milk the taxpayers as much as possible.. you are so naive

>>9990296
reducing costs =/= reducing prices

>>9990262
Wages are lower than in western Europe or USA, but that doesn't mean russiand and chinese engineers are working for Pennies. Note that these people would be welcomed with a red carpet as immigrants in any country.

>>9990298
>reducing costs =/= reducing prices

Not how it works. Government budgetary oversight generally tolerates certain "reasonable" profit margins. If you reduce costs too much, people are going to ask why prices are so high. Hence beyond certain point, reducing costs goes against your interests and there is incentive to spend as much as possible. Another aspect is that politicians love when companies bring jobs to their constituencies, and here thus exists another perverse incentive, this time on the other side, to spend as much taxpayer money as possible. This is especially an issue in launch vehicle industry, where labor costs are dominant.

>>9990326
In which case the companies could still increase their profits, because they are making the same profits from the contracts they were getting anyway, plus those of the contracts they are only now getting because they are cheaper than the others.

>>9990300
They dont really work for pennies, but they do work for significantly less than SpaceX engineers. Low wages are simply not the main reason behind SpaceX prices by any measure.

>>9990335
It absoluetely is, because labour cost, for any launch company, is the dominant cost factor. So if one launch company is way cheaper than the others, this can only be because of lower wages.
Now you could argue that SpaceX is also reducing labour hours by having a more efficient production line. However, one can actually calculate this based on the number of employees and construction time of a rocket. If you compare this throughout the industry, you will find out that SpaceX is actually using about the same amount of labour hours per rocket as the others.

>>9990346
>However, one can actually calculate this based on the number of employees and construction time of a rocket. If you compare this throughout the industry, you will find out that SpaceX is actually using about the same amount of labour hours per rocket as the others.

source?

>>9990346
In fact, Falcon 9s are actually quite expensive to produce. They have landing legs, fins, sensory equipment, and other things related to landing, which aren't exactly cheap. Additionally, they have relatively many engines. This was a design decision by Elon to go with many small engines instead of few big ones, which is supposed to increase landing reliability. However, it is also more expensive to produce 9 small engines, then let's say 3 big ones. Additionally, most other companies use solid state boosters for a part of their thrust, which are very cheap to build. The Falcon 9 is all liquid.

>>9990262
You used to be able to launch satellites for 35 million with the Soyuz in 2002. Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly 50 million in 2018. A new Falcon 9 costs 62 million as per SpaceX.

>>9990375
Stop shitposting.

A Merlin costs about $200,000 to produce

>>9987118
>>9987323
>>9989793
>>9989856
>>9989899
>>9989915
>>9990227
>>9990279

Look at all these big oil shills lying and pilpuling all over the place. Half of these posts read almost word for word the same debunked shit you read in every Elon Musk thread.

>>9990358
>Asking people who are paid to lie to help short TSLA stock for a source

Reminder to stop replying.

>>9990406
And you accuse others of shitposting? lol. 200.000$ dollars for an engine is ridiculous. You probably forgot a 0 there.

>>9986849
lol what was he on about

>>9990425
This is a known fact, feel free to look it up yourself.

>>9990406
Yeah sure, the idiot who can't figure out how to produce cars to the prices his competitors do obviously streamlined rocket-engine production so that it costs 1/70th of what a Soyuz engines costs. By god, the state of the soibois.

>>9989713
>Tesla still uses freaking cameras instead of radar to do "self driving"

His counter argument stated this was not true, yet you still say its irrelevant. A person with downs has greater mental capabilities than you do, go pretend to be smart somewhere else

>>9990482
Are you retarded or something? A Falcon 9 has 10 Merlins on them. So apparently, only 2 out of the 60 million manufacturing cost for a Falcon 9 are engines. Could you please enlighten me why the rest of the rocket costs 60 million, and for every other rocket launcher the engines are the biggest cost point?

>>9990498
You didn't debunk the statement, nice pilpul shill. Not an argument.

>>9989793
>Elon Musk is not very smart.

Yea hes pretty fucking stupid, who makes hundreds of millions off a website and uses that money to create their own space transportation company that currently leads in its field? haha what an idiot

>>9990505
The statement is so utterly retarded that I can already tell that you have no clue whatsoever and are just a soiboi who repeats what he thinks sounds right.

One more question. The manufacturing cost of the 1st stage is generally given with 45 million, while the 2nd stage costs 15 million. Please explain to me how the 1st stage can be 30 million more expensive, if the 8 additional engines only add 1.6 million to the cost.

>>9990511
Not smart != an idiot

He's not dumb, but becoming a millionaire/billionaire is mostly based on luck, and Musk's daddy owning an emerald mine in South Africa certainly doesn't hurt his chances of being rich as well. What do you think Musk does that you cannot do?

>>9990518
>Still pilpuling

You've been exposed already m8

>>9989899
Youre speaking purely on your feelings. Which makes you look biased and stupid

>>9990533
Let me guess, you're a libertarian engineer?

>>9990531
Nah man, Im just trying to understand how the company that was able to reduce the cost of the engines to such amazing prices can suck so much and building the rest of the rocket.

>>9990533
A 30% drop in the stock price is fact, not feelings. Hyping up a fundamentally weak company because it "feels" like the future and the CEO "feels" like a genius sure seems like an emotional thing to do.

>>9990528
Its not based on luck, its based on being knowledgeable, persistent and maybe 1-5% luck. His dad only gave him and his bro about 20k to fuck off and go live in canada before they moved to the states. Since then they never recived any more money. Everyone can do anything, but will they? The great majority of people dont go to extents(such like elons) to achieve great feats because of complacency or laziness

ya'll stupid. don't forget, the 60 mil includes the 20 mil profit. 40 mil is the total cost, and ~15 mil is the approximate marginal manufacturing cost. The rest goes towards other overhead and non-manufacturing components

And yes, according to last year's Mueller interview a single merlin costs around $200,000

>>9990547
Not an argument.

>>9990552
You were spewing on about being upset elon calls himself an engineer and how jobs was better than him, thats exactly what the definition of an opinion is

>>9990567
Falcon 9 costs 60 million. Falcon Heavy expendable costs 150 million. Falcon Heavy is a Falcon 9 + 2 first stages. Therefore, a first stage costs around 45 million.

I would like a link to that interview.

>>9990565
20k is a lot of money, but disregarding that, what exactly does Musk do that the average "smart" (>110 IQ) person couldn't? And you don't seriously believe he works 120 hour weeks do you? Very few people who work hard are successful, and very few people who are successful work hard.

>>9990579
>20K is a lot of money

No, it's fucking not, that's like half a years wages. That won't even buy a new car in most countries.

>>9990576
nope
>Speaking to reporters last month, Musk said the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket comprises about 60 percent of the cost of a launch, with the upper stage responsible for 20 percent, and the fairing another 10 percent. The remaining 10 percent of the cost of a Falcon 9 mission come from charges stemming from launch operations, propellant and other processing expenses, Musk said.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/06/01/new-photos-illustrate-progress-in-spacexs-fairing-recovery-attempts/

also, mueller interview: https://zlsadesign.com/post/tom-mueller-interview-2017-05-02-transcription/

>>9990588
note: 60% is of the 40mil that the rocket itself costs. So a 1st stage is $24,000,000

>>9990588
This does not change much. Second stage costs 12 million then, and upper stage 36 million. So please explain to me how the first stage can be three times as expensive as the second stage, if 8 additional engines only add 1.6 million to the cost. Why do they suck so much at building the rest of the rocket?

>>9990588
A quick search did not give any results for 200000, 200.000 or twohundred thousand. So you should quote the relevant portions.

>>9990593
Im sure you have a reliable soruce how much the rocket itself costs, right.

>>9990596
60% vs 20%, so...
9 engines vs 1 engine
recovery hardware vs no recovery hardware (each Ti gridfin is like $100,000)
large vs small, so more material

seems reasonable to me. you seem to be assblasted though, just chill out

>>9990599
>SpaceX usually makes a 40 percent profit from $62 million commercial Falcon 9 launches with new boosters.

https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-will-lose-millions-on-its-taiwanese-satellite-launch/

other sources say the same thing, but Seemangal is usually good with getting numbers right anyways

>>9990593
So please explain to me how they go from 62 million for an expendable Falcon 9 to 150 million to an expendable Falcon Heavy, which is essentially a Falcon 9 with two extra boosters. How can these boosters add 90 million to the launch price, which is too high, since they are not getting any missions for the Falcon Heavy, if the manufacturing cost is apparently only half that. You idiots have no clue what you are talking about. I doubt any of you is even an engineer, let alone aeronautics.

>>9990572
An opinion is literally my feeling on the matter you fucking dolt. Not every piece of commentary has to be factual to have purpose, do you just recite statistics to your friends when you have a conversation?

Also, my opinion is based in fact.
Fact: Elon Musk calls himself an engineer.
Fact: Elon Musk is not an accredited engineer.
Fact: The Hyperloop whitepaper is a piece of garbage that doesn't represent real engineering.
Fact: Jobs was an excellent marketer and influencer.
Fact: Jobs never claimed to be anything else.

Based on these facts, I "feel" that Jobs is more intelligent than Musk because he "seems" to understand his own gifts and limitations. And has made immense profits for his businesses. Musk can't even say that he is a good business man because he has lost money literally every quarter.

Since "smartness" really isn't able to be quantified in this case (we don't know their respective IQs), based on these facts, I "feel" that Jobs is more intelligent than Musk. Now tell me, why do you "feel" differently? I'm sorry that attacking your Reddit stemlord genius friend hurt your "feelings".

>>9990401
>You used to be able to launch satellites for 35 million with the Soyuz in 2002. Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly 50 million in 2018. A new Falcon 9 costs 62 million as per SpaceX.

Soyuz has one third the payload capacity of Falcon 9.

>>9990609
Of course they aren't, they are hired Elon-shills. Fuck them.

>>9990609
the market dictates the price. Large payload launches are not that common. There are five FH launches on the manifest right now.

More FH missions won't magically pop up if they change the price to $120mil

>>9990617
I've been shilling for elon for free for about five years now. never been paid a cent, although I suppose that would be a nice benefit.

>>9990585
My parents gave me nothing, yes 20k is a lot of money to just give out. Most families do not even have 5k in savings. It's not difficult to see why you think Musk is self-made when you are obviously from wealth yourself.

Even knowing that your father was wealthy allows you to chase your dreams without fear of failure, because if you fail, daddy has your back. Of most people were to fail in a business venture, the debt would ruin them and their families for generations.

>>9990616
shhhhhh, you'll anger the shitposter with """facts"""

>>9990618
Yes they would, because at that price point they would actually be cheaper than the Delta 4, that is currently taking all their missions.

There is also only 1 FH mission scheduled.

>>9990616
>payload capacity

Not that important. Soyuz can reach orbits F9 can't.

>>9990625
no there are 5
STP 2
ArabSat 6A
AFSPC-52
ViaSat-3
And some Inmarsat thing

>delta 4 taking FH missions
ooof, now there's a false statement

>>9990579
Thats the very reason he became successful, elon is a work horse. Anyone that works with or around him will say the same.

>>9990626
lmao, I legitimately can't tell if you're stupid or just fishing for you(s)

>>9990629
Lol, USAF is literally picking Delta 4 over Falcon Heavy you good.

>>9990631
There are a lot of work horses. What Elon is very good in is creating hype. Though he has lost a lot of that ability recently, which could very well mean the downfall of his companies.

>>9990579
>20k is a lot of money


lmfao poorfag detected, 20k is fuck all. What can you even get for 20k these days? sweet fuck all.

>>9990641
hmm? AFSPC-52 was a bid between Delta 4 and FH. FH won

>>9990626
>payload capacity is not important

Absolute state of big oil shills.

just so we don't forget, there is a F9 launch later today/early tomorrow: >>9988422

>>9990647
You can easily start a business with 20k. Giving 20k no strings attached to both of your sons at 18 is a pretty high level of wealth. That's pretty irrelevent to the point though. Do you seriously think that coming from a poor family gives you the same amount of resources and opportunities as coming from a rich family?

>>9990647
20k in the 1987 are roughly 50k today. So he and his brother got 100k together. That's not that insignificant.

>>9990655
You could get yourself a 20K loan with fuck all interest and go start your own rocket company if it's that easy then.

>>9990631
Ok, even if I concede that he works hard (which I don't believe to be true, but I have no proof), there are still millions of people who work as hard or harder than Musk and will never have a successful business. Just because someone is successful does not imply that they are a hard worker. And, it may not even be the result of his hard work that got him there. There are really too many variables to making money to single out hard work as being the sole reason.

>>9990655
It's not about the money itself though. I mean, that's a advantage, but the real advantage is that Elon and his brother knew, even if they fuck up, they have the rich daddy who will always be able to help them out. Rich people don't understand that people with a poor background don't have the mindset that they just invest a couple of 10ks into a business and see how it goes.

>>9990666
That’s a myth of Elon. He worked to pay himself though college, and he got practically nothing from his dad

>>9990666
>His daddy could bail out Tesla or SpaceX

What fucking planet do you live on?

>>9990655
>Do you seriously think that coming from a poor family gives you the same amount of resources and opportunities as coming from a rich family?
it dosen't but if that was the only factor in becoming rich; Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt would have never become the big industry captains in the 19th century, because they came from poor/working class backgrounds

>>9990616
Well, according to the rocket scientists ITT, since engines only cost a few grands, the difference between 20 tons and 7 tons payload is less than a million bugs in manufacturing costs, so who cares.

>>9990661
As another poster pointed out 20k in 1987 is around 50k today, nothing to sneeze at. Also a loan is very different from free money. There are expectations to pay back a loan, whereas you are able to try riskier ventures with free money because you don't necessarily need a return on investment immediately.

Musk did not just hop into the rocket building business, obviously. In addition to his wealth, Musk also got very lucky by selling his shitty little software project Zip2 for $300 million dollars at the height of the dot com boom. From there it's hard to go wrong with that kind of money.

What I am trying to say is that wealth begets wealth. Even a measly 20k dollar gift is more than 99% of the population will ever see, so it's that much more of an advantage. Once you start out with money, you just have to be smart and lucky enough to not screw it up. Musk is no dummy, but he's really not a genius either.

>>9990668
Except for what today would be 50k.

>>9990669
>That level of strawman arguments

>>9990676
It is no surprise when Soyuz is produced by some of the most corrupt taxpayer thieves on the planet

>Still kvetching over engine costs despite being btfo multiple times

Step up your game, show your boss this post so he can demote your useless ass to filing paperwork.

>>9990671
Obviously coming from wealth is not the only factor, but you'd be a fool to think that with a little hard work, everyone would be wealthy. There is a factor of luck that comes into it. But if you're rich it's like rolling a four sided die compared to a ten sided die if you're poor.

>>9990692
>There is a factor of luck that comes into it
there's always factor of luck in nearly everything

Kek all these big oil shills suddenly being champions of the poor. Wrong website for that angle of attack my friends

>>9990698
Exactly, so just because someone is a billionaire doesn't make them a genius. The argument that because he is wealthy then therefore he is smart or hard working is retarded. You wouldn't say someone who is really handsome is a hard worker for example. Sure you can get more fit, but if you're face is ugly, you're fucked. That's just unlucky.

>>9990613
Implying Jobs is better than elon as a businessman is an opinion you moron. You are definitely a good businessman if you can earn hundreds of million dollars off your company, theres no denying that.
Anyway, no he is not an accredited engineer but months before starting space x, musk was working with michael griffin(became head of nasa in 2005). It could be argued that no one on this planet knows more about the realities of getting things into space than griffin, and taught elon a great deal about space transportation; giving him books to read like "Rocket propulsion elements" "Funadmentals of Astrodynamics" "Aerothermodynamics of gas turbines and rocket propulsion" along with other several more seminal texts. He may not be accredited but he definitely knows what goes on in and outside a rocket, which is what really matters. So you obviosly have a bias towards elon. I aint no fan boy but i definitely have respect for elon as hes earned it through hard work and dedication, you just want to shit on him for whatever reason.

>>9990702
Tesla paid astroturfing is so easy to spot.
The formula is obvious:
1. Mention big oil or short sellers
2. Make a pro Tesla comment with no substance

>>9990716
Big oil paid astroturfing is so easy to spot.
The formula is obvious:
1. Mention subsidies and frauds
2. Make an Elon hate comment with no substance

The thread is fucking filled with my examples so I guess you are the shill here buddy.

>"YOU'RE A SHILL"
>"NO, YOU'RE A SHILL BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME"

>>9990714
And you are an even better businessman if you can earn your company hundreds of billions, which Jobs did, and Elon didnt.

>>9990714
This is a very Reddit level response. It is not an opinion to say Jobs was a better business man than Musk, since Jobs actually made money for his company. Tesla has never, not once, turned a profit under Musk. How could you possibly argue that a CEO that makes negative profit is better than the CEO that founded the world's most valuable company with over a trillion dollars in assets? It's ludicrous.

I just don't believe that Elon has any useful engineering knowledge whatsoever, even if he did meet with a top NASA engineer extensively. The only insight into his engineering knowledge that the public has is his Hyperloop whitepaper, and that thing is an utter travesty in terms of demonstrating engineering know how.

>>9990720
Where were subsidies and frauds mentioned brainlet? I have substance all over this thread.

>>9990425
>200.000$ dollars for an engine is ridiculous.

This is not F-1 we are talking about here. Merlin is a rather small engine and produced in relatively large numbers, costs also go down with economies of scale significantly. 200k is an entirely reasonable cost.

>>9990726
Elon also decided to go for many small engines for SpaceX's rockets instead of few big ones, which is a pretty weird decision to make from any engineering perspective. That is a typical decision a businessman would make and order his engineers to do that.

>>9990734
Then you can also explain to me why the rest of the rocket is so damn expensive.

>>9990681

> Musk also got very lucky by selling his shitty little software project Zip2 for $300 million dollars at the height of the dot com boom. From there it's hard to go wrong with that kind of money.

He did not just "not go wrong". He founded an extremely successful aerospace company developing reusable rockets, and multiplied his wealth many times over. "not go wrong" is like an understatement of the year.

>>9990755
zip2
paypal
spacex
tesla

>>9990726
I do agree Jobs was more successful, but that doesnt mean elon isnt a good businessman either. We all know of his feats that earned him his wealth(paypal, space x). He does know the theory behind what is going on in space x, as much as any engineer in that company, you dont need a degree to be an engineer. The achievements musk has made are impressive and at the very least respectable. Im not sure why youre out to discredit him

>>9990739

>Elon also decided to go for many small engines for SpaceX's rockets instead of few big ones, which is a pretty weird decision to make from any engineering perspective.

It is an entirely correct decision if your goal is reusability and engine-out capability. It also made sense from economics standpoint, much cheaper to make a cluster of 9 engines than develop a larger one.

>>9990755
And what I'm saying is that once you have that level of wealth, it's not terribly difficult to multiply it. With that much monetary power, you can easily create a multi-million dollar company based on whatever idea popped into your head. You can also become a major shareholder of an existing cool and exciting company quickly and easily. All of these things involve some work, yes, but it's really hard to screw up with that base level of wealth.

>>9990613
>Fact: Elon Musk is not an accredited engineer.

Physics degree is arguably even better. Certainly nobody in the industry gives a damn if you arent accredited as long as you have a STEM degree and demonstrate competence.

>>9990739
The whole point of space x was to make rockets at a low cost and being able to reuse them, all while making them highly effective.

>>9990775
Elon almost lost all his wealth starting up space x

>>9990775
>And what I'm saying is that once you have that level of wealth, it's not terribly difficult to multiply it.

It is certainly extraordinarily difficult if you want to go from $300 million to $30 billion. Very few people can achieve that. But it is not even about wealth, the point is that he did it by founding a fucking aerospace company developing cheap reusable rockets. This is basically unprecedented.

>>9990768
He sold Zip2 at the height of the dot com boom, became a large shareholder and CEO of PayPal, took over Tesla and now can't turn a profit. Founded SpaceX, which we have no clue as to the financials of because it's a private company. These sound like moves many people with some luck and enough capital could make, nothing indicating that Elon is a business mastermind. I find Elon's brand of Reddit science discrediting to actual scientists and engineers, and I find his rabid cult following incredibly insufferable. They would let Elon cuck them if it meant they could touch his dick.

>>9990789
This. And people still want to shit on this dude for whatever reason, hes got my respect for sure.

>>9990789
Very little of Elon's money comes from SpaceX, seeing as their private and most likely do not turn a profit. The majority of it is tied to his Tesla stock which has a market cap of $50 billion dollars. And with that stock spiralling down, there is room for Elon to fail yet. The real genius that Elon has is his ability to build this mythical status around himself. You and I both know that Tesla stock is hype driven. It's absurd for a company that has never turned a profit to have a $50 billion market cap. I attribute his cult leader abilities to his raging narcissism and abusive personality, not a calculated genius. A calculated genius does not go off the rails like these past few months, an ego driven narcissist does.

>>9990814
Why is the ability to generate wealth worthy of respect?

>>9990775
you're a fucking idiot SHUT THE FUCK UP

>>9990818
idiot

>>9990822
idiot

>>9990822
Its not the ability to generate wealth that gets my respect, its what he did to generate it.

>It's absurd for a company that has never turned a profit to have a $50 billion market cap.

I agree it is kinda overvalued, however it is a company with a rather large market share in electric car sector, which is the future of auto industry, the Tesla car brand itself is also strong among younger people, and profit is not a good indicator for companies with large capex

Tesla may very well end up among the largest global car companies few decades from now, if they dont fuck up majorly

>>9986830
at least it can eat something

>>9990822
because it indicates intelligence and entrepreneurial competence you commie moron

but wealth is not even why most people respect Musk, it is technologies his companies are advancing

>>9990847
>>9990843

Somebody seems triggered. Musky doesn't care about you, he just wants your money.

>>9990865
It does not take intelligence to make money. It is mostly luck, followed by connection, followed by agreeable personality, followed by narcissism, and then maybe some intelligence to not piss away your money on hookers and blow.

What technologies have Musk's companies created?

>>9990796
I never said he was some sort of mastermind businessman or genius, however he is very smart for being able to create a company like paypal selling it for hundreds of millions and then creating a massive wealth through an aerospace company. That gets my respect

>>9990872
Youre a complete idiot if you dont think you need intelligence to make money, most lazy people use that as an excuse as too why they cant make money. And if that was the case you would be rich. It takes knowledge and hard work and 1-5% percent of luck to achieve wealth.

>>9990796
btw i do agree that his hardcore fanbase is cancer

>>9990921
Its luck, literally, capitalism is about being in the right place at the right time.

>>9990916
He did not create PayPal, he become the largest shareholder and CEO. My point is that with the kind of money Musk had, it's trivial to found something that you're interested in. He's not the one building or designing the rockets, he just provides capital. Musk claims to be the engineer though, which annoys me.

>>9990926
He spends 80% of his time on engineering

>>9990921
If what you're saying is the case, every schmuck who works hard and has a college degree should be rich. Stop this billionaire worship

>>9990927
Musk says a lot of things, but to Musk engineering is reading a sci fi book and saying "I want that"

>>9990929
working hard and college degree is too broad, its about what you want to achieve, how youre gonna work torwards achieving it, and knowing the field you want to achieve in. You have to work smart and hard. You are obviously never going to achieve much with that mentality

>Musk hired very smart people who had to prove their proficiency in personal interviews with him. Engineers stood atop the corporate totem pole, with everyone else behind. “SpaceX had what Elon called a high signal-to-noise ratio, meaning that people who added value were engineers. They were signal,” said Tim Hughes, the company’s general counsel. “And people who were nonengineers for the most part were noise.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-spacexs-scrappy-ethos-flabbergasted-nasa-what-its-davenport

>>9990939
Here's the thing, everything you said is necessary but not sufficient to being successful. Plenty of people with those characteristics will never be millionaires. The deciding factor is ultimately luck. Right place right time. You need skill AND luck.The wealthy are mostly smarter than average people, yes. But they are not geniuses. They are just smart AND lucky. Your view of the world is very naive; con men can take advantage of that very easily, so be careful.

>>9990926
He did moron, it was originally zip2 then became X.com then became paypal

>>9990954
No. Zip2 is a separate company completely. Musk founded X.com which was a shitty online bank. PayPal merged with X.com and Musk became the largest shareholder. You're wrong.

>>9990147
An iPhone costs like $600. A Tesla is a tad bit more expensive. New cars are essentially high-priced luxury goods, so adoption is necessarily lower. I've been to some of the more affluent parts of California and Teslas are all over the place. They're not as ubiquitous as cellphones, but cars last longer than smartphones and cost more. In 20 years I fully expect to see a great deal more EVs on the road, especially among the middle-class.

the bonobos took offense, hidden strings were pulled

>proves EV cars are practical, profitable, and desired
>blows a hole in the antiquated manufacturer -> dealership -> consumer pyramid
>shatters several automobile performance records along the way
>created and implemented a functional and practical auto-learning self-driving technology, not some chink shit that instantly falls apart in production
>becomes the world's biggest lithium-ion manufacturer

When is the last time any of you retards started a fucking car company?

>>9990862
underrated

Watching the rogan podcast now. Didn't know elon was full fucking autist. Who the fuck lets this asshole out in public?

>>9986554
Do you know how many traffic accidents are caused by human retardation?

>>9985467
he tried to be a normalfag

>>9991635
The fact that he's on of the wealthiest man on Earth and he doesn't give a fuck.

>>9991014
The first mass-produced EV was the Nissan Leaf. It didn't have the hype of the Model S, but at least it made profits. So no, Tesla was not the first one going for EVs.

>>9990976
Money is not everything. High-priced cars are sold in the millions each year. Why Tesla Model S didn't really have a breakthrough is because it is a sloppy/cheap-looking car, when compared to other cars in that price range, even if you compare it with cars one price range below. Apples products were pricey, but they were also the nicest looking, best quality products in their market.

>>9992091
Nissan Leaf was (and is) a dorky shitmobile though.

>>9992113
So does the Model 3 though.

>>9985467
Idiot won't get off Twitter, won't lay off the ambien, and is suffering as a result. Dude needs to stop focusing on spats on social media, drop the pedophile accusations, and hire a PR team to manage his Twitter account.

>>9992126
But then how would he maintain the spotlight on Tesla that makes them so successful?

>>9992139
PR team? Actually focusing more of his time on his companies than social media? Doing positive things? Acting like a dumbass on social media isn't the only way to get attention, and sometimes being in the spotlight all the time is more detrimental than helpful.

>>9990862
fucking kek

>>9985467
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
he's basically the monorail guy from the simpsions a snakeoil salesman with a lot of brainwashed hipster sheeps licking his feet

You guys read into shit too much.

>>9985551
You obviously haven't been paying attention for the last few months.

At best he's a spook. Private company heavily subsidised by Commiefornia.

Yep. nothing to see here.

>"It's just a genius guy helpful to the World hehe upboat pls."

Whereas proper development of hydrogen cars are shoved under the rug.

>>9986830

>>9992140
All attention is positive attention for someone selling something. PR team couldn't quite draw as much attention.

>>9992326
Well, looking at all these people cancelling their Model 3 orders it certainly isn't helping selling Teslas.

>>9992343
Oh you mean all these people you just made up to try to make a feeble point?

>>9992365
pff this is /sci we dont use logic and arguments here....

>>9992365
Yes, all these people I'm making up lel

Pic related are the numbers of actually getting the refund btw, numbers of people who applied for it might be even higher.

>>9992374
Oh so you didn't make them up, paid of statisticians did and you bought into it because it corresponds with what you wanted to believe. Did a quick reverse image search:

"Tesla denies that it lines up with their own data, but the company admitted that there were some cancellations."

When you pre-sell something it's just about statistically impossible for there not to be cancellations, but these numbers are guesswork.

>>9992387
>>9992374
Off*

And here's my source https://electrek.co/2018/06/04/tesla-model-3-reservations-refunded-report/

>>9992387
Yes, and you can also get a Model 3 within 1-3 months after you place your deposit lel

When will you shills ever learn.

>>9992394
I'll show you who's the real shill when I fuck your mum so hard you pop out the other end instantaneously (with her consent).