Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> You simply have no basis upon which to claim that SpaceX's reusable launch vehicles were not innovative.

I didn't claim that they were not innovative, I claimed that they were not revolutionary - that is a big difference.

> We're taking our first baby steps into space and you're saying baby steps are meaningless because they're far from running marathons. This argument is incredibly unconvincing.

We have taken our first baby steps into space a few decades ago, and none of what SpaceX is currently doing is bringing us to any place new - we've already been to the Moon and to Mars, and we've been to plenty more exotic places.

The problem of space colonization is just not the rockets.

> The grid needs to expand anyway to handle renewable intermittency.

The grid needs to expand, but the fewer consumers there are, the less it needs to expand, so the easier it is to close down the big polluters.

> What I'm reading here is that Musk's Tesla is addressing the existential risk of climate change

I am saying that overall EVs are at best close to neutral - they obviously pollute less than ICEs if the grid is green enough, but they will also delay the green-ification of the grid if adopted in enough numbers to matter. Not to mention, Teslas are typically pretty big cars. If Musk cared about climate change and it weren't just an afterthought, there are more important businesses he could have gotten into (such as green power generation directly).




> I didn't claim that they were not innovative, I claimed that they were not revolutionary - that is a big difference.

Sure, but I'm not sure why SpaceX has to be revolutionary in that sense. It was revolutionary in the sense of taking space launches private. Or am I wrong in thinking SpaceX was the first company to successfully commercialize space launch, and the first company to successfully dock a commercially financed and owned vehicle with the ISS?

> We have taken our first baby steps into space a few decades ago, and none of what SpaceX is currently doing is bringing us to any place new

So what? You can't build a skyscraper without the right foundation. SpaceX is still building the foundations for routine space flight. Again, this seems like you complaining that you don't yet have a penthouse when they're still pouring the concrete foundation.

> If Musk cared about climate change and it weren't just an afterthought, there are more important businesses he could have gotten into (such as green power generation directly).

Firstly, the incumbents are too large in that industry to compete with. He was a millionaire when he started Tesla, and you wanted him to focus on building wind turbines or solar cells to compete with huge multinationals like Siemens? Come on. Electric vehicles was completely underserved market by contrast, a clear business opportunity that also serves similar ends.

Secondly, nobody is so altruistic that they'd work as hard as Musk does on something that they weren't passionate about, even if it were good for humanity. Musk clearly likes cars. Humanity arguably needs electric cars. Musk combined a passion for cars with humanity's need. This is what progress under capitalism looks like.

To say he should work slavishly on something he's not passionate about for the betterment of humanity is setting up an ethical bar that nobody would clear. The people who do work on non-profits are passionate about that.


> It was revolutionary in the sense of taking space launches private.

Good for him? I'm not sure why that is something to praise.

> Again, this seems like you complaining that you don't yet have a penthouse when they're still pouring the concrete foundation.

It's the other way around: cheap space flight is the penthouse of planetary colonization. The foundation is the ability to build a self-sufficient colony. Once we were able to colonize the least hospitable places on Earth, only then would it make sense to think about how we move this technology to Mars - 50 or 100 years from now, most likely.

It's also worth noting that we have no reason to assume that a human population can even survive on Mars, as we have no idea if humans can live long term or even reproduce in Martian conditions (especially the very low gravity). Before even thinking about this colonization, we would actually have to establish whether it's possible for mammals to live long term and reproduce in low-G conditions. If it's not, there's a whole new world of technology we would have to discover before attempting it.

SpaceX is to Mars colonization like buying your dream wedding dress not just before finding a boyfriend, but before even knowing if you're gay or straight.

> Firstly, the incumbents are too large in that industry to compete with.

You could say the same for the car industry itself.

> Musk clearly likes cars. Humanity arguably needs electric cars. Musk combined a passion for cars with humanity's need.

Fair enough.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: