Elon Musk or the real iron man

In this video I will tell you an inspiring and motivating story, a story that, contrary to common sense, is reality, a story that will again make you dream of traveling to the stars. This is the story of one man. The story of Elon Musk.

Best comments

Didn’t do anything? PayPal? Gigafactory + Powerwall + Tesla? Landing a reusable stage? Now you can’t surprise the public with such little things?

Nothing at all except electronic payments and online press. Which in itself leads to outstanding deeds.
An electric car that has a range sufficient for everyday driving and trips out of town, that has the dynamics of a supercar that cannot be overturned in any collision with another car, before which electric cars were considered funny disabled freaks.
A rocket that is returned to Earth and can be launched again. They haven’t launched it again yet, but at first they said about his Tesla that it would come out like hell, which no one would buy, and about his rocket, that it wouldn’t take off, and then that it wouldn’t land, and Musk was simply stealing money from NASA (this is a fundamental mistake in comparing Musk, who earned his millions, and the majority of Russian billionaires, who stole their money from the budget, taking advantage of the fact that they are friends of the president. The first has no reason to steal, he is already rich, but the second always doesn’t have enough, because they didn’t earn money, but stole, and their psychology is like that of a banal bus pickpocket).
If we consider only something completely new, not based on previous developments, to be outstanding, then outstanding things can be counted on one hand – a stick, a bow, a wheel, a firearm, Chinese fireworks (the operating principles of which are based on the results are not at all outstanding, since they are made using outdated Chinese technologies, space rockets), a steam engine, an atomic bomb, a computer, the Internet and genetic modification of organisms. Everyone, all the rest, people previously considered geniuses are undeservedly promoted dull people who simply made their supposed inventions using outdated technologies.
And if you turn on the brain, then almost all outstanding achievements are when already known things are taken and combined in such a way that a new product is obtained from them. And they are outstanding precisely because previously no one had thought of combining these old things in this way and getting a normally working thing. Yes, there were electric cars before Musk, but it was he who did an outstanding thing – he made an electric car that is in no way inferior to conventional cars with internal combustion engines, except for its range.
Same with rockets. The shuttles were reused, probably someone had ideas to reuse the rockets, but it is Musk (plus Blue Origin) who takes it from idea to finished product.
And his authority in coming up with new, but later becoming successful, ideas is so high that as soon as he sketched out the idea of ​​​​a train in a vacuum tube almost on a piece of toilet paper, the best institutes and engineers immediately rushed to implement it.

Fell 19 times, landed once. Success, yay. Let her land four more times and then we can talk about something else. The concept of a reusable rocket is like a reusable condom – of course, you can wash it after use and use it a couple more times, but the question is reliability.

Falcon 9 – 23 launches, 2 of them unsuccessful. 6 attempts to land a rocket. 2 successful ones, one on the ground, one on the barge.
Failures are the norm for new rockets, for any new technologies. Let me remind you how many accidents with new missiles happened in the USSR and the USA?
Let it not land 4 more times and then we can call this idea a failure.
In terms of rockets, Musk is praised not because he has ready-made, tested rockets and ready-made technologies for landing and re-launching them, but because he is working on it right now and has received the first results. You would probably be whining in the late 50s – early 60s that Korolev is a charlatan and rockets are falling.

The metal gets tired, the electronics also get frayed, after each launch the rocket needs to be disassembled and reassembled again, almost recreating with each launch the likelihood that everything will go wrong and the entire multi-million dollar cargo will be fucked on the ground due to a crack due to metal fatigue or due to the fact that some sensor simply starts to fail due to repeated overloads. Also taking the payload and load under this stage, which is returned.

And this is all complicated and ambiguous, and it’s not for you and me, armchair analysts, to draw conclusions about the feasibility and profitability of repeated launches before Musk tries to send at least one rocket again. Then there will be reports, conclusions, etc. on the suitability of repeated missile launches. That is, you bury the technology even before it has suffered its first failure.

That is, cramming a bunch of smartphone batteries into a car is a great idea? What about the discharge and charge cycle?. How much does it cost to replace batteries?. What about creating fundamentally new batteries and accumulators?. Where is the real innovation??

Not from smartphones, but from laptops. You remind me of a peasant who was told about the miracle of progress – a car, put in it, taken off his horse, and the peasant said, “Where is the progress?”? Well, it’s moving, my cart is moving too. The wheels are round, like the cart where progress is? The chimney stinks of chemicals, my little horse’s shit stinks, where’s the progress??»
Not all at once. Previous electric cars were an order of magnitude worse.
As for the cost of cars and batteries – for many decades, cars were only affordable for the rich. This does not negate their importance. Any new technology is expensive, and only in the process of testing production and reducing the cost of components does it become available.

Buran landed in fully automatic mode. RD-180 is designed for 10 landing-launch cycles. Now think about why we create new rockets every time. Although I already wrote.

It turned out to be unprofitable to launch shuttles compared to disposable rockets. But they found out after using the shuttles. We and the Americans didn’t have geniuses like you who could calculate everything in advance on paper. Once again – there will be failures with the re-launch of Falcons – there will be something to talk about.
And until you compared your ass to your finger and said “it’s not profitable to re-launch shuttles, which means it’s not profitable to re-launch rockets either.”. The shuttle has a hefty disposable booster module, Falcon has a hefty booster module and is designed to be reusable.

I liked the story about Elon Musk. To me, he is the type of person who can be called a dreamer who makes his dreams come true. These are the types of people who move the modern world forward. And the fact that he used old developments for his ideas does not make his contribution worse.

He rather reminds me not of Stark, because according to the description he seems to be a nerd, but rather of a typical Bond villain – a super successful and famous dude who achieved everything on his own, giving away free goodies, well, he’s so good that no matter how you look at it, he’s perfect everywhere)

Not innovative at all, and Musk achieved https://nonukcasinosites.co.uk/australian/ everything himself and did not receive any government support 😀 Neither technology from NASA nor money)

And what? He got the first results, damn it. India, a leading scientific power, is already launching rockets into space, with an entire annual space program budget of a billion dollars. Why doesn’t anyone run and shout that Indians are geniuses, they surprised the whole world, etc.d. Apparently the problem is that they live in a part of the world that no one gives a damn about. It seems to me that without a well-known name, an inflated budget, to create your own engine and launch vehicle on the cheap is amazing.
geektimes.ru/post/260950/

And this is all complicated and ambiguous, and it’s not for you and me, armchair analysts, to draw conclusions about the feasibility and profitability of repeated launches before Musk tries to send at least one rocket again. Then there will be reports, conclusions, etc. about the suitability of repeated missile launches. That is, you bury the technology even before it has suffered its first failure.

Difficult and ambiguous? This means that the ship is not affected by enormous forces or high temperatures, Elon Musk has a special metal that does not get tired, electronics and so on will not fail from repeated heating to high temperatures and accelerations. YES, there the ship is completely dismantled and reassembled again, after each landing, repaired and rebuilt. And then, with each launch, the likelihood that something will go wrong increases – it’s not Elon Musk who is bad or something else – you can’t fool the laws of physics and nature. The metal gets tired, the electronics, and the possibility that somewhere on the fourth or fifth launch some bolt with a hidden defect will finally make itself known is very large. The main thing is reliability. And with this there are problems with repeated launches. That’s why no one uses reusable rockets; it’s safer and easier to build a new one than to repair an old one and risk a multimillion-dollar cargo. Oh yes, what else is there with the payload in a reusable version?

Oh, yes, why does Tesla cost a hundred thousand dollars, and the fucking Nissan Leaf costs 32 thousand dollars in the USA? Or Nissan is not so innovative?

There will be repeated launches or attempts thereof – it will be clear whether it is beneficial to reduce the useful mass in order to return the rocket.

And in fact, no one will fly to Mars without us Russians. Because only we are able to make a nuclear rocket engine and we are making it. And without it no one will fly to Mars.

Don’t you see double standards in your assessments?? Musk’s campaign is already flying and already landing, that is, two of Falcon’s three goals have been achieved. But you draw the conclusion that you still won’t make it.
And Roscosmos just announced the start of development of a nuclear engine, that is, there is not even a prototype, everything is “on paper,” but you draw the conclusion that they will not fly to Mars without us. In the first case, unfounded pessimism, in the second, unfounded optimism. Logic, hey, are you here, or has it given way to patriotism?? Maybe you two will work together instead of taking turns?

The first (and even if the second after any other country (fas India!)) nuclear space engine launched into space from Russia – it will be great, no doubt.

The rather large state of India rivets more missiles than a private company, albeit partly state-owned. financing.

And the question is not about economy, but about efficiency. Electric cars are nothing more than a fetish and a show for those who like to stroke their vanity, the case with Tesla in Singapore showed this, because no matter how much you reduce the CO2 emissions of an individual car, it still takes hydrocarbons to charge it.

This doesn’t even remotely look like a statistic. One car in one country did not pass some local measurements.
The question is where to get gasoline for internal combustion engines when the oil runs out. Maybe you live by the principle “no grass will grow after us,” but I am in favor of leaving ungrateful children and even more ungrateful grandchildren not “Mad Max” with wars for gasoline, but electric cars that are charged either from the wind, or from the sun, or (in the best version) from thermonuclear fusion.

There would be a foundation for the future, yes, there would be a foundation if Musk riveted the complete infrastructure for a new type of economy without the use of hydrocarbons.

Oh, your complaint against Musk is that he just did a somersault and didn’t fly into the stratosphere. What a scoundrel, made an electric car, distributes charging stations for it throughout America and Europe, but did not make solar panels, wind turbines, tidal buoys, hydrothermal stations. Maybe you shouldn’t blame the designers of the geometry of the airplane wing, which produces lift, because they sons of bitches didn’t invent the jet engine?

And yes, about moronic comparisons, I was just talking about Tesla, because until now cars with internal combustion engines are superior to your beloved Tesla with no innovations in the spirit of a horse < машина тут и не пахнет.

You can keep demagogy with progress not progress to yourself, the difference between a cart and a machine is visible to the naked eye; efficiency is increased a hundred, or even a thousand times. Musk’s missiles may have visible differences? Or carry a payload increased hundreds of times? Well, yes, the possible prospects of reusable rockets, despite the fact that the concept is only being developed (and a cult has already formed around Musk), and the payload is reduced by 15 percent, the result only smells like a reduction in the cost of launches into space, but not an increase in efficiency hundreds and thousands of times, like a cart with a car, where innovation is comrades

That is, you talked about Tesla, but you didn’t say a word about it in this paragraph? Sorry, I can’t read between your lines.

Only there is a problem, the Indians can rivet disposable missiles at several times cheaper than both Musk and the Russian Federation. On this issue, private US companies are even trying to ban the use of Indian rockets, they say it could kill the business of private space owners. And regarding electric vehicles, they are nothing more than an expensive toy, no matter what anyone says, and what about the issue of ecology, because no matter how much you rant about what kind of environmentally friendly transport Tesla is riveting, in fact, to recharge electric cars, the same hydrocarbons are burned and harm to the environment is also caused.
You can keep demagogy with progress not progress to yourself, the difference between a cart and a machine is visible to the naked eye; efficiency is increased a hundred, or even a thousand times. Musk’s missiles may have visible differences? Or carry a payload increased hundreds of times? Well, yes, the possible prospects of reusable rockets, despite the fact that the concept is only being developed (and a cult has already formed around Musk), and the payload is reduced by 15 percent, the result only smells like a reduction in the cost of launches into space, but not an increase in efficiency hundreds and thousands of times, like a cart with a car, where innovation is comrades?

No, he will build a villain base there and rule from here. For what? So that any Bonds can’t get there.

until Musk tries to launch returning rockets. Then it will be clear how much savings there are and whether there is any
The Indians are already launching rockets cheaper than the Falcon, they can already rivet them on a scale larger than Musk’s. They are already launching American satellites in batches and private owners like Musk are already trying to ban them.
And the question is not about economy, but about efficiency. Electric cars are nothing more than a fetish and a show for those who like to stroke their vanity, the case with Tesla in Singapore showed this, because no matter how much you reduce the CO2 emissions of an individual car, it still takes hydrocarbons to charge it.
There would be a foundation for the future, yes, there would be a foundation if Musk riveted the complete infrastructure for a new type of economy without the use of hydrocarbons.
And yes, about moronic comparisons, I was just talking about Tesla, because until now cars with internal combustion engines are superior to your beloved Tesla with no innovations in the spirit of a horse < машина тут и не пахнет.

It’s logical that in Bond the villains wanted power, not destruction, but what else can one associate flying to Mars with?? Maybe he wants to start a new humanity there)

What does India have to do with it?? Or are you saying that every launch of Indian disposable rockets will be cheaper than every launch of reusable ones?? This is written with a pitchfork in the water until Musk tries to launch the returning rockets. Then it will be clear how much savings there are and whether there is any.

because no matter how much you talk about what kind of environmentally friendly transport Tesla is riveting, in fact, to recharge electric cars, the same hydrocarbons are burned and harm to the environment is also caused.

Electric cars are a foundation for the future – you can get gasoline from solar energy or from nuclear energy, maybe from thermonuclear? Gasoline will run out. And by that time it is better to have fully finished electric cars than to frantically start developing them.
Which is better: burning one hundred tons of hydrocarbons in one place at a power plant outside the cities or evenly throughout the country, allowing pedestrians to breathe as much as they can?? Can you make a car run on coal??
Where is the greater efficiency of converting hydrocarbons into energy?? In one large “factory” or hundreds of thousands of small “factories” under the hoods?
What is more economical: transmitting energy from a power plant to a car through wires with their losses, or transporting gasoline and kerosene from refineries to thousands of gas stations on thousands of trucks, consuming the same kerosene in the process, slowly crawling and interfering with traffic??

Actually, I gave an example with a cart for Tesla, not Falcon. About where Tesla is making progress – see the above paragraphs.

I don’t understand why everyone is so fussed over this Musk, he hasn’t created anything like that, he only promises.
Is it Steve Jobs?! He has an iPhone and an iPad, a Mac and an iPod – that’s what they call a man of action