Lol is this real? Haha good on Elon that's some funny shtuff




Gonna look for the full interview later this just appeared in my feed.

This post was edited by TidsL on Dec 9 2023 01:05pm

SpaceX is interesting. He basically saw that NASA was getting gouged by Russia on space flights and said "Hey, what if we gouge them instead. We're in the USA which would be preferable". And hired some exceptionally talented rocket engineers to make it happen by buying and copying Russian rocket tech.

They've also never turned a profit, and stand to lose an absolutely staggering amount of cash on the development of Starship and their failure to make the moon missions by 2025. There hasn't been much real progress on resuable rockets, and even if they did the rockets themselves are like 2% of the cost of a launch. The payload always dwarfs the cost of the entire rest of the operation so it's questionable that even if they did get the reusability to where they want it if it would even be worth it.

So we'll see how it ends up. NASA probably won't let them fail since they're the main source of American launches.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 9 2023 04:23pm

x bringing back alex jones is at 70% for it and 30%

You summed it up well.

US has basically given them a blank check to do and test whatever they want to. Until there is a competitor this won’t change. There have been competitor candidates but they have all gone under. Blue origin has also been worthless

This post was edited by Bazi on Dec 9 2023 04:42pm

There's some indication from the NASA director that the blank check is about to run out. He's stated publically that they will hold their feet to the fire on the 2025 launch dates. So we'll see. It's gonna be really hard to ask NASA for another multi-billion dollar grant for development when they haven't developed a fraction of what was promised.

But having an american based space company providing services is also a big thing to lose. So.... we'll see. It may not even come down to the director's opinion.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 9 2023 04:49pm

It's an extremely capital intensive endeavor with a high probability of failure. If NASA could do it themselves, they would, but it's just easier to fund a private company.

People that have hundreds of billions are an abomination that shouldn't exist. Sure, most of it exists in the form of stocks but he can borrow money against those assets.

Let's say you decided to save $10k every single day, that's roughly $300k a month. To reach his net worth of 240 billion, you'd have to save your money for over 65753 years.

You'd have a yearly salary of 3.6 million dollars AFTER taxes and you'd still have to save your money for 65753 years WITHOUT spending anything to arrive at his current net worth.

People rarely take the time to think about the true scale of a billion or even 100 billion.
Someone with a net worth of a hundred million is financially closer to a homeless person than a billionaire.

All of that is always at the back of my mind whenever a random headline about Musk gets shoved into my face.

We're worrying about some random social media event where he said "fuck you" or whatever while this disparity exists.
And it's not just Elon Musk.

I agree, and I have said many times in this forum that we need to put a cap on the total wealth any single entity can own. I don't remember if I got called a communist or not, though.

People often pull out the communism card in those situations. There is a difference between full communism and a single individual having as much money as hundreds of millions.

Agreed.

My solution was reasonable (I think), too. I allowed like 50 million for individuals and I think 100 million for corporations? I don't remember the exact numbers but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that nobody should be owning hundreds of billions of dollars.