"Actors" don't make correct system engineering decisions on the design of launch vehicles, nor implement major innovations leading to huge improvements in their economy of operation.
Do you have proof that Elon actually DID that? Sure, I've heard people SAY things like that, but that isn't the same thing. You can pay people to say things.
The more I've seen him talk the more I'm convinced he's a babbling idiot incapable of what you claim. The nonsense he spouts is next level... and actual engineers will testify to that. I've seen them.
Anyway, look at videos by Common Sense Skeptic and even well, Thunderf00t on youtube for another perspective.
I'm not saying to believe them 100%, but I've actually pasted a link from many of Thunderf00t's videos into gemini and asked it to fact check... and they were almost completely accurate to my surprise.
Point is, always look at all sides for a balanced perspective. My balanced perspective on the man is that he's full of it, he's an actor.
I wasn't even thinking about the Path to Exile fiasco from not too long ago, how he bragged he was the #1 player in the world at this game... and it was revealed he was paying someone else to play his character.
He shows his cards all the time, he's a real character that one... nothing and I mean nothing really adds up to mega supergenius real-life Tony Stark. Not even close to being close.
"Proof"? Where have you been for the past 20 years?
I made two remarks. The first one pertains to Musk's decision to abandon composite stage structure for stainless steel in his development of the Starliner vehicle. He made the observation, "If it takes too long, it is the wrong approach." So, they shifted to stainless steel, for which the greater ability to make changes in fabrication made it easier and faster to adopt design changes. Composite structure would have required the continual fabrication of large molds and tooling. It was the right approach and it was a high-level insight. I am a system engineer with a 40-year career, and recognized it as a basic developmental insight.
And the development of the flyback booster with landing capability was on view for the world to see. There have been very few attempts at this (aside from space shuttle variations). Boeing once had a flyback S-1C booster concept as an afterthought of the Apollo program, but NASA was not interested. (I saw the drawings and conceptual art when I was at Boeing.) Kistler Aerospace had fully developed a fully-reusable 2-stage launch vehicle and was in the midst of developing it, but the capital investment ran out. (A colleague at Boeing was working with them on it.) Musk simply went ahead and did it. All it took was landing legs and the willingness to keep some propellant in reserve for the flyback burn. Public history.
I don't care how many carping videos you reference, I know engineering, and no "actor" could have made those correct shots. He drives his people hard, but he gets things done. This is out of fashion. It is 1940s style---but that is what made that generation Great. His determination to build his own engines is another brassy move that puts him in the driver's seat. The move to methane-oxygen engines is a huge performance boost. One can easily argue that SpaceX has the most advanced rocket engines in the world, a title that once belonged to Russia. The proof is on front pages and all over the internet. Shortly, I expect NASA to cancel the SLS and replace the core and boosters with Musk's Big Booster: more capability and reusable. It takes billions of dollars to launch an SLS, because of all the expendable hardware. Do you really think that is a way to return to the Moon for a prolonged presence?
I get that you don't like that he thinks faster than you, but tough luck. There is always someone who thinks faster. Tony Stark is comic book fiction; Elon Musk is real.
SpaceX's accomplishments are real. That's not the issue. The issue is your assumption that Elon Musk personally came up with or engineered them.
Where's the evidence? Not that he approved the direction or championed it - but that he actually originated the engineering decisions you credit him for: the switch to stainless steel, reusable boosters, Raptor, methane, etc.
Every one of those technologies was developed by large teams of highly specialized engineers, and most of the underlying concepts predate SpaceX by decades. SpaceX deserves enormous credit for executing them successfully. That's very different from claiming Musk personally conceived or engineered them.
In fact, there's plenty of public footage of Musk confidently making statements about engineering, physics, and science that are simply incorrect or reveal a superficial understanding of the subject. Being the CEO and public face of a company doesn't automatically make someone the technical genius behind every breakthrough.
You also say NASA will "shortly" replace SLS with Starship. Based on what? That's speculation, not evidence.
The reality is that NASA awarded SpaceX the Human Landing System contract in 2021, and Starship is now years behind the original Artemis schedule. NASA's own Inspector General has repeatedly identified Starship's development delays as a major risk to the Artemis timeline.
So yes, SLS is expensive. No one disputes that. But holding up Starship as proof of Musk's engineering brilliance while ignoring that it's years behind on the very lunar mission NASA hired it to perform is a strange argument.
If you have evidence that Musk personally solved these engineering problems, I'd genuinely like to see it. But "SpaceX succeeded, therefore Musk is the genius behind it" isn't evidence - it's an assumption.
You can fanboy Musk all you want, my only suggestion is that you might consider being open to the possibility that the man himself might not actually match the image that the mainstream media marketing machine and his $$ have paid for. There is indisputable evidence (for the open minded, that is) out there to show that he in fact is not that man. Of course, a fan isn't going to be objective and risk losing their idol. I understand that. I wish you the best.
When I try and explain it to people, I equate people like Musk to Hulk Hogan. He’s a character working for a bigger company, who’s allowed to bring his own personality to the character because it makes it feel more real. But just like with Hogan, when the times change, he can be switched from good guy to bad guy and the marks just cheer or jeer as expected. Wrestling is how all politics work
The irony is you cannot convince me that Elon Musk is NOT an actor.
"Actors" don't make correct system engineering decisions on the design of launch vehicles, nor implement major innovations leading to huge improvements in their economy of operation.
Do you have proof that Elon actually DID that? Sure, I've heard people SAY things like that, but that isn't the same thing. You can pay people to say things. The more I've seen him talk the more I'm convinced he's a babbling idiot incapable of what you claim. The nonsense he spouts is next level... and actual engineers will testify to that. I've seen them. Anyway, look at videos by Common Sense Skeptic and even well, Thunderf00t on youtube for another perspective.
I'm not saying to believe them 100%, but I've actually pasted a link from many of Thunderf00t's videos into gemini and asked it to fact check... and they were almost completely accurate to my surprise. Point is, always look at all sides for a balanced perspective. My balanced perspective on the man is that he's full of it, he's an actor. I wasn't even thinking about the Path to Exile fiasco from not too long ago, how he bragged he was the #1 player in the world at this game... and it was revealed he was paying someone else to play his character. He shows his cards all the time, he's a real character that one... nothing and I mean nothing really adds up to mega supergenius real-life Tony Stark. Not even close to being close.
"Proof"? Where have you been for the past 20 years?
I made two remarks. The first one pertains to Musk's decision to abandon composite stage structure for stainless steel in his development of the Starliner vehicle. He made the observation, "If it takes too long, it is the wrong approach." So, they shifted to stainless steel, for which the greater ability to make changes in fabrication made it easier and faster to adopt design changes. Composite structure would have required the continual fabrication of large molds and tooling. It was the right approach and it was a high-level insight. I am a system engineer with a 40-year career, and recognized it as a basic developmental insight.
And the development of the flyback booster with landing capability was on view for the world to see. There have been very few attempts at this (aside from space shuttle variations). Boeing once had a flyback S-1C booster concept as an afterthought of the Apollo program, but NASA was not interested. (I saw the drawings and conceptual art when I was at Boeing.) Kistler Aerospace had fully developed a fully-reusable 2-stage launch vehicle and was in the midst of developing it, but the capital investment ran out. (A colleague at Boeing was working with them on it.) Musk simply went ahead and did it. All it took was landing legs and the willingness to keep some propellant in reserve for the flyback burn. Public history.
I don't care how many carping videos you reference, I know engineering, and no "actor" could have made those correct shots. He drives his people hard, but he gets things done. This is out of fashion. It is 1940s style---but that is what made that generation Great. His determination to build his own engines is another brassy move that puts him in the driver's seat. The move to methane-oxygen engines is a huge performance boost. One can easily argue that SpaceX has the most advanced rocket engines in the world, a title that once belonged to Russia. The proof is on front pages and all over the internet. Shortly, I expect NASA to cancel the SLS and replace the core and boosters with Musk's Big Booster: more capability and reusable. It takes billions of dollars to launch an SLS, because of all the expendable hardware. Do you really think that is a way to return to the Moon for a prolonged presence?
I get that you don't like that he thinks faster than you, but tough luck. There is always someone who thinks faster. Tony Stark is comic book fiction; Elon Musk is real.
SpaceX's accomplishments are real. That's not the issue. The issue is your assumption that Elon Musk personally came up with or engineered them.
Where's the evidence? Not that he approved the direction or championed it - but that he actually originated the engineering decisions you credit him for: the switch to stainless steel, reusable boosters, Raptor, methane, etc.
Every one of those technologies was developed by large teams of highly specialized engineers, and most of the underlying concepts predate SpaceX by decades. SpaceX deserves enormous credit for executing them successfully. That's very different from claiming Musk personally conceived or engineered them.
In fact, there's plenty of public footage of Musk confidently making statements about engineering, physics, and science that are simply incorrect or reveal a superficial understanding of the subject. Being the CEO and public face of a company doesn't automatically make someone the technical genius behind every breakthrough.
You also say NASA will "shortly" replace SLS with Starship. Based on what? That's speculation, not evidence.
The reality is that NASA awarded SpaceX the Human Landing System contract in 2021, and Starship is now years behind the original Artemis schedule. NASA's own Inspector General has repeatedly identified Starship's development delays as a major risk to the Artemis timeline.
So yes, SLS is expensive. No one disputes that. But holding up Starship as proof of Musk's engineering brilliance while ignoring that it's years behind on the very lunar mission NASA hired it to perform is a strange argument.
If you have evidence that Musk personally solved these engineering problems, I'd genuinely like to see it. But "SpaceX succeeded, therefore Musk is the genius behind it" isn't evidence - it's an assumption.
You can fanboy Musk all you want, my only suggestion is that you might consider being open to the possibility that the man himself might not actually match the image that the mainstream media marketing machine and his $$ have paid for. There is indisputable evidence (for the open minded, that is) out there to show that he in fact is not that man. Of course, a fan isn't going to be objective and risk losing their idol. I understand that. I wish you the best.
i agree. is he a figurehead of his companies?
he seems very distracted with Social Media.
go back and review DOGE …
ask AI what tangible, long term effect the DOGE thing had.
and chances are good, AI will act like they have no idea what you’re talking about…
When I try and explain it to people, I equate people like Musk to Hulk Hogan. He’s a character working for a bigger company, who’s allowed to bring his own personality to the character because it makes it feel more real. But just like with Hogan, when the times change, he can be switched from good guy to bad guy and the marks just cheer or jeer as expected. Wrestling is how all politics work
I disagree... He might be playing a role, but he's No actor....