Tesla in turmoil after Elon Musk smokes marijuana on live show and top executives resign
Source: Telegraph
Tesla’s shares have crashed after two top executives left the company and Elon Musk, its chief executive, was filmed smoking marijuana during an interview.
Mr Musk, who announced and then abandoned a plan to take Tesla off the stock market last month, smoked the drug on a podcast hosted by the comedian Joe Rogan.
Marijuana is legal in California, where the podcast was recorded, but its explicit use is atypical for the head of a major company.
On Friday, Tesla revealed that its chief accounting officer Dave Morton had resigned after less than a month in charge, citing the intense “public attention” on the company.
Read more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/09/07/tesla-turmoil-elon-musk-smokes-marijuana-live-show-top-executives/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Especially those who support unions:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/405711-ex-tesla-employee-fired-for-failing-drug-test-musk-smoking-like-a-slap-in
He's a big pot crusader when it come to himself, but a typical church lady reefer madness nut when it comes to his workers.
Fuck that guy.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)But sentence first, verdict later...I get it, that is the social media bread and circuses standard...as Obama said once...oh, yeah, two days ago!
Free yourself from electronic bread and circuses.
Not to mention one sided stories are...one sided stories, I like two!...but that all is just me.
angrychair
(8,678 posts)Smoking marijuana has zero relevance to erratic behavior of Elon Musk.
* Smoking weed does not make you a bad person
* Smoking bud does not make you a criminal
* smoking flower does not mean you smoke crack
I could go on but my point is that while it may or may not fit the corporate executive image (but getting hammered on booze or partying with criminal is ok) it has nothing to do with his mental stability or ability to lead a large international corporation.
joshcryer
(62,266 posts)He was visibly drunk when he took the marijuana and he didn't even inhale.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Madness I tell you!
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)who fires his employees for smoking weed:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/405711-ex-tesla-employee-fired-for-failing-drug-test-musk-smoking-like-a-slap-in
olddad56
(5,732 posts)No saying it is a health food, or even not harmful, but it is an herb.
brooklynite
(94,352 posts)...just not an overtly harmful one. Smoking Oregano will not have the same sensory impact on you.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
Anon-C
(3,430 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,712 posts)Either he is off the rails, or he is purposefully tanking his own stock price to implement a takeover strategy.
My best guess: he is off the rails. It is becoming more and more clear that he cannot deliver on his grandiose promises. Not in a way that makes a profit. His company is worthless without a steady infusion of investment money. And investors are seeing the writing on the wall.
Kind of like Trump. Promises to come in, shake things up, bold new ideas, dump the status quo, and make everything right, while delivering rose petals and champagne to his supporters.
NNadir
(33,472 posts)...in a purely thermodynamic sense - given how most of the world's electricity is actually made as opposed to our fantasies about how it's made - is environmentally disastrous.
The enthusiasm for this nonsense depresses the hell out of me, since I actually care about the future of the planet.
I've been calling this guy out for years, and almost always the response is outrage.
If people who worship Musk actually opened science books, they would find out what outrage ought to be.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,959 posts)You undoubtedly have thought about this much more, but the tiny bit you wrote does not make a case.
Yes, electricity generation is far from carbon neutral, but it will become carbon neutral.
So, if you wait for the electric grid to go carbon neutral and then start in on electric cars and their infrastructure, you'll generate a lot of carbon dioxide. If you suddenly massively were able to switch cars over to electric overnight (you can't) then it would still generate a lot of CO2 from the electric generation.
So you have go at the problem from both ends. Start up electric cars and their infrastructure now in an imperfect way as you move the generation side of the issue to a more carbon neutral system.
And don't forget that Musk is well aware of what needs to be done, so his companies are also working on bringing down the cost of solar panels for generation, and electric batteries for supply smoothing (storage for when sun not available).
It is imperfect, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. Either we move forward imperfectly, or we adopt Trumponomics and move backward.
The Wizard
(12,536 posts)5 to 6 dollars for a full charge, 260 miles. Compare that with gasoline prices.
NNadir
(33,472 posts)They are, to repeat, as depressing as hell.
I'm an old man. I've been listening to this delusional wishful thinking my whole damned adult life. Right now, today, in 2018, after decades of hearing this bullshit, I'm acutely aware that as of August 26, 2018, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere was 22.98 ppm higher than it was just ten years ago.
In the same last year, to kiss up to the affectations of bourgeois car worshiping people, on the planet as a whole we squandered more than two trillion dollars on wind and solar energy alone in just the last ten years
This information is here, in the UNEP Frankfurt School Report, issued each year: GLOBAL TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT 2017
This money was squandered on a planet where more than two billion human beings lack access to basic sanitation.
The money squandered is more than the gross national product of India, a nation with more than 1.3 billion people in it.
What do we have to show for it?
Humanity as a whole used 587 exajoules of energy in 2016. Less than 10 - after decades of mindless cheering for wind and solar energy and stupid asinine electric cars that people fantasize will "someday" be powered by wind and solar energy - is actually provided by wind and solar.
IEA 2017 World Energy Outlook, Table 2.2 page 79 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
Do you have any idea what the fastest growing source of energy on this planet has been in the 21st century? It's been coal, which grew by 60 exajoules to 157.
Now maybe some people declare themselves "liberals" because they want to worship the failed and useless fantasies they have about electric cars powered by wind and solar energy. My liberalism, the liberalism of an old man who's lived too long and is filled with disgust at what my generation has done to all future generations with their idiot science fiction fantasies, is based on section 1 of the 25th article of the UN's "Declaration of Human Rights" pushed through the UN in 1948 by the greatest Democrat of the 20th century in my view, Eleanor Roosevelt. It reads:
Note this declaration has no comment whatsoever on the "right" to drive a car.
I spend probably 5 to 10 hours a week in academic libraries reading the primary scientific literature, with the ratio between the amount of time devoted to my professional work to the amount of time I spend reading about energy and the environment being slightly skewed from equality toward E&E. I've been doing so for over 30 years; 30 years in which I've been watching my planet die while being powerless to do a damned thing about it. The overwhelming number of posts in my journal here are reflections on this 30 years of intense study.
Frankly I have as little patience with smug remarks about me being "shallow." I really don't give a shit what living examples of the Dunning Kruger effect think of me. I am routinely aware of people who are incompetent to adjudge what is and is not "shallow" and "facile."
I at least know how the 2nd law of thermodynamics works, and thus, I am scientifically aware of the undeniable fact that a battery, owing to this law, is a device that wastes energy.
I'm worked pretty damned hard to understand the issues I care about, the first among them being environmental sustainability.
Recently in this space, I remarked on what a conservative is. I wrote:
A conservative is merely a person who believes that there is no value whatsoever in changing one's thinking and actions, that everything is fine if we merely repeat ourselves over and over, irrespective of any information that contradicts the things we repeat.
We are half a century into the mindless cheering for the idea that solar and wind energy - and electric cars powered by them - would save the day. We hit almost 412 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this year at the annual peak in May. The information on the failure of our ideology to address this reality is written in the planetary atmosphere. I would submit that the support of this fantasy about electric cars and solar and wind is conservatism at its worst.
Solar and wind didn't work; they aren't working; and they won't work. The reason is physics, specifically the low energy to mass ratio of so called "renewable energy," which is, in fact, not even renewable.
(My next major post on this website, probably to go up this weekend, will involve the carbon cost of producing aluminum and steel.)
I know what the answer to environmental sustainability should be, but because of the rise of fear and ignorance not only on the right, but also on the left, what it probably won't be.
I'm too familiar with ignorance to expect people to divorce themselves from selective attention.
I wrote about this solution elsewhere: Current Energy Demand; Ethical Energy Demand; Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come. That work contains 68 references, most to the primary scientific literature, which is in fact, only a tiny subset of the tens of thousands of scientific papers stored in my computer.
Thanks for reminding me of how hopeless the future of humanity is. If on the left we can't stop kissing the ass of yet another shit for brains billionaire, Elon Musk, nothing can be done and nothing will be done.
Thank you Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger. You were so right.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,959 posts)When I wrote
You undoubtedly have thought about this much more, but the tiny bit you wrote does not make a case.
... I would have hoped it was clear I was referring to what you wrote rather than what you might know or think. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer and I am sorry if you feel I have impugned your character. Perhaps I too often assume that people are able to separate an attack on their thinking from an attack on their person. I'm disappointed you have taken to attempting to insult me as "smug" and a dupe victim of Dunning-Kruger and "conservative". I carefully did NOT say you were shallow; rather that is was shallow to make a bald statement of a contentious assertion without any explanation. Thank you for taking the time to expose some of your analysis. Please accept the following disagreements for what they are: disagreements on specific points of your argument and not with your person. I am still struggling to understand the assertion in the first paragraph of your post #14.
The reason coal grew so much is because of China and India. That is old news. China in particular is now making a very determined effort to switch away from coal, not the least because of air pollution. You can't blame the US for China's coal problem. Do you mean to say that the US should give up and go back to coal because China and India are not doing their "fair" share by some accountings? Rhetorical question and the answer is no, of course not.
2 Trillion in 10 years does not compare to a GNP in one year. Apples and oranges to begin with because of different time scales. 2 trillion is the GNP/GDP of India for one year (2014), not 10 years, so you are off by a factor of 10.
Further you are comparing the world to one country. Again apples and oranges. Your link to the report is a defunct/bogus/broken link. Nice try.
Well then, you are not the only one who knows the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
Yes, of course, a battery wastes energy. But so does a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a thermal plant, a hydroelectric plant, solar, and wind. Any energy system "wastes" energy. : eyes : A battery does provide storage for that cost. Just how much it wastes varies on the type of battery, charging / discharging parameters, and how long the charge is stored. Just because a battery is not 100% round-trip does not mean it is useless.
What is hard to understand is the contentious statement that "on a pure thermodynamic basis electric cars are environmentally disastrous" (unimportant paraphrase unless you feel the "affectation" is the issue and electric cars in principle are not). You haven't really explained the thermodynamic objection. Energy has to be sourced somehow and then converted into mechanical motion. If no point of the path from source to conversion to mechanical involves generation of CO2, then if it is less efficient thermodynamically than a CO2 generating path, surely that is a reasonable cost of avoiding CO2 (unless perhaps outlandishly inefficient). Note: capital CO2 costs can be mitigated, reduced, and optimized as civilization develops experience with a different more sustainable infrastructure and builds it out.
Yes, sanitation is important. But it does not mean we drop everything to do one thing. Further, sanitation requires water which is in short supply in many areas where it is needed and will be in shorter supply in many of those areas as global warming increases and weather patterns are disrupted.
So, ... in the end, ... what do you propose for an energy source, ... that is not a "mindless" "asinine" "fantasy"? I'm guessing it is nuclear, which has its own problems. There are fantasies of their own among nuclear proponents. Further, the conversion of infrastructure to a nuclear dominant economy is even more severe than the adjustment converting infrastructure to a mixed sourcing energy economy.
An electric car infrastructure has to get its energy from somewhere. I don't think you propose a distribution system of converting other energy sources into hydrocarbons and distributing those to power cars, trucks, and buses. Or do you propose the end of personalized transportation and restriction solely to bus and bicycle travel?
However I might take a second look at your Depleted U document later. Thank you for sharing your studies.
progree
(10,892 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2018, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plantsAnd globally too ( see #42 )
Thanks also for explaining that batteries don't have to be 100% efficient to be useful. (Shouldn't be necessary, but, sigh, oh well).
Interestingly, today's nuclear plants are about 35% efficient in converting the heat to electrical energy.
Odd that he hates electric cars. It's the only way I know of to use nuclear energy to power surface transportation.
Rollo
(2,559 posts)NNadir
(33,472 posts)In your statement that it's "odd he hates" electric cars. It's the only way I know of to use nuclear energy to power surface transportation," the operative words are "I know of."
I have been studying nuclear engineering - albeit as an autodidact - for 30 years. The current fleet of nuclear reactors that dominate the world fleet were largely selected because they could be conveniently scaled from lessons learned for nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. In the 1950's, materials science was primitive compared to what we know today. For one tiny example, things like "MAX phases" and industrial nitride processing for advanced ceramics were unknown. The fact that nuclear plants operate at the same thermodynamic efficiency as coal and (non-combined cycle) gas plants is an artifact, not a strict limit.
In particular, it is possible to make electricity a side product, not the main product, of energy production using nuclear energy as the primary energy source. A great deal has been written in the modern engineering literature on the heat flows through industrial plants, an example of such technology - not that I really support it - is the combined cycle dangerous natural gas plant, industrial examples of which are known. These operate at thermodynamic efficiencies in the range of 50-60%. (Their development depended on the development of super alloys and thermal barrier coatings - both of which are available for use in nuclear systems, were we to live in a less stupid world.) There is no reason that nuclear thermodynamic efficiency could not be driven to regions of 60% or higher, in particular since very high temperature nuclear systems are possible, ironically, by building on the materials science advancements driven by jaw boning about the useless and unsustainable solar thermal schemes that have never proved practical.
I favor reforming technologies as well as thermochemical splitting cycles for carbon dioxide and water driven by high temperature nuclear energy. There are zero major commodities associated with the dangerous fossil fuel industry that cannot be replaced using syn gas, a mixture of carbon oxides and hydrogen. Fischer Tropsch chemistry is well known for the production of the dangerous fuel gasoline, and was first industrialized in the 1930's and 1940's in Nazi Germany, later in South Africa, and was a key constituent of President Carter's energy program. Of course, all these practices and in Carter's case, schemes, depended on coal, but coal can be replaced by other carbon sources, particularly biomass, and has been demonstrated by Heather Willauer of the Naval Research Laboratories, by carbonates in seawater.
I am not in favor of Fischer Tropsch chemistry, but merely point out that syn gas can replace petroleum, should we want gasoline, which we should not want. However a far superior fluid fuel is available from syn gas, dimethyl ether, DME. It can replace diesel fuel for tractors and trucks, LPG for all applications, and, in fact, all applications for dangerous natural gas. It lacks a carbon-carbon bond and in systems avoiding Boudouard effects, produces no particulates. It's atmospheric half-life is on the order of 5 days.
I am not in favor of cars period, although I certainly recognize that surface transportation will be required. The automobile has been an unprecedented environmental disaster in which the stability of a planetary system established over many millions of years in less than 100 years." This is hardly limited to the automobiles climate impact; the material pollutants as represented by heavy metals, grease, lubricants, and polymers are almost as odious.
To the extent that automobiles exist, they should be a reality check on the very stupid but commonly held view that so called "distributed energy" is a good idea. From my perspective, it is far more difficult to control and remediate distributed pollution as opposed to centralized pollution.
I oppose all dangerous fossil fuel power plants, but suppose we were really - as opposed to theoretically - interested in capturing carbon dioxide. Would be easier to do it at a 1000 MW gas plant or with 100,000 gasoline tail pipes?
I have very little patience for confusing the word "peaked" with the word "eliminated." This is intellectually reprehensible. Again, to repeat the link to the World Energy Outlook, coal was the fastest growing source of energy in the 21st century having increased by 60.49 exajoules in this century from 96.76 exajoules in 2000 to 157.21 exajoues:
IEA 2017 World Energy Outlook, Table 2.2 page 79 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
Much of the rhetoric associated with the confusion between the words "dead" and "peaked" which is oozing into the common rhetoric to excite complacency rather than action ignores that the use of dangerous natural gas is rising. In the year 2000, 80% of world energy came from dangerous fossil fuels; in 2016 81% did so. The "percent talk" which is grossly misused, innumerately, by advocates of the failed and useless so called "renewable energy" scam, obscures the real meaning of this 1% increase. In 2000, world energy demand was 420 exajoules; in 2016 it was 576 exajoules. In 2000, "80%" dangerous fossil fuels represented 337.12 exajoules. In 2016 the "81%" represented 466.83 exajoules.
A victory?
The fact is that we need to eliminate, not merely "peak" close to 500 exajoules of dangerous fossil fuel industry energy production. We are effectively doing nothing to achieve that. The next issue of the WEO will be out in November of 2018. I predict that, as been the case with every issue produced, it will show that things are getting worse, not better.
The generally accepted carbon intensity of a gas plant is between 500 and 600 g C/kwh. For a coal plant, the same figure is between 1000 g C/kwh and 1200 g C/kwh. If I shut one coal plant and build three gas plants to power stupid electric cars for billionaires and millionaires, I've lost ground on climate change, not gained on it.
We have to stop lying to ourselves. We are failing, not succeeding.
Have a nice Sunday afternoon.
progree
(10,892 posts)Sorry, I didn't say in any way, nor did I say in any shape, nor did I say or suggest in any form that coal-fired generation has been or is being eliminated. If you are confused by the difference between "peaked" and "eliminated", I suggest that you have a conversation with your doctor. Most "scientists", and frankly, lay people, have no trouble understanding the difference.
You can also dispense with the strawman crap. When you use such obvious cheap debating tricks and grossly misleading half-truths, they hurt your case.
I do find grossly misleading half truths like this, designed to mislead your fellow progressives (assuming you are one) to be reprehensible, especially repeated over and over and over again:
Without noting that it has also appeared to have peaked in 2014 or thereabouts, according to carbonbriefs.org, based on IEA data, sources you have cited many times.
If you want to talk about total greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution from electric generating plants, including natural gas (which has about half the GHG emiisions per KWH), without misleading your fellow progressives into thinking that coal-fired generation is still increasing by leaps and bounds, than do so.
That's better. Although I'm curious what the trend has been since 2014 when coal-fired generation peaked (up to now anyway). Not that I'm expecting any happy surprises, and also eagerly await the 2018 World Energy Outlook report this November. I too expect it to be worse as far as total fossil fuel and GHG generation.
I don't think I have ever indicated in any way, shape, or form, that I thought GHG from all sources combined was peaking (letting alone being "eliminiated" ).
The planet has been adding 1 billion people about every 12 years since about 1974, plus, PER-CAPITA GHG emissions have also been increasing, and I have no illusion that either is going to "peak" (or be "eliminated" ) any time soon.
Yes I agree. But be sure to compare it to the GHG and other pollution of gasoline engine cars that are replaced with electric cars too, please.
Charging An Electric Vehicle Is Far Cleaner Than Driving On Gasoline, Everywhere In America, Forbes, 3/14/18
(disclosure: based on a Union of Concerned Scientists report, aka starry-eyed hippies, and written by a contributor, Silvio Marcacci, Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology Contributor, so it's not necessarily Forbes' opinion, or even a journalistic article, but more like an Op-Ed)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/03/14/charging-an-electric-vehicle-is-far-cleaner-than-driving-on-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#17e211e471f8
Synopsis: Today, an average EV on the road in the U.S. has the same greenhouse-gas emissions as a car getting 80 miles per gallon (MPG). That’s up from 73 MPG in 2017. And in every corner of the U.S. driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline.
I also notice your constant posting about a similar 2012 paper about China (e.g. your #63),
Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts (Cherry et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (4), pp 2018–2024) ( https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202347q )
Keep in mind that their pollution standards for both gasoline-powered cars and power plants, especially before 2012, are much more lax than in more developed countries. They were focused on getting out of poverty, now they are giving a lot more attention to the pollution/environment.
Again, if you are confused by that, please talk to your doctor.
progree
(10,892 posts)Data from the IEA shows CO2 emissions from coal power may also have peaked already, in 2014, even though coal capacity continues to increase. Coal CO2 emissions fell 3.9% between 2014 and 2016 (red line) and coal generation by 4.3% (yellow), as the chart below shows.
Since coal capacity continues to increase (pink), existing coal plants are running for fewer hours (purple). On average, the world’s coal plants were running around half the time in 2016, with a load factor of 52.5%. The trend is similar in the US (52%), EU (46%), China (49%) and India (60%).
Etc. etc. The above is globally. It also says that, according to the EIA, "coal-fired capacity and generation in China has more or less peaked".
And global coal-fired electric energy generation has apparently flatlined. But don't tell anyone that anything has changed.
We had this discussion in June, so I know you are aware of it.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127117864
Here is IEA's coal demand near-term forecast 2016-2022: https://www.iea.org/topics/coal/
rockfordfile
(8,695 posts)Down the road I will probably buy another one. People need to stop kissing the asses of Koch brothers spin .
meadowlander
(4,388 posts)We have an electric car share service that we share with about a dozen other organisations. We used to have normal cars and absolutely without fail the last person would not have gotten gas so you would always be running to a meeting and have to try to figure out where the nearest gas station was that took the company card (they had a deal with BP and there were only about 10 BP stations scattered around the city and never anywhere near the route you needed to travel). This would waste 30 minutes to an hour out of every trip.
Now the car sharing service can monitor electronically what the charge is on each car and they only assign you a car that is fully charged.
They make great sense as company cars for staff that never need to travel more than a few hours at a time.
NNadir
(33,472 posts)...2.3 billion people on this planet who lack access to improved sanitation as you do for your consumer product.
I am personally disinterested in Car and Driver rhetoric.
I am an environmentalist, not an automotive enthusiast.
I am fighting against the absurd and environmentally unsustainable love and worship of cars, and am not here to embrace it.
Electric cars depend on the source of electricity for their environmental impact. Since batteries are devices that waste energy, their pollution effects and carbon dioxide effects can be worse than gasoline cars.
In China, for example, where there are 100 million electric vehicles, albeit most of them being scooters and not stupid cars for billionaires and millionaires, the death toll per 100,000 km for electric cars is higher than for gasoline cars:
Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts (Cherry et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (4), pp 2018–2024)
progree
(10,892 posts)Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts (Cherry et al, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (4), pp 2018–2024) ( https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202347q )
Keep in mind that their pollution standards for both gasoline-powered cars and power plants, especially before 2012, are much more lax than in more developed countries. They were focused on getting out of poverty, now they are giving a lot more attention to the pollution/environment.
In the U.S., at least for greenhouse gas emissions ---
Charging An Electric Vehicle Is Far Cleaner Than Driving On Gasoline, Everywhere In America, Forbes, 3/14/18
(disclosure: based on a Union of Concerned Scientists report, aka starry-eyed hippies, and written by a contributor, Silvio Marcacci, Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology Contributor, so it's not necessarily Forbes' opinion, or even a journalistic article, but more like an Op-Ed)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/03/14/charging-an-electric-vehicle-is-far-cleaner-than-driving-on-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#17e211e471f8
Synopsis: Today, an average EV on the road in the U.S. has the same greenhouse-gas emissions as a car getting 80 miles per gallon (MPG). That’s up from 73 MPG in 2017. And in every corner of the U.S. driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline.
LisaM
(27,794 posts)I can't believe anyone likes him, his complete jerk behavior about rescuing the kids in the cave should have tipped people off.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)He could paint himself blue and fuck monkeys for all I care.
I do not care about his politics. I do not care about his personal behavior. I care about the fact he is pushing technology to it's limits. I am Pro-Space exploration, including humans, but not the militarization of space.
He has done more for spaceflight than any living human being with his SpaceX corporation. I put him in the top 5 of all time, of those pursuing spaceflight. Since esteemed scientists like Hawking, Sagan and Tyson have said we must expand into space to insure the survival of the human species, I will grant anyone pursuing that goal almost unlimited bad behavior.
Musk and Bezos are really trying to do something. And that is more to say than ANY administration or party has done for a long time.
For too long both parties have not supported spaceflight. Some have claimed the money should be spent on Earth on people, others want to cut NASA's minuscule budget to spend on DOD.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., doing business as SpaceX, is a private American aerospace manufacturer and space transportation services company headquartered in Hawthorne, California. It was founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk with the goal of reducing space transportation costs and enabling the colonization of Mars. SpaceX has since developed the Falcon launch vehicle family and the Dragon spacecraft family, which both currently deliver payloads into Earth orbit.
SpaceX's achievements include the first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket to reach orbit (Falcon 1 in 2008), the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Dragon in 2010), the first private company to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station (Dragon in 2012), the first propulsive landing for an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2015), the first reuse of an orbital rocket (Falcon 9 in 2017), and the first private company to launch an object into orbit around the sun (Falcon Heavy's payload of a Tesla Roadster in 2018). SpaceX has flown 14 resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) under a partnership with NASA. NASA also awarded SpaceX a further development contract in 2011 to develop and demonstrate a human-rated Dragon, which would be used to transport astronauts to the ISS and return them safely to Earth.
SpaceX announced in 2011 that it was beginning a funded reusable launch system technology development program. In December 2015, the first Falcon 9 was flown back to a landing pad near the launch site, where it successfully accomplished a propulsive vertical landing. This was the first such achievement by a rocket for orbital spaceflight. In April 2016, with the launch of CRS-8, SpaceX successfully vertically landed a first stage on an ocean drone ship landing platform. In May 2016, in another first, SpaceX again landed a first stage, but during a significantly more energetic geostationary transfer orbit mission. In March 2017, SpaceX became the first to successfully re-launch and land the first stage of an orbital rocket.
In September 2016, CEO Elon Musk unveiled the mission architecture of the Interplanetary Transport System program, an ambitious privately funded initiative to develop spaceflight technology for use in crewed interplanetary spaceflight. In 2017, Musk unveiled an updated configuration of the system, now named the BFR, which will be the largest rocket in history and will be fully reusable when it debuts in the early 2020s. SpaceX also plans to launch its first crewed spacecraft, Dragon 2, in April 2019.
EX500rider
(10,809 posts)...on a lot of stuff. Watching that Falcon-9 orbital rocket land back on a barge on a tail of flame was one of the most impressive space oriented things I have seen....and the 1st major advance in orbital rocketry since the space shuttle IMO.
I wish more billionaires would do things like that with their money.
LisaM
(27,794 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2018, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
This billionaire boys club and their space race is ridiculous. And you can't tell me all these rocket launcher are good for the environment.
Musk is also a raging misogynist. I stand by my comments. He gives me the creeps. Just seeing his smug face makesy skin crawl.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Collective ASS for decades concerning spaceflight. We have not had a POTUS worth a damn for supporting spaceflight since LBJ, and that includes Obama and Clinton.
The Left whines about spending money on Earth, the Right wants to spend all the money on weapons. Meanwhile NASA's budget is minuscule.
Neither one really gives a shit about spaceflight, except when they want to credit for something they had little or nothing to do with.
Since those in power had done nothing, those with vision have stepped into the breach. If you do not like that, too bad.
LisaM
(27,794 posts)Space exploration doesn't seem like a huge priority to me.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)But others do, and they are putting their money where it counts.
hunter
(38,302 posts)... we'd pay a lot more attention to the preservation of earth's natural environment and to halting our own increasing population, most especially the growth of fossil-fueled high energy industrial consumer society.
The people with the smallest environmental footprints live in cities, don't own cars, and don't eat meat. It's possible to build cities where people can live happily without consuming huge amounts of natural resources. All it takes is comfortable secure housing, healthy food, clean water, toilets that flush to sophisticated sewage treatment plants, and good public transportation. It's not "rocket science" so to speak.
If we humans screw up here on earth, a place with abundant resources of air and water and moderate temperatures from pole to pole, there's no way in hell we'll ever make it in space. Human beings are fragile creatures and space beyond low earth orbit is a very hostile environment for us.
The entire "humans colonizing space" fiction has the stench of Übermensch about it, that our "best and brightest" (as defined by themselves) will live in space, leaving the rest of us to wallow in the dirt.
I think sending humans to places like the moon or mars accomplishes little. I don't want my tax dollars spent on dangerous stunts.
My grandfather was an engineer on the Apollo project, it's the work he was most proud of, but it was a different world then. We didn't yet comprehend how hostile space was to human life, and we didn't have the sophisticated robots or communication systems we have now.
I'm an enthusiastic supporter of robotic space exploration and artificial intelligence research. I don't need a human on mars or the far side of the moon to tell me what it's like there.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,959 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,248 posts)Crazy or not, he has delivered thousands of high performing electric vehicles for one company and successfully launched rockets for another.
I am impressed with what he has achieved so far, but disappointed at the craziness of the last year where something has clearly changed. The stress got to him or something.
Oneironaut
(5,486 posts)He has an ego the size of the moon, for sure. I also think he’s an eccentric genius who doesn’t fit into this world’s mold. He’s also a grandstander who embellishes Tesla’s achievements and abilities.
I think it would be a mistake for Tesla to dump him. At the same time, Musk is kind of hurting their brand. I think what he needs is a swift kick in the ass.
Get back to innovating, Elon. We all know you’re unique (in a good way), but stop letting the asshole side of your brain make decisions for you. The pedophile comments are totally inappropriate. I hope he stops acting like a douche.
Th flamethrower and weed thing wouldn’t batt an eye if the rest of his behavior wasn’t so bizarre lately
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I think he's a tortured genius surrounded by ass-kissers and he's been believing too much of the bullshit god worship profiles written about him...
Kablooie
(18,610 posts)It looks like that might not be a very good idea now.
joshcryer
(62,266 posts)Just give it a little more time.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)is a bigger issue affecting judgement, not pot.
Elon is a visionary, but wait! Did you burn your Beatles albums when you found out about their drug use?
Time to grow up, kids!
demsocialist
(202 posts)WTF? What a crazy person. It would be outlandish if it wasn't so friggin funny
still_one
(92,061 posts)his bullshit announcement that he would take Tesla public, which he couldn't do, and is now being investigated by the SEC
The CFO was hired just after Musk made that asinine announcement, and resigned because he felt he was put in an unfair position because of it.
The HR executive resigned, because Musk is not an easy person to work for, and many believe Musk needs to bring in others to take charge of the production areas of the company
colorado_ufo
(5,730 posts)I am pretty sure it is already public.
Lucky Luciano
(11,248 posts)Someone told me he may have been on acid when he tweeted that. The person does know Elon and hate his guts...so take with a grain of salt.
Shipwack
(2,157 posts)If there is anyone that needs to calm down and tune out a bit it is Elon...
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)If hand-wringing conservative stock holders get a case of reefer madness and dump their shares and lower prices, why not?
NCjack
(10,279 posts)The_jackalope
(1,660 posts)He also probably has ADHD, which is why his successes and failures are so flamboyant. But he's a big boy, and as long as he is prepared to accept the consequences of his actions, he's got the right to act however he wants.
jb5150
(1,177 posts)I just think sometimes, in his enthusiasm, he throws money at projects that are not fully thought out. The Hyperloop is a good example ...
paleotn
(17,884 posts)their products are not. 30 years from now, Tesla will be remembered about as well as the Tucker. Why? Visionaries simply aren't good managers most of the time. The Chevy Bolt has average range approaching that of Tesla for a lot less money. Plus, it's supported by a nationwide service network Tesla cannot match.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,909 posts)Nothing to do with his pot smoking.
KCDebbie
(664 posts)Taking Tesla public - maybe doing this is his way of inducing people to sell/divest Tesla shares, shares that Musk is ready and eager to snap up!
Leighbythesea
(92 posts)Workplace has financial programs on all day in common areas. I like it because i like to know what the markets are doing.
Not sure which show, but table discussion had one guy saying
'Essentially Musk and Trump are the same person". I find that enraging. Bullshit.
Musk actually has contributed to a greater good with electric vehicles, battery pack systems etc. He"s clearly very intelligent and has business prowess. The free wheeling interview wasnt good judgement, but Trump is an idiot and always has been.
This is the MSM blathering anything that comes to mind stuff that makes me crazy.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Reefer madness.
Le Grand Pronounceur
(78 posts)I thought Europeans were smarter than to freak out about minor shit.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)rockfordfile
(8,695 posts)I know few other people that are ordering the Model 3.
unblock
(52,118 posts)Lucky Luciano
(11,248 posts)More to do with doing it in such a sophomoric bragging way that a 19 year old would do with an instagram picture.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)
jmowreader
(50,528 posts)...when the Model 3 entered into production and it became obvious they didn’t know how to make them.
Owl
(3,639 posts)Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Remember a few months ago, when Sam Nunberg showed up on the news shows, reeking of alcohol and basically committing political and career suicide ?
Spartacus101
(93 posts)...but I guess not.
It's still "Evil, wicked, mean and nasty!"
God, it's been nearly 50 years!!
Can we stop pounding the rocks together and get on with it??
Hasus!
