Musk's asset accrual and paying for Mars

[Slarty1080]

/rant
I fully expect Elon to move SX headquarters to Mars when he gets there along with an expansion of the engineering team that will already be there. When he takes SX public it will be a US corporation but it will be on Mars. Quibble on where the capital raised legally resides but it will it will in reality become a boost for the Martian economy.

No room for quibble under US tax law... income earned by US citizens and corporations is taxable by the US government no matter where they physically or legally reside.

Render unto Caesar...   True, but it misses the point of the capital being Mars capital and generating wealth for Mars.


Phil

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

[AC in NC]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

[CuddlyRocket]

Everything done on Mars will be a growth industry. Construction, power production,  mineral extraction, food production and chemical off the top of my head. Elon will have the sales job of a lifetime finding companies run by people with enough vision to grab an opportunity that won't give a direct pay off within a generation.

One of Mars' biggest exports will be opportunities for high capital gains. (Note: opportunities not certainties. Many investments will fail, but some will succeed. It's like a gold rush - most lose everything, some make a decent living, and a small minority become millionaires. People know this in advance; it doesn't stop them!) Start the first pizza parlour on Mars and you have a shot at becoming the Martian version of Pizza Hut (founded in 1958 with $600 dollars and now worth billions). Or, when land ownership (or equivalent) is sorted out, imagine if you owned a parcel of land that ends up in the Martian equivalent of Manhattan?

[OTV Booster]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

I've wanted to respond but decided to let it percolate a bit. I'm not really sure where to grab this.


Economics is people, not physics, so symbols are important. Sounds trite but it is true. A Mars Exchange, the First Bank of Aries, or  SX headquartered on Mars, wouldn't decouple the Mars economy. Law, custom and practicality dictate otherwise. These institutions would differentiate the Martian Economy. That's partially where the symbolism is.


The location of capital is also important. Capital is all the 'stuff' we see when we drive down the street, plus a lot we don't see. In a rich nation capital holds greater value than all consumables available at any particular time. There is also money that is available for investment. When it is invested it is destined to become capital 'stuff'.


How much of this investment comes from earth is a measure of how self sustaining mars is. Any investment that originates on mars is another notch of self sustenance. The fact that people on earth bought the stock in the mars company that made the capital investment is almost irrelevant.


At the broadest sweep economies are structured with centralized or distributed planning. In reality there is no purity here. It's always somewhere between the extremes with different facets of any particular economy at different places on the spectrum.


Opinion: because distributed planning is by its nature closer to ground truth, it does a better job where conditions are rapidly changing. Not as coordinated as central planning, but more economically efficient when change is rampant. Like when an economy is rapidly growing.


From this jumble of ideas comes the idea of corporate headquarters and financial institutions on Mars. People will still need food, water, air, shelter and energy. The expansion will feed on itself and supply these things while expanding its own base of self sufficiency and discovering what is exportable.


Whew!


Phil

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

I've wanted to respond but decided to let it percolate a bit. I'm not really sure where to grab this.


Economics is people, not physics, so symbols are important. Sounds trite but it is true. A Mars Exchange, the First Bank of Aries, or  SX headquartered on Mars, wouldn't decouple the Mars economy. Law, custom and practicality dictate otherwise. These institutions would differentiate the Martian Economy. That's partially where the symbolism is.


The location of capital is also important. Capital is all the 'stuff' we see when we drive down the street, plus a lot we don't see. In a rich nation capital holds greater value than all consumables available at any particular time. There is also money that is available for investment. When it is invested it is destined to become capital 'stuff'.


How much of this investment comes from earth is a measure of how self sustaining mars is. Any investment that originates on mars is another notch of self sustenance. The fact that people on earth bought the stock in the mars company that made the capital investment is almost irrelevant.


At the broadest sweep economies are structured with centralized or distributed planning. In reality there is no purity here. It's always somewhere between the extremes with different facets of any particular economy at different places on the spectrum.


Opinion: because distributed planning is by its nature closer to ground truth, it does a better job where conditions are rapidly changing. Not as coordinated as central planning, but more economically efficient when change is rampant. Like when an economy is rapidly growing.


From this jumble of ideas comes the idea of corporate headquarters and financial institutions on Mars. People will still need food, water, air, shelter and energy. The expansion will feed on itself and supply these things while expanding its own base of self sufficiency and discovering what is exportable.


Whew!


Phil

YES

I am more of an amature economist with a equivalent to somewhere > Bachelors but < Masters level in Business Economics which is only a piece of the whole picture. Something I picked up while helping/tutoring a family member with the math and spreadsheets. I needed to understand what was needed in order to correctly advise on techniques to crete the solutions.

So sometimes my understanding is not complete which leads me down a path of false assumptions on how things practically work. But using my extensive Engineering and Software schooling and experience can follow how an Economics system can be like a non-linear feedback control system that is only slightly capable of operating correctly. You get out of the normal bounds of operation and the results are unknown.

Economies have to be managed or conjoled expertly more likely to produce the results wanted. This comes from experience but also part of that experience tells you that every economic system operates differently with different leverages to keep it loosely controlled. Also trying to tightly control an economic system usually results in a poor or false system that has no feedback and no ability to grow unless directed. As you mentioned the case of the distributed economic system of a new established market that has significant feedback effects the "business" cases that cause growth succeed and the ones that do not cause growth fail.

Thanks Phil.
Hopefully I have not muddied the water and stepped on my own toes.

Now for the where does Musk fit in all of this. He (his money) and his businesses (examples of growth business cases, as well as inventiveness) will be a big influence of what others can and will attempt in this new other world economy. Some will thrive other will fail but the example is to keep trying new things even you the one you tried did not work.

[Slarty1080]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

I've wanted to respond but decided to let it percolate a bit. I'm not really sure where to grab this.


Economics is people, not physics, so symbols are important. Sounds trite but it is true. A Mars Exchange, the First Bank of Aries, or  SX headquartered on Mars, wouldn't decouple the Mars economy. Law, custom and practicality dictate otherwise. These institutions would differentiate the Martian Economy. That's partially where the symbolism is.


The location of capital is also important. Capital is all the 'stuff' we see when we drive down the street, plus a lot we don't see. In a rich nation capital holds greater value than all consumables available at any particular time. There is also money that is available for investment. When it is invested it is destined to become capital 'stuff'.


How much of this investment comes from earth is a measure of how self sustaining mars is. Any investment that originates on mars is another notch of self sustenance. The fact that people on earth bought the stock in the mars company that made the capital investment is almost irrelevant.


At the broadest sweep economies are structured with centralized or distributed planning. In reality there is no purity here. It's always somewhere between the extremes with different facets of any particular economy at different places on the spectrum.


Opinion: because distributed planning is by its nature closer to ground truth, it does a better job where conditions are rapidly changing. Not as coordinated as central planning, but more economically efficient when change is rampant. Like when an economy is rapidly growing.


From this jumble of ideas comes the idea of corporate headquarters and financial institutions on Mars. People will still need food, water, air, shelter and energy. The expansion will feed on itself and supply these things while expanding its own base of self sufficiency and discovering what is exportable.


Whew!


Phil

YES

I am more of an amature economist with a equivalent to somewhere > Bachelors but < Masters level in Business Economics which is only a piece of the whole picture. Something I picked up while helping/tutoring a family member with the math and spreadsheets. I needed to understand what was needed in order to correctly advise on techniques to crete the solutions.

So sometimes my understanding is not complete which leads me down a path of false assumptions on how things practically work. But using my extensive Engineering and Software schooling and experience can follow how an Economics system can be like a non-linear feedback control system that is only slightly capable of operating correctly. You get out of the normal bounds of operation and the results are unknown.

Economies have to be managed or conjoled expertly more likely to produce the results wanted. This comes from experience but also part of that experience tells you that every economic system operates differently with different leverages to keep it loosely controlled. Also trying to tightly control an economic system usually results in a poor or false system that has no feedback and no ability to grow unless directed. As you mentioned the case of the distributed economic system of a new established market that has significant feedback effects the "business" cases that cause growth succeed and the ones that do not cause growth fail.

Thanks Phil.
Hopefully I have not muddied the water and stepped on my own toes.

Now for the where does Musk fit in all of this. He (his money) and his businesses (examples of growth business cases, as well as inventiveness) will be a big influence of what others can and will attempt in this new other world economy. Some will thrive other will fail but the example is to keep trying new things even you the one you tried did not work.

Musk fits in by funding the whole shebang or at least a large part of it. The "pro-Mars" elements on Earth pay the "Mars neutral" elements on Earth (the rest of the economy on Earth) to provide things that can be shipped to Mars and then pay for them to be shipped to Mars.

With luck Musk's money is usefully supplemented by Government contracts in the early days and will last long enough to build a settlement that is self contained enough to survive longer term paid for by Musk's residual funds, on going government spending on science, Mars merchandise and tourism.

[OTV Booster]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

I've wanted to respond but decided to let it percolate a bit. I'm not really sure where to grab this.


Economics is people, not physics, so symbols are important. Sounds trite but it is true. A Mars Exchange, the First Bank of Aries, or  SX headquartered on Mars, wouldn't decouple the Mars economy. Law, custom and practicality dictate otherwise. These institutions would differentiate the Martian Economy. That's partially where the symbolism is.


The location of capital is also important. Capital is all the 'stuff' we see when we drive down the street, plus a lot we don't see. In a rich nation capital holds greater value than all consumables available at any particular time. There is also money that is available for investment. When it is invested it is destined to become capital 'stuff'.


How much of this investment comes from earth is a measure of how self sustaining mars is. Any investment that originates on mars is another notch of self sustenance. The fact that people on earth bought the stock in the mars company that made the capital investment is almost irrelevant.


At the broadest sweep economies are structured with centralized or distributed planning. In reality there is no purity here. It's always somewhere between the extremes with different facets of any particular economy at different places on the spectrum.


Opinion: because distributed planning is by its nature closer to ground truth, it does a better job where conditions are rapidly changing. Not as coordinated as central planning, but more economically efficient when change is rampant. Like when an economy is rapidly growing.


From this jumble of ideas comes the idea of corporate headquarters and financial institutions on Mars. People will still need food, water, air, shelter and energy. The expansion will feed on itself and supply these things while expanding its own base of self sufficiency and discovering what is exportable.


Whew!


Phil

YES

I am more of an amature economist with a equivalent to somewhere > Bachelors but < Masters level in Business Economics which is only a piece of the whole picture. Something I picked up while helping/tutoring a family member with the math and spreadsheets. I needed to understand what was needed in order to correctly advise on techniques to crete the solutions.

So sometimes my understanding is not complete which leads me down a path of false assumptions on how things practically work. But using my extensive Engineering and Software schooling and experience can follow how an Economics system can be like a non-linear feedback control system that is only slightly capable of operating correctly. You get out of the normal bounds of operation and the results are unknown.

Economies have to be managed or conjoled expertly more likely to produce the results wanted. This comes from experience but also part of that experience tells you that every economic system operates differently with different leverages to keep it loosely controlled. Also trying to tightly control an economic system usually results in a poor or false system that has no feedback and no ability to grow unless directed. As you mentioned the case of the distributed economic system of a new established market that has significant feedback effects the "business" cases that cause growth succeed and the ones that do not cause growth fail.

Thanks Phil.
Hopefully I have not muddied the water and stepped on my own toes.

Now for the where does Musk fit in all of this. He (his money) and his businesses (examples of growth business cases, as well as inventiveness) will be a big influence of what others can and will attempt in this new other world economy. Some will thrive other will fail but the example is to keep trying new things even you the one you tried did not work.

😂LOL. All economist are amateurs! Your advantage is you know it. NOAA has a better handle on their predictions.


Where's Hari Seldon when you need em?

[OTV Booster]

I don't want to put a dampener on your enthusiasm or that of others on this thread, but I feel I should point out that Mars is a planet not a country or a corporation. I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that for the foreseeable future it will remain that way and all financial transactions will be to and from companies based on planet Earth under the jurisdiction of countries grounded on planet Earth.

Perhaps saying "Mars" in this context is short for "Earth based entities with an interest in encouraging the settlement of the planet Mars" which is fine, but we shouldn't forget the difference and get carried away here!

Agreed.  I was somewhat interested in raising the point that I don't think a Mars Exchange and Mars Capital is going to do what OTV expects within the implicit "Musk's Lifetime" based on the SX HQ move.  But I'm not sure I have the energy.

But I would be interested in reading more if someone wanted to expand on it.  I'm just not sure I see the concept of a decoupled Mars economy furthers the Mars goals faster than something closer to what we know today.

I've wanted to respond but decided to let it percolate a bit. I'm not really sure where to grab this.


Economics is people, not physics, so symbols are important. Sounds trite but it is true. A Mars Exchange, the First Bank of Aries, or  SX headquartered on Mars, wouldn't decouple the Mars economy. Law, custom and practicality dictate otherwise. These institutions would differentiate the Martian Economy. That's partially where the symbolism is.


The location of capital is also important. Capital is all the 'stuff' we see when we drive down the street, plus a lot we don't see. In a rich nation capital holds greater value than all consumables available at any particular time. There is also money that is available for investment. When it is invested it is destined to become capital 'stuff'.


How much of this investment comes from earth is a measure of how self sustaining mars is. Any investment that originates on mars is another notch of self sustenance. The fact that people on earth bought the stock in the mars company that made the capital investment is almost irrelevant.


At the broadest sweep economies are structured with centralized or distributed planning. In reality there is no purity here. It's always somewhere between the extremes with different facets of any particular economy at different places on the spectrum.


Opinion: because distributed planning is by its nature closer to ground truth, it does a better job where conditions are rapidly changing. Not as coordinated as central planning, but more economically efficient when change is rampant. Like when an economy is rapidly growing.


From this jumble of ideas comes the idea of corporate headquarters and financial institutions on Mars. People will still need food, water, air, shelter and energy. The expansion will feed on itself and supply these things while expanding its own base of self sufficiency and discovering what is exportable.


Whew!


Phil

YES

I am more of an amature economist with a equivalent to somewhere > Bachelors but < Masters level in Business Economics which is only a piece of the whole picture. Something I picked up while helping/tutoring a family member with the math and spreadsheets. I needed to understand what was needed in order to correctly advise on techniques to crete the solutions.

So sometimes my understanding is not complete which leads me down a path of false assumptions on how things practically work. But using my extensive Engineering and Software schooling and experience can follow how an Economics system can be like a non-linear feedback control system that is only slightly capable of operating correctly. You get out of the normal bounds of operation and the results are unknown.

Economies have to be managed or conjoled expertly more likely to produce the results wanted. This comes from experience but also part of that experience tells you that every economic system operates differently with different leverages to keep it loosely controlled. Also trying to tightly control an economic system usually results in a poor or false system that has no feedback and no ability to grow unless directed. As you mentioned the case of the distributed economic system of a new established market that has significant feedback effects the "business" cases that cause growth succeed and the ones that do not cause growth fail.

Thanks Phil.
Hopefully I have not muddied the water and stepped on my own toes.

Now for the where does Musk fit in all of this. He (his money) and his businesses (examples of growth business cases, as well as inventiveness) will be a big influence of what others can and will attempt in this new other world economy. Some will thrive other will fail but the example is to keep trying new things even you the one you tried did not work.

A thought in where Musk fits in. I was looking at an SX pic. One of those corporate one with a gazillion employees gathered outside the front door for a photo op. What struck me is their attitude. They were pumped. They were busting their butts for something the believe in.


Musk is a leader not a manager. He works them to the bone, pays them crap, and they love it. He inspires people. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he's talking privately to those he want to do industry on Mars.


If he can inspire them the way he inspires his employees, Mars will work. He will bet his own personal farm but more important, his role is catalyst.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Musk is definitely more experienced and successful at this economics, especially business economics, game than most of everyone else.

[mulp]

...It's not a guaranteed slam-dunk for Tesla and their future is nowhere near as assured as many people think it is, so neither is Musk's Mars piggy bank.

Then short Tesla, because the market believes Tesla is worth a lot already.

I've got no interest in shorting Tesla. I'm not convinced they will fail (nor do I want them to). I'm just also not convinced they will succeed. My point, in view of this thread, was simply that reliance upon Tesla's stock value value to finance a Mars program comes with risks that other posters were not considering, including a breakout competitor, and that a breakout competitor is a valid possibility. Acknowledging that Tesla is still in a vulnerable stage doesn't mean that I'm rooting for the competition, just that I realize that they're there and have to be considered. The arguments based on Tesla's cachet, existing sales numbers and stock value do not rule out the possibility of further market disruption. In fact, they sound a lot like what people were saying about Old Space a short while ago. There's also no law that says that disruption has to come from a small upstart company. Established companies have used their assets and expertise to take over from and stomp smaller innovators.

Tesla AND SpaceX have succeeded beyond Elon's wildest dreams.

They have not gone bankrupt.

They have changed the world by creating excitement for getting rid of fossil fuels,

... and reignited 60s space dreams and excitement from before he was born.

Now, he's determined to make the same insane bets he made circa 2005.

Success breeds success until fear of risk fossilized the institution.

Born in 1947, I saw the results of the 40s insanity. So many impossible things accomplished. The atomic bomb was minor. Going from no factories building military planes to dozens building planes every week in a couple of years. It continued into the 50s and 60s for so many other factories producing all sorts of things.

Elon seems from his comments to have has the same naive view of production I did until circa 2000. As I started taking classes that were on the dummy track in the 60s, but don't exist in most public schools any more, eg, machining, welding, plastics, electromechanics, more broadly manufacturing, I understood it was much harder than  computers where I'd been for 30+ years.

Several years ago, Elon stated factories are hard, that robots can't replace humans, and now Tesla was to be the machine building machines building machines, that Tesla would produce factories. SpaceX is a factory building factories.

While Boeing has factories mass producing planes, it makes bespoke spacecraft. It's part of an industry that made rockets by the thousands, but that was insane, so Reagan signed arms control treaties that closed the rocket factories. SpaceX has factories building rockets. What's Elon's estimate of rockets to Mars, a thousand every 26 months?

But the SpaceX president and COO is planning for hundreds of Starship flights per day point to point on earth. Insanity. Like in 1950 to imagine jet flights thousands of times a day.

Millions of solar roofs with power walls. Tens of millions of pizza boxes on a stick. Tens of thousands of Starlinks says. Thousands of kilometers of tunnels bored per year.

When you build factories frequently, and give the builders the freedom, they improve on the factories. And if failure is valued, lots of small failures will quickly make each factory, and what they build, better and better. It's all about the workers. And motivating them.

The software "fail fast" once applied to mechanical things in the US. As a kid, it was in hot rods, choppers, ham radios, a bunch of magazines about building circuits. I still have a solar radio with a solar cell about half an inch square... I think it cost me five hours wages, so failure was/is expensive, but necessary.

Conservatives hate paying for anything, but especially failure. That's why we don't have cities in the moon, or even moon bases, or even had a trip to the moon in 37 years.

Elon will not give up control over promoting lots of failures to succeed in the insane.

Musk is definitely more experienced and successful at this economics, especially business economics, game than most of everyone else.

[philw1776]

Leave out the political comments.

[CuddlyRocket]

Leave out the political comments.

I think he probably meant small-c conservatives: people averse to change. There are plenty of those on the left as well as the right!

[OTV Booster]

...It's not a guaranteed slam-dunk for Tesla and their future is nowhere near as assured as many people think it is, so neither is Musk's Mars piggy bank.

Then short Tesla, because the market believes Tesla is worth a lot already.

I've got no interest in shorting Tesla. I'm not convinced they will fail (nor do I want them to). I'm just also not convinced they will succeed. My point, in view of this thread, was simply that reliance upon Tesla's stock value value to finance a Mars program comes with risks that other posters were not considering, including a breakout competitor, and that a breakout competitor is a valid possibility. Acknowledging that Tesla is still in a vulnerable stage doesn't mean that I'm rooting for the competition, just that I realize that they're there and have to be considered. The arguments based on Tesla's cachet, existing sales numbers and stock value do not rule out the possibility of further market disruption. In fact, they sound a lot like what people were saying about Old Space a short while ago. There's also no law that says that disruption has to come from a small upstart company. Established companies have used their assets and expertise to take over from and stomp smaller innovators.

Tesla AND SpaceX have succeeded beyond Elon's wildest dreams.

They have not gone bankrupt.

They have changed the world by creating excitement for getting rid of fossil fuels,

... and reignited 60s space dreams and excitement from before he was born.

Now, he's determined to make the same insane bets he made circa 2005.

Success breeds success until fear of risk fossilized the institution.

Born in 1947, I saw the results of the 40s insanity. So many impossible things accomplished. The atomic bomb was minor. Going from no factories building military planes to dozens building planes every week in a couple of years. It continued into the 50s and 60s for so many other factories producing all sorts of things.

Elon seems from his comments to have has the same naive view of production I did until circa 2000. As I started taking classes that were on the dummy track in the 60s, but don't exist in most public schools any more, eg, machining, welding, plastics, electromechanics, more broadly manufacturing, I understood it was much harder than  computers where I'd been for 30+ years.

Several years ago, Elon stated factories are hard, that robots can't replace humans, and now Tesla was to be the machine building machines building machines, that Tesla would produce factories. SpaceX is a factory building factories.

While Boeing has factories mass producing planes, it makes bespoke spacecraft. It's part of an industry that made rockets by the thousands, but that was insane, so Reagan signed arms control treaties that closed the rocket factories. SpaceX has factories building rockets. What's Elon's estimate of rockets to Mars, a thousand every 26 months?

But the SpaceX president and COO is planning for hundreds of Starship flights per day point to point on earth. Insanity. Like in 1950 to imagine jet flights thousands of times a day.

Millions of solar roofs with power walls. Tens of millions of pizza boxes on a stick. Tens of thousands of Starlinks says. Thousands of kilometers of tunnels bored per year.

When you build factories frequently, and give the builders the freedom, they improve on the factories. And if failure is valued, lots of small failures will quickly make each factory, and what they build, better and better. It's all about the workers. And motivating them.

The software "fail fast" once applied to mechanical things in the US. As a kid, it was in hot rods, choppers, ham radios, a bunch of magazines about building circuits. I still have a solar radio with a solar cell about half an inch square... I think it cost me five hours wages, so failure was/is expensive, but necessary.

Conservatives hate paying for anything, but especially failure. That's why we don't have cities in the moon, or even moon bases, or even had a trip to the moon in 37 years.

Elon will not give up control over promoting lots of failures to succeed in the insane.

Musk is definitely more experienced and successful at this economics, especially business economics, game than most of everyone else.

Ah, ya old buzzard. Ya got a year in me. We've been watching this wacky world with about the same time frame. We can remember Sputnik and at this remove we can reminisce without the geopolitical overtones of that day. We had the dream and we felt it draw to a high impedance crawl.


As a retiree I spend time at local coffee shops slurping liquid energy and reading NSF. This is a college town and offers the joy of talking to smart young folk in a coffee shop setting that is neutral to age. The greatest joy is to see that some of them light up when they find we share the dream. Actually, I probably light up too.


The dream is alive with young and growing grass roots. E. Musk is a catalyst at the right time and place.


Has anybody calculated the potential ISP of coffee? Cackle, cackle.


Phil

[docmordrid]

Another Tesla move: a 5 for 1 stock split.

Today's close: 1,621.00
After market: 1635.71 (1744 EDT)

Business Insider...

Tesla has surged 20% since it announced a stock split 2 days ago (TSLA)
>

[Kansan52]

The part that gives me hope for Telsa is their understanding that the battery is the thing. They have bought and developed battery tech and that has (from analyst positions) given Telsa a two year lead over competitors.

My take is that others have battery plans as well so the tech lead may not be two years. But the positive in that scenario is Telsa seem to have the best battery production compared to others. So they can apply their developments sooner than others.

So, could fail but seems to be on a good road to succeed.

Heck, they may become the battery producer for many,

[OTV Booster]

The part that gives me hope for Telsa is their understanding that the battery is the thing. They have bought and developed battery tech and that has (from analyst positions) given Telsa a two year lead over competitors.

My take is that others have battery plans as well so the tech lead may not be two years. But the positive in that scenario is Telsa seem to have the best battery production compared to others. So they can apply their developments sooner than others.

So, could fail but seems to be on a good road to succeed.

Heck, they may become the battery producer for many,

An interesting article on an H2 fuel cell car, 1000mile range and 221mph. OT, but a possible competitor to batteries - in 10 years maybe. Oohhh, gotta look into zoning for back yard electrolysis. OFIAHC.  (Old Fart In A Hot Car)


https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/08/meet-the-hyperion-xp-1-a-hydogen-powered-hypercar-to-educate-the-world/

[ncb1397]

My take is that others have battery plans as well so the tech lead may not be two years. But the positive in that scenario is Telsa seem to have the best battery production compared to others. So they can apply their developments sooner than others.

Tesla produces about 20 GWh per year of batteries (with their partner Panasonic). That represents about 10% of global lithium ion production.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

SpaceX's current valuation position in relations ship to other aerospace companies like Boeing. Boeing is normally a $200B Market Cap company but because of it's woes with it's poor software in both space and aircraft the current Market Cap is <$100B ($97B). Putting SpaceX as a measure of size based on "Market Cap"/Valuation at 1/2 Boeing's size. Because of SpaceX's recent "Market Cap"/Valuation showing a fast growth rate and Boeing a negative. SpaceX is attracting a lot of the investment attention. This is also because of it's current Valuation size. Instead of VC investments being 10-20% of the company value the investments are <5% of the company value. This also attracts investors since the future of the company is not totally dependent on the investment. SpaceX would likely still grow but not as fast. The investment is seen as an accelerator and not a lifeline.

Because of such a fast Valuation growth potential. Expect continued interest by VC to get on the train supplying a steady $Bs/year funding for SpaceX rapid growth into cheap Space Access, Cheap worldwide anywhere broadband data communications, and possibly coming soon P2P commercial rocket travel.

So as far as SpaceX and it's near term future Musk's fortunes do not come into play. Ask the question again about Musk's fortune in 10 years from now and what he is doing with it. If Starlink is successful and Starship as well. Musk's fortune will be bigger and so would his impact on what is being accomplished with Earth, space, the Moon, and mars.

Three years ago August 2017. SpaceX Valuation was $20B now it has more than doubled to $46B. At a rate of 2X every 3 years. SpaceX would have a valuation in 2026 of $200B. By 2032 $800B. But because it is the initiator in the opening in  a big way a fast growth new very large potential market. It may quickly become a multi $T company by mid 2030's. If it spent half of it's profits / year on Mars that would be a value of around $10B/year spent on improving the Mars Base/Colony. Now add Musk's money to that and the amounts would be in the possible $10s of Bs/year.

[M.E.T.]

Whatever he does, Elon better move out of Dodge (California) fast, before their proposed wealth tax on residents impacts our collective Mars dream.

[Zed_Noir]

Well Musk's Tesla stock value is currently $1900+ in pre-market trading today.

Absolutely mind bogging. We might see the Tesla stock spiked over $2000 at some point today.