Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Nobody deserves it more than Elon. After PayPal the guy could have just done what so many others do, lay down and casually invest, chill on a beach, and let others do the hard work.

Instead he's killing himself running multiple ground breaking companies, directly challenging near government monopolies in GM / Ford / Boeing / Lockheed (protected by massive lobbying, deep political ties going back decades, and regulation designed to protect them from competition).

If America could get a few more Elon Musks, we might start to get our mojo back. Hey there immigration policy.



Elon Musk is certainly to be commended but when you talk about him challenging government monopolies, it should be mentioned that the government helped him out quite a bit too. Tesla was bailed out with government loans. AFAIK even his rocket business benefited from government orders, although I think he had to sue the government to get their orders.


"Tesla was bailed out with government loans."

Respectfully, can you please cite a source for this assertion?

Emphasis in italics is mine:

"The loans are part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which provides incentives to new and established automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. Created in 2007 and appropriated in September 2008, the $25 billion ATVM aims to reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil and create "green collar" jobs. The program is entirely unrelated to the stimulus package or the so-called "bailout" funds that General Motors and Chrysler have received." [1]

[1] http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-gets-l...


You just cited a source for parent's assertion, although I'm not sure you realize. IIRC the loan came through at a time Tesla was finding it hard to get a loan through other sources. You could argue that Tesla was more deserving of government funds than Detroit auto, but it seems to me the government did bail the company out.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout


"You just cited a source for parent's assertion, although I'm not sure you realize."

I disagree with this, because the funds available under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program are not related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). They are entirely different programs, under different government departments: ATVM is under the Department of Energy, while TARP is under the Department of the Treasury.

"You could argue that Tesla was more deserving of government funds than Detroit auto [...]"

One "Detroit auto" company did participate in the ATVM loan program: Ford Motor Company [1].

[1] https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=ford-motor-company


I did not say that Tesla participated in TARP. I said Tesla was bailed out with government loans. The phrase "bail out" has generally understood meaning in the English language that is not limited to TARP.


While we're quibbling (and I have no idea why some in this thread have been mentioning TARP), it's not clear to me from any of the cited evidence that ATVM was a bailout. Is someone assuming that all government loans, whether "stimulus" or for some other ostensible reason, are bailouts?


So? If all the competition is getting government help, you'd be stupid not to take it, even if you think that in an ideal situation, nobody would be getting it. After all, in the long run, the government's going to extract way more wealth from you than you get from it.


the government's going to extract way more wealth from you than you get from it.

Only if you assess the value to your business of peace, educated citizens, roads, safe food, etc. at zero.


Ummmm roads maybe, but all that other stuff you mention... the gov't is actually really bad at doing.


Find me one, just one, stateless region in which there is peace, a multitude of safe food, and an educated public.


You can find plenty with a fraction of the military budget.


It's the least they could do for making it so radically expensive to start a new car company in the first place. Not to mention the Feds were giving massive loans to the other manufacturers under the same umbrella (DOE).

Fortunately I doubt the taxpayer will lose billions on the Tesla loan, unlike the GM bailout fiasco.


Fiasco? Even the Republicans fighting in the primaries are having to hem and haw and grudgingly admit that it seems to have worked out pretty well.


I agree, no matter how much any one spins it the bailout of the auto-industry seems to be the right move.


The fiasco is the losing $10 to $15 billion in taxpayer funds part, according to the latest update by the Treasury on expected outcomes to that deal.


How much in lost tax revenues, new unemployment, new Medicaid, and other economic damages would've been incurred by having GM - and the thousands of smaller businesses dependent on its existence - collapse?

I suspect we'd have been in the hole for a lot more than $10-15 billion.


I remember watching another video about the Falcon Heavy Rocket, and how it was designed with a large number of small rockets cones at the bottom, so a certain number can die yet the whole thing can still reach orbit.

I just seemed so elegant and efficient, the kind of thing that could only have come from the mind of private industry that is so mindful of cost and efficiency, unlike the government which only build monstrosities at ridiculous expense (to the taxpayer).


Quite incorrect. If we rewind to the golden age in the 60s, the US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage. The UK's Black Arrow had 8 identical engines in 4 pairs. Russia's Soyuz has 20.

Similarly, if you ask anyone at SpaceX they would tell you it's difficult to underestimate how much they owe to the old grey-beards from NASA who are still around and who helped them get up to speed quickly, avoiding many hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars of blind alleys and reinventing the wheel.

SpaceX is a wonderful example of good engineers - old nasa ones and fresh graduates, united by a common mindset, with enlightened (for which private is often but not strictly a prerequisite) management. That's where they succeed, I think. They look at where they are now, where they want to be, and keep the string taught between the two. But don't think SpaceX could have done this in a vacuum (hohoho). Of the several SpaceXers I've met, including Elon Musk himself back when he had time to give talks at SEDS conferences, none would make such a claim, certainly.


> "he US's Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines on the first stage."

Ah yes... but what did the second stage have?

Not more F-1's, but J-2's, which did not even use the same fuel! Compare this with the route SpaceX is taking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine)#Revision...


Yes indeed, and even sillier was that the engines were built by an entirely different company in a different state. But that just goes back to why private money is smarter - it's not allowed near senators who each want their slice of cake. The current SLS (waggishly called the senate launch system in some circles) has had most of its major technical decisions made on the basis of politics - eg having to use shuttle derived solid rocket boosters to keep that factory open. I think Apollo only got away with it because money was no object.

Again I think this is where the strength of SpaceX lies (modulo the obvious like hiring smart and/or very experienced people) - they are quite free of all this nonsense, their PMs and designers and fabricators are all under once roof and can close the loop on design and manufacturing feedback and iteration. It's very much like skunkworks back in the day.

Having said all that, they're not immune to interference. Dealing with NASA and the ISS means you have to renormalise what constitutes 'exciting' and 'newsworthy' so where in the early days we had things about engines tests and re-entry tests, now we get releases beginning with sentences like 'Today, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) announced it has successfully completed the preliminary design review...'[1]. I've worked on projects with which NASA or ESA have suddenly got involved and I've seen first hand how the innocence get lost, you go from running to wading through treacle, and you have a bizarre out of body experience where you sit in on one of the meetings and wonder how it has taken three hours for them to agree that a decision should be made about something (but not actually make a decision).

If you've not read skunkworks, I'd highly recommend it. A lot of it details how one of Kelly Johnson's key strengths was being rather brutal to his 'customers' (DoD usually) to prevent their incompetence, expense and geological timescales leaking into his outfit. I can quite understand this offensive form of defence, having seen what government tentacles can do to an otherwise good project.

[1]http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20111020


I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implied assertion that the Saturn V was the product of senator meddling (absolutely no argument with the shuttle however). The Saturn V was a von Braun rocket, and as far as I am aware was designed with a similar mindset as the earlier Saturn and Jupiter rockets. (It is my understanding that) they basically made it as good as they could as fast as they could, damn other considerations.

So basically the Saturn V used LOX/RP-1 in the first stage but LOX/LH2 in the second and third because that was the best configuration, but SpaceX is using LOX/RP-1 in all of them because it's simpler but it gets the job done. (note that SpaceX is apparently considering developing LOX/LH2 upper stage engine for heavier loads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_stage) )




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: