Perhaps you mean, "Thanks Gwynne Shotwell."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell

I think HN understands the difference between a charismatic leader who is good at laying out a vision and generating a tremendous amount of hype around it (like Steve Jobs) and someone who is an expert at actually realizing a vision (Steve Wozniak, Tim Cook).

They may both be necessary for success, but if you are praising the rocket's engineering, you're praising the person who works tirelessly to manifest the vision.

Shotwell is also awesome, that is certain. They all are. I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman, and it would be great if it were her. However, Elon founded that company (and personally hired Shotwell) and has been a continual source of engineering inspiration, for several decades. His direction has pretty much forced the global automotive industry to go electric. People may not like some of the things he tweets, but at the end of the day, he is not going to be a historical footnote.

> I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman

Shouldn't it just be the commander of the mission?

The way you speak is so condescending to women, as though they wouldn't have the ability to earn their place and it has to be handed to them. I can't speak to your intentions but it's not equality if you thought it was.

You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous. You don't have a monopoly on understanding "equality" and it is certainly not as simple in our society as you assume.

> You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous.

You’d need to prove intent for that claim. Merit based seems fair to me.

"seems fair to me" is hardly enough basis for a claim either. I did go on to state how it is impossible in our society today - do you actually disagree with that?

Theres nothing disingenuous about thinking the person that earned the honor should be the one to do it. Your claim that I think I have a monopoly is disingenuous. GP stating it should be a woman, just for being a woman, is being disingenuous.

Most women I know appreciate the "perks" of being a woman, but none of them are under any delusion about it. They would be insulted if they lost on equal footing, and were rewarded for it anyway. I've never met anyone who was happy knowing someone let them win.

If you want to make an argument that men and women are never on equal footing, I could understand that but I'm not even sure what you are proposing instead.

What I'm saying is that "earned the honor" - or rather that there is a single "best person" - is already a flawed assumption. Meritocracy is thoroughly debunked so anyone asserting it is either way out of touch or being disingenuous.

The reason is because of historical oppression and entrenched systems of oppression still in place today. In that context, meritocracy only serves to reinforce the status quo.

I'm sure NASA can come very close to a true meritocracy - but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc. There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.

> but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc

So you're making the same proposal. You want to hire a woman because she's a woman. This is a massive disservice to female empowerment.

> There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.

This is an absurd line of thinking. If two people truly are equally qualified, some immutable trait like race, sex, etc. should not be the determining factor. If you are ok with someone being hired for a job because they are a native american or a woman, then you should also be ok with someone choosing to only hire white men and asian men. Both of these scenarios are racist/sexist.

There is absolutely nothing condescending about that statement

It’s unapologetically sexist

> I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman, and it would be great if it were her.

Probably not your intent, but this sounds incredibly patronizing.

I disagree, I think it's an awesome sentiment to want to get out of the way of women pioneering advances in space flight.

Is it patronizing to say, "I think the next president should be a woman?"

Yes of course. It implies that the most impactful thing your presidential candidate can do is have a female gender.

Nah. It could imply that there are many equally qualified people for the job, and having a woman do it is beneficial in its own right. Y'know, to show that it is possible in the first place, contrary to our entire history so far??

Patronizing whom?

She's way too important to risk on the first crewed mission to Mars (which is going to be very risky). This is what astronauts are for.

Thank you for sharing!

I think HN likes to minimize the individual effort and success of great leaders because it plays against their personal beliefs. And I say this as someone who doesn’t like Musk very much.

The idea that "great leaders" exists is in itself a personal belief, isn't it? In my opinion "great leaders" are jobs that need to be done, not specific people. If Musk's personal characteristics make him viable to be a "great leader", there's at least a million other people that could have taken his place.

Sometimes leaders get too much credit for what their team accomplishes, but I think it would be silly to deny that there are people who make unique contributions. Apple wouldn't have been Apple without Steve Jobs. SpaceX wouldn't be SpaceX without Elon Musk.

Funny then that almost no other space company comes close in terms of success. That many other rocket startups before SpaceX have totally failed even those with more finances then SpaceX. Europe makes a vastly inferior rocket for 3x the price.

Maybe there are a million such people around, but apparently its very hard to find them.

Life is not a zero sum game. Clearly Elon and Gwynne work very well together and Gwynne is a very talented operator. Both talents are essential but I do believe Elon’s talent would be harder to replace.

Elon also plays a big role in engineering. He has stated many times that most engineering decisions go directly through him.

His title at the company is Founder and _Chief Engineer_

Ok could we maybe get a second opinion?

I'm an engineer. My second opinion is that Elon is a better engineer than me.

This post quotes top SpaceX engineers like Tom Mueller, Kevin Watson, Garrett Reisman, Josh Boehm, and others like John Carmack about Musk's involvement in engineering:

https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...

Ah HN, where you can denigrate the hell out of anyone as long as you say it politely and sufficiently passive aggressively While clearly following obediently with the new "Elon Musk bad now" doctrine. Being blunt and direct is more virtuous through sheer honesty.

I’m have no doubts that she’s doing an incredible job but by all accounts Musk is intimately involved with the engineering in addition to being the head of the company.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...

> Thanks Elon.

And the many many many other people actually conceiving the engines/rockets/&c.