Howdy Ted! It has been a while! Hope you're doing well! Glad that you're still at it. SSGL misses you! <3

Any idea what the price difference will be? (e.g. 20% less, 50%, 90%?)

I read that SpaceX's engines deliver a bit more thrust at a bit less mass than NASA engines. But the kicker was SpaceX's were 1/200th the cost. From the cost angle it's very interesting observing space activities going from mostly public to mostly private.

I would guess most of the cost wasn't direct, but the time and effort to get something approved to fly on the ISS.

Yeah, I’m not mad at this. There’s a lot around SpaceX that makes it hard to really see what an offering from them is*, but this actually looks legitimately interesting - a way to run medium-to-long-term microgravity experiments with a proper data uplink and power structure could be a real boon for a lot of interesting science. Turning microgravity into a purchasable commodity, instead of something you need a specialized project for, is genuinely one of those “human capacity building” things.

* (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies, though)

> There’s a lot around SpaceX that makes it hard to really see what an offering from them is*

> * (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies,

Ok, I will. You're alluding to two separate problems which are both pet peeves of mine. The less controversial one is that product marketing/communication is becoming all marketing and little communication. Why do landing pages, press releases and ads created by teams of highly paid professionals fail to clearly convey what something actually is (and is not) and why I should care?

The second problem is it's getting damn near impossible to discuss any aspect of a high profile company, product or even technology without the politics, personalities, or social impacts related to it swallowing everything. At minimum it's now normal, if not expected, to preface any discussion by signaling a position on {adjacent controversy}. Before the last decade, people would think always doing that was weird.

I'll give an example avoiding current 'triggers', in a discussion on foreign policy you could observe ex-president Richard Nixon's China foreign policy was new, bold and successful - some might agree and others disagree - but no one would feel the urgent need to signal their views on Watergate or the fact Nixon was universally considered by far the worst U.S. president ever (as well as a reprehensible morally toxic personality). Enlightened people could handle discussing different aspects of things without fearing that NOT diverting onto the 'obviously problematic' adjacent aspect might somehow be taken as personally endorsing it.

> Enlightened people could handle discussing different aspects of things without fearing that NOT mentioning the 'obviously problematic' adjacent aspect might somehow be taken as personally endorsing it.

My granddad was in the military in WWII and would always mention how strange it felt to have a Toyota now and that it and VW were very frowned on by people in the war for a long time. Probably same would be felt about Tesla the nazi salute and otherwise support even back in the 80s.

The strangeness your grandad felt was from seeing products from enemy countries in his neighbor's driveway, unrelated to Volkswagen or Toyota as companies or the behavior their founders. I think it's quite understandable. He'd just witnessed first-hand and survived, the largest, longest World War in human history. A conflict which divided actual civilizations in an existential battle for survival, during which 70M-85M people died - 3 to 4% of all humans on the planet.

That's not an example which disproves my point, in fact, it makes the point perfectly. Which is: it isn't appropriate or normal when people hyper-overreact to something as inconsequential as an erratically eccentric Tech Bro's juvenile trolling (or thoughtlessly stupid unplanned gaffe, depending on who you believe) in a way similar to, as you've insightfully pointed out, the reaction of a traumatized survivor of the biggest, most consequential and horrible single event in all of human history - people who watched their friends and families die violent brutal deaths, and in many cases witnessed systematic genocide against their entire race at scales beyond imagining. That's how some people now react to stupid, wrong, offensive words and gestures by fucking morons and trolls on Twitter and TikTok. Thank you. That's actually a much better example of my point.

I think Elon is a complete nutjob but, seriously, these are NOT remotely the same level or scope. Your granddad was a literal, fucking hero - and obviously made of much sterner stuff than (some) people today. Your grandad said seeing Enemy Vehicles around town was "strange." He didn't hold candlelight vigils in front of Volkswagen and Toyota dealers, he didn't harangue VW owners in the supermarket parking lot, or need to signal about it in every, single, conversation where those countries, companies or cars were mentioned.

If he had protested and harangued, I'd understand that level of reaction and constant obsession. War zone PTSD is terrible and never goes away. Oh, and tens of millions died in, arguably, the biggest, worst thing... ever? Yeah, I'm okay if Gramps over-reacts a little. But apparently you granddad didn't think over-reacting was called for or appropriate.

No, he had a Toyota, and talked about how unimaginable it was for him earlier.

lmao this is in no way similar. Someone being triggered at the thought of a man being Republican is not the same as feeling weird seeing the companies that made machines that blew apart your friends advertised in the neighbors’ driveways.

I think people are less worried that he is a Republican and more of where he is taking the Republicans. One Nazi salute to the crowd at the inauguration, then he turns around to face Trump and look him in the eyes and gives another Nazi salute.

Anti-Defamation League; The Jewish civil rights organization concluded it appeared to be an awkward expression of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute.

Within months of the salute people were sent to concentration camps without trial.

Regardless of if a jewish civil rights organization is fine with his two straight arm salutes from the chest at someone else's presidential inauguration, I and everyone else can (and should!) still have our own opinions on it and the following double down in response to the criticism.

To make your implications explicit:

Do you agree with the anti defamation league position you're claiming that that wasnt a nazi salute?

Do you think it was anything like one? Was it enough to be in bad taste and worth assuring people it was not afterward? If it was you would you have tried to clear up the misunderstanding after?

Do you think the person you posted this in reply to should change their mind about musk and his actions here because they are genuinely misunderstanding a good faith situation?

That should rather make you think twice on what the ADL has become (or perhaps always was).

Thanks, and I’ll just say in advance that I’m thrilled that whoever’s gonna decide to take the other side of this debate’s gonna go ahead and do that, and if you’re the one who decides to continue with this, well hey, I appreciate you doing that, too.

> The second problem is it's getting damn near impossible to discuss any aspect of a high profile company, product or even technology without the politics, personalities, or social impacts related to it swallowing everything.

I don't know what you think is supposed to happen after Citizens United v FEC. Corporate money is protected speech. Therefore doing business with a given corporation is inherently a political act. If you don't like it, campaign to overturn that decision, but bitching at the people who are correctly reacting to changes in the political system is not going to accomplish anything, ever.

It does accomplish something. It reminds people that there are some folks who are rational about preferences (which is what politics is).