> “You know how they tell you to "visualise success" because you need to know what it looks like to aim for it?
Along those lines I was visualising what it would look like if someone like Elon Musk was on YouTube showing off some sort of future fusion reactor that's "not just a piece of lab equipment"”
The money went to his head, he’s not the innovator he was, now he’s just a billionaire that got bored with Mars and wants to own social media instead.
I do wonder how much of an innovator he actually is on his own. He's known for his time at Paypal, but he was only there for 6 months, during which his big effort was to switch their Unix servers to Windows NT. He bought his way into Tesla.
And speaking as somebody who used to work at Twitter in anti-abuse engineering, I can confidently say that he displays a very poor understanding of the problems he's in theory buying Twitter to solve. And that's before we even get to his terribly handled attempt to buy the company, which could literally cost him billions to get out of, or billions more if he's forced to buy and run the company.
He bought his way into Tesla very early on, oversaw the design of the first Roadster, and took over as CEO before the first Roadster launched. He’s also been at SpaceX from the start and has apparently been involved at a technical level from the start.
I've had some bosses/clients that were "involved at a technical level". Let's just say that their being "involved" in a successful project is not a perfect indicator that they are particularly skilled innovators.
For example, consider Steve Jobs. He was hugely involved, but not particularly technical. He was very strong at marketing, and also very strong at understanding certain kinds of user need and then berating people until he got something that met his high standards.
Yes, he was definitely fired after a short stint. Stories on why don't totally line up for me, but incompetence is one of the explanations, and I feel like it's pretty hard to get fired from a CEO spot that quickly.
All the success he has had comes from lots of bucks to start from, and lucky hires. You can tell from all his obvious duds, and the idiotic things he says whenever he goes off-script.
Gwynne Shotwell probably deserves the credit for SpaceX, and probably all of that for her personnel actions.
And yet every biography and early employee of SpaceX will say otherwise about Musk's importance to the success of the company. Shotwell however does not get enough credit in the eye of the general public (she's quite popular among people who keep up with SpaceX), Musk has always emphasized how important she was/is for securing contracts for them and keeping engineering from going too wild.
Like when Musk wanted to cancel Falcon Heavy because it was turning out to be much more challenging than expected, was a dead end in terms of Mars ambitions and Falcon 9 had improved enough that it basically took most of the launches FH had been intended for, but she pushed for them to work on it anyway because IIRC they had enough potential customers lined up to go forward with it.
One, saying that he was important to the success of the company is not the same thing as saying he's a particularly good technical innovator on his own. Take Steve Jobs as an example: important to the success of the Mac, but as a visionary who was also enough of an asshole that he got fired.
Two, what people will say about an egotistical, litigious billionaire is limited. Even more so when he controls their income and/or they still hold a lot of illiquid stock. Note, for example, that Musk fired 5 people just for internal criticism: https://www.reuters.com/technology/spacex-fires-employees-in...
I saw a lot more negative accounts about Steve Jobs starting a few years after his death than I did in the years leading up to it. I expect to see something similar with Musk.
I'm not arguing that he's flawless, I just get annoyed when people try to suggest that he simply lucked out in making the right hiring decisions in an industry where "How do you become a millionaire in aerospace? Start with a billion" was (and to an extent still is) a common adage. I feel that boiling it down to luck is pretty insulting to all the work people have put into putting SpaceX a decade or two ahead of the rest of the world.
That said, the people who I'm referring to aren't really in the position you describe. Most of them have either retired or are doing their own thing and having been early members of SpaceX are pretty much the best rocket engineers around (eg Tom Mueller), so I doubt that they have any concerns about their income.
Musk appears to at least be able to keep up with technical details enough to be able to discuss them with technically oriented YouTubers. So while it's hard to say if he's a particularly good technical innovator on his own, he's capable of understanding various design decisions, discussing tradeoffs, questioning assumptions and thus appropriately leading his engineers. I believe that is a big aspect of why SpaceX has been so successful. Shotwell also has an engineering background, so the same probably goes for her ability to balance business and technical considerations.
Nobody is suggesting that he "simply" lucked out. But this part makes no sense: "I feel that boiling it down to luck is pretty insulting to all the work people have put into putting SpaceX a decade or two ahead of the rest of the world."
One, there's no conflict between believing that Musk was lucky and other people worked hard. Two, if the hard labor of "the best rocket engineers around" was what made SpaceX successful, then that helps prove the point that Musk's reputation as a genius technical innovator is perhaps overblown.
> I doubt that they have any concerns about their income.
That is spoken like somebody who has never been through a lawsuit. Or incurred the disfavor of somebody powerful. You can bet that every one of the people who has worked for Musk has signed agreements that would let him brutalize them in court for years. Lawsuits, even ones you are confident of winning, are incredibly stressful and draining. If Musk is happy to fire people just for criticizing him privately, there's no reason to think he wouldn't sue somebody for publicly making him look like an asshole. So as with Jobs, they tell the positive stories loudly and the negative ones quietly or not at all.
> Musk appears to at least be able to keep up with technical details enough to be able to discuss them with technically oriented YouTubers.
Oh dang, YouTubers? Well then.
As a person who has spent years doing anti-abuse work, including at Twitter, I can tell you that what he's been saying about Twitter's issues has a plausible gloss but is both ignorant and wrongheaded. Musk is happy to pretend to be an expert genius when he doesn't know shit. That gets lots of Twitter/YouTube likes, but that's not what matters when running a real business.
Or we could look at his attempts to automate the Tesla factories. Tesla almost went bankrupt because this nominal genius vastly overestimated what was possible, ignoring decades of manufacturing experience in favor of huffing his own... vapors. This was a multi-billion dollar error.
So is it possible that he was helpful technically at SpaceX? Sure. But it's also possible that the difference at SpaceX is that he had a stronger staff that kept him at bay while they did their "best rocket engineers" thing.
And yet there have only been 2 commercial launches of Falcon Heavy launches. There are more on the manifest but I wonder how many of those would be served by Starship, especially if the effort put into FH had been used to pull forward Starship.
There should have been a few more by now but they keep getting delayed. Overall though, I think FH might have been made worth developing because of Europa Clipper, NSSL launches and Dragon XL despite not necessarily making back R&D yet. Falcon Heavy is easier for risk averse government agencies to choose.
Remember that Lunar Starship winning HLS was not at all expected, most people assumed NASA would consider it too radical, going for the other more conservative proposals.
In that environment, FH offers best in the world capability at low costs while still being pretty close to what people (especially uninformed politicians and bureaucrats) think of as a rocket.
I don’t understand the discussion people are having here.
Musk is demonstrably good at identifying interesting problem spaces, finding things a new company could do better in them, convincing people who have capital to invest, building, growing and leading a team able to successfully tackle the challenge and communicating with the outside world in a way generating a tone of interest and buy in. In short, he is very good at his job which is being a CEO. Musk is not working in engineering.
Someone in this discussion said he lucked out on the team at SpaceX. That’s a gross misunderstanding of why he is good. The managing team of SpaceX and especially Shotwell is Musk great achievement.
Gwynne absolutely is the unsung hero. (Though in truth I think more spacex fans know about her importance than it would seem. Not sure about the outside world.)
Oh yeah totally? Just luck! Wow, what a lucky man right? Probabilistically nearly impossible but hey? Statistically it’s still possible as a fluke. Super rational thinking that’s applicable to increasingly well understood mental modes of reality. Bravo!
Probabilistically it's not that implausible. Musk has what, one successful company he founded himself - SpaceX? The hyperloop is flop, the boring company is a flop too, so is SolarCity, and the sucessful one came with a lot of exceptionally great hires. I'd say empirically his skill at hiring competent people that are willing to work hard is higher than average, while his engineering skills don't seem to be particularly special.
Yeah, many people don't get how much the world is tilted in favor of the rich. Look at Jared Kushner's ability to keep failing upwards, for example.
Musk is an amazing hype man; the way he talked Tesla's stock price into the stratosphere gave him incredibly cheap capital. And he was correct in thinking that electric cars were a coming thing that the major auto companies were sleeping on, so he gets points for insight. But now that the majors are in the game, over the next decade we'll see how much Tesla's built on skill vs luck.
> I'd say empirically his skill at hiring competent people that are willing to work hard is higher than average…
He wasn’t competent at hiring the right people, his ideas in the beginning looked amazing and drove the best minds to apply there. Now they’re leaving…
Right right, "they're leaving", exactly who is they and how mow many is that?
> Tesla revealed in its 10-K filing with the SEC that it employed 99,290 employees as of December 31, 2021. This is a substantial increase from how many people the company had employed at the end of 2020. Tesla reported an employee headcount of 70,757 people at the end of 2020.
Also, it's often that those who leave, should leave, as there is a mismatch.
To generalize and extrapolate a minority percentage of misfits that you clearly are focusing on is quite the error.
Let's see Tesla's growth year over year:
Tesla revenue for the quarter ending June 30, 2022 was $16.934B, a 41.61% increase year-over-year.
Tesla revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2022 was $67.166B, a 60.45% increase year-over-year.
Tesla annual revenue for 2021 was $53.823B, a 70.67% increase from 2020.
Tesla annual revenue for 2020 was $31.536B, a 28.31% increase from 2019.
Tesla annual revenue for 2019 was $24.578B, a 14.52% increase from 2018.
Yep, sounds like you know what you're talking about.
Along those lines I was visualising what it would look like if someone like Elon Musk was on YouTube showing off some sort of future fusion reactor that's "not just a piece of lab equipment"”
The money went to his head, he’s not the innovator he was, now he’s just a billionaire that got bored with Mars and wants to own social media instead.