251–260 of 264 posts
There was a hard-scifi manga/anime about this almost 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes "The story of Planetes follows the crew of the DS-12 "Toy Box" of the Space Debris Section, a unit of Technora Corporation. Debris Section's purpose is to prevent the damage or destruction of satellites, space stations and spacecraft from collision with debris (so-called "space debris") in Earth's and the Moon's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The success of SpaceX has nothing to do with Musk and a lot to do with this woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell . That even you, who ostensibly cares quite a bit about SpaceX, don’t know this is a testament to how little execution matters.
I think your definition of execution is a little off, or at least, confused. In a previous comment you wrote: > But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around. Did Elon not hire and then promote Gwynne? Is recruiting the right people and keeping them happy and fulfilled not an important part of executing any vision? If all you do as a CEO is hire smart people w…
Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers? I'm not so sure. If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition then I could say different. But he mostly gets credit for other people's work -- that's how his inclusion into the list of founders of Paypal came about in the first place, how he came to be head of Tesla, and also now how folks mistakenly give him credit for the success of SpaceX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a Korean movie about a vaguely similar topic: salvaging space debris that I enjoyed https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12838766/
That's a great movie! There's also Japanese anime series set in the near-future sci-fi about a small company that cleans up space debris, called "Planet ES"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your definition of execution is a little off, or at least, confused. In a previous comment you wrote: > But surviving for long enough and with the right folks around you means that you can turn things around. Did Elon not hire and then promote Gwynne? Is recruiting the right people and keeping them happy and fulfilled not an important part of executing any vision? If all you do as a CEO is hire smart people w…
If every company that a CEO touches is a tirefire until they are removed from day-to-day operations, is that good execution on their part? Just because they eventually hire the right people and those people are successful? (Ignoring of course that hiring is not a 1 person job.) Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers? I'm not so sure. If Elon had ever l…
Maybe? I think it'd be silly to claim that Tesla and SpaceX are so successful that they were able to become world class companies even under hostile leadership. They are successful in part because of their leadership, such as Gwynne as you mentioned (god bless her).
> Even when they are a liability to the company through their actions, lying to shareholders and customers?
One might argue this is even the primary purpose of a CEO, to lie and lie and keep the illusion going until the engineers have enough time to actually deliver. Tim Cook had a similar bout with Apple Maps, AirPower, and the infamous car project, but he doesn't seem to be cast in the same light as Elon with FSD.
> If Elon had ever lead a company to success of his own volition
If I may, I don't think anyone has ever lead a company to success of their own volition, so this is a false premise. You're saying that tons of other people helped make these companies succeed, but this is true for every company, even the ones that eventually fail.
Elon is a complicated character and he's certainly not a saint, but he is at the very least involved in these companies, and while they are doing well he deserves at least some credit for selling a vision that excites investors and customers and keeps the lights on. As I learn more about the business world, I'm beginning to see that a lot of tech CEOs have a similar social function to rockstars: they get crowds to feel ecstasy and hope and headbang to the music while skilled operators in the background sell merch, records, and deals.
So here's a potential business model for this: salvage rights. When ships sink, the owner generally still retains ownership of any property. Sometimes the location of the wreck is known. Sometimes it needs to be found. It can cost a lot of money to find a wreck and recover any property. So salvage rights are a principle of maritime law such that whoever does this is entitled to a reward commensurate with the value of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm probably under thinking this, but wouldn't the overall momentum of the debris be conserved so you'd have a bias in debris velocity in whatever direction the original objects were orbiting (presumably not random)?
I would assume that as the debris cloud became more biased in one direction, it would be more and more likely to encounter new debris coming in a different direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea this thread hurts my brain, I legitimately can't tell. But I believe it would be, Water World style. Why not re-purpose scrap parts, you could even make other helper robots with the scrap. I'm reminded of Seveneves with the robots that make more robots tk make more and bigger robots. Man I'm gonna re-read that now.
Sorry my “so you are saying it was possible?” was supposed to just be a little joke to the guy talking about ships. I think what you are describing might one day be possible, but it’s so far in the distant future that technology would have to move along way before we start to think of this outside of science fiction. The level of processing and manufacture required to turn junk into a robot is huge, and would require…