|
Keep debates civil. |
On April 03 2017 01:43 LegalLord wrote:
If "creating assets" means "convincing new shareholders to give you more money than you lose from continuing operations" then yes, Musk is "creating assets."
A factory is an asset. Intellectual property is an asset. Even a brand is an asset. If you think Teslas are overpriced, then you are saying that the Tesla brand has monetary value. That's literally what a brand is: a sticker you can put on a product to have people pay for it more than they otherwise would.
This "Amazon strategy" idea that it's perfectly ok for any company to lose money forever because "it's in growth phase" needs to die.
Right, I'm sure Amazon is collapsing any time now. Reinvesting your profits (possibly more than 100% of them, if you can find people willing to give you more money) is a perfectly valid strategy. You are right that it's easier to hide a failing business behind this model, but in principle there's nothing wrong with it. As always, caveat emptor.
And I wouldn't care if not for the fact that every single one of his companies are sustained on a wave of beautiful government handouts.
Taking Commercial Cargo and Crew as an example, the US was spending $4-5bn/year on the Shuttle program. I don't have exact numbers but COTS cost about $1bn, CRS cost $3.5bn ($1.6bn for SpaceX, $1.9bn for Orbital) and Commercial Crew cost $8bn (~$3bn to SpaceX, $5bn to Boeing). Add maybe $2bn paid to Russia for transporting astronauts, the whole endevour comes out to $15bn. Operating the Shuttle over the same time period would have cost about $25-30bn.
So you could say SpaceX received $5bn in government handouts. Or you could say they are playing a large part in the government saving $10-15bn over 6 years. It's the same with buying seats on Soyuz. Is the US subsidizing the Russian space industry by paying for those seats? Or is Russia subsidizing the US by offering cheaper (and probably safer) transportation than the US had previously?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Says a keyboard warrior who doesn't help innovation.
You should go back to reddit or 4chan or Youtube comments sections where this brand of stupidity is right at home.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I might be a fanboy, but I only consider myself a fanboy because at least Musk was trying when no one else was.
You don't get credit for trying. You don't get credit for making shit up because it "inspires" people. Like I could make this same rationalization for any number of science-based scams and say "WELL AT LEAST DEY WUZ TRYING 2 INNOV8 HOW CAN U COMPLAIN ABOUT DEM@@@!@!@!"
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
If it wasn't for SpaceX, ULA would still be eating shit, Boeing would still be with their thumb up their ass, and Blue Origin wouldn't exist.
Yes, this much is true.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I don't know how you can say SpaceX or Tesla is cronylism even though you consider it a "hype" train, all of his companies have done well for themselves in driving innovation.
I could go into quite a few ways, though it would be fairly noted that in the case of SpaceX, their competitors are a bit worse. In the case of Tesla, it's less cronyism (though there's plenty of that) than "government officials are idiots who want to look trendy too."
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The investors backing it because they also have a dream,
The only dream that investors have is $. And more than anything, Tesla is a speculative rather than a fundamental investment. You can make a lot of money by offloading a clearly unviable company to the next idiot in line.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
and I don't mind him receiving handouts from the government as long as we're seeing use out of it . I mean common, the guy might be a hype guy, but he's getting shit done, whether it takes longer than expected, at least it's getting done.
His essential achievement in all cases is that he's made unfeasible-but-proven technologies unfeasible-but-fashionable. SpaceX gets a little more credit than that for providing a decent launch service (though not worthy of 90% of the hype it gets) but it's oversold.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
When you say you came out with a 35K electric car that can pretty much travel across the country with no gas. Then I think you have a right to criticize, but you're criticizing Musk for actually doing something?
One for the Youtube comment sections. Not only is it presumptuous (part of the reason Musk's BS does bother me is it's somewhat relevant to my work) but it's definitely obtuse in how it goes about crediting something that really doesn't matter. Want something that can get across the country without gas? Go get a goddamn horse-drawn carriage. It doesn't mean shit if it's not viable compared to a gas-powered car.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I understand why you criticize him for the government handouts, but I think almost any company that starts innovating, always goes to the government first.
Yes, that's true, and in and of itself government handouts don't bother me. But when you get government handouts, which is public money, you are now worthy of public scrutiny because that's the public's money that's being spent.
On April 03 2017 02:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:Here's a great example of large tech companies, including Lockheed taking billions in handouts from the government, why don't you criticize them? I haven't really seen you criticize the "10" year lockheed for a small nuclear reactor that can run on planes. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/30/billions-in-welfare-cash-for-corporations.aspxShow nested quote +Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, IBM (NYSE:IBM), General Electric, and Honeywell are the specific companies identified in the review. All told, these companies have collectively raked in $671 billion in federal contracts within the time frame.
Given the federal government's role as a significant benefactor to companies like these, it does have a cap of $763,000 in base pay for each CEO. However, in an epic fail, bonuses and stock options aren't included in that ceiling.
Lol, I've criticized aerospace contractors probably more than I've criticized Musk's companies for being welfare queens. Maybe not here because both LM and Boeing make far, far more money on airplanes (especially stupidly expensive contracts like F-22/F-35 whooshplanes) than on rockets, but this is the space thread. As I said before, ULA is villainized in here by default so I'm put in a position where rather than highlighting their faults, I'm forced into a position where I basically have to defend the times when they're actually showing a push towards a more responsible future.
Bottom line is this: I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. SpaceX genuinely made a rocket that is useful in the market, and even if they're not profitable right now they could raise their costs and it would still be a pretty good deal. But see it for what it is: a product that is moderate-cost, moderate-reliability that is just one of multiple comparable products in the market, and that isn't viable from the perspective of a profit-making business. It should be treated like a serious member of the launch community but it doesn't deserve a fraction of the hype it gets and it doesn't get credit just for trying. I could say far worse for Tesla and SolarCity because they are (and/or were) mostly just straight-up money laundering schemes, but the most direct relevance they have to SpaceX is that they provide a precedent through which to view Musk and his tendency towards bullshitting.
Obtuse fanboyism is genuinely harmful. I'm glad that it isn't nearly at the levels it was in the past, before Musk's companies all got a 2015-2016 dose of reality. But if posts like this are an indication, it's not all gone. In my earlier post about the perpetual motion machine, Musk is at (2) for SpaceX, and like (2.5973) for Tesla. He's begging for money to try to convince people that (3) is just over the horizon. And unfortunately enough people - Youtube comment trolls and idiots in government alike - buy it that we as the public are going to have to pay for it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 03 2017 02:48 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 01:43 LegalLord wrote:
If "creating assets" means "convincing new shareholders to give you more money than you lose from continuing operations" then yes, Musk is "creating assets." A factory is an asset. Intellectual property is an asset. Even a brand is an asset. If you think Teslas are overpriced, then you are saying that the Tesla brand has monetary value. That's literally what a brand is: a sticker you can put on a product to have people pay for it more than they otherwise would.
Their biggest "asset" is the hype train that Musk has created. Even with that in mind the companies are remarkably unprofitable. It's more notable that multiple projects have the same flaws and same extravagant promises. - and one of them already folded by any other name.
On April 03 2017 02:48 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +This "Amazon strategy" idea that it's perfectly ok for any company to lose money forever because "it's in growth phase" needs to die. Right, I'm sure Amazon is collapsing any time now. Reinvesting your profits (possibly more than 100% of them, if you can find people willing to give you more money) is a perfectly valid strategy. You are right that it's easier to hide a failing business behind this model, but in principle there's nothing wrong with it. As always, caveat emptor.
It can work. But as you already acknowledge, caveat emptor. Maybe we have the next Amazon, but maybe we have any of the many money laundering schemes in the past that look exactly like that.
On April 03 2017 02:48 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +And I wouldn't care if not for the fact that every single one of his companies are sustained on a wave of beautiful government handouts. Taking Commercial Cargo and Crew as an example, the US was spending $4-5bn/year on the Shuttle program. I don't have exact numbers but COTS cost about $1bn, CRS cost $3.5bn ($1.6bn for SpaceX, $1.9bn for Orbital) and Commercial Crew cost $8bn (~$3bn to SpaceX, $5bn to Boeing). Add maybe $2bn paid to Russia for transporting astronauts, the whole endevour comes out to $15bn. Operating the Shuttle over the same time period would have cost about $25-30bn. So you could say SpaceX received $5bn in government handouts. Or you could say they are playing a large part in the government saving $10-15bn over 6 years. It's the same with buying seats on Soyuz. Is the US subsidizing the Russian space industry by paying for those seats? Or is Russia subsidizing the US by offering cheaper (and probably safer) transportation than the US had previously?
Public money, public accountability. It's as simple as that. Nothing wrong with taking public money but take the accountability that goes with it. And don't go around waving your "self made man" dick around because the government was the kingmaker that allowed you to be in that position in the first place.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
His airplane analogy reminded me of one other analogy I came up with a little while ago.
Suppose we live in a world where every time you turn off a car, ~60% of it gives out (also you can't refuel while the car is turned on). Chances are, your engine and your transmission and plenty of other pieces are fucked. When that happens, you either have to replace/repair everything that's broken, or just get a new one. The latter option is definitely more reliable; you have far less cyclic wear you have to worry about. But maybe you can have a complete overhaul of your entire car for less money than it takes to buy a new one and that could technically work out for the best, though you have to keep in mind that you're going to have to look really, really closely for everything that needs fixing because any one part that's not properly repaired is going to make your car explode. Because that's about how badly rockets get damaged in their one flight.
Few things I'm interested in from Musk at this point though:
1. Are launch prices going to go down any time soon?
2. Is he going to attempt any multiple-reuse launches?
3. How many other customers are willing to fly a reused rocket, and at what price?
|
On April 03 2017 03:23 LegalLord wrote:His airplane analogy reminded me of one other analogy I came up with a little while ago. Suppose we live in a world where every time you turn off a car, ~60% of it gives out (also you can't refuel while the car is turned on). Chances are, your engine and your transmission and plenty of other pieces are fucked. When that happens, you either have to replace/repair everything that's broken, or just get a new one. The latter option is definitely more reliable; you have far less cyclic wear you have to worry about. But maybe you can have a complete overhaul of your entire car for less money than it takes to buy a new one and that could technically work out for the best, though you have to keep in mind that you're going to have to look really, really closely for everything that needs fixing because any one part that's not properly repaired is going to make your car explode. Because that's about how badly rockets get damaged in their one flight. Few things I'm interested in from Musk at this point though: 1. Are launch prices going to go down any time soon? 2. Is he going to attempt any multiple-reuse launches? 3. How many other customers are willing to fly a reused rocket, and at what price?
1. Not really. Don't think the tech is there yet. We are still at the Wright era of normal flight after 60 years.
2. Don't think their current design allows for it. It is one of the goals they are working towards. Maybe their current approach is the wrong one for that and they have to change it up. Still is the goal.
3. Currently they likely demand a pay cut equalling the higher insurance premium and a bit more. If it proves to have a track record where insurances don't go up, then anybody and at normal prices.
|
On April 03 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
And don't go around waving your "self made man" dick around because the government was the kingmaker that allowed you to be in that position in the first place.
Who cares. What matters is that Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew are good value for money. Not just SpaceX, but also what Boeing and Orbital ATK are doing. Better than the Space Shuttle Program was and far better than the disaster that has been Constellation/SLS/Orion.
So maybe SpaceX is using their overpaid government contracts to prop up the other parts of their business, in particular a technology development program that they couldn't have afforded otherwise. I don't know SpaceX's finances well enough to be sure, but it's definitely possible. As you said, most of their revenue is from government contracts.
But how is that worse than just redistributing the money among shareholders? If you think space is important and if you think reusability might have a long term use, then that's great, isn't it. And the only price you have to pay is seeing the his smug face every time he makes a small step forward. I mean, he's also spending your tax dollars, but those would be spent anyway, on stuff that has less long term relevance.
Back when the EELV program started Arienespace was worried that ULA would use their overpaid government contracts to try to overtake the commercial launch market. Their worries proved to be unfounded. ULA just redistributed the profit to Boeing/Lockheed and their shareholders who didn't feel the need to invest into space. Why should they? Literally the only business case that closed was paying for more lobbyists in Washington.
Of course they were smart enough to brand their business as boring as possible. But if you care about the future of humanity in space that outcome is far worse than what we have now. It is the world of the Shuttle Program and its cousins.
I know I didn't address your point about finances. I think they only matter if SpaceX folds with a huge a government contract in place. I think it's unlikely now, but it was definitely a possibility when they got their first COTS contract.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 03 2017 03:40 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
And don't go around waving your "self made man" dick around because the government was the kingmaker that allowed you to be in that position in the first place. Who cares. What matters is that Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew are good value for money. Not just SpaceX, but also what Boeing and Orbital ATK are doing. Better than the Space Shuttle Program was and far better than the disaster that has been Constellation/SLS/Orion.
What matters is if someone in power is stupid enough to buy into their more aggressive claims and sink good money into them. For example, let's be honest: SpaceX doesn't have the resources to go to Mars, and their Mars project isn't funded, and it never should be. They claim 2025 but then it becomes 2035 just like that because they're pulling numbers out of their ass. Even their biggest fans here are willing to admit that they're fanboying for a bullshitter's company. It would be genuinely problematic if an idiot in power - like, for example, our current idiot in the White House - decided that "hey, why are we bothering with these NASA fucks? We should defund them and give the money to good, dreamy entrepreneurs." That may very well happen (he's said similar in the past) and it would end only badly.
I'm going to give the Tesla example of Nevada funding the Gigafactory. Everything about the project - from overambition in construction, to throwing all its eggs in one basket (batteries), to general history of not delivering on the economics of the project - points to that he will not succeed. Most people acknowledge this "but it's Elon Musk so he might pull it off." And once it fails, as is the most likely outcome, Nevada will have sunk billions of dollars into a giant building in the desert that will be worth about 5% of what it cost to build. That's genuinely harmful and is the result of politicians who just feel that they have to be trendy.
It does seem like NASA at the very least is keeping SpaceX on a tighter leash than they would like, so I give them credit for that (I was perhaps a bit too critical of NASA's relations with SpaceX in the past but I suppose that was more their outward appearance than their more genuine attitude). I don't think the government will certify SpaceX for crew without being actually ready, so that's reasonable. But there are too many idiots, some in power, who buy into their hype, which is actually dangerous.
On April 03 2017 03:40 hypercube wrote:
So maybe SpaceX is using their overpaid government contracts to prop up the other parts of their business, in particular a technology development program that they couldn't have afforded otherwise. I don't know SpaceX's finances well enough to be sure, but it's definitely possible. As you said, most of their revenue is from government contracts.
Not all of their finances are known (WSJ had a good piece but it's only a peek into it) but what is known is that they bought SolarCity bonds to prop up the company. It was an obviously incestuous deal.
On April 03 2017 03:40 hypercube wrote:
But how is that worse than just redistributing the money among shareholders? If you think space is important and if you think reusability might have a long term use, then that's great, isn't it. And the only price you have to pay is seeing the his smug face every time he makes a small step forward. I mean, he's also spending your tax dollars, but those would be spent anyway, on stuff that has less long term relevance.
LM+Boeing fulfill their contracts and then pocket the profit. Nowadays they're finally starting to take R&D more seriously to develop a new rocket but they've done the pocketing money thing quite a lot in the past. SpaceX has taken pre-payments and used it to subsidize their other businesses. I doubt it's illegal but I'm not a fan of that. It could genuinely undermine the missions. While they are certainly raking up a lot of cash you could never say about LM+Boeing that they did so in such a way that undermined the missions that they actually sought to complete.
Main point is that liars who take government money are going to do harm to more than just disappoint a few people. They're going to take taxpayer money and make any such ventures much harder to do in the future. Politicians buy into the hype and then more genuine projects get hurt.
Edit: Also, boo for dissing Constellation. I though that was a good program and I wanted to see it continue. Biggest problem was that it was expensive - but it was a far more genuine and planned-out future for the space industry than what followed.
|
On April 03 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:
Edit: Also, boo for dissing Constellation. I though that was a good program and I wanted to see it continue. Biggest problem was that it was expensive - but it was a far more genuine and planned-out future for the space industry than what followed.
Seriously? We knew back then that because of Constellation we would have what we have now, minus all the private endeavours. You got to be kidding...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Proton-M issues in the past turned out to be the result of unsatisfactory manufacturing quality; lots of engines are going to have to be rebuilt. Launching again in May.
Not any particularly great source in English, this is about the best you can get: http://tass.com/science/938730
|
So i have been trying to find out if in space any kind of sound is recordable...
My common knoweledge is that it is not because there is no matter through which sound could propagate, aldo i' m not at all sure about this. On youtube there are many videos stating the sounds of planets and other objects, but they seem like a phoney to me. I know that sound is classified physically as vibrations per minute, that given a medium, like air, metal, or water travel and reach our ears.
Can anybody shed some light on this for me? And if there is vibration, how do we capture it with our technology?
The only legit thing i found is directly from nasa' s website, but it seems like a highly accurate artist' s portrait of the sound of our planets in the solar system
|
On April 03 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:
like, for example, our current idiot in the White House - decided that "hey, why are we bothering with these NASA fucks? We should defund them and give the money to good, dreamy entrepreneurs." That may very well happen (he's said similar in the past) and it would end only badly.
Ignoring the absurdity of the idea for a moment, the president doesn't have the power to get rid of or defund NASA.
Nevada will have sunk billions of dollars into a giant building in the desert that will be worth about 5% of what it cost to build. That's genuinely harmful and is the result of politicians who just feel that they have to be trendy.
No they wouldn't have sunk billions in the project. Tesla's subsidies are in the forms of tax incentives. So if Tesla survives for 10 or 20 years the state of Nevada loses out $1.3bn in revenue from them.
It's still a subsidy, but unfortunately it's the norm now with any large investment. Apparently the job creator is a shy creature and easily startled by things like taxes.
LM+Boeing fulfill their contracts and then pocket the profit.
And SpaceX fulfills their contracts and then reinvests the profit into developing new technologies.
SpaceX has taken pre-payments and used it to subsidize their other businesses. I doubt it's illegal but I'm not a fan of that. It could genuinely undermine the missions.
It's not clear if they used pre-payments or actual profits. The way SpaceX's Commercial Space contracts are structured, they get paid for the things they deliver or achieving technological milestones. So when they won a $2.6bn contract to develop Crewed Dragon they didn't get the money. They got parts of it as they demonstrated to NASA that they were making progress.
Either way I agree. It wasn't a good use of their money. I said before I'm not a huge fan of SolarCity. But at some point Musk decided that his businesses are going to fail or succeed together. It is a risk and something the people who are following him should be aware of.
Edit: Also, boo for dissing Constellation. I though that was a good program and I wanted to see it continue. Biggest problem was that it was expensive - but it was a far more genuine and planned-out future for the space industry than what followed.
The bigest problem was that it was over budget and behind schedule. So basically failing on every level. Also it was using a technology that couldn't possibly lead to serious reduction to costs in the future. Whether you want to go the Moon first or Mars is irrelevant. Neither is sustainable long term with Shuttle era technology and cost structure.
|
On April 03 2017 17:12 pebble444 wrote:
So i have been trying to find out if in space any kind of sound is recordable...
My common knoweledge is that it is not because there is no matter through which sound could propagate, aldo i' m not at all sure about this. On youtube there are many videos stating the sounds of planets and other objects, but they seem like a phoney to me. I know that sound is classified physically as vibrations per minute, that given a medium, like air, metal, or water travel and reach our ears.
Can anybody shed some light on this for me? And if there is vibration, how do we capture it with our technology?
The only legit thing i found is directly from nasa' s website, but it seems like a highly accurate artist' s portrait of the sound of our planets in the solar system
Could you give some links for this? It sounds like bullshit, but it might also just be the case that they took light waves and translated them into sound by some process that decreases frequency etc...
Sound does not propagate through empty space. All we get from other planets without physically going there is light based.
Edit: I googled around a bit, and found this on Spirit Science (A website that does not deserve the science in its name at all, with wonderful articles about releasing your chakras and similar nonsense)
Did you know that planets and stars actually give off music? Although space is a virtual vacuum, this does not mean there is no sound in space. Sounds still exists in the form of electromagnetic vibrations and can be detected using specially designed instruments developed by NASA.
Do you know what they also call electromagnetic waves? Light. Or radio waves. Or microwaves.
It seems like the general idea for "planet sounds" is to take the electromagnetic emissions of those planets that have frequencies within the audible range (Radio band), and to translate those into sound.
|
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/halloween_sounds.html
Yes i have looked into it myself before posting. So i found that you mentioned and other things allready. However the people i know who study space, focus on visual or data, and so the knoweledge of sound is limited. Its a shame because sound is the first thing we percieve of the outer world, before we are even born into the light. Its heavily underrated.
The concept of light being captured cleares some things up allready. Now i am thinking that if everything emits a vibration, there is actually sounds on these planets, like from the winds,
And other movements, but we don' t have the technology to hear those sounds. I wonder why i didn' t just think of this before, it seems so obvious. But what i am still wondering is if planets as a whole and stars, emit vibration other than light.
I wonder if they ever recorded something from venus, mars, or the moon, since iirc from bbc documentary the planets, which is fun to watch and i reccomend, they have landed people or at least machines here.
As far as i am concerned, i make no distinction beetwen sound and noise, because the only difference here appointed is that one should be pleasent, and the other not, so these are subjective distinctions based on human perception. Its like saying something is beautifull and something else is not. Its all relevant to who is watching or hearing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 02 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:
BE-4 is the biggest engine that uses methane to date - so this test firing is going to shed a lot of light on whether or not it's going to be viable to use methane as fuel.
By the way, I've looked but had kind of shitty luck: does anyone have any decent comments on the effectiveness of methalox vs. keralox? It's a comparison I've simple not seen to much of besides people from the 1990s saying "kerosene is better." Yet methane engines are becoming more common, and the only justification I've ever seen is that methane and oxygen have very similar boiling points so they're easier to store without worrying about thermal transfer.
I finally found a credible answer, in case I'm not the only one who cares: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz5.html
Kerosene has the advantage of being liquid at room temperature and having higher per-volume energy density. Methane is cryogenic which can be an advantage but until recently it wasn't considered to be so.
|
On April 03 2017 23:11 pebble444 wrote:https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/halloween_sounds.htmlYes i have looked into it myself before posting. So i found that you mentioned and other things allready. However the people i know who study space, focus on visual or data, and so the knoweledge of sound is limited. Its a shame because sound is the first thing we percieve of the outer world, before we are even born into the light. Its heavily underrated. The concept of light being captured cleares some things up allready. Now i am thinking that if everything emits a vibration, there is actually sounds on these planets, like from the winds, And other movements, but we don' t have the technology to hear those sounds. I wonder why i didn' t just think of this before, it seems so obvious. But what i am still wondering is if planets as a whole and stars, emit vibration other than light. I wonder if they ever recorded something from venus, mars, or the moon, since iirc from bbc documentary the planets, which is fun to watch and i reccomend, they have landed people or at least machines here. As far as i am concerned, i make no distinction beetwen sound and noise, because the only difference here appointed is that one should be pleasent, and the other not, so these are subjective distinctions based on human perception. Its like saying something is beautifull and something else is not. Its all relevant to who is watching or hearing.
The reason people who study space focus on light is because that is nearly the only thing we get out of space. Visible, IR, UV, X-Ray, Gamma, Radio, Microwaves are all basically the same thing, electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is the frequency. And that is what propagates through a vacuum. Other things that we have is stuff that falls onto earth, and things that we bring back/investigate at site with robots. The only other thing that we can notice are gravity waves, but we are not far enough to actually get any data out of those except for the fact that they exist. There is no such thing as "emitting vibrations", unless you are talking in a medium. Of which there isn't one in space.
The "focus" on light and data (by which i assume you mean other types of light) is not by choice. It is simply the only thing that we have. Everything else is extrapolated from that.
Of course there are sounds on the planets and suns. But these sounds have nothing to do with the "spooky space sounds". Those are just radio waves translated into sound of the same frequency. So basically, they are light. And they also don't mean that there is such a sound on the celestial object that emits them. It means that something on these planets emits radio waves (No, that does not mean aliens. There are plenty of natural phenomena that emit radio waves).
|
There is no sound is space. God, I hate Hollywood. And even if there was, sound is pretty slow (which might be an advantage) and sound interferes with itself in less subtle ways than electromagnetic radiation does.
lol at NASA having invented detection of EM.
|
Ok, well that makes for a very more clear idea for me on the subject; thank you for your input
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Musk is actually a well-known monetary contributor within the AI community. This sounds like an R&D project so it's not far from his roots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
