ITT meme pop/sci/ companies that'll probably fail in the

> buttmad neckbeard created another shit thread
you wish little man :^)

>>7793045

Well lets see...

>decline of wages and middle class = decline in sales for Amazon and Tesla
>SpaceX and Blue Origin get BTFO due to low investor confidence unless the gubmint steps in and gives them subsidies
>Tesla Motors only attract a niche market of rich normies. Also because electric batteries are still too fucking shit, Tesla stock declines, and in order to survive, gets eventually acquired by a larger company
>Avatar 2 flops and James Cameron's Planetary Resources gets BTFO
>D-Wave already getting BTFO by scientists

BUY OIL/TOBACCO/WEAPON STOCKS THESE WILL STILL BE AROUND IN 500 YEARS

just shut the fuck up, your conjecture sounds really stupid and shallow desu senpai.

>>7793052
Got proof for any of that or do you just like to type your bullshit with green colored text ?

>>7793086
>tobacco
>with the prevalence of weed and its legalization on the rise
>weapon stocks
>implying there are general "weapon" stocks

>>7793087
>>7793088

Anon used "Bait"

>It's super effective

File: John-Maynard-Keynes-007.jpg (26KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 460x276px

>capitalism was a mistake

>>7793032
>Google
>Facebook
>Twitter
>Amazon

>>7793099
Clinging to any system blindly is a mistake.
They all eventually lead to inequality in some form or other.
The only way to maintain stability is to be open to change and adapt as the times demand.

>>7793109
like human kind is able to do that without starting wars, polluting the climate beyond a point of return and wrecking the economy in the process

>>7793101
only way i see those companies surviving any longer is if net neutrality is abolished

>>7793101
>Google
Are you retarded?

>>7793109
wow man u r so profound and deep

>>7793131
Googlem, yes. Mark my words kid.

>>7793134
Yep, confirmed retard.

>>7793052
>>decline of wages and middle class = decline in sales for Amazon and Tesla

Meanwhile Walmart is sweating bullets.

>>SpaceX and Blue Origin get BTFO due to low investor confidence unless the gubmint steps in and gives them subsidies

lolz

>>Tesla Motors only attract a niche market of rich normies. Also because electric batteries are still too fucking shit, Tesla stock declines, and in order to survive, gets eventually acquired by a larger company

Unless Elon finds a way to mine lithium from asteroids

>>Avatar 2 flops and James Cameron's Planetary Resources gets BTFO

I hear there is plenty of unobtanium on Mars.....

>>D-Wave already getting BTFO by scientists

Despite all that talent, none of the scientists hired by D-Wave took a basic course in statistics. Therefore none of them fully understood how electrons behave. Or why the "house always wins". Or why information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Or what it really means to have something "spin up" or "down". Etc....etc....etc.

>D-Wave is the ultimate meme company

>>7793086
>BUY OIL/TOBACCO/WEAPON STOCKS THESE WILL STILL BE AROUND IN 500 YEARS

>BUY TOBACCO STOCKS

>ANON IMPLIES TOBACCO COMPANIES WILL BE RELEVANT IN 500 YEARS

Then I remember the line from Waterworld, starring Kevin Costner.

>"Can't live without my cancer sticks, not even in this world"

>>7793099
Capitalism is great. Not regulating it sufficiently is the mistake.

>>7793032
>Neural networks (beginning of 4th AI winter)
>ITER is disovered to be a giant scam
>Every "wonder of the week/month"

>>7793086
>implying

>>7793099

Capitalism was not a mistake.

>Communism was

>>7793131
Well it wasn't supposed to be, you patronizing asshat.
Do you have an actual response or are you just looking to get a rise out of people?

>>7793262
>Do you have an actual response or are you just looking to get a rise out of people?

Anon is a Google shareholder.

Of course he's looking to protect is investment by being an asshole to people.

>>7793252

>Millions of years of evolution VS decades old research on AI neural networks

Yeah, true AI is never going to happen in our lifetimes. At best we'll get VI that'll spout Myers Briggs personality BS

>>7793311
>Yeah, true AI is never going to happen in our lifetimes.
What makes you say that?

>>7793340
He's a true AI.

>>7793352
I bet he is a Tibetan motorcycle repairman

File: ydj.jpg (29KB, 220x223px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 220x223px

>>7793378
>implying

>>7793389
Sure
>mfw when no one got the reference

File: 1453080451433.jpg (109KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1280x720px

>>7793412
>mfw I was referencing your reference and you didn't get it

>>7793451
Holy shit. Good job man. I am not at my optimal capacity today

SpaceX got contracted by NASA to do jobs. SpaceX has also reduced rocket cost by making them reusable. I doubt they'll be gone in 10 years unless something very bad happens.

>>7793476
if spaceX gets its shit fail proof then they will probably recieve the contract to lift the next space station up to where it needs to be.

>>7793491

poor spaceX
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35340734

i wonder which wagecu ck is getting fired for this considering this is a corporate venture so most likely they're under pressure to deliver RESULTS

>>7793580
What is their reason for trying to land on a ship(its a ship, its has engine's), instead of land. It's it much more difficult to land on a ship when both it and the rockets are wibbly woobly(its a scientific term). If you were to try to land on land you would only have to compensate for the woobliness of the rockets

>>7793032
Upset over SpaceX's success yesterday I see.

>>7793580
>>7793590
>>7793491
>>7793476
Who cares about the landing when they are not delivering payloads correctly? Landing is just icing on the cake. Landing on a barge is even better.

Also, it seems they landed perfectly on the barge. So targeting and landing are fine. It was just a mechanical leg problem that caused it to fall over. The same thing would have happened on land which have been good already. Meaning it wasn't just a problem with the barge so they will keep pushing for barge landings. Things are looking up. Way up.

>>7793604
>are noW delivering

fixed, fucking typos

>>7793590
What is 'limited range of the fuel tanks'

>>7793604
>Who cares

Elon Musk does. His company tesla motors is burning through cash at light speed. When that happens, losing an expensive rocket hurts.

The only good system of governance is left libertarianism/anarcho-monarchism. Only under such systems can mathematics truly flourish, unencumbered by idiotic demands that mathematics should pay it's way.

>>7793580
>poor spacex
Yeah, poor sods, they actually fullfilled their contract and almost got a completely useless rocket salvaged intact. What a failure of a mission.

In case you didn't know, the rocket yesterday was an outdated model. The new ones even use different feet.

Meanwhile, the December missile worked almost flawlessly during testing. Only a single motor showed signs of damage.
They could have re-flown the fucking thing after replacing just a single of the nine engines.
What the fuck is up with the shills who are trying to shit on this?

>>7793590
It's a physics thing. Certain trajectories are impossibly if you safe fuel to go back to land, but are possible if you instead continue onwards into the sea.

ITT neckbeard losers hope for companies to fail so that they will feel better about accomplishing nothing themselves

>>7793912
ITT normies try to predict a fantasy future with their rose tinted glasses and "neural network" algorithms

>>7793032
Not so sure. The Fireworks Group is part of Industrial Distractions Inc.

>>7793052

>SpaceX and Blue Origin get BTFO due to low investor confidence unless the gubmint steps in and gives them subsidies

SpaceX has a backlog worth over 8 billion, with a total valuation at 12 billion. Low investor confidence? You're a fucking idiot.

>>7793032
>>SpaceX
Probably not fail, but they will certainly not live off to what most of the internet believes they will do (Mars and all that crap). They'll just become a regular launch provider. That wont stop the redditry to furiously masturbate to everything they do just like for Apple, though.
>>Planetary Resources
Yep
>>Deep Space Industries
Yep
>>Blue Origin
They just want to do space tourism and provide rocket parts, I don't see why they'd just fail. Seems like the most reasonable of popsci companies tb'h.
>>D-Wave
Mixed feelings. They certainly won't develop a fully-quantum computer in the next 20 years though.
>>Tesla Motors
There are well enough hipsters who are actually dumb enough to spend money on an iPad on four wheels that's barely good at dragracing into your suburban cul-de-sac instead of getting a car that's actually good, so again I don't see why Tesla would go bankrupt. But becoming bona fide luxury car brand? Kek no they won't.

>>7793130
Gonna cry. We all know this is going to happen

>>7793891

>What the fuck is up with the shills who are trying to shit on this?

It's the never ending desire to be edgy and different. Once they realized SpaceX and Tesla had become household names, they immediately flip flopped their opinion.

>>7794012
>There are well enough hipsters who are actually dumb enough to spend money on an iPad on four wheels...

Someone's mad that they can't afford a Model S :^)

File: 1424330518250.jpg (69KB, 920x380px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 920x380px

>>7793891
>It's a physics thing.
This is the average understanding of aerospace engineering of a spacex shill

>>7794020
>why are you eating dog shit bruh?
>THAT DOG SHIT COSTS $80000 YOU JUST MAD YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT

>>7794012
Are there any news on Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources?
Last I heard an Arkyd satellite was actually launched, but did that fucking thing even do anything?

D-Wave is apparently only doing quantum annealing, which has been considered useless up until now.
However, now that we have the D-Wave but not proper quantum computers, someone might find a use for this kind of tech. When life gives you lemons and so on.

File: 1439455377269.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>7794027
I fucking hate bait culture.

>>7793590
In this particular launch, the rocket would been perfectly capable of a return to launch site landing. Unfortunately, SpaceX has yet to receive environmental clearance for a landing at Vandenberg AFB. As a result, SpaceX instead chose to attempt another barge landing, almost succeeding, but not quite due to a collet failure on one of the legs.

It's important to note that in future launches, barge landings will be necessary for some heavier payloads where the rocket lacks sufficient fuel for a return to launch site burn. This will be required on the Falcon Heavy as the center core will be too far down range for the return to launch site.

>>7794020
I've test-drove one once. Acceleration is nice but otherwise it really feels like a small ford mondeo.

Not convincing.

>>7794054
Wait, the Heavy will also use the barges?

Will they get bigger ones?
Or will the boosters and the main rocket land on separate barges?
The mental image is kinda funny.

>>7794031
>being mad that someone else is paying for progress that you can enjoy the perks of in the future

>>7794073
Yeah, that attitude is crazy.

When the iPad came out I knew that it would be shit. I also knew that it would force Microsoft to act and give me some kickass tablets.
And act they did. Two years later and I got my dream tablet system realized.

Let the plebs fund the future.

>>7793665
>expensive rocket

They are not very expensive. Mission pricing covers the cost of losing everything.

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

They also have a very diverse client base, which is very good for longevity.

http://www.spacex.com/missions

They are making money on every successful payload deployment regardless of what happens to their rockets. And, they are improving science, technology, and getting the general public interested in space again.

>>7794045
>dat pic

Saved, good sir.

>>7794063

Only the center core of the Heavy will have to land on a barge. The left and right cores will, in most instances, be capable of a return to launch site.

>>7794092
>regardless of what happens to their rockets
Remember, folks, currently ALL rockets are violently disassembled.

If SpaceX loses one or not doesn't really matter.

> getting the general public interested in space again
Yeah, I'm really glad for their PR work. Unfortunately, the media have been consistently shitting on for every small mis-step that they did.
Every time a rocket explodes, it's all across the news. But whenever it works out, there are no news. And often the facts are ignored to make it sound worse than it is.

I, for one, welcome a future where rockets aren't expected to be disposable.
If you think about it, our current assumptions are batshit insane. Imagine if it was normal for every plane to be scrapped after a single flight because landing gears are too complicated.


Well, shit, now I sound like their PR department.

>>7793261
u gotta be joking

>>7794119

Nope.

>>7793251
>regulate
>free market
Capitalism is ultimately doomed regardless of what you do.

>>7794153
The different flavors of Capitalism all have some degree of regulation. The free market by definition is what you are thinking of where demand is met 100% by supply, completely free of regulation. Capitalism as we know it now takes some free market and mixes in some regulation.

>>7794012
Once SpaceX brings down launch costs, I bet you anything they'll find real lucrative asteroids in NEO to go mine

>>7794012
the Tesla was just a vehicle (pun intended) for the battery technology. that tech is the real moneymaker.

>>7793099
>Keynes
>Capitalism
pick one

>>7794092
>they are improving science, technology
>Literally a DC-X from the 80's

>>7794717
DC-X wasn't part of an orbital launch system. You might as well point at the lunar lander from the 60s.

The difference with F9R is that it's built in such a way that it's economical even as an expendable rocket. With the Heavy variant, it'll also be the most powerful launch vehicle on the market, and even that will be one of the cheapest launchers available at any size.

They're not achieving reusability by increasing cost or cutting capability. That makes it a whole different animal.

>>7794734
It's just a trivial case of scaling it up, the fact it's taken them so long to get a working prototype shows just how incompetent they are as a company.

>>7794740
So you're just here to troll, then?

what stopped nasa from making cheap rockets in the 60's?

Is spacex 3d printing most of the rocket or something?

>>7794747
>He's so emotionally invested in this company (of all things!) that anyone who disagrees must be trolling.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

>>7794749
There's not much 3d printing involved, but it's designed for production, with modern methods.

Many specialty products are expensive because they're designed almost without regard to the production method, and then separate engineers are assigned to organize the fabrication, without there being any feedback between the guys who have to build it and the guys who say what should be built.

SpaceX uses jigs, forms, and robots where companies like Rocketdyne use the same endless hours of hands-on labor to build their production unit as they'd use to build a prototype.

>>7794749
50 years of manufacturing improvements, refinements in processes, cost cutting in transport, greater competition for contracts. It would have been more impressive if they couldn't do it cheaper.

>>7794756
That's funny, because costs are going up in most of the aerospace industry.

>>7794757
>Costs are going up in the aerospace industry
>Except in muh meme company, they keep costs down by being completely self sufficient and by using magic.

>>7794749
Nasa built Ferraris when a Honda would have done the job.

Which is great if you are trying to go to the Moon or explore the other planets. Kind of sucks when you just need to lift shit into orbit.

>>7794813
that's a pretty dogshit analogy, this landing stage 1 back on the ground could probably have easily been done by NASA a long time ago, if they had wanted to.

>>7795008
Coulda woulda shoulda.
Fact of the matter is that financially speaking they should have been trying to make it happen from the start.
Especially with all their complaining about lack of funding.

>>7795008
It was done by Mcdonald Douglas in the 80s.

>>7794740
You got two years.
Build me a LEO rocket.

Go and don't come back until you have proven your competence.

Fucknut.

>>7795221
>He thinks this is a good argument

Fuck /sci/ gets worse by the day.

>>7795223
The fucking irony.

>>7795225
>Retard 1: hurr Its trivial
>Retard 2: durr If its so trivial you do it, just without any of the resources

I'm really starting to hate the plebeians on this board.