Main Argument Against X Holding Company is Mars Colonization

Youtuber Chicken Genius Singapore argues against the X Holding Company. He is also a large Tesla shareholder. David Lee who made the suggestion is also a large Tesla shareholder.

Chicken Genius thinks SpaceX, Tesla, Boring Company and Neuralink are stronger separately. Any gigantic accident with SpaceX would not take down the other companies.

All Tesla shareholders and others want access to SpaceX. Starlink can be IPOd in a few years and it will be a massive company on its own. People will get access to the main money-making business of SpaceX.

The reason Elon has not IPOd all of SpaceX still stands. The Public markets will not be able to handle the large investments he will make to colonize Mars.

He argues that the conglomerate board structure would be distracting to Elon. He argues that the lack of purer plays would make it more difficult for capital market support.

Non-Tesla and non-Elon fans have trouble understanding the Tesla electric car business and the Tesla Energy business. The Tesla Energy business is completely ignored in terms of Tesla valuation.

Elon can get plenty of funding for anything he does. Boring can raise funds without accessing Tesla cash.

David Lee and Gali (Hyperchange) discuss how to make the X Holding company work.

David Lee thinks the main thing is saving Elon time. He thinks saving time will enable to launch a few more big Elon Musk ideas like the supersonic electric plane. David Lee indicates Elon will need really good lead executives for each company. Elon would need more Gwynn Shotwells for each company.

Gali believes that SpaceX and Boring company are diluting too much at this point.

Gali and Dave believe that Neuralink will put smartphones out of business.

SOURCES – chicken Genius Singapore, David Lee Investing
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

18 thoughts on “Main Argument Against X Holding Company is Mars Colonization”

  1. For the 11teenth time in the last five years or more:

    You know Elon Musk has read Robert Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon.

    Written in 1949, it's a cautionary tale for space visionaries who are unable to maintain financial control of their life's work and, even while being wildly successful, are thereby unable to realize their visions.

    Reply
  2. Musk has already expressed an opinion on O'Neill Cylinder construction on twitter when he was asked directly:

    What are your thoughts on O’Neil structures @JeffBezostalked about?

    Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!

    Reply
  3. I am not against Musk rockets by any means, and now that others are going to Moon, the *get started already* part of O'Neill is here. I encourage Musk to jump on the commercial orbital ISRU/ISM bandwagon if for no other reason than to make money to spend on Mars.

    Reply
  4. Thanx for reply! This topic should be at the top of the list. I certainly am questioning his understanding of O'Neill basics, and thus whether he even disagrees, in a way, other than that his plans are totally the opposite of O'Neill, all the way thru. I would particularly be interested in any mention whatsoever of O'Neill in any way by Musk(or by anybody except Bezos, for that matter). As details are thrashed, good things happen.

    "Primarily due to the much reduced amount of infrastructure necessary for humans to live on Mars." This seems highly unlikely, given that O'Neill Space needs less infrastructure than *civilized* living on Earth. That is why it is the right place. Now, we can get there.

    "the early O'Neill colonies will inevitably be close enough to Earth to
    be swept up in any civilization ending event, while Mars has sheltering
    distance from Earth." Only if the goal is changed mid-stream! If the O'Neill/Musk Settlements are early small design, they can be towed to asteroid belt and protected with asteroid radiation shielding. Much easier overall than Mars surface, ISM and all that good stuff. $$$$ a big thing here. No $$$ on Mars that I've ever heard of. Be part of a large, robust resilient growing economy. Start with Gateway Halo orbit, already a ways from Earth, escape route.

    Reply
  5. I think the big financial breakthrough Elon achieved in the last couple years was exactly the opposite of Lee’s move, it’s being able to compartmentalize expansion projects. Shanghai GF proved GFs could go from buying land to cars coming off the line in a year. That meant they could be financed with local bridge loans that are flipped into long term project related loans secured by the property itself and justified by it’s balance sheet. GFs can pay for themselves. That liberates Tesla from having to consume it’s own capital. It’s now $20B in cash can just sit on it’s balance sheet to catalyze the project financing process without being consumed by it.

    The Boring Company seems likely to use the same playbook. Short projects that start generating revenue fast can pay for themselves and be secured by themselves without consuming/risking any other Elon Enterprise’s Capital. Vegas Loop can be up and charging every vehicle per mile electronic fees and billing customers via their smartphones like Uber very quickly. There will be lot’s of customers and lot’s of revenue and people with investment resources will be lining up and shouting Take My Money!

    Reply
  6. I dislike arguments that are premised on the notion that disagreement necessarily represents ignorance. They fundamentally refuse to consider that the other side might be right about something.

    I'm sure Musk understands the O'Neill proposal quite well. But he has made quite clear what his objective is on Mars: A lifeboat for the human species, as soon as possible.

    From that limited perspective, there are strong arguments that Mars is superior. Primarily due to the much reduced amount of infrastructure necessary for humans to live on Mars. Basically, on Mars all you need for a habitat is a big balloon covered in sand bags.

    For O'Neill colonies, you need everything you need on Mars, AND huge centrifuges.

    Now, O'Neill colonies clearly have the very long term advantage here, because planets are very inefficient in their use of mass. You could build colonies with many orders of magnitude more area than Earth out of just the material in Ceres.

    But, that ignores the "as soon as possible". If, and admittedly only if, Martian gravity is enough for long term health, a Mars based "lifeboat" can be launched sooner than an O'Neill based one. Particularly since the early O'Neill colonies will inevitably be close enough to Earth to be swept up in any civilization ending event, while Mars has sheltering distance from Earth.

    And, anyway, everything Musk has done to date has been applicable to O'Neill colonies, too; In a sense, he's done more to advance O'Neill's plan than Bezos!

    Reply
  7. The question is not whether he has heard the name "O'Neill", but whether he is ignorant of the right place to be, Space or on a planet surface. If the question were close, that would be one thing. If the correct answer were not so counter intuitive, he would be more likely to understand. My best evidence that Musk does not understand O'Neill is that he wants to set up a lifeboat population on a planet.

    Reply
  8. Look, do you have any basis at all for thinking Musk is ignorant of O'Neill's proposals, as opposed to simply wanting to do something else?

    Reply
  9. I think Dave Lee was pushing it since he doesn't have any SpaceX shares and wanted to get in on it. I'm divided as to whether its a good idea.

    Reply
  10. True. And SpaceX is the one where freedom of choice and decision matters the most right now.

    EVs and tunnel boring companies do exist as we know they can be profitable. Fully reusable, passenger worthy spaceships don't exist yet.

    Making them exist would require giving the person with the vision the full liberty to build them. Nothing worse for innovation in space launchers than committees and boards of directors.

    Reply
  11. Agreed. Going public right now would hurt his plans rather than help them.

    Some things require full power of decision. In particular what SpaceX is doing demands it.

    Reply
  12. One reason why one big company is not such a good idea is that some will see it too powerful and try to break it apart with some antitrust laws and so on. At least in that scenario. Leave it as it is. Space seperate from electric cars and energy. Musk gets much more control when he owns more than half of SpaceX.

    Reply
  13. I think that the various companies have wildly differing levels of profitability and competition. It is best to keep them separate.

    Only reason to make them one company is to easily move capital from one to another and to juice up the share price.

    Reply
  14. For Elon, it's all about Mars.

    The Boring company exists to get practice for digging cities under Mars. SpaceX is for getting there. Tesla is for a raft of other things, including energy storage, that will be needed. And Neuralink working as hoped would leverage everything else.

    And yes, as I just posted on the previous thread, Elon keeps control of SpaceX private because he doesn't want to be Heinlein's protagonist in The Man Who Sold the Moon, a guy that makes lunar colonies work and builds them, but has to sell so much of his control to make it happen that he is never allowed to visit for fear that something might happen to him. Elon also doesn't want people telling him he can't do things just because they wont turn a short-term profit (and possibly not even a long-term profit).

    So every endeavor does double-duty. Raising more money and developing the tech he needs to make it all feasible.

    Reply

Leave a Comment