www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-elon-musk
2 corrections found
no private company had ever launched a rocket to space before
This overstates SpaceX’s precedent-setting role. Private rockets had already reached space before Falcon 1—Conestoga 1 did so in 1982, and Pegasus reached orbit in 1990.
Full reasoning
This claim is too broad. SpaceX’s Falcon 1 was historically important, but it was not the first private rocket to reach space.
Two earlier examples contradict the statement:
- Conestoga 1 reached space in 1982. A historical account of the launch states that it was “the first launch of a privately funded rocket into space.”
- Pegasus reached orbit in 1990. NASA’s Technical Reports Server says Pegasus “successfully completed its maiden flight by injecting its 423-lb payload into ... orbit.” A rocket that reaches orbit has necessarily already reached space.
So the accurate claim would be something narrower, such as that Falcon 1 was the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach orbit. But as written, saying that no private company had ever launched a rocket to space before is incorrect.
2 sources
- Conestoga 1 | Memorial Spaceflights
“On September 9, 1982 the commercial space age was inaugurated with the first launch of a privately funded rocket into space.”
- Pegasus first mission - Flight results - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
“On April 5, 1990 ... the three-stage Pegasus solid-propellant rocket successfully completed its maiden flight by injecting its 423-lb payload into ... orbit.”
which had no apartheid or bloody conflicts
Zambia was not an apartheid state, but it did experience bloody regional conflict. In the 1970s it suffered armed incursions and deadly attacks from Rhodesia and South Africa.
Full reasoning
This sentence is too absolute. Zambia was not apartheid South Africa, but it is incorrect to say it had “no ... bloody conflicts.”
Authoritative histories of the region describe Zambia as being affected by violent conflict in the 1970s. Britannica states that Zambia faced “subsequent armed incursions from Rhodesia and South Africa.” A United Nations Security Council record on a 1979 Rhodesian attack on Zambia describes the raid as an “unprovoked and indiscriminate attack,” and says that 226 persons were killed, including 36 Zambians.
So even if the broader “blood emeralds” allegation is being rejected, the blanket claim that Zambia had no bloody conflicts is historically wrong.
2 sources
- Southern Africa - Independence and decolonization in Southern Africa | Britannica
“The sanctions closed Zambia’s major trade and transportation routes through Rhodesia ... subsequent armed incursions from Rhodesia and South Africa and continued warfare in Angola and Mozambique disrupted the costly new trade and transportation lines.”
- United Nations Security Council meeting record on Rhodesian attack on Zambia
“That unprovoked and indiscriminate attack on Zambia ... In the raid, 226 persons were killed ... those raids, Zambia lost 36 of its nationals.”