 |
|
|
|||||
“I really want to see a mass driver on the moon that is shooting AI satellites into deep space,” Elon Musk said last week when he announced his plan to go to the moon. “It’s going to be incredibly exciting to see it happen.” He’s right. I want to see it too, although probably we will both be dead before his vision is realized. The lunar mass driveressentially a cannon that uses magnetic power to accelerate an objectis a key component to launch the million satellites Musk wants to put in orbit around the Earth. But Musk wasn’t the first person to come up with the idea. Smarter people than him thought about this in the 1970s as the solution to a key problem for human exploration. Launching spacecraft from Earth is extremely expensive. Every pound lifted from Cape Canaveral to low Earth orbit costs thousands of dollars in fuel, hardware, and operational complexity. The farther you want to go in space, the more massive and complex the rocket has to be, increasing costs. Chemical rockets must carry their own oxidizer and propellant, which means most of the vehicle’s mass is just fuel to lift more fuel. This tyranny of the rocket equation has strangled space development for seven decades, only slightly eased by the economics of reusable rockets like the Falcon 9. A mass driver could break that stranglehold by using electricity instead of explosives, turning launches into a utility-scale operation rather than a high-wire act. On the Moon, where gravity is one-sixth of Earth’s and there’s no atmosphere to create drag, this technology could launch payloads at a fraction of the costa few dollars per pound in electricity. Compare that to the $1,200 per pound it currently costs to launch a payload on a reusable Falcon 9 rocket. [Image: Xai] An elegant design American physicist Gerard O’Neill and MIT physicist Henry Kolm built the first prototype of a mass driver in 1976 with a $2,000 budget. The Mass Drive 1 could fire objects at 131 feet per second while experiencing 33 times Earth’s gravity. Their next version achieved 10 times greater acceleration with a comparable funding increase. University of Texas researchers subsequently priced a serious version at $47 million for a device capable of launching a 22-pound payload at 13,400 miles per hour. A mass driver is basically a very long track stretching across the lunar surface, angled gently skyward at its far end. The track is lined from end to end with hundreds of electromagnetic coils, which are simply loops of wire that snap into powerful magnets the instant electricity runs through them. A payload sits inside a magnetizable carrier called a bucket. To move the bucket, the coils fire in a precise sequence, one after another, each energizing at exactly the right moment as the bucket reaches it, grabbing it forward, then cutting off the instant it passes. The result is a cascade of invisible magnetic hands, each passing the bucket to the next. The bucket never makes mechanical contact with any surface: It is held aloft and guided entirely by the interplay of magnetic fields, which is why these systems have a theoretical operational lifespan of up to millions of launches with negligible wear. Musk describes it as a large maglev train, the same levitation technology that holds high-speed trains above their rails in Japan or China. But the mass driver reaches much faster speeds than any train on Earth: about 1.5 miles per second, enough to escape the gravity pull of the Moon. To achieve that speed, the mass driver uses two distinct engineered stages. In the first, the coils sit at equal intervals and their electrical timing locks to the bucket’s exact positioneach successive push arrives at precisely the right instant, so the force compounds as velocity builds. In the second stage, the interval between coils progressively widens, which paces the pushes further apart in distance and holds the rate of acceleration constant rather than letting it keep climbing so the increase in acceleration doesnt destroy the bucket or its cargo. At the terminal end of the track, the bucket releases its payloada xAI satellite according to Musk’s visioninto space at a minimum speed of 5,300 mph, enough escape the Moon’s gravity. The trajectory that the load follows depends on the position of the Moon at the moment of the launch, following the orientation of the mass driver relative to the space. Then the bucket gets caught by a braking system, recovered, and sent back to the beginning for the next launch. No combustion. No exhaust. No rocket equation. No problems. Its a beautiful solution. Its also doable, as ONeill and Kolm demonstrated practically. According to independent researcher and author Keith Sadlocha, a working lunar mass driver would require a track between 1,620 and 5,350 feet long, operating at accelerations between 30 and 400 times Earth’s gravity in standard operation. At those forces, only rugged, non-human cargo survives the ridewhich is exactly what Musk is planning. Musk has his sights set on manufacturing AI computing satellites on the lunar surface. The system can fire one payload every 10 to 11 seconds. Scaled to Musk’s stated target of one million satellites in orbit, that cadence, sustained continuously, is what makes the economics viable in a way no rocket ever could. But to accomplish this, you will need a lot of electricity. For Musk’s purposes, system requires 8.7 to 20 megawatts of continuous power, enough to run a small town. Delivering that on the lunar surface requires between 400,000 and 634,000 square feet of solar arrayssomewhere between seven and 11 NFL football fields’ worth of panels according to Sadlocha’s calculations and NASA’s estimates. That’s using solar panel’s with an efficieny of roughly 30%, the figure NASA uses for cells especially designed for space use. Since the Moon endures two weeks of total darkness every month, this means the mass driver either sits idle for half of every lunar cycle or relies on supplemental power to keep firing through the night. NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy are developing a solution: The Fission Surface Power (FSP) project, which builds on the earlier Kilopower research program to produce compact nuclear fission reactors targeting 10 to 40 kilowatts of continuous output each, capable of running for a decade without refueling. Each FSP reactor will produce enough electricity to power just a few homes. Bridging the full gap between those modest reactors and a mass driver that demands the output of a small power plant would require deploying them not one or two at a time, but in the hundreds. That is not a technology problem so much as a logistics oneevery reactor has to be launched from Earth, landed softly on the Moon, and connected to the grid before the mass driver fires its first payload. The program, however, is still in development and a lunar deployment is not expected before the late 2020s at the earliest. And thats extremely optimistic, given the constant delays of those nuclear projects and the Moon return plans. [Image: Xai] Unrealistic timeline Scaling from the $47 million 22-pound-launch prototype that University of Texas researchers projected to a working lunar installation capable of launching huge satellites is where you begin to feel just how vast the distance is between a compelling idea and a functioning machine. Sadlocha estimates that a full lunar mass driver system requires approximately 362 metric tons of hardware. Thats 24 heavy-lift rocket launches worth of components that must be manufactured on Earth, survive a 239,000-mile journey through the void, and be assembled by people wearing pressurized suits on a surface thatbathed by radiationis extremely hostile to humans. That surface is coated in lunar dust too, ultra-fine abrasive shaped by billions of years of micrometeoroid impacts into particles with microscopic cutting edges that never dulled, because there has never been wind or rain or any erosive force on the Moon to round them off. It clings electrostatically to visors, suits, seals, and coil windings alike. The payload carriers themselves face thermal melting at extreme velocities, demanding materials that do not yet exist in proven lunar-rated form. You can argue that maybe Musks Optimus robots can avoid this, but his robots can barely function on Earth. Musk’s stated plan is to mine lunar silicon and oxygen and manufacture the server hardware on the surfacea bootstrapping strategy that, if it works, would reduce Earth-launch dependency over time toward what he called a self-growing city capable of rapid expansion from local resources. The Moon does contain silicon, oxygen, helium-3, and water ice at the poles. But the superconducting coils at the heart of the mass driver require precisely manufactured materials that the lunar industry will not be able to produce in decades. Every critical component rides to the Moon on Starship until that changes. We know that Starship is so behind schedule that it has pushed the first mission back to the Moon from 2027s NASA projected time to 2028. Sadlocha rates the technology at readiness level 5 on NASA’s 1-to-9 scale components validated in laboratories, not yet tested in space. Realistic deployment, his study concludes, will take between 5 and 15 years from the moment serious investment begins. That can take the project into the 2040s, easily. Thats why Lluc Palerm, satellite research director at Analysys Mason, said to PC Magazine that Musk’s lunar server plan carries a magnitude of challenge equivalent to a Mars mission. But like we already pointed out, Musk’s timeline is fantasy, or “aspirational” as he qualifies his predictions. The gap between his ambitious renderings and actual functioning hardware remains a dream measured in decades, not the 10 years he’s promising investors before his planned June 2026 initial public offering targeting a $1.5 trillion valuation. Musk is no JFK, and building factories and a mass driver on the Moon is orders of magnitude more complex than just putting boots on the Moon like the Apollo program did. It’s doable, yes. We’ll get the mass driver, eventually. Just not on Musk time.
Category:
E-Commerce
Stacie Haller, a consultant for executives, recently had a meeting with a former business owner in his early 80s. Hed sold his business, started playing golf, and discovered something about himself: he found golf extremely boring. And now, even though he doesnt need to be, hes back on the job market. Im so vital, hed told Haller, Im still in the game. Haller is a senior herself. She says could have stuck with retirement after getting furloughed from her recruiting job during the pandemic. Instead, she started independently consulting for senior executives and for Resume Builder. Now? Shes working part-time and earning as much as she did before. I’m happier now in my career than I’ve ever been, she says. According to recent survey of more than 3,500 U.S. seniors by Resume Builder, around one in eight have returned to work as of December 2025, or are planning to do so. Another 16% have never retired, and 4% were actively applying for jobs. Another survey, by financial advice company The Motley Fool from October 2025, found that 54% of 2,000 Americans who get Social Security benefits have returned to work or considered going back because Social Security benefits are so low. But, as in the case of Hallers former business owner, thats not the only factor driving what some call unretirement. The number-one answer is usually related to money, but it’s not the clear winner,” says Robert Brokamp, senior retirement adviser at The Motley Fool. “There are many people who do go back to work because they got bored. They got lonely. They needed something to do. When you are older, you actually have an opportunity to try something newor not have as much stress with your job, says Haller. While these reasons keeping seniors working may have applied in the past, theyre arguably driving more of a trend now because of how work has changed since the pandemic: Flexible, hybrid, and remote work opportunities make it much easier for seniors, who may have health or mobility issues, to remain in the workforce. Rising costs of living Brokamp says that theres no question that people in their 60s through 80s are returning or continuing to work at increasing rates. With people living well into their 90s, theyve got a lot more time to budget for, especially in todays economy. In Resume Builders survey, 54% of respondents attributed continuing or returning to work after an initial retirement to the high cost of living. I don’t know a person that doesn’t go to the supermarket and walk out and say, Are you kidding me? Haller says. Such everyday costs also amplify concerns seniors have about Social Security and Medicare, which 26% and 19% in that survey, respectively, cited as their reasons for working. Though Social Security did undergo a recent 2.8% cost of living adjustment increase, 54% of recipients told The Motley Fool that wasnt high enough. With inflation at 2.7%, that increase might seem like enoughbut the problem, says Brokamp, is that inflation often plays out differently for working professionals than retirees. The inflation rate for healthcare is over 3%, he saysa major cost for seniors, who not only may visit doctors more regularly, but also tend to spend more on prescription medications than their younger counterparts. Other financial factors that drive seniors to return to work include not having saved enough for retirement, having to pay off debt (medical or otherwise), and needing to support their children, per Resume Builder. This picture, of course, looks different across different wealth brackets. Geoffrey Sanzenbacher, a research fellow at Boston Colleges Center for Retirement Research, has found that people whove earned less income during their careers, and therefore dont have as much emergency savings, can get drawn back into the labor market with a single health shock to them or a family member. Unlike other surveys, Sanzenbachers research points to a low unretirement rate of 1.9%, which he says comes from looking at narrower timelines (as in, seniors working at the time of the survey, not within that year). Right now, you have a perfect storm of reasons why the unretirement rate might be low, Sanzenbacher says. That includes a not-great job market (more people unretire in good job markets because they have more opportunities, he says) and a high stock market. So, retirees relying on 401Ks, for example, should be well in the black. This, to him, suggests that people unretiring now must be doing it because they really need the cash. Continued vitality, personal fulfillment If seniors are reentering the workforce by choice post-retirement, theyre likely doing it to have some funand are perhaps more likely to be doing more independent work, like starting their own businesses, which doesnt rely on getting hired. Haller mentions seniors whove emerged from retirement to start their own Etsy shops, and Sanzenbacher brings up the idea of a retired worker whos always wanted to be a tour guide finally fulfilling that dream. The desire to return to work to try something new, says Sanzenbacher, is very common among higher income or more educated workers. Typically, he adds, those post-career jobs relate to the former retirees original career. They were a lawyer, and now they’re an arbitration judge who works one day a week on Zoom, suggests Sanzenbacher, or they were a teacher, and now they’re a tour guide. Sometimes, these reentries are part of long-term plans. Other times, says Sanzenbacher, it can be [from] the realization that retirement isn’t as fun as what people thought. The evidence on whether retirement is good for us is very mixed, and it really depends on what you’re retiring from and what you’re retiring to, says Brokamp. Many people have boring, stressful, arduous jobs, and retirement is very good for them. On the other hand, many people had decent jobs that they actually somewhat enjoyed, and when they retire, they feel adrift. This rings true for a lot of the seniors Haller speaks with about unretirement. After enjoying work, at 54%, Resume Builder survey respondents described non-financial factors like combatting boredom and to socialize as significant reasons to keep working or go back to work after retirement. Mark Brodsky, 72, director of Field Associate Learning at Lowes, has barely even conceived of retirement, though people often ask him when hes going to do it. Usually, without missing a beat, I say, The day I have no further value to provide and or my value is not needed or wanted. This could mean never retiring. Did Picasso stop painting? he asks. I spent 50 years developing my craft . . . Why should I put that on the shelf? Flexible work, more options Haller, for one, says she can work as much as she does because working remotely, or in hybrid positions, has become such a norm. Our bodies age, says Haller. Honestly, I’m not getting on a commuter train for two hours a day anymore. The flexibilitythat often comes with remote or part-time work fits with what most seniors returning to work from retirement are looking for, anyway. I don’t know any 70- or 75-year-old who really wants that high-pressured, C-suite job if they’re going back to work, Haller says, and they should make this clear to employers if theyre looking for the kind of work that requires getting hired (instead of working independently like Haller). Haller suggests seniors tell hiring managers that theyre looking for more relaxed positions than in their previous careers. Otherwise, hiring might assume seniors are looking for the same, high salaries they retired with, and not want to spend that much money on an employee whos likely not going to remain in the workforce for very long. We have to overcome that objection, Haller says, by making it explicit to employers that salaries commensurate with past full-time jobs arent what unretirees are requesting. Make that known in cover letters or networking conversations, Haller suggests, and emphasize the pros youll bring to the office even if youre not necessarily in it for as long as younger workers. Seniors coming out of retirement have probably seen every situation in the workforce already, Haller says, and can keep a cool head encountering problems while valuably mentoring younger colleagues. Brodsky calls this scar tissue: Life provides you bumps and bruises, and scar tissue is actually an attribute . . . If I were hiring a senior executive for important work, I’d want to bring on somebody who had scar tissue. Regardless of the reasons for returning to work, the overall message is clear. We don’t go off into pasture when we turn 65 anymore, Haller says. We have choices now.
Category:
E-Commerce
From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, many executives think that bringing employees back to the office is the secret to restoring productivity. But theyre wrong. Thats not what’s happening in those newly populated offices. Instead, your employees are more likely to be joining video calls from company desks and wearing noise-canceling headphones while doing work they could have done at home. Only now they’re paying $20 to commute and eating sad desk salads to get through the day. The timing couldnt be more ironic. A new wave of return-to-office (RTO) mandates arrive just as companies pour millions into AI initiatives designed to automate work, eliminate roles, and drive bottom-line efficiency. Leaders advocate for AI as the engine of the future, one that can streamline and modernize how work gets done. So, why are they forcing people back into offices designed for workflows that AI is actively making obsolete? Recent research shows what many employees have known all along: RTO mandates dont improve productivity, innovation, or team connection. But they do weaken morale and accelerate attrition. If companies want better long-term performance, they might consider paying attention to the employee experience instead of treating it as a footnote to investor expectations. And they should also recognize that unpopular RTO policies reflect a deeper tensionone that AI is making increasingly clear. The Quiet Part Out Loud RTO mandates arent failing because the concept of in-person collaboration is flawed. Theyre failing because the justifications are. Executives keep saying they want to rebuild culture, but the real motives often tell a different story: investor pressure, managements discomfort with remote autonomy, or the convenient use of office mandates as a cover for workforce reduction. At a time when AI is openly positioned as a way to reduce labor costs, some companies appear to be using RTO as a secondary mechanism to achieve this, nudging employees to quit so severance costs stay low. Its a cost-saving strategy dressed up as culture building. When employees become line items, distrust becomes the default operating model. Other companies are stuck in the past, clinging to the office as a symbol of managerial control. But if an employee underperforms remotely, geography isnt the issue. Leadership is. At its core, the return-to-office push reflects a deeper tension: companies urgently investing in technologies that decentralize and automate work, while simultaneously doubling down on physical presence as proof of productivity. Its a contradiction that exposes a lack of coherent strategy for the future of work. Two Transitions Collide: AI and the Office As AI reshapes job responsibilities and absorbs repetitive tasks, two seismic organizational transitions are happening at once: shrinking the demand for human labor and shrinking the relevance of the physical office. Its not hard to see how these forces collide. Some leaders seem to be using office presence to manage this uncertainty, both to subtly reduce headcount and to maintain control during a period when technology threatens traditional hierarchies. But proximity isnt a proxy for performance and visibility wont stop AI from transforming work. If anything, it simply delays the hard strategic conversations leaders need to have. What Actually Works A more effective approach asks deeper questions about the work itself. Which activities genuinely benefit from real-time, in-person creativity? Which roles depend on deep focus? Where does mentorship thrive? And crucially, what does our data (not nostalgia) tell us? At my firm, Orgvue, we took the time to analyze our own workflows end-to-end before deciding on an office working policy. And we found that our product teams saw real value from whiteboarding sessions in a physical space, while our customer success teams performed better with the flexibility to work from wherever made sense for their client base. A one-size-fits-all approach would have failed both groups. To enhance these in-office interactions, we redesigned our workspaces to introduce collaboration hubs for teamwork, quiet areas for deep work, and a podcast studiobecause modern work demands modern tools. People come into the office when it makes sense, not because a memo told them to. The Trust Test When companies issue blanket RTO mandates, they send a very clear signal: “We don’t trust you.” Thats a dangerous message at a time when competitors are winning talent with flexibility and autonomy. So, before you mandate a return to the office, it might be helpful to ask yourself the following questions: Can we prove with data that office presence improves productivity for specific teams? Have we designed an office people actually want to come to? Are we solving productivity challenges or satisfying executive preference? Skip these questions, and you may learn an expensive lesson: your best people have options, and they’re not afraid to use them. The Bottom Line U.S. businesses are at a crossroads. Those that demand five days in the office will be competing against those offering more flexible work arrangements. And when it comes to technology investment, the irony is clear. While companies invest heavily in AI to improve efficiency, agility, and independence, theyre simultaneously enforcing policies that undermine all three. In short, the organizations that succeed will be the ones that align their work models with their technology strategies. That means embracing autonomy and data-driven insight rather than badge swipes. Want higher productivity? Fix your management practices. Want better collaboration? Design better systems. Want more engaged employees? Trust them to do their jobs. Because if you need to see someone to believe they’re working, the problem isn’t remote work, and AI is about to make that painfully obvious.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||