| |
| ▲ | gangstead 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Part of the delay was also the 48V architecture. So in addition to the obvious new things like stainless steel panels they also had to redesign mundane parts like window motors and interior lighting. The Cybercab is also using a 48V architecture so even though they've never talked about it being an R&D platform maybe they'll retcon it that way. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | That forces a redesign of all the car electronics. While it might well be a good idea anyway from an R&D point of view it's undeniably expensive. (I have a very slight visibility on 48V car audio R&D, for example. Most digital electronics could be adapted with a different DC-DC converter but the audio power amp stage takes direct supply voltage) |
| |
| ▲ | moralestapia 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Real experts said reusable rockets were impossible ... | | |
| ▲ | sanderjd 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did they? | | |
| ▲ | genxy 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A real expert told Elon that self landing rockets were possible over chutes. The retconning to build the myth of Elon is ridiculous. Lars Blackmore was doing self-landing rocket research before he went to spacex. Musk's reusable rockets (who doesn't want that, this is why the shuttle exists) wanted to use parachutes. | |
| ▲ | moralestapia 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. Is my comment ambiguous or something? Seems to me like a sentence that's quite easy to understand. | | |
| |
| ▲ | kibwen 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, no rocketry expert ever said that reusable rockets were impossible. They would have told you that the cost to develop them would not recoup itself based on the then-existing demand for orbital payloads, and that banking on such demand materializing would be a massive gamble (which is why Starlink exists). | | |
| ▲ | moralestapia 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | "What I’m discovering in the market is that SpaceX primarily seems to be selling a dream, which is good. We should all dream. I think a $5 million launch or a $15 million launch is a bit of a dream. I think reusability is a dream. How am I going to respond to a dream? First of all, you don't wake people up. They have to wake up on their own." https://www.facebook.com/61572338938589/videos/in-june-2013-... Pathetic argumentation in this thread, to be real. |
| |
| ▲ | origini 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure. The highest number though is like 30 uses and Starship still hasn't profen itself. Also the boring company, Doge, Solar City, the cybertruck etc. So what do we get out of this? Musk is for sure not just an idiot, he for sure sees sometimes good opportunities, but also he had the money to invest in these and he got lucky a few times too. Btw. the cybertruck he announced, never came. | | |
| ▲ | parineum 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Falcon 9 is partial reusable, took a lot of money to do so and yeah its a good product. Not sure how expensive it was for US americans to gift it to Spacex but sure. How much money have Americans gifted NASA to pay Russia for launching payloads ton Soyuz rockets? Do you frame all government funding as "gifting"? | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And you could just as easily frame it as Musk "gifting" something to the US government by offering cheaper launches than Roscosmos and Boeing/ULA, and developing new capabilities cheaper than Boeing | |
| ▲ | origini 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you trying to argue against me? Because you are doing a strawman. Let me criticsize NASA for paying / gifting Russia for launching payloads. So we are now back to square one. Pls continue |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > They could’ve done something like the Slate truck a decade earlier. They could have Roadstered it. Buy Ford Transit 350 "gliders", work out how to make them FWD, RWD, or AWD using your own transaxles and batteries. Pickup, van, or just a bare chassis-cab to go to a coachbuilder, it doesn't matter. The Transit has been around for 61 years. Sticking electric motors in it that you already have is a no-brainer. | | | |
| ▲ | lbriner 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Musk didn’t want to listen to real experts "real experts" are not always correct. A bet a lot of people told him that the original Teslas were a bad idea or SpaceX would never...wait for it...take off. But sometimes people win when they push the boundary of what might work, push the problems to the surface and then solve them. I don't like the guy but you can't really deny his ethusiasm and single-mindedness. | | |
| ▲ | acdha 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | An engineers isn’t going to say “EVs will never work” or “reusable rockets are impossible”. They’d say things like “we’re really going to need to minimize weight and try to build better batteries to hit that range goal” or “it’s going to require a lot of money to do the R&D for reusable boosters, you need to land a NASA contract so we can afford dozens of tests”. Engineers express tradeoffs far more than absolutes. Musk has enthusiasm, yes, but he’s let his luck at PayPal and successfully buying Tesla from the original founders go to his head. Nobody is right all of the time, and no serious project goes perfectly according to the original vision without adjustments. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of an electric truck — companies with better engineering culture are making great ones — but the Cybertruck failed exactly the way everyone who isn’t a superfan expected: it’s designed in a way which guarantees high costs and it just doesn’t deliver corresponding benefits for most people. Diving into the culture wars against a large chunk of potential Tesla buyers was a bad idea but even if he hadn’t, there just aren’t that many people who have that kind of money to spend and the ones who do usually won’t accept so many limitations and flaws. | | |
| ▲ | mft_ 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s a little bit revisionist. I don’t like Musk much either but to be fair: - no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible. Sure, there may have been individuals, but it didn’t make it into corporate strategy or product delivery. The Model S plus the Supercharger network changed the face of the car industry. - none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality. They had an infinite head start vs. SpaceX and failed to innovate. Even now, having their lunch money regularly stolen by SpaceX, where is the reusable competition? | | |
| ▲ | kibwen 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > no one in the established “expert” car companies thought that mainstream EVs were feasible No executive in the established "expert" car companies had any reason to rock the boat. Establishing EVs as a credible alternative to ICEs required a build-out of charging infrastructure that none of them were willing to commit to. But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existed. > none of the clever brains spending billions in NASA, ULA, ArianeSpace, et al made a reusable commercial rocket a reality All of them would have told you that there's nothing impossible about a reusable rocket, only that their customers were happily served by their current offerings. Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D. | | |
| ▲ | stymaar 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But non-established companies had no such risk, and the emerging companies in China would have developed no less quickly even if Tesla never existe Yes. And in fact, Tesla existed before Musk, who merely invested in the company and then rewrote the history to make him a “founder”. Fast forward 20 years, and now we have musk shills calling people “revisionists” when they just state facts. | |
| ▲ | mft_ 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. Musk and his colleagues revolutionised two technical and entrenched industries. You make it sound like this wasn't a difficult proposition. > Without Starlink, there would be no commercial demand that would make up for the cost of R&D. Not sure about this analysis. a) SpaceX developed the Falcon 9 relatively cheaply - ~$300m to it simply being a viable launch platform (i.e. without reuse, Dragon, etc.) b) NASA contributed to some of the costs. c) SpaceX was already offering launch services cheaper than their competition before perfecting reuse or conceiving of Starlink. Therefore it's likely that they'd have had a positive (albeit lower) business case and made back R%D costs over time, simply by offering launch services and capturing a majority of the market thanks to their lower prices. Reusability lowered their launch costs, when it came. Starlink was an answer to the question of how to capitalise on all of the cheap surplus launch capacity they'd made available. |
| |
| ▲ | wtfbro 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | genxy 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The clever brains at JPL worked on self landing rockets before they went to spacex. Your tax dollars at work. https://www.alphaxiv.org/@lars-blackmore https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Blackmore https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xZvK9z0AAAAJ&hl=en | | |
| ▲ | mft_ 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed. That was why I deliberately wrote "made a reusable commercial rocket a reality". |
|
| |
| ▲ | malfist 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not just high costs, its high costs that are only there to appease one man. The stainless steel sheets don't provide features that the average consumer even considers and has more than a few drawbacks |
| |
| ▲ | jfengel 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can deny that his enthusiasm and single-mindedness are the reasons for his success. His initial success, PayPal, was just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Online payments are an obvious thing and a natural monopoly. He guessed right that PayPal would be the one that succeeded. That gave him the opportunity to place more big bets that paid off. Neither electric cars nor reusable spacecraft were obvious wins the way online payments were, but it's also no sign of genius to have happened to place bets on companies that succeeded. The evidence for that is that his luck ran out. He keeps backing audacious projects, and they keep failing. Anybody else would have been bankrupted a dozen times over. He keeps going because he got lucky the first time, with so much money that it's almost impossible for him to lose it all. That is to say, I think it's more survivorship bias than the merits of his "enthusiasm and single-mindedness". A decade ago he had such a string of successes that I would consider the case that he was actually smarter than average, but he's had such a string of conspicuous and obvious catastrophes that the net result simply seems average at best. | |
| ▲ | tdhz77 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can deny it because he overpromises on everything just like Elizabeth Holmes. Only difference in space isn’t something new the us government did it in 1960’s and didn’t destroy nearly as many rockets. Elon isn’t smart enough to try an interfere with production rockets. His distance from decision making is what made it a success. | | | |
| ▲ | bena 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You invented a fictional group of people, got mad at them, then declared what you imagined they did was wrong. I want you to know that. Musk came into Tesla as funding. People were trying to make the cars. With regards to SpaceX, he was looking for people to build rockets to go to Mars. But no one wanted to sell to him. So he hired rocket scientists to build the rockets. And yes, while there will always be some asshole who says "That won't work", there were plenty of ""real experts"" who were working at those companies. | | |
| ▲ | cheaprentalyeti 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | And the "real experts" left us dependent on Russia for launching a couple capsules a year to the space station. They could have done what Musk did with Falcon 9 in the 90's. Instead they chose to mess around more with solid fueled heavy lift vehicles, all the while proclaiming that they were the experts/science. | | |
| ▲ | genxy 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | The fallacy you are committing here is making all the non-spacex experts a homogeneous straw people. |
|
| |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Found Elizabeth Holmes's alt. (I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a difference between thinking outside the box and trying new ideas, and literally ignoring factual reality and repeated clear feedback from people who actually know what they're talking about.) | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "real experts" are not always correct That's why you should always hire someone unqualified. | |
| ▲ | felixgallo 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | not always, but usually! |
|
|