It's great that Tesla proved fully electric vehicles are plausible. Hopefully some other manufacturers, especially those of public transport vehicles, will follow the suit, and take over. But, the...
It's great that Tesla proved fully electric vehicles are plausible. Hopefully some other manufacturers, especially those of public transport vehicles, will follow the suit, and take over. But, the curious rich boy that runs the company is toxic, better if he spent his dollars partying instead (and maybe try going to Mars himself). Tesla the company is quickly becoming toxic too, the Autopilot and the PR around it is a fiasco.
It's such a shame; I really wanted to like Elon Musk, and I did a lot before he had acquired his current level of infamy, when he was just some nerdy kid running these small startups no one had...
It's such a shame; I really wanted to like Elon Musk, and I did a lot before he had acquired his current level of infamy, when he was just some nerdy kid running these small startups no one had heard of, but his Twitter is a source of frustration and half-truths: the number of times he uses technically-correct but pragmatically incorrect language is frustratingly common.
So I believe in his vision, and I believe ultimately that he is doing it for the greater good, but his exact implementation methods leave a lot to be desired.
I don't share your optimism, unfortunately. I think the Mars endeavor is straight out impossible, and utterly useless if not. I do not think general purpose autonomous vehicles are close to...
I don't share your optimism, unfortunately. I think the Mars endeavor is straight out impossible, and utterly useless if not. I do not think general purpose autonomous vehicles are close to becoming commonplace any time soon, and they do not offer much over public transport. Furthermore, they are made of material and electricity needs to be produced, and we do not have a picture of what a huge surge in electric use if electronic vehicles are widespread will mean for the ecosystem. The world needs public transport, and if we'll have autonomous driving and electric vehicles, we then need autonomous electric public transport vehicles, not luxury cars less than a tenth of the worldwide population can even dream of affording. And lastly, I'm always surprised by the euphoria about AVs while we are probably yet to have a bunch of autonomous vehicles encounter each other at a junction IRL, and the best commercially available is selling not-autonomous as autonomous-ish with predatory marketing and PR tactics, without refraining at all to attack authorities and press when confronted by criticism. Musk is just another rich guy, and his companies are just normal moralless mechanical companies. He's different in that he shamelessly creates and feeds off of a faux image of benevolence and geekery around him. But I would not ignore innovation for the innovator, I am glad that he has opened, for whatever selfish or philanthropic reason, the way to more eco-friendly vehicles to become more commonplace.
I don't believe the voyage part, albeit can not scientifically disprove it. But I don't think the colonisation part is possible at all. The planet just doesn't have the resources.
I don't believe the voyage part, albeit can not scientifically disprove it. But I don't think the colonisation part is possible at all. The planet just doesn't have the resources.
I don't have the insider knowledge to personally be able to say whether SpaceX will make it there to begin with (doubt any of them do either, really), although I do believe that they've proven...
I don't have the insider knowledge to personally be able to say whether SpaceX will make it there to begin with (doubt any of them do either, really), although I do believe that they've proven their engineering chops to the point where they have a good shot. They seem confident, though, especially since they're starting work on BFR prototypes/test articles and are proceeding with the Raptor engine.
Your take on colonization really interests me. I'll certainly give you that finding resources will be hard, but it seems to me that the fundamentals exist in enough abundance on Mars to support at least a small colony. We know that there is water ice and possibly underground liquid water (per that recent NASA news), there's more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the Sabatier process for fuel production, and there are a multitude of ways in which we could provide power. With a spacecraft with the lift capacity of the BFR, getting the materials for such things to the planet seems like a solvable problem.
Even if colonization fails on a large scale, I think that the benefits of getting people to Mars (including the multi-use systems that would need to be built in the process) would be pretty hefty. Right now we rely on rovers for Mars science, through which we are able to learn more about the solar system's formation, our own planet, and a myriad of other topics. Humans with lab tech on-site seem like they can probably do vastly better. In addition, craft such as the BFR and the tech that will go into them and any other tech for supporting life on Mars seem like they could be super useful on Earth and in LEO. In a less quantifiable way, I think that the idea of a human walking on Mars could inspire new generations to push science forward in the same way that many people credit watching the moon landings with inspiring them to be engineers, scientists, or astronauts.
Sorry for the long response. Space exploration is an area that I'm really interested in, and I always enjoy talking to people about it, no matter their feelings on the subject in general or on specific sectors.
Thanks for the long response! After all, that's why I asked for an invitation to Tildes with such enthusiasm: discussion, not one liner jokes or flame wars. I'm a bit short on time so this will be...
Sorry for the long response.
Thanks for the long response! After all, that's why I asked for an invitation to Tildes with such enthusiasm: discussion, not one liner jokes or flame wars.
I'm a bit short on time so this will be brief, but I wanted to say that, while I think/believe, based on my knowledge of astronomy from my childhood (which I'm realising that I've mostly lost nowadays, when I'm trying to think and give more determinate answers here and when thinking on this subject myself), I'm quite dubious that arriving Mars alive would be a major achievement, if ever happens. I doubt it will, because we're talking about a voyage months and months long, in the midst of space, with limited room for supplies and construction material if they want to build a base there. Then, IDK if we know how, assuming the impossible happened, the planet Mars will respond to us consuming its water ice reserves and other resources. It'd be sad to see us mess another planet up. And lastly, yes this is kind of a controversial point, but it hurts me when we (I know that it's Elon's wallet here but yet) spend loads of money on this sort of things where it's at the edge of being lunatic or genial when quite some bit of the world is hungry and deprived of most vital resources. I know that him spending the money is actually better for the worldwide economy, and that's good, but I'd be happier to see if say a base was based in Africa an employed local unskilled workers (or skilled if available). We messed up a continent and then turned our backs on them.
Are you technically qualified to judge any of this stuff though? I'm happy to admit I know close to nothing regarding how hostile an environment space is and what is needed to engineer human...
Are you technically qualified to judge any of this stuff though?
I'm happy to admit I know close to nothing regarding how hostile an environment space is and what is needed to engineer human survival in that environment. If NASA & SpaceX believe they can get humans to Mars I'm inclined do think it's possible.
From the limited amount I do know I suspect most of Elon's effort is at mitigating human extinction events. Tesla in response to climate change. SpaceX to try and get a backup planet. The Boring Company because living on Mars is likely underground to survive radiation without a magnetosphere. The Neuralink (Wizard Hat) company because to survive GAI humans will need the upgraded mental capacity.
It'd be sad to see us mess another planet up.
This statement seems a bit strange to me because as far as we know Mars has no life, it seems almost certain there's no sentient life. So by who's judgement can we "mess up" a bunch of lifeless matter? If you ground the entire planet into dust as far as we know the only beings able to even notice this had happened are humans.
Can't say I disagree with you regarding self driving autonomy, that seems to be years off at best; especially given the wild variance in conditions that need to be handled. The Mars thing... is...
Can't say I disagree with you regarding self driving autonomy, that seems to be years off at best; especially given the wild variance in conditions that need to be handled.
The Mars thing... is going to be difficult. His architecture makes sense from a lowest common denominator standpoint, and you can see in the ITS 2016 to 2017 transition the designs got scaled back as realism took hold, I expect that to occur again this year.
The worst part of Tesla these days is Elon as a PR figurehead. His rogue twitter account is no match for a cool and collected PR team. He should assemble a team that operates like (old) Apple:...
The worst part of Tesla these days is Elon as a PR figurehead. His rogue twitter account is no match for a cool and collected PR team. He should assemble a team that operates like (old) Apple: only make public statements when it will improve public perception, make announcements when things are ready to ship, and polish everything.
As a Model 3 owner, I can fully say that the vehicle is worth the hype. Sure, many are having delivery issues, which is an embarrassment, but I had no such issue with my car. I think that if they get their act together, improve the perception of customer service by owners—because that matters more than their self-calculated arbitrary scores, and try to operate well for a year without being overly flashy, they can prove to "the rest of the world" that they can operate like grown ups and turn a profit and not burn into the ground. (I hope they grow up fast, because what happens for me and my Model 3 if Tesla goes under? There's lots of always online systems that keep the car functioning nominally.)
They are the Apple of electric car makers, that says everything :) And no, they are not doomed. Also, please read https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/elon-musk-vs-short-sellers.118431/, this...
They are the Apple of electric car makers, that says everything :) And no, they are not doomed.
negative: They should have used a contract builder for the Model 3, but Elon wants to reinvent everything all the time, like "manufacturing," and they ended up over-automating. After the falcon...
negative:
They should have used a contract builder for the Model 3, but Elon wants to reinvent everything all the time, like "manufacturing," and they ended up over-automating. After the falcon wing Model X fiasco, he said he learned his lesson on doing too many things at once, but apparently he did not. I personally think that someone like JB Straubel should become the CEO.
positive:
Tesla will have a lower battery pack cost than any competitor for the foreseeable future. For example, when Audi started to finally get on board the EV train, many Audi employees said "We need to build the packs too," management did not choose to do that.
They have put a bunch of effort into the manufacturing, which should start to pay off if they can stay afloat financially, and they seem to have nearly endless cash on tap via the bond market for now.
Tesla issued $1.8 billion worth of bonds expiring in 2025 on August 11, 2017. The figure was upsized from $1.5 billion and priced at par (100) with a 5.3% yield.
Stationary storage may become a bigger market than EV's.
observation:
The whole reinvent everything attitude seems to be working at SpaceX, but there are no nimble competitors in that space.
edit: Even Elon thinks TSLA is overpriced.
edit2:
You said:
but seemed to have squandered that lead and allowed the other OEMs to catch up.
Not yet. But gosh darn it, getting close. No one is producing market leading EVs at the scale of Tesla, yet.
It's great that Tesla proved fully electric vehicles are plausible. Hopefully some other manufacturers, especially those of public transport vehicles, will follow the suit, and take over. But, the curious rich boy that runs the company is toxic, better if he spent his dollars partying instead (and maybe try going to Mars himself). Tesla the company is quickly becoming toxic too, the Autopilot and the PR around it is a fiasco.
It's such a shame; I really wanted to like Elon Musk, and I did a lot before he had acquired his current level of infamy, when he was just some nerdy kid running these small startups no one had heard of, but his Twitter is a source of frustration and half-truths: the number of times he uses technically-correct but pragmatically incorrect language is frustratingly common.
So I believe in his vision, and I believe ultimately that he is doing it for the greater good, but his exact implementation methods leave a lot to be desired.
I don't share your optimism, unfortunately. I think the Mars endeavor is straight out impossible, and utterly useless if not. I do not think general purpose autonomous vehicles are close to becoming commonplace any time soon, and they do not offer much over public transport. Furthermore, they are made of material and electricity needs to be produced, and we do not have a picture of what a huge surge in electric use if electronic vehicles are widespread will mean for the ecosystem. The world needs public transport, and if we'll have autonomous driving and electric vehicles, we then need autonomous electric public transport vehicles, not luxury cars less than a tenth of the worldwide population can even dream of affording. And lastly, I'm always surprised by the euphoria about AVs while we are probably yet to have a bunch of autonomous vehicles encounter each other at a junction IRL, and the best commercially available is selling not-autonomous as autonomous-ish with predatory marketing and PR tactics, without refraining at all to attack authorities and press when confronted by criticism. Musk is just another rich guy, and his companies are just normal moralless mechanical companies. He's different in that he shamelessly creates and feeds off of a faux image of benevolence and geekery around him. But I would not ignore innovation for the innovator, I am glad that he has opened, for whatever selfish or philanthropic reason, the way to more eco-friendly vehicles to become more commonplace.
Would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel this way? What components of the whole plan do you think are impossible? The BFR itself?
I don't believe the voyage part, albeit can not scientifically disprove it. But I don't think the colonisation part is possible at all. The planet just doesn't have the resources.
I don't have the insider knowledge to personally be able to say whether SpaceX will make it there to begin with (doubt any of them do either, really), although I do believe that they've proven their engineering chops to the point where they have a good shot. They seem confident, though, especially since they're starting work on BFR prototypes/test articles and are proceeding with the Raptor engine.
Your take on colonization really interests me. I'll certainly give you that finding resources will be hard, but it seems to me that the fundamentals exist in enough abundance on Mars to support at least a small colony. We know that there is water ice and possibly underground liquid water (per that recent NASA news), there's more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the Sabatier process for fuel production, and there are a multitude of ways in which we could provide power. With a spacecraft with the lift capacity of the BFR, getting the materials for such things to the planet seems like a solvable problem.
Even if colonization fails on a large scale, I think that the benefits of getting people to Mars (including the multi-use systems that would need to be built in the process) would be pretty hefty. Right now we rely on rovers for Mars science, through which we are able to learn more about the solar system's formation, our own planet, and a myriad of other topics. Humans with lab tech on-site seem like they can probably do vastly better. In addition, craft such as the BFR and the tech that will go into them and any other tech for supporting life on Mars seem like they could be super useful on Earth and in LEO. In a less quantifiable way, I think that the idea of a human walking on Mars could inspire new generations to push science forward in the same way that many people credit watching the moon landings with inspiring them to be engineers, scientists, or astronauts.
Sorry for the long response. Space exploration is an area that I'm really interested in, and I always enjoy talking to people about it, no matter their feelings on the subject in general or on specific sectors.
Thanks for the long response! After all, that's why I asked for an invitation to Tildes with such enthusiasm: discussion, not one liner jokes or flame wars.
I'm a bit short on time so this will be brief, but I wanted to say that, while I think/believe, based on my knowledge of astronomy from my childhood (which I'm realising that I've mostly lost nowadays, when I'm trying to think and give more determinate answers here and when thinking on this subject myself), I'm quite dubious that arriving Mars alive would be a major achievement, if ever happens. I doubt it will, because we're talking about a voyage months and months long, in the midst of space, with limited room for supplies and construction material if they want to build a base there. Then, IDK if we know how, assuming the impossible happened, the planet Mars will respond to us consuming its water ice reserves and other resources. It'd be sad to see us mess another planet up. And lastly, yes this is kind of a controversial point, but it hurts me when we (I know that it's Elon's wallet here but yet) spend loads of money on this sort of things where it's at the edge of being lunatic or genial when quite some bit of the world is hungry and deprived of most vital resources. I know that him spending the money is actually better for the worldwide economy, and that's good, but I'd be happier to see if say a base was based in Africa an employed local unskilled workers (or skilled if available). We messed up a continent and then turned our backs on them.
Are you technically qualified to judge any of this stuff though?
I'm happy to admit I know close to nothing regarding how hostile an environment space is and what is needed to engineer human survival in that environment. If NASA & SpaceX believe they can get humans to Mars I'm inclined do think it's possible.
From the limited amount I do know I suspect most of Elon's effort is at mitigating human extinction events. Tesla in response to climate change. SpaceX to try and get a backup planet. The Boring Company because living on Mars is likely underground to survive radiation without a magnetosphere. The Neuralink (Wizard Hat) company because to survive GAI humans will need the upgraded mental capacity.
This statement seems a bit strange to me because as far as we know Mars has no life, it seems almost certain there's no sentient life. So by who's judgement can we "mess up" a bunch of lifeless matter? If you ground the entire planet into dust as far as we know the only beings able to even notice this had happened are humans.
Can't say I disagree with you regarding self driving autonomy, that seems to be years off at best; especially given the wild variance in conditions that need to be handled.
The Mars thing... is going to be difficult. His architecture makes sense from a lowest common denominator standpoint, and you can see in the ITS 2016 to 2017 transition the designs got scaled back as realism took hold, I expect that to occur again this year.
The worst part of Tesla these days is Elon as a PR figurehead. His rogue twitter account is no match for a cool and collected PR team. He should assemble a team that operates like (old) Apple: only make public statements when it will improve public perception, make announcements when things are ready to ship, and polish everything.
As a Model 3 owner, I can fully say that the vehicle is worth the hype. Sure, many are having delivery issues, which is an embarrassment, but I had no such issue with my car. I think that if they get their act together, improve the perception of customer service by owners—because that matters more than their self-calculated arbitrary scores, and try to operate well for a year without being overly flashy, they can prove to "the rest of the world" that they can operate like grown ups and turn a profit and not burn into the ground. (I hope they grow up fast, because what happens for me and my Model 3 if Tesla goes under? There's lots of always online systems that keep the car functioning nominally.)
I like the theory that he's trying to bring down the share price so SpaceX can buy it. It does seem weirdly out of character otherwise.
They are the Apple of electric car makers, that says everything :) And no, they are not doomed.
Also, please read https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/elon-musk-vs-short-sellers.118431/, this at least makes you understand Elon's outbursts from time to time...
I just hope that Tesla owners don't have to flip over their cars to reach the charging port.
They may not have to flip them over, but they do have to flip them around and back in to charge at superchargers.
negative:
They should have used a contract builder for the Model 3, but Elon wants to reinvent everything all the time, like "manufacturing," and they ended up over-automating. After the falcon wing Model X fiasco, he said he learned his lesson on doing too many things at once, but apparently he did not. I personally think that someone like JB Straubel should become the CEO.
positive:
Tesla will have a lower battery pack cost than any competitor for the foreseeable future. For example, when Audi started to finally get on board the EV train, many Audi employees said "We need to build the packs too," management did not choose to do that.
They have put a bunch of effort into the manufacturing, which should start to pay off if they can stay afloat financially, and they seem to have nearly endless cash on tap via the bond market for now.
Stationary storage may become a bigger market than EV's.
observation:
The whole reinvent everything attitude seems to be working at SpaceX, but there are no nimble competitors in that space.
edit: Even Elon thinks TSLA is overpriced.
edit2:
You said:
Not yet. But gosh darn it, getting close. No one is producing market leading EVs at the scale of Tesla, yet.