• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeremyp said:
Really? Polluting the sky with gazillions of satellites so that people can play World of Warcraft* more effectively is one of the greatest technological marvels of the century?
Click to expand...

I think that’s unnecessarily condescending.

Internet access in remote areas obviously has huge benefits beyond gaming. I was going to list a few, starting with doctors getting current medical information to treat patients, but the list would rapidly become unwieldy. But I suspect you know that, and were either being facetious or just going for shock value.
 
jeremyp said:
Don't you think what SpaceX does is "space vehicle manufacturing"? It seems like a good description to me.

Of course there are issues. The main one is that fore a long period of time, most SpaceX facilities were not reporting their figures. That should raise alarm bells.
Click to expand...

That's not the objection he's advancing there. I don't know if he also objects to SpaceX being in that category, but what he's saying here is that non-official term 'the space industry' should be considered in a more expansive category than 'missile and space vehicle manufacturing'. He'd like to map it more to the broader 'aerospace' field.

It has been a point of confusion for some in the past that NASA for example does a lot of atmospheric and aeronautic research, apparently not realizing that 'aeronautic' is in the name.

However, the only aeronautic work SpaceX does is in relation when their spacecraft are exiting or entering the atmosphere. The goal is to make space vehicles. It's an important part, but not the same as making commercial jets.

The broader 'aerospace' includes things like aircraft. Boeing for example does both. Zig argues the accident rate for things like Boeing's Supermax manufacturing should be included in the comparison along with Boeing's Starliner capsule manufacturing and SpaceX's stuff.

dirtywick said:
he said they're more like a construction company, which constructs space vehilces, not manufactures them. if anything they manufacture maybe launch pads. well they would if they didn't contract that kind of stuff out to construction companies.
Click to expand...

Ironically several of the cited safety issues have been from SpaceX not doing construction work, like making people weld in closed tents during high winds without fume hoods. And without welding respirators. This is basic stuff they're declining to do. But when people demand the most standard all-of-industry wide welding practices be followed, they fired them. And they're welding stainless! I put on the negative pressure setup when I'm stick welding mild!
 
tyr_13 said:
That's not the objection he's advancing there. I don't know if he also objects to SpaceX being in that category, but what he's saying here is that non-official term 'the space industry' should be considered in a more expansive category than 'missile and space vehicle manufacturing'. He'd like to map it more to the broader 'aerospace' field.

It has been a point of confusion for some in the past that NASA for example does a lot of atmospheric and aeronautic research, apparently not realizing that 'aeronautic' is in the name.

However, the only aeronautic work SpaceX does is in relation when their spacecraft are exiting or entering the atmosphere. The goal is to make space vehicles. It's an important part, but not the same as making commercial jets.

The broader 'aerospace' includes things like aircraft. Boeing for example does both. Zig argues the accident rate for things like Boeing's Supermax manufacturing should be included in the comparison along with Boeing's Starliner capsule manufacturing and SpaceX's stuff.



Ironically several of the cited safety issues have been from SpaceX not doing construction work, like making people weld in closed tents during high winds without fume hoods. And without welding respirators. This is basic stuff they're declining to do. But when people demand the most standard all-of-industry wide welding practices be followed, they fired them. And they're welding stainless! I put on the negative pressure setup when I'm stick welding mild!
Click to expand...


I bet you think that safety lines should be yellow or at least high contrast colour schemes as well.



The highlighted seems to be a common thread running through much of Musk's approach to many things. Being a contrarian is not a brilliant approach to safety. See also the death (seemingly not initially reported) of a worker (ex marine) who sat on a load of insulation to keep it from blowing away as it was being transported around the site on an open truck. So again, avoiding the most standard of safety procedures.

I posted the same story on Scrutable and got this reply that highlights this:

https://scrutable.science/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4048#p154154

[quote="bob sterman" post_id=154154 time=1699786251 user_id=150]
Could equally write...

[insert name of Musk owned company] has cavalier approach to safety

e.g.


Unsafe & Injurious Working Conditions Reported At Tesla Factory
https://thesuffolkpersonalinjurylaw...fe-working-conditions-reported-tesla-factory/

Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books
https://revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is-safer-but-it-left-injuries-off-the-books/

Inside Tesla’s Model 3 Factory, Where Safety Violations Keep Rising
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanoh...to-plants-in-aftermath-of-musks-model-3-push/
[/quote]
 
jeremyp said:
Don't you think what SpaceX does is "space vehicle manufacturing"? It seems like a good description to me.
Click to expand...

It is a decent description. But SpaceX is not a guided missile manufacturer, which also falls under the same number. The problem isn't that the category is wrong, but that the category includes things which aren't comparable, and isn't guaranteed to include everything that is comparable. There's no rigorous guidelines for use of NAICS codes. You pick the one that you think fits you best, but sometimes multiple ones might work. Some SpaceX sites used different codes. Maybe some of SpaceX's industry equivalents also used other codes at times. We don't really know what they're being compared to.
 
Ziggurat said:
It is a decent description. But SpaceX is not a guided missile manufacturer, which also falls under the same number. The problem isn't that the category is wrong, but that the category includes things which aren't comparable, and isn't guaranteed to include everything that is comparable. There's no rigorous guidelines for use of NAICS codes. You pick the one that you think fits you best, but sometimes multiple ones might work. Some SpaceX sites used different codes. Maybe some of SpaceX's industry equivalents also used other codes at times. We don't really know what they're being compared to.
Click to expand...

Several of the incidents mentioned were avoiding standard safety practices, not just in space industry, but almost any civil engineering project.

And similar with Tesla.

The common factor is Musk's philosophical dislike of regulation. "It's not been done like this before, so let's do it" is not a good approach to safety-critical working.
 
on what basis are you claiming guided missile manufacturing isn't comparable to building rockets?

biggest problem with the data is you can't trust that spacex is reporting it properly or completely, because they barely have reported any at all. there's some pretty alarming incidents leading to serious injuries and what appears to be a complete lack of safety culture starting with upper management. no way that's going to lead to better rates than companies that take it seriously, just not a credible claim.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think that’s unnecessarily condescending.

Internet access in remote areas obviously has huge benefits beyond gaming. I was going to list a few, starting with doctors getting current medical information to treat patients, but the list would rapidly become unwieldy. But I suspect you know that, and were either being facetious or just going for shock value.
Click to expand...

Internet access for remote areas certainly does have huge benefits for those living there. However, only gaming requires a low latency connection and hence satellites relatively close to the Earth.
 
There’s already at least one company gearing up to wrap CyberTrucks in a variety of colors:

https://cybertruck.wrapmate.com

We’re liking the dark blue:

53169870368_cfa993eb63_z.jpg
 
Fast Eddie B said:
There’s already at least one company gearing up to wrap CyberTrucks in a variety of colors:

https://cybertruck.wrapmate.com

We’re liking the dark blue:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53169870368_cfa993eb63_z.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Is that because, it being dark blue will make it hard to see its shape at night meaning that, for half the time, people won't notice how butt ugly it is?
 
Darat said:
Apparently the Cybertruck is going to come in a black variant: https://insideevs.com/news/694929/tesla-cybertruck-matte-black-impressions/
Click to expand...

OK, I stand corrected. It doesn't look too bad to my eye in that black vinyl. Very Dark Knightish.

However FTA

It is absolutely baffling to me that Tesla’s lead designer would parade around a vehicle in this condition just weeks before deliveries of production cars are allegedly commencing and even more baffling that he’d park it at such a public enthusiast event.
Click to expand...

and there are photos to support the bad build quality accusation.

Also, the hub caps seem to extend to cover the sidewalls of the tyres. Don't try to drive over a kerb with them.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Several of the incidents mentioned were avoiding standard safety practices
Click to expand...

Sure. And that's a problem.

But that's only part of the story. The other part, the statistical comparison to try to establish the scale of the problem, is what's not backed up at this point. Maybe that really is the scale of the problem, but given the limited information provided, we can't have any confidence in that.

Look, I'm not arguing that there's no problem and nothing should be done. If improvements can be made, if standard safety practices aren't being followed, then they should be, regardless of any statistical comparison. If people are getting hurt in preventable ways, I want them prevented even if the company is already below industry standard accident rates.

But there's also nothing wrong with taking a skeptical look at what evidence is being presented, and figuring out what it actually does or does not mean. And I'm pointing out that the statistical comparison means less than is being claimed. That's it, nothing more.
 
dirtywick said:
on what basis are you claiming guided missile manufacturing isn't comparable to building rockets?
Click to expand...

A lot of guided missiles are quite small in comparison to any space launch vehicle, they generally use solid propellants rather than liquid propellants, much of the work is production line manufacturing of established designs rather than prototyping.... a whole host of reasons. I expect manufacturing diesel locomotives is a lot different than manufacturing compact cars, even though they're both wheeled vehicles.

biggest problem with the data is you can't trust that spacex is reporting it properly or completely
Click to expand...

Why are you confident that everyone else is?
 
jeremyp said:
[SNIP]
Also, the hub caps seem to extend to cover the sidewalls of the tyres. Don't try to drive over a kerb with them.
Click to expand...

For some reason I always thought the caps were part of CG models but not production...but they are, along with what looks like a custom sidewall.

Yeah, those are never going to stay on. They'll probably never line up with the little indents on the tires. I hope they're light plastic because otherwise that's a danger in and of itself, but also that kind of all enclosed 'aero-caps' (normally the only reason to do fully enclosed caps is for aerodynamics but those ones have stupid angles that will ruin that anyway) have a horrid effect on brake heat dissipation. That's a very bad thing for something that heavy, but I'm not sure how much regenbraking mitigates it.
 
tyr_13 said:
that kind of all enclosed 'aero-caps' (normally the only reason to do fully enclosed caps is for aerodynamics but those ones have stupid angles that will ruin that anyway) have a horrid effect on brake heat dissipation. That's a very bad thing for something that heavy, but I'm not sure how much regenbraking mitigates it.
Click to expand...

This paper found about 60% energy recovery from regenerative braking in a BMW electric vehicle:
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8921/5/2/22
That's a very significant heat reduction. Now in extreme braking conditions (ie, you're going really fast and you need to stop as fast as possible), that efficiency is going to drop WAY down because regenerative braking has a limit to how much power it can absorb. So you still have to design the brake system to handle close to the full heat load at least short term. But for long-term wear and tear from heat, regenerative braking is likely to make a big difference.

As a bit of trivia, for airliners, the worst-case scenario for brake heat load is a last-minute aborted takeoff, because you're at maximum ground speed, maximum weight load, and least amount of runway. The brakes need to be able to stop the plane, but they actually don't need to survive the event. And for a large plane like the A380, they don't. It generates enough heat that not only are the brake ruined in the process, the tires actually catch fire. But that's OK, because the plane is designed to survive the event while keeping passengers safe, and that should happen rarely enough that having to replace the tires and brakes in the event is an acceptable outcome. That's not really the case for cars, though. We expect to be able to come to a screeching halt from high speed and not have to do any repair work as a result.
 
Ziggurat said:
This paper found about 60% energy recovery from regenerative braking in a BMW electric vehicle:
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8921/5/2/22
That's a very significant heat reduction. Now in extreme braking conditions (ie, you're going really fast and you need to stop as fast as possible), that efficiency is going to drop WAY down because regenerative braking has a limit to how much power it can absorb. So you still have to design the brake system to handle close to the full heat load at least short term. But for long-term wear and tear from heat, regenerative braking is likely to make a big difference.

As a bit of trivia, for airliners, the worst-case scenario for brake heat load is a last-minute aborted takeoff, because you're at maximum ground speed, maximum weight load, and least amount of runway. The brakes need to be able to stop the plane, but they actually don't need to survive the event. And for a large plane like the A380, they don't. It generates enough heat that not only are the brake ruined in the process, the tires actually catch fire. But that's OK, because the plane is designed to survive the event while keeping passengers safe, and that should happen rarely enough that having to replace the tires and brakes in the event is an acceptable outcome. That's not really the case for cars, though. We expect to be able to come to a screeching halt from high speed and not have to do any repair work as a result.
Click to expand...

That is a great reduction in heat from that kind of regenerative braking, which should indeed have a huge impact on the life of brake pads and routers. A similar thing is seen in large trucks and 'engine braking'; gearing down and letting the resistance of the engine's operation slow the vehicle. This can be done even in normally automatic transmissions if you have a selector. My Silverado lets me gear down even though it's an automatic.

Still, it is the heavy-quick events that are the real problem regardless. Semi can have the tractor brake routers glow red from such events. Like with aircraft, having those parts be sacrificial in those events is a fine solution. They're operated by professionals and can be seen easily. They are spaced to prevent fire.

Consumer large pick-up trucks already have problems with people not checking their brakes after such short-stop events. The Cybertruck is already on the heavy end of things, and having caps that not only hold in the heat more but also visually conceal issues is just asking for trouble. That said, the catastrophic events are almost always after a lot of normal maintenance neglect or when fully loaded. I doubt the Cybertruck will be fully loaded much (that bed doesn't allow it) or be towing often.

I think I'll go check my brakes now.
 
Ziggurat said:
A lot of guided missiles are quite small in comparison to any space launch vehicle, they generally use solid propellants rather than liquid propellants, much of the work is production line manufacturing of established designs rather than prototyping.... a whole host of reasons. I expect manufacturing diesel locomotives is a lot different than manufacturing compact cars, even though they're both wheeled vehicles.
Click to expand...

often what you expect and what it is can be pretty different. that's why i asked on what basis.


Why are you confident that everyone else is?
Click to expand...

there's a lot of evidence that indicates spacex actual safety practices and statistics are much worse than the data they present. i'm not confident that all other companies are completely and accurately reporting, i'm confident some of them are and certain spacex is not. comparing a bunch of padded stats isn't telling us anything, but when you look at the list of serious injuries that were reported, it's pretty appalling.
 
I just learned that about every 10 minutes, a Starlink satellite needs to make an evasive maneuver to avoid a collision.

In other words, Musk has a the ability to take down every satellite in an orbit similar to Starlink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom