Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm ******* not and that fact you couldn't dig that out from my statement is absolutely hilarious, but consistent for you. I'm pointing out that by not letting them utilize starlink in Crimea is defacto saying Crimea is Russian.

Alternatively, it's them recognizing that it's under Russian control.

Oooohhh ******* good one Zigg. You really got me there. I'm not a multi-billionaire that's receiving massive funding from the ******* government for a bunch of different projects. How much do you think taxpayers have given to SpaceX, or even that dumb **** Musk, over the years? It's the least he can do, and even now he isn't doing it for free.

The money SpaceX got from the government wasn't charity, it was payment for services, and the taxpayer got good value out of that. Payment for services rendered doesn't create any obligation beyond those services.

And the least Musk can do is nothing. Given that the US government wants to provide military assistance to Ukraine, they should be paying SpaceX to provide that military assistance.

He has a contract with the US to provide the service.

Now he does, which obligates him to provide the service he's been contracted for. But he had no obligation prior to that contract, and there was no contract at the time in question.

That being said, I wasn't referring to the commercial side of Starlink, I'm talking about them providing service to the army of Ukraine in parts that are Ukrainian

Starlink wasn't offering a separate military service. The service they provided to Ukraine WAS their commercial service, they just provided it for free to the Ukrainian military.

but that Starlink doesn't provide service because they apparently believe it's Russian.

That part there is entirely your own head cannon. SpaceX has never taken any such position. You're pulling it out of your ass for reasons unknown, but it's not backed up by any evidence at all.

 

[Roboramma]

Not quite. What happened is more specific than that, and technicalities matter in this case. See below.

Thanks for the clarification, yeah I had misunderstood.

 

[theprestige]

It's not like Ukraine tried to hide the fact that it was using Starlink to communicate with drones in the field.

As much as I'd like it if Musk greenlighted Starlink for waging war against Russia, not wanting his civilian comm network to be used for war is a totally valid position to take, and I don't begrudge him for taking it.

Elon Musk is like Donald Trump in this way: There are so many good reasons to hate him, it always baffles me when people barge right past all of them and decide to hate him for ignorant or conspiracy-theoretical reasons. Or they do the conspiracy-theorist thing of deciding that since one malfeasance has been proven, every malfeasance they care to imagine must be true as well. Musk is a dude, not a cartoon villain.

 

[Ziggurat]

To follow up a bit more on SpaceX supposedly saying Crimea is Russian territory, all we really need to do is look at their service map. Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk are all shown as being within the borders of Ukraine. Seems pretty clear to me that they consider these areas part of Ukraine, not part of Russia.

 

[Aridas]

Maybe, maybe not. You still reward people for behavior you want to encourage. If they're doing it for the reward, that doesn't change anything.

*shrug* Certainly, encourage the behavior, but don't mistake it for something more principled that just isn't actually in evidence.

Says who?

Ukraine has never made that claim publicly. According to Musk, they made a request to extend service, which SpaceX did not agree to, but there's no indication from Musk or Ukraine that this was made after a failed operation rather than before. The only source claiming that Ukraine actually attempted a mission which failed due to a lack of coverage comes from a third party reporter, and I wouldn't assume it's correct.

Did you miss the various earlier accounts of Ukrainian pushes being derailed by reaching areas where they suddenly and unexpectedly lost Starlink coverage or did you just forget about them?

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you miss the various earlier accounts of Ukrainian pushes being derailed by reaching areas where they suddenly and unexpectedly lost Starlink coverage or did you just forget about them?

Was that because SpaceX kept that info hidden, or because the people on the ground just didn't know? There's a significant difference. I have yet to see a serious claim of secrecy.

 

[Aridas]

Was that because SpaceX kept that info hidden, or because the people on the ground just didn't know? There's a significant difference. I have yet to see a serious claim of secrecy.

I suspect that neither stated option is a good description.

In the more recent reporting, I recall it being stated that Elon simply didn't activate Starlink coverage in a number of areas and just didn't tell Ukraine that he hadn't. I'm a bit forgetful if that was combined with Musk having already made an agreement about coverage area and simply failing to uphold said agreement, but the impact of any distinction from that is quite limited. That's perhaps a little different from being evidence of keeping it hidden. Keeping it hidden would be demonstrated by actually hiding such, rather than creating a situation where people would have no good reason to inquire in the first place and then just not informing them of highly relevant information.

With that said, the Ukrainians planning the operations clearly believed that they would have coverage in areas where coverage had not been activated. Trying to flail about for an excuse to blame everything on Ukraine is worthy of little more than an eyeroll.

 

[jeremyp]

Ok, neat.

Actually, I think the US government was paying for it.

No, I'm ******* not and that fact you couldn't dig that out from my statement is absolutely hilarious, but consistent for you. I'm pointing out that by not letting them utilize starlink in Crimea is defacto saying Crimea is Russian. Which it's not, it's Ukrainian. Any other way I can possibly clear that up for you let me know. I don't know how I can, but I'll certainly try.

It may not even be possible for Starlink to provide service in Crimea. As things stand, each Starlink satellite requires a line of sight connection to a ground station that is connected to the Internet. There are plans to allow the satellites to relay messages amongst themselves so you don't need ground stations everywhere, but AFAIK the feature has not yet been implemented. If a Starlink satellite over Crimea cannot see a ground station, it can't talk to the Internet.

 

[jeremyp]

As everybody probably knows, Tesla is holding a delivery event today for the Cybertruck. I was perusing the net and found this article with claimed specs for it

https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/news/4408/tesla-cybertruck-price-specs-release-date

If the specs are correct - and they may not be - the weight of the truck is 3 tonnes and it can carry 1.5 tonnes. Here in the UK, you would need an HGV* licence to drive it.

*Heavy goods vehicle.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

For all that I disagree with the actions your describing here, you're also completely mischaracterizing them. Musks initial involvement in the war in Ukraine was to give free access to Starlink to the Ukrainians. That is something that I think was fully praiseworthy.
Later, he prevented them from using Starlink directly in military actions. I think that something worth condemning. But what the latter amounts to is exactly not "getting involved in the war in Ukraine". It's withholding involvement.
I am critical of that because he should get involved. I strongly support the Ukraine and all those who supply them with aid, and to that extent I condemn Musk's actions here.

But to characterize neutrality as "getting involved in the war in Ukraine" is completely backwards.

Or did he start supplying Russia with access to Starlink and I didn't hear about it?

Musk isn't letting Ukraine use starlink for free. He refused to allow it's use until the US government ponied up, and then complained that his inflated fee wasn't enough.

But hey, grifter's gotta grift.

 

[theprestige]

As everybody probably knows, Tesla is holding a delivery event today for the Cybertruck. I was perusing the net and found this article with claimed specs for it

https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/news/4408/tesla-cybertruck-price-specs-release-date

If the specs are correct - and they may not be - the weight of the truck is 3 tonnes and it can carry 1.5 tonnes. Here in the UK, you would need an HGV* licence to drive it.

*Heavy goods vehicle.

So? Here in the US, it's in the same weight and payload class as a Ford F-150, which does not require a special license.

 

[lobosrul5]

Actually, I think the US government was paying for it.




It may not even be possible for Starlink to provide service in Crimea. As things stand, each Starlink satellite requires a line of sight connection to a ground station that is connected to the Internet. There are plans to allow the satellites to relay messages amongst themselves so you don't need ground stations everywhere, but AFAIK the feature has not yet been implemented. If a Starlink satellite over Crimea cannot see a ground station, it can't talk to the Internet.

Judging by their service map, its very nearly 100% certain that Crimea is in range of the Starlink constellation, and has been for some time. They aren't in geo, they move around. Its not possible for Romania and Georgia* to have coverage and Crimea to not, unless I'm very very wrong on how it works. Also, from what I've read the satellite you are connecting to does not have to have access to the ground. They can move data around to another satellite that does. Though I think this level of service is much more expensive, and required if you want service over the Ocean for example. But anyways, I think they'd have line of sight from Crimea to Romania anyways. ETA: some airlines are planning to use Starlink for inflight internet for trans-pacific flights.

I also do not know exactly how they are restricting service in some locations. Is it strictly: we don't ship there and don't accept payments from a credit card in that country? IE they don't support China because China won't allow them to. But if someone used a proxy to buy it, and smuggled the base station in, would it work? Or are they determining the location of the base station via the base station using gps (which could be spoofed) or is it determining the location via a spot beaming system where the sat can tell where the base station is? Right now, its easy to restrict service to China, since no bordering countries have it either. But they do plan to have service in Mongolia. Can they accurately restrict someones access 100m across the border into China then? Or are they just restricting sales to China?

https://www.starlink.com/map

*I mean Georgia the country. Although Georgia the US state also has coverage.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2023/08/hawaiian-airlines-starlink-early-2024/

<-- link about airlines

 

[lobosrul5]

So? Here in the US, it's in the same weight and payload class as a Ford F-150, which does not require a special license.

Begs the question, do light duty pickups require special licenses to operate in the UK?

 

[theprestige]

Begs the question, do light duty pickups require special licenses to operate in the UK?

Apparently not:

As the leading provider of HGV training in the UK, we are frequently asked about the HGV/LGV class licence. There seems to be a lot of confusion inasmuch as many people believe they are two separate licences. They are not. In fact, ‘HGV’ and ‘LGV’ are not license classes at all. The licence needed to drive either is known as the Class A.

A heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and large goods vehicle (LGV) is the same thing under both UK and European law. We use the terms interchangeably just because we can. As far as their classification, HGVs and LGVs are commercial trucks with a gross combination mass of more than 3500 kg.

The confusion relates to using ‘LGV’ to refer to light goods vehicles, such as vans and pickup trucks, with a gross vehicle weight of no more than 3.5 tonnes. These kinds of vehicles do not require a Class A licence to operate. Depending on their total weight and the type of cargo being transported, a light goods vehicle may still require some sort of enhanced commercial licence.

https://www.hgvt.co.uk/hgv-training-news/driving-licences-difference-hgv-lgv-class/​

 

[lobosrul5]

Apparently not:

As the leading provider of HGV training in the UK, we are frequently asked about the HGV/LGV class licence. There seems to be a lot of confusion inasmuch as many people believe they are two separate licences. They are not. In fact, ‘HGV’ and ‘LGV’ are not license classes at all. The licence needed to drive either is known as the Class A.

A heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and large goods vehicle (LGV) is the same thing under both UK and European law. We use the terms interchangeably just because we can. As far as their classification, HGVs and LGVs are commercial trucks with a gross combination mass of more than 3500 kg.

The confusion relates to using ‘LGV’ to refer to light goods vehicles, such as vans and pickup trucks, with a gross vehicle weight of no more than 3.5 tonnes. These kinds of vehicles do not require a Class A licence to operate. Depending on their total weight and the type of cargo being transported, a light goods vehicle may still require some sort of enhanced commercial licence.

https://www.hgvt.co.uk/hgv-training-news/driving-licences-difference-hgv-lgv-class/​

Ahh, so if a truck weighed 2 tonnes empty, and had a cargo capacity of 1.6 tonnes, it doesn't need a special license, so long as no more than 1.5 tonnes of cargo was being transported... and the odds of getting caught if you did carry 1.6 tonnes is probably vanishingly small, unless you drove by a weigh station, and as I know truckers they just figure out routes to go around when they are overweight.

 

[theprestige]

Ahh, so if a truck weighed 2 tonnes empty, and had a cargo capacity of 1.6 tonnes, it doesn't need a special license, so long as no more than 1.5 tonnes of cargo was being transported... and the odds of getting caught if you did carry 1.6 tonnes is probably vanishingly small, unless you drove by a weigh station, and as I know truckers they just figure out routes to go around when they are overweight.

Further, there seems to be some ambiguity in the "commercial truck" concept. The way I read it, if you're carting your personal goods around, you might not need a Class A ("HGV") licence, even if you are a little overweight.

I'm still hoping jeremyp will answer my terse question, and that the answer will be something more interesting than "it's the same size and weight as some popular US truck models".

I note that it is about a ton heavier (gross weight) than the most popular pickup truck in the UK, the Ford Ranger.

 

[Marcus]

As everybody probably knows, Tesla is holding a delivery event today for the Cybertruck. I was perusing the net and found this article with claimed specs for it

https://www.carwow.co.uk/tesla/news/4408/tesla-cybertruck-price-specs-release-date

If the specs are correct - and they may not be - the weight of the truck is 3 tonnes and it can carry 1.5 tonnes. Here in the UK, you would need an HGV* licence to drive it.

*Heavy goods vehicle.

That's a normal weight for a large pickup, no special license required in the U.S.In most states anything over 26,000 lbs requires a Class A license.


ETA: never mind, late reply

 

[lobosrul5]

That's a normal weight for a large pickup, no special license required in the U.S.In most states anything over 26,000 lbs requires a Class A license.


ETA: never mind, late reply

In New Mexico you only need a Class B CDL for over 26k lbs. However, if you pull a trailer over 10k lbs, you need a class A.

 

[Roboramma]

Musk isn't letting Ukraine use starlink for free. He refused to allow it's use until the US government ponied up, and then complained that his inflated fee wasn't enough.

But hey, grifter's gotta grift.

Let's see what I said:
"Musks initial involvement in the war in Ukraine was to give free access to Starlink to the Ukrainians. That is something that I think was fully praiseworthy."

Did Musk give free access to Starlink? Yes. Was that praiseworthy*? Yes.

Is he still giving free access to Starlink? No. Did I say he was? No.

*It's been suggested that he didn't this for PR purposes. Sure, maybe. I can't read his mind. I find it entirely plausible that like millions of other people around the world he was concerned about the plight of Ukrainians and wanted to do what was in his power to help. I certainly felt that way. But even if he was just self-interested and his internal mind-state wasn't praiseworthy, his actions still were.

 

[dirtywick]

i think it's pretty obvious he gave away some free starlink and got deal where he massively rips off the department of defense or whatever agency is overpaying for it. and it's pretty apparent he doesn't care at all about ukraine since then.

but yeah i mean if that's praiseworthy to somebody, you know, ok. it's a free country still kinda.