Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
Yep, and the purely robotic missions needed to set up the refuelling facilities, shelter etc etc would take a staggering array of equipment.

Somebody let us all know when SpaceX even trials a robotic, solar-powered ice digging and retrieving vehicle, out in a desert somewhere.

Musk was just pimping his brand. Probably sold plenty of extra Teslas to the morons who were whooping' and hollerin' at the Mars presentation.
Click to expand...

Needs to pimp some more then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68818113

Tesla plans to lay off 10% of its staff worldwide.

The article also includes this:

Last month, Tesla reduced production at the Gigafactory in Shanghai and last week Tesla told employees who work on the Cybertruck that shifts will be shorter on the production line at the Austin.
Click to expand...
The implication of that is that they are not selling as many Cybetrucks as they were hoping. Makes me wonder what happened to their enormous waiting list.
 
Bogative said:
At best, that proves the timeline was hype, not the plan to colonize Mars.
Click to expand...

The timeline was pure fantasy. I don't think there's any prospect of a serious Mars expedition for at least a decade, at least, not using Starship.

This Common Sense Skeptic video takes a look at Elon Musk's latest SpaceX state of the nation video.

It is a CSS video and they are pretty anti Musk, but there are, nevertheless interesting points in the video, such as the admission by Musk himself that Starship will only be able to carry 50 tonnes to orbit and to get 100 tonnes or 200 tonnes to orbit will take Starship 2 and Starship 3 - which are stretched versions of the current vehicle.

Also the audience, consisting only of SpaceX employees, was silent throughout the presentation. There was none of the usual cheering and clapping. CSS theorised that this was because the audience knew most of what he said was ********.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Any citation for that figure. Because if the fuel was that cheap, there's no way that Galaxy Brain could have burned through NASA's $3bn already without massive fraud.

And he has burnt through it in three rockets.
Click to expand...


The sad part is you're not even embarrassed by posting something this ridiculously ignorant.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Any citation for that figure. Because if the fuel was that cheap, there's no way that Galaxy Brain could have burned through NASA's $3bn already without massive fraud.

And he has burnt through it in three rockets.
Click to expand...

You think that the cost of fuel is a large portion of launch costs???
 
Mars is of course a totally stupid place for colonization
Much better in every way would be a Deep Sea colony.
But Musk wants the sweet "no rulez!!" that comes with having your own planet.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Mars is of course a totally stupid place for colonization
Much better in every way would be a Deep Sea colony.
Click to expand...

Gods no. Deep sea is infinitely worse for colonization. It's much better for economic exploitation, but not colonization. You've got no energy source (you can do solar on mars), extreme pressure gradients (~400 atmosphere difference vs 1 atmosphere difference), and higher energy costs because the ocean is not only cold, but also conducts heat really, really well. Yeah, it takes less to get to the ocean bottom, but that's only part of the cost of colonization. If you want to colonize, you need to be able to stay there long term, and even build. And that's SO much harder on the ocean than on Mars that the reduced cost of transport aren't actually going to make up the difference.

I don't think you understand just how hostile the ocean floor is to human life. And note, I'm not optimistic about Mars colonization. But the ocean floor is never happening.
 
GlennB said:
Yep, and the purely robotic missions needed to set up the refuelling facilities, shelter etc etc would take a staggering array of equipment.

Somebody let us all know when SpaceX even trials a robotic, solar-powered ice digging and retrieving vehicle, out in a desert somewhere.

Musk was just pimping his brand. Probably sold plenty of extra Teslas to the morons who were whooping' and hollerin' at the Mars presentation.
Click to expand...

It's a chicken and egg problem. Do you develop the payloads first, or the transportation infrastructure first?

Personally I think developing the transportation infrastructure first makes more sense. Make it possible to deliver larger, cheaper payloads to Mars, and it creates market opportunities for people to start developing those payloads. Meanwhile, the infrastructure can be put to work delivering other larger cheaper payloads - something for which there will always be demand.
 
The annoying thing is, Tesla could have just built a Tesla SUV variant with a cargo bed. They didn't have to go for the worst car design since the Homer. But no. Not only did they make a car so stupid looking that it would have to be the greatest car in the world to justify the design choices, but they also went ahead and half-assed the actual product.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Any citation for that figure. Because if the fuel was that cheap, there's no way that Galaxy Brain could have burned through NASA's $3bn already without massive fraud.

And he has burnt through it in three rockets.
Click to expand...

Here's a couple:

https://spaceimpulse.com/2023/06/13/how-much-does-rocket-fuel-cost/

https://primalnebula.com/where-does-spacex-get-their-rocket-fuel/

Search around if you'd like. You'll see that fuel is a small fraction of total launch costs.
 
theprestige said:
The annoying thing is, Tesla could have just built a Tesla SUV variant with a cargo bed. They didn't have to go for the worst car design since the Homer. But no. Not only did they make a car so stupid looking that it would have to be the greatest car in the world to justify the design choices, but they also went ahead and half-assed the actual product.
Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/news/715760/tesla-model-x-beats-cybertruck-towing/amp/

they already build a better truck
 
Ziggurat said:
Gods no. Deep sea is infinitely worse for colonization. It's much better for economic exploitation, but not colonization. You've got no energy source (you can do solar on mars), extreme pressure gradients (~400 atmosphere difference vs 1 atmosphere difference), and higher energy costs because the ocean is not only cold, but also conducts heat really, really well. Yeah, it takes less to get to the ocean bottom, but that's only part of the cost of colonization. If you want to colonize, you need to be able to stay there long term, and even build. And that's SO much harder on the ocean than on Mars that the reduced cost of transport aren't actually going to make up the difference.

I don't think you understand just how hostile the ocean floor is to human life. And note, I'm not optimistic about Mars colonization. But the ocean floor is never happening.
Click to expand...

You are completely wrong on all of that, but maybe this should be a thread of its own
 
dirtywick said:
https://insideevs.com/news/715760/tesla-model-x-beats-cybertruck-towing/amp/

they already build a better truck
Click to expand...

See, that same chassis with a cargo bed instead of a crossover sunroof butt would have been just fine. But nooOOoo.

Anyway, the Cybertruck isn't a scam, just a hilariously bad idea.

I'm much more interested in Guliver Foyle's position that Falcons 9 and Heavy are a scam. Does he imagine SpaceX is charging for a service it's not providing? Those customer payloads aren't going anywhere? Does he imagine SpaceX is overcharging for a service that should be much cheaper? Even though they're already undercutting all the competition? Does he think the whole thing is a conspiracy by the US government, to prop up a fake space launch services company that doesn't even exist? Somehow it's Elon Musk and his cronies, that run the world from behind the scenes?

None of it makes any sense, Gully. Make it make sense.
 
theprestige said:
It's a chicken and egg problem. Do you develop the payloads first, or the transportation infrastructure first?
Click to expand...

Karen and I watched “Under the Tuscan Sun” last night. In it there was a metaphor: A railroad track laid over the Alps before there was a train capable of traversing it. On the assumption that once laid, a capable train would be developed - which it was.

Anyway, your dilemma reminded me of that.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Karen and I watched “Under the Tuscan Sun” last night. In it there was a metaphor: A railroad track laid over the Alps before there was a train capable of traversing it. On the assumption that once laid, a capable train would be developed - which it was.

Anyway, your dilemma reminded me of that.
Click to expand...

To be clear: It's not a dilemma for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom