Big brother Tesla

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
icowden said:
Because they had funding and that was the plan at that point. They intended to get Falcon Heavy certified for space flight. They then changed their minds and focused on developing Starship which in turn completely altered the planned schedule and eventually ended the tourism idea. It was only ever a money maker on the side.
Click to expand...
So does abandoning a project after you have made announcements about what you were going to do and taking steps towards bringing the project to fruition not count? The proposed tourists seemed happy to pay up, although I suspect there may have been one or two doubts watching Starship exploding before their eyes.
icowden said:
But SpaceX had never intended Starship to survive. Unlike previous space rocket development, SpaceX is using rapid iteration and learning from each launch.
Click to expand...
You don't think NASA learned from each of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights?
As to Starship, the first flight lost control and crashed into the ground.
For the second flight, the booster exploded after engine failures and the second stage had to be destroyed after telemetary was lost.
The third flight saw the booster explode again and the second stage was lost as it attempted to reenter the atmosphere.
It was only in June this year that both the booster and second stage were deemed to have had succesful flight tests.
icowden said:
NASA has contracted for an uncrewed flight to the moon in 2025 and a crewed one no earlier than Sept 2026. In Feb of this year NASA confirmed that SpaceX had accomplished over 30 HLS specific milestones (Starship HLS is the Starship variant being designed to act as a shuttle between the Earth and the Moon). This is a hugely complex and ambitious project intended to allow us to actually build a Moon base and have regular traffic there. it's the first step before the Mars missions begin.
Click to expand...
The 2021 contract for Artemis 3 was for a manned landing on the moon in 2025, but because of problems, including with Starship, NASA is open to getting an uncrewed flight to the moon. Probably in part for publicity reasons.
Reaching a milestone doesn't mean it was reached on time. In fact if you go to the NASA website and the publication, while it references the 30 milestones, no mention is made of them being on time. Something I would have expected NASA to trumpet loudly had that happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
Bazzer said:
So does abandoning a project after you have made announcements about what you were going to do and taking steps towards bringing the project to fruition not count?
Click to expand...
It wasn't abandoned. The change in scope and timeline was explained to the buyer who took the option to cancel rather than wait.
Bazzer said:
You don't think NASA learned from each of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo flights?
As to Starship, the first flight lost control and crashed into the ground.
For the second flight, the booster exploded after engine failures and the second stage had to be destroyed after telemetary was lost.
The third flight saw the booster explode again and the second stage was lost as it attempted to reenter the atmosphere.
It was only in June this year that both the booster and second stage were deemed to have had succesful flight tests.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's rapid development. The first 4 tests from 2019 to 2020 were successful. The first high flight test was a successful launch but a landing failure and this was expected by SpaceX. There were 4 more tests in 2021. 2022 was spent getting ready for integrated flight tests. Two were carried out in 2023 and two (so far) in 2024.

IFT-1 was declared a success by SpaceX as the mission objective was to clear the launch pad. Everything else was secondary
IFT-2 was declared a success by SpaceX as the mission objective was to achieve all goals up to hot-staging - everything else was secondary
IFT-3 was not declared a success as the primary objective was to reach de-orbit burn and splashdown.
IFT-4 was a success meeting all mission objectives from launch to wet landing (splashdown).
IFT-5 is planned for late July and the objective is to catch B12 with the tower pincers.

Bazzer said:
Reaching a milestone doesn't mean it was reached on time. In fact if you go to the NASA website and the publication, while it references the 30 milestones, no mention is made of them being on time. Something I would have expected NASA to trumpet loudly had that happened.
Click to expand...
These sorts of milestones are seldom met on time. The only reason that time goals were met in the original space programme was that there was huge pressure to beat Russia and almost limitless funding to get it done.
 
D

Deleted member 159

Guest
Only reason Nasa went and landed on the moon before 1970 was JFK announced it in a speech in 1962

Nasa cancels flights if a Pelican farts in their direction theses days.

Space industry is lead by private businessmen these days
 
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
icowden said:
It wasn't abandoned. The change in scope and timeline was explained to the buyer who took the option to cancel rather than wait.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends how you view it. You call it a change is scope and timeline, I would call it a failure to meet the original proposals.
Yes the buyer cancelled in 2024, but in part that was due to both the delays which had arisen in the Starship project and the intended flight being pushed back from 2023 to the 2030s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
Bazzer said:
I suppose it depends how you view it. You call it a change is scope and timeline, I would call it a failure to meet the original proposals.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point, but the buyer knew that this was a pioneering event and there was very high risk involved. It's not exactly ordinary.
 
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
albion said:
Musk is now referring to FSD as 'Supervised FSD'.
It now goes a full year between driver interventions, 'once the "never never" bugs are fixed'.
The guy is a hoot.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are finding funny. He's referring to is as supervised FSD to emphasise to the more stupid people that you can't just turn it on and take a nap. There is no mention of "never never" bugs, just that there is some bug fixing to do before the next release. Given how complex full self driving is, he is suggesting that FSD is now pretty good.

The only point I'm unclear on is whether that is just in the USA.
 
OP
OP
albion

albion

Guru
Released, and possibly pulled. Minor chaos.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/comments/1e3wzig/it_seems_like_202415_fsd_1243_has_stalled/


The "never,never" was adding some truth, Musks bug comment looking simply another porkie.
 
OP
OP
albion

albion

Guru
https://electrek.co/2024/07/15/elon-musk-confirms-tesla-robotaxi-delay-front-design-change/
From the mainly sceptical comments 'Robotaxi problem isn't the front design.
It's that FSD is less than 1% of the way to level 4, and has no clear path to even get 10% of the way to level 5 '

That '1 event per year' hype for SUPERISED FSD' appears to be an attempt to massage the oncoming Robotaxi thing.
So, speculating, initially it looks like there will be no mention of Lidar. And with 1 event per year near impossible without it, maybe Robotaxi is years away.
 
Last edited:
icowden

icowden

Legendary Member
OP
OP
albion

albion

Guru
Why ask when I am simply painting reality.

In the west, Googles Waymo has monopoly advantage via Google maps there live, in a monopoly of cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom