Also, you need a vison to advance things. Millions of electric cars ? 10 years ago it would have been a joke
Viable electric cars were a thing even way back in the late 19th century [1]. The problem was that burning oil was cheaper (as the users had to pay none of the externalities for decades), and so it lost out for a good while despite being more efficient (i.e. energy contained in the fuel vs distance driven) on paper.
On top of that came the massive, decades-long lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry to get rid of public transit.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
Agreed on the speed, but 100 miles range on a single charge? That's more than enough to account for the needs of the vast majority of commuters.
> until Lithium-ion batteries because cheap and commonplace, which was only in the last 20 years.
I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D.
1. If that were true, EVs would have been much more successful in America. They haven't been. The Nissan Leaf was around long before Tesla and it never went far, because the range sucks.
2. Back in 1900, 100 miles would have been great. In 2000, it's not sufficient at all for most car-owning Americans.
3. You can't have the same range at higher speeds: energy usage goes up dramatically with speed. So you need much more energy storage, and the battery tech of the time just wasn't sufficient.
>I wonder how that one would have played out if we didn't have oil. The abundance of cheap fossil fuels didn't make it exactly worthwhile to invest in battery R&D.
That's a very good point. It would be interesting to see an alternate universe where this was the case.
The problem is that, because of cars, they built everything farther apart, and people willingly chose places to live farther away from work. Just look at a map of the city of Phoenix AZ for instance: 100 miles' range won't cover a trip from one side of the city to the other side and back.
However, for vacations, a rental car is absolutely the right idea. That's what people here in Tokyo do: there's lots of convenient places to rent a car for shopping trips to Costco, or a trip to the mountains, etc., because so many people don't own cars.
Fundamentally the issue with long term Mars habitation is that any technology that allows us to live on Mars full time without support from Earth would make even the wildest 'destroyed' Earths livable. The only thing Mars gives you is there's not going to be people beating on the outside of your trillion dollar dome trying to get in.
Electric cars are nice and all but if you want to credit Elon Musk with contributing to the switch from gas to EV, you also have to credit him with killing high-speed rail with spitballing about the vaporware that is building underground vacuum tunnels to shuttle cars around, aka the Hyperloop (before it became a closed-loop underground taxi service with no regard for fire safety).
The real danger is that life forms hitchhiking the first humans can totally overwhelm any existing life and completely condemn it.
Build a lab. Run it with things that we hope are good enough, but don't value enough to get home (back to earth) safely.
If we're really smart we can even use the whole thing to bootstrap a useful environment to get to and a far easier environment to get back from.
I mean very different robots from the rovers we've sent to date. Maybe not even more complex robots but definitely bigger (and smaller too) robots.
Their task not to survey with minimal disruption, but to actively disrupt. To build, to transform materials (lab), to create the base buildings and infrastructure of civilization. So there's somewhere with resources to better support humans.
IIRC you need 6 tonnes of food and oxygen just to keep them alive for the transit.
Has that ever been done for human consumption before? Relying on a novel technology in a setup where, if it breaks, everyone on board dies, seems rather dubious.
There were also experiments with "undifferentiated lettuce tissue", using C13-labeled acetate to investigate whether crop plants are able to properly feed off of acetate as their main food source, instead of photosynthesis-based small molecules.
What I'm suggesting is, roughly, to replace the base starch and maybe (some amount of) base fat in a diet (think a typical Asian diet's rice, or wheat in (historic) European bread+beer[0] diets), so that the overwhelming amount of calories won't need to be supplied in advance. Yeah, that'd likely involve feeding some algae or so with the e.g. synthesized acetate, due to yielding nicer nutrition molecules than e.g. simple glucose, which would be comparatively feasible to synthesize without having to use a bio reactor.
Worst case you'd have more sleep in place of productive work for energy conservation reasons, if you need to partially fall back on shipped food due to the food synthesis machines breaking. Recent space fairing history has shown that we can make machines very reliable, especially if they're pretty self-contained, not exposed to/operated in vacuum, and straight-forward to test on earth and in low earth orbit. The ISS crew is just too small to warrant as much of a kitchen facility as needed for incorporating something like "algae-based rice-substitute" or "mushrooms" into their meals, but if Starship works well enough to deploy an unmanned algae production machine for a few months (with solar panels and thermal radiators), before transferring the produce to the ISS to test zero-G food preparation...
[0]: that beer was really low %ABV, and more comparable to eating bread with 1:1 watered-down beer to wash it down.
That’s a weird thing to list as a criticism, the centre core ends up going way higher and faster than a normal booster, they know recovering it is a stretch. One did landed successfully, but was lost on the way to shore due to rough seas. On most flights they expend the core to get additional performance, doing so doubles GTO delivery capacity.
As for ‘delayed for years’ that’s relative to knowingly highly aggressive target timelines. Compared to space industry standards they were still completed at break neck speeds.
Both these criticisms are just attempts to use skewed optics to turn what are actually some of SpaceX’s bigest successes into apparent failures. SpaceX shoots and hits much higher than anyone else. The fact that they aim even higher than that is no sign of failure.
Shotwell is great, but so are lots of other people that work for SpaceX.
They were once 7 people in a room. If Musk was new CEO that just came in 2 years ago of course he wouldn't get much credit.
But Musk has been leading SpaceX for literally 20+ years. So to just say he has nothing to do with it is stupid, and every single person that worked there and left tells a different story. The same for journalists and other who interact with SpaceX.
If anything people are continually surprised how involved Musk is, when anti-Musk people always stress how he is an absent boss. But then you hear about 5h meetings where Musk and engineering team sit together and go into minute detail and Musk makes decisions in those meetings.
Its really only people from outside who dislike Musk that push this story.
So yes, Shotwell was great. He increased her responsibility over time. And Musk reward that by promoting her. But so were other people that Musk recruited and put into positions, Hans Königsman, Tom Muller, Jim Buzza and so on. But dispite many of them leaving the overall organisation still continues to do well.
So at some point, leadership is something that matters.
> every single person that worked there and left tells a different story.
Is just not true. It's okay if that's your experience talking to people that have worked there, but I have also talked to people working there. As much as you chastise people who dislike Musk, these kinds of absolute statements come from people that seem compelled to leap to his defense.
Besides, I believe their landing method is to catch the booster with the mechazilla which should be quite a show.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9eoubnO-pE&ab_channel=Space...
Yeah, well they're trying but the FAA isn't letting them launch. It's possible the one they want to launch will make orbit, or maybe it will be the next one etc.. The point is it will never achieve anything if it keeps getting delayed by the FAA.
If Elon didn't want things to be delayed so bad by the FAA maybe he shouldn't have launched on 4/20 for the lulz without adequate launch site infrastructure for such a launch.
The FAA shouldn't let them launch until SpaceX has proven they've done the work and have done their best to mitigate these issues going forward - both the actual consequences and the decision processes that led to them. From what I remember the FAA basically rubber stamped SpaceX's incident report (or whatever it was called) that the Internet reported as being from the FAA itself.
As for the not adequate launch site infrastructure that had 0 to do with the date, they built the pad long before launch, expecting the fondag to handle the heat/pressure and it didn't work, they didn't suddenly build a pad throw it together and say we're launching cause 4/20 because LOL.
It's incredible that we live in a world where a statement like this has at least some veracity.
I was following starship from the time when was still called ITS or BFR.
I have great news for you, they have already done that!
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700789411279966339 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltnwVMcYgw
Forgive me if I'm not going to click on a Twitter link, but the YouTube video only covers site infrastructure. I see no evidence that Elon won't Elon again. 4/20 blaze it.