Hacker News Reader

Comment by chris_mahan | Hacker News Reader

Musk isn't some random dude. Between SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, he probably knows a thing or two about putting large things in the air and electric batteries.

He's also said he would ultimately like to make electric airplanes, so this is probably not the first day he's thought about it.

View on HN

" Musk isn't some random dude. Between SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, he probably knows a thing or two about putting large things in the air and electric batteries."

No doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing engineers know a thing or two or three or four about putting large things in the air and electric batteries, but this is a specific and unfortunate problem. Inviting a few twitting strangers (competitors too) out of the blue, unless they have a specific tip, maybe isn't the way to go. If Elon knew the problem, he'd get 100 times better press by telling them.

The battery in question wasn't built by Boeing but was outsourced to GS Yuasa Corp in Japan.

Yuasa stated today it would "take months" to fully investigate the battery fire.

Small correction: Boeing outsourced the power design to Thales, and they chose Yuasa as the battery provider. So there are 3 companies involved in the investigation so far.

http://www.gsyuasa-lp.com/content/thales-selects-gs-yuasa-li...

That reminded me the explanation of why Space X could reduce the costs of making a rocket by fractions.

Elon said that the problem with NASA was that they had sub-contractors, that had sub-contractors ad. infinitum. So each one of these sub-contractors had to make a profit. SpaceX try to make everything in the building process.

NASA, Boeing, etc. optimize for a different cost structure than Space X. Space X wants to build cheap rockets, Boeing wants to build products that will be funded by governments. This means Boeing has subcontractors in various voting districts in the US (military contracts) or around the world (other government / commercial).

If some rule said Congress couldn't pick projects based on what districts got the work (good luck with that), then Boeing would change its model.

SpaceX is being funded by governments. Oh wait, no, hum, many of its customers are governments. How is that different than Boeing's space business?

The amount SpaceX is taking from government contracts is a small percentage of Boeing's business.

No, SpaceX wants to build cost-efficient rockets, that's completely different than cheap. But anyway, what you're saying is that Boeing want's to suck money from the government however it can, while SpaceX wants to actually build stuff? You are just confirming the comment you replied to.

I meant no insult with "cheap" and thought it positive.

The business model Boeing is operating under is different. You can disparage it, but it is a fact of live for any defense contractor or airplane manufacture in the last 50 years of the 1900's. Boeing wants to build stuff too, and its engineers are very good.

SpaceX didn't grow up under these conditions. It will be interesting if they have to change after a few trips to DC.

Yuasa stated today it would "take months" to fully investigate the battery fire.

And this is unsurprising. In aviation, you don't just push a fix and deploy.

I somehow doubt they're going to keep the 787's on the ground for months. It all comes down to money.

Evidently something went wrong with the batteries on the Boeing 787, so if those engineers were so good, how do you explain that there was a problem? The proof's in the pudding. Have you heard of Tesla batteries catching on fire? Me neither. (GM's Volt, however, is another story.)

http://www.teslamotors.com/it_IT/forum/forums/electric-car-b...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/07/tesla_roadster_recal...

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/tesla-recalling-4...

http://blog.timesunion.com/hottopics/100k-electric-vehicle-b...

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/fisker-karma-evs-caug...

http://www.leftlanenews.com/16-fisker-karmas-catch-fire-at-p...

http://priuschat.com/threads/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-...

What were you saying?

Wait, you put links for fisker-karma in there...

Yes, there was a recall, and Tesla recalled all their roadsters because there might have been a fire in a cable (not in the battery mind you), but none of the articles you pointed to showed that there was, ever, one Tesla battery system that caught fire.

I am ready to be disproved, but I'd need actual proof.

You think someone is going to waste time to find you "proof" especially in light of your previous comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5081667 ? I tell you what, using your logic, maybe those Tesla engineers can fix the battery but they'll f-up the cable and the plane will burn totally next time. Proof is in the pudding and all, no?

Ever build anything with a lot of parts? Things do go wrong.

Granted, things do go wrong, but Boeing is in a pinch. They were years behind on delivery of the 787, they now have 45 787s grounded, they can't make new deliveries to customers, and that means their supply chain is getting all jacked. I think they should look long and hard at all their options.

As far as proving me wrong, perhaps it's because I did my research on Tesla too. And in the interest of disclosure, I own Tesla stock as well as Boeing stock.

Your criteria for being "proven wrong" are fairly narrow.

Tesla has clearly had quite their share of battery related difficulties, including the infamous bricking problems. They have domain knowledge, but let's not pretend they are in the same zip code - let alone ballpark - as Boeing.

This is a publicity grab by Elon.

Umm, I own Boeing stock, I have friends who work there, I have friends who have retired from there. I have a healthy respect for them, and I have bought Ford stock on the strength of Mullally's performance at Boeing. Since a bunch of NASA guys have gone to SpaceX and since Toyota and Daimler both work with Tesla (both are multi-billion dollar companies), I think the zip-code/ballpark analogy went too far. The company is younger and smaller, granted, but I wouldn't put it past them to put a serious dent in Boeing's businesses.

And, about the criteria being narrow: yes, of course it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com