1,732 karma · joined February 3, 2019
I find it very similar to operating an airplane with a reliable autopilot. The GFC-700 is super good at what it does. But it is still on me to monitor what it is doing, while at the same time significantly reducing my workload.
The driver can at any time. And they do if it seems like it is going to do something stupid - which is getting rarer and rarer as time goes on. As a Level 2 system, the driver is always supposed to supervise the operation and stay alert.
Musk has proven time and again that things his critics say are impossible/unrealistic ends up being achieved late. See anything from reusing rocket stages to the goals from Tesla's 2018 Compensation Plan[1] ("If Mr. Musk were somehow to increase the value of Tesla to $650 billion — a figure many experts would contend is laughably impossible and would make Tesla one of the five largest companies in the United States ...")
Or the Arianespace guy saying SpaceX is "selling a dream". To quote: "I think a $5 million launch or a $15 million launch is a bit of a dream. Personally, I think reusability is a dream."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/business/dealbook/tesla-e...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/some-european-launch-o...
In the page:
"If FSD (Supervised) was active at any point within five seconds leading up to a collision event, Tesla considers the collision to have occurred with FSD (Supervised) engaged for purposes of calculating collision rates for the Vehicle Safety Report."
They are pretty open about how the stats are reported.
As of the last year or so, I don't even have to touch the steering wheel anymore!
Torque Rods can be used to desaturate wheels without needing any propellant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetorquer
This is widely used in smaller satellites operating in Earth orbit.
However, this doesn't mean that TFA isn't BS.
Shirt shells? Tree stump solids? Knot rods?
I have no idea what any of those mean.
A 3kWh system (assuming that's the annual production), is minuscule.
There's plenty of satellites, rockets, re-entry vehicles whose guidance and control code were designed and written using MATLAB/Simulink and then "autocoded" to C using "MATLAB Coder".
While not my preferred way of doing things, it is popular for this purpose throughout the aerospace industry.
This guy has zero credibility.
At this point I thought that the app didn't exist for newer versions of Android.
It turned out that it was the second result, just above the "sponsored" one. It looked so much like a part of the first result that I just skipped over it.
Okay. And if the total sales of a market = 1000 and Tesla has 10% share then it has 100 in revenue. That's how percentages work.
Losing market share as a percentage is expected in a growing market as new players enter.
The technology developed for doing such a difficult task will inevitably benefit all of humanity. It did so for Apollo. It will again in the future.
https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...
No. We did it by throwing away ~98% of the vehicle on the way there.
> How come we need one now?
Because building a new gargantuan tower and tossing that majority of it into the ocean/deep space every time we need to go the moon is not sustainable.
> We're really seeing 15 starship launches per moon trip as reasonable, rather than just building a single trip program
Yes. Because again. The alternative (dictated by physics) is that we expend the whole thing.
If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely.
They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yesterday.
You can do that when you have $1b/flight to spend on refurbishing.
We are - at least in terms of model fidelity. There's limitations to how much CFD/simulations you can do. That kind of data (+other sensors) is used to refine models - thermal, aerodynamics, structures. Especially with starship, they are able to stream out live-video and data so that they get it even if the vehicle breaks up. Controlled hypersonic flight of such structures has been done very few times. There's stuff that can be learned from previous vehicles like the Space Shuttle but there are a lot of things that are very different - different control surfaces, flight profiles, thermal management etc.