D) Invent a time machine and qualify two different battery types, as they should have done in the first place. Everything else will keep the 787 on the ground for a very long time, I'm afraid.
E) Replace with proven technologies (NiCd or AGM) which weigh more and accept a small hit on fuel efficiency until the lithium problems are sorted out.
Trouble is, any such change, even to a "proven" technology, will trigger an avalanche of red tape from the FAA. They don't issue slipstream patches in that business.
This is a very smart move by Musk from a PR point of view. By accusing Boeing's batteries of being fundamentally unsafe, he garners the maximum amount of trust from people who are concerned about battery safety, so that, when he immediately follows up with an explanation of why this couldn't happen on a Tesla, those very people are already leaning towards believing him. This goes over much better than attempting to d…
I think he probably saw it as a defensive move: He doesn't want li-ion technology to get a bad name, and that doesn't mean only explaining why Tesla's approach is safe, but also trying to help others avoid mistakes that could hurt the whole industry including his company.
While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…
So you're saying Elon Musk shouldn't have said this? Then how do you explain this?
From a complete position of ignorance, I have never felt comfortable with these batteries in aeroplanes. On of my wastes of time is RC modelling. These batteries have been used now for quite some time for power. What we RC people know is that while these batteries have great performance, it very easy to make one blow up if not handled correctly. Enough burned out sheds can testify to this. So, even if the engineers s…
I think people have exaggerated feelings of insecurity about planes versus cars. Maybe it's because heavier-than-air flight just doesn't jive mentally, or maybe it's because you have very little personal control when flying. Either way, you carry these batteries on your person, in your coat pocket, in a bag, leave them in your study downstairs, hell, drive around in a big box made of them. Fisker Karmas were in the nasty habit of bursting into flames, but that was viewed as a one-off design flaw, not a crushing blow to 'batteries in cars' as a concept. I think the collective anxiety we feel towards planes, as a culture, shapes our views of these incidents too much. If your car was on fire on the highway you may not have handled it as well as the pilot in this scenario.
it makes strategic sense to taint your competitor, if there is no repercussion for doing so, but lots of advantages.
Boeing is not a competitor. If there is any strategy behind this move it is to make the public think it is just Boeing's batteries which are at fault and not lithium batteries in general.
United Launch Alliance competes directly with SpaceX. ULA comprises Lockheed and Boeing.
So what's the motivation for using these batteries in the 787 anyway? Can they just switch to whatever they've used before?
Quick, get ahold of the engineers at Boeing! Tell them to switch to whatever they used on their older planes! Surely they haven't considered that idea yet! Have you ever been in a situation where a manager proposes a technical solution that everyone else has already dismissed as preposterous? Now you know how it feels to be on the other side of that. With that mockery out of the way, I'll give my understanding of the…
You certainly do live up to your name there, Parsley.
While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…
Respect? What respect is due to a design that puts people's lives in danger? Yes, respect the engineers, and make sure to criticize the design and not the engineer, but please criticize the ever loving fuck out of the design. This isn't about corporate pride here. This is about lives. My life. Your life. Your family's lives. Everyone who flies in a plane is potentially endangered by faulty aircraft designs. So please…
What respect is due to a design that puts people's lives in danger?
Competent, well-meaning people are due the benefit of the doubt. Also, your logic assumes what is in debate, ie you're using circular logic.
While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…
I have seen the same wing bending test for the A380 at the Airbus factory in Chester. It is jaw-dropping.
The engineers have to climb into the wing to fit rivets and electrical wires. Sometimes it takes 20 minutes to crawl to the spot they want. Since they take a portable lamp with them, a popular prank was to switch someone's light off when they were well inside the wing.
Another anecdote from the Airbus engineer was Boeing had to cut a 747 wing apart because their engineer got stuck in there working on a wing. Can't verify this claim though.
While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…
Boeing batteries are overheating. Tesla batteries are not overheating. There are sufficiently similar requirements on their performance and safety that any layman can conclude there is something wrong with Boeings design.
The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns.
The problem here is that you think that is what is being alleged. It isn't: an enormous and old company like Boeing can have an entrenched culture that leads to decisions being made that do not follow the advice of the engineers. What makes Tesla and SpaceX competitive is not their technical knowledge: it's the fact that they can use that knowledge effectively.
NASA's engineers aren't clowns either, yet their shuttles exploded, unnecessarily. The Feynman committee tore their procedures, not their engineering ability, to shreds.