Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starship Update [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#131

Post by mlindner »

Waterluvian wrote: post #44
kortex wrote: post #34

I love how some folks are like "Elon isn't a real engineer !" and then he starts going on a tangent in the middle of a presser about how flanges are a PITA to seal once you exceed a few hundred bar (just over a few thousand PSI), and how welding improves the plumbing significantly. Like, what!? That's not how C-suite bigwigs talk. That's primo enginerd banter.

I have no opinion to express on Elon but I will say that I’ve heard non-technical managers lap up stuff like that in meetings with the engineers and then regurgitate it elsewhere. If I had to guess his technical competence is somewhere in the middle of the distribution of opinions on the matter. I’m sure he’s fine.

I've never heard a manager be able to talk like this. https://youtu.be/da3iF2Np51A?t=944

Have you had an experience like that?

Re: Starship Update [video]

#132

Post by mlindner »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #70
kortex wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but if you ever listen to his longer interviews, in particular those with Tim Dodd (Everyday Astronaut), it's very clear he has a deep understanding of rocket mechanics, production, logistics, launch pad development, etc. It's well beyond manager-just-regurgitating-stuff they hear. One interview he stops briefly and gets into some nitty gritty about hold-downs on the starship pad or something.

He also has a deep understanding of how important government assistance was to getting SpaceX where it is now but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same. He shows a lack of rational thought in regards too SpaceX that is sometimes rather worrying. Take, for example, the time he smoked a blunt on camera which isn't exactly what one of his largest customers likes to see in their…

> He also has a deep understanding of how important government assistance was to getting SpaceX where it is now but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same.

That is false. The only companies he has objected to are ULA which was getting a 1 billion dollar a year retainer (effectively a subsidy) from the US government, which is rightfully bad, and Blue Origin which basically wanted NASA to bankroll it's entire development program with little of their own money spent. SpaceX spends a lot of it's own money on things and then is thankful for the little bit on top that NASA has provided to them for portions of development. In no case that I can remember has SpaceX investment on a project been less than 50%, and it is often 100% but with a guaranteed government customer.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#133

Post by belter »

Retric wrote: post #113
belter wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A legal theory that might be challenged soon. We will see what comes out of this case: "Two people killed in fiery Tesla crash with no one driving" https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/18/22390612/two-people-kille...

The car wasn’t empty, it’s just nobody was in the drivers seat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L18Jhi84wT8 Aka people did dumb thing in car, and then died. But again even if they are held either 100% responsible or say 50% the payouts on such lawsuits don’t amount to that much.

That is called the Ford Pinto theory...

"Ford Pinto" https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-do...

"...Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years.

What explains Ford’s decision? The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements ranged from only $5 to $8 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design...

How exactly did Ford reach that conclusion? We don’t know for sure, but an internal report, “Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires,” reveals the cost-benefit reasoning that the company used in cases like this. This report was not written with the pinto in mind; rather, it concerns fuel leakage in rollover accidents (not rear-end collisions), and its computations applied to all Ford vehicles, not just the Pinto. Nevertheless, it illustrates the type of reasoning that was probably used in the Pinto case.

In the “Fatalities” report, Ford engineers estimated the cost of technical improvements that would prevent gas tanks from leaking in rollover accidents to be $11 per vehicle. The authors go on to discuss various estimates of the number of people killed by fires from car rollovers before settling on the relatively low figure of 180 deaths per year. But given that number, how can the value of those individuals’ lives be gauged?..."

Re: Starship Update [video]

#134

Post by mlindner »

CharlesW wrote: post #119
panick21_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that hasn't stopped him from trying to stop others from benefiting from the same. That's complete nonsense. Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies. Musk has been supportive of other space companies. SpaceX busted open the establishment in both DoD and NASA so the contracts are fairly competent, and everybody coming in the industry benefits from that. SpaceX just recently lost a contr…

> Unlike others SpaceX has never really attack other space companies. I mean, Musk hasn't called Bezos a pedo (yet), but you haven't been paying attention if you believe that. https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-mocks-jeff-bezos-aft...

This was a case where Bezos wanted NASA to fund it's entire development program from scratch at a cost much higher than NASA ever funded SpaceX's development program. See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30297198

Re: Starship Update [video]

#135

Post by mlindner »

anonporridge wrote: post #50
Waterluvian wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no opinion to express on Elon but I will say that I’ve heard non-technical managers lap up stuff like that in meetings with the engineers and then regurgitate it elsewhere. If I had to guess his technical competence is somewhere in the middle of the distribution of opinions on the matter. I’m sure he’s fine.

Certainly plausible, though I've seen enough interviews with him talking to other engineers where he can pro-actively engage in a freeflowing conversation to believe that it's far more than mere regurgitation.

This one is a favorite: https://youtu.be/da3iF2Np51A?t=944

Re: Starship Update [video]

#136

Post by mlindner »

jowday wrote: post #73
Waterluvian wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no opinion to express on Elon but I will say that I’ve heard non-technical managers lap up stuff like that in meetings with the engineers and then regurgitate it elsewhere. If I had to guess his technical competence is somewhere in the middle of the distribution of opinions on the matter. I’m sure he’s fine.

This is definitely the sense I get when I hear him discuss ML.

I feel like he has a much worse understanding of ML than other subjects. He's not nearly as mathematically inclined as he is engineering inclined and ML is heavy on math.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#137

Post by mlindner »

belter wrote: post #38
kortex wrote: post #34

I love how some folks are like "Elon isn't a real engineer !" and then he starts going on a tangent in the middle of a presser about how flanges are a PITA to seal once you exceed a few hundred bar (just over a few thousand PSI), and how welding improves the plumbing significantly. Like, what!? That's not how C-suite bigwigs talk. That's primo enginerd banter.

Which one of these personalities is he, when making statements about Tesla FSD? Edit: The answer to this question will be highly relevant during the lawsuits that will follow, the first time the Beta FSD kills somebody.

As someone who has been following him for a long time and as someone who likes him a lot, I feel his understanding of ML and technologies related to FSD to be the worst of his knowledge. He fails to answer interesting technical questions when they are posed to him by audiences in the past. His lack of understanding of ML and FSD make me highly doubt that Tesla will ever achieve it. I still like Tesla and they have revolutionized an industry, but they need to completely end the FSD program and move on with mass production of cool vehicles. It's a boondoggle.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#138

Post by mlindner »

irrational wrote: post #6

This is the first time I’ve ever heard him speak. Is he always this awkward? Based off of the 5 minutes I watched, he clearly hasn’t gotten to where he is through charisma and public speaking skills. I’m just wondering if this is typical for him. Also, a million tons to Mars? If each starship lifts 100 tons, that is 10,000 launches. I think he said launch windows only come around every 2 years. He is either planning…

I've been watching his speeches for over 10 years now. He's always this awkward when trying to speak on non-technical topics.

Here's an alternative though where he can talk intelligently and clearly about a subject: https://youtu.be/da3iF2Np51A?t=944

Re: Starship Update [video]

#139

Post by mlindner »

flyt wrote: post #37
pageandrew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if someone is struggling to survive, that will limit their ability to become a world-changing entrepreneur. That said, the average westerner is not struggling to survive, and the average westerner does not end up founding 3 world changing companies and amassing a wealth of $200 billion. Not even the average birthright 1%er achieves that.

Oh, but they are. The average westerner (in the US, at least) is a $400 unexpected bill away from bankruptcy. Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla.

> Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla.

Musk was a co-founder. He joined the company as effectively employee 4. He became chairman of the board after employee 3 (including the two original co-founders) and was the primary designer of the Roadster from that early point. He basically bankrolled the entire original set of funding (around 90% of it).

Re: Starship Update [video]

#140

Post by senectus1 »

bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #116
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass to orbit gives you lots of options: Starlink completed, more telescopes like James Webb but cheaper, a moon base, radio telescope on the far side of the moon, orbital rotational space stations (for G forces), missions to asteroids, Mars, outer planets, are just a few things. Point to point transport on Earth, halfway around the world in less than an hour.

Space mining.

for building in space.
Post reply on HN