3 ms·

I would understand his estimate as that he thinks they have the capability to send humans to space with Starship next year. The actual flights might come later,

by _ph_ 7y ago

I would understand his estimate as that he thinks they have the capability to send humans to space with Starship next year. The actual flights might come later, as for proper safety evaluation, tests and of course small enhancements to spaceship. Fundamentally, humans could have flown to ISS with the Dragon 1 capsule, but hopefully, the Dragon 2 flies manned next year. But as Elon said, progress with Starship should be faster, as they can fly the first human-rated one many times in a short time to demonstrate its safety. The space shuttle did 135 flights over its entire life-time. A single Starship could do that in a year, if needed.

hef19898 7y ago
So basically the narrative is "I could send humans to space with Spaceship, but I didn't yet. Take my word for it, as without flights we don't have any proof". Stuff like that is the main reason why I my opinion about Musk changed, his other attics and the way Tesla is managing safety relevant things are, as far as I am concerned, just further proof.
- zaroth 7y ago
  That’s really not the narrative at all. Elon said several times, these are not official estimates. He said “this is just stream of consciousness”. He was giving you literally the picture in his head of what could theoretically be possible if everything came together perfectly. Then people go and quote just the last sentence which was ...[so that could mean there’s at least a chance we might even see] humans in orbit on Mk4”, take the last part out of context, and run wild with it. It’s like the “1 million robotaxis” comment. What Elon was actually trying to explain in that moment is that the day the software is ready, they push it to the fleet and every Tesla with AP3 can immediately be a robotaxi. The point is to convey the enormity of the architecture that’s been built and what it enables if the software can be made to work. I think the way Tesla is managing safety relevant things is the way forward for automobile safety which can save 30,000 lives a year, and not to mention countless maimings, injuries, and hundreds of billions in property damage. Roads are dangerous and lethal for humans, and IMO Tesla will be the company which makes them orders of magnitude less so.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Your comment kind of confirmed what I wanted to point out, even if you don't see it the same way. E.g. the robot taxis, this statement is what I would a start up to say to raise money from VCs. In that case it would be fine, for a public company that had financial troubles at the time the statement was made not so much. For me that was all about saving the narrative around Tesla. SpaceX space-born internet thing is, at least for me the same thing. It is a way to raise enough money to get enough launches in-house to make reusable rockets financially viable. Again, no idea when and if it is actually feasible. And because he is who he is it works. And now the same with Spaceship while the manned Dragon-2 still didn't have a single manned flight. In both sectors, aerospace and automotive, you simply cannot ignore existing regulations. Regardless if they are stupid or not. If you try look no further than the 737MAX to see what you get. Regardless of feasibility and everything else concerning Tesla, Musk and SpaceX all this is at least a risky way to do business.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  No, the narrative is, that he expects the technical ability to send humans to space with the Starship next year. It should be obvious, that this is a best-case szenario, especially as there are non-technical considerations in play, when actually flying with humans.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    So it might be technically possible but not practically feasible because you have to ignore all the non-trivial non-technical aspects. Well, apparently some people get away with it. Curious thing is that while the pro-faction of these arguments accepts all this and the other side doesn't. And everyone is calling the others out for it.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      No, its about these things being independant. It is one thing to solve all technical problems, the other all legal procedings. They are only very loosely coupled. So they should be considered independantly, especially if Musk has control about the technical aspects, but much less so about the legal proceedings which might come up.

by _ph_ 7y ago

hef19898 7y ago

So basically the narrative is "I could send humans to space with Spaceship, but I didn't yet. Take my word for it, as without flights we don't have any proof". Stuff like that is the main reason why I my opinion about Musk changed, his other attics and the way Tesla is managing safety relevant things are, as far as I am concerned, just further proof.

zaroth 7y ago
That’s really not the narrative at all. Elon said several times, these are not official estimates. He said “this is just stream of consciousness”. He was giving you literally the picture in his head of what could theoretically be possible if everything came together perfectly. Then people go and quote just the last sentence which was ...[so that could mean there’s at least a chance we might even see] humans in orbit on Mk4”, take the last part out of context, and run wild with it. It’s like the “1 million robotaxis” comment. What Elon was actually trying to explain in that moment is that the day the software is ready, they push it to the fleet and every Tesla with AP3 can immediately be a robotaxi. The point is to convey the enormity of the architecture that’s been built and what it enables if the software can be made to work. I think the way Tesla is managing safety relevant things is the way forward for automobile safety which can save 30,000 lives a year, and not to mention countless maimings, injuries, and hundreds of billions in property damage. Roads are dangerous and lethal for humans, and IMO Tesla will be the company which makes them orders of magnitude less so.
- hef19898 7y ago
  Your comment kind of confirmed what I wanted to point out, even if you don't see it the same way. E.g. the robot taxis, this statement is what I would a start up to say to raise money from VCs. In that case it would be fine, for a public company that had financial troubles at the time the statement was made not so much. For me that was all about saving the narrative around Tesla. SpaceX space-born internet thing is, at least for me the same thing. It is a way to raise enough money to get enough launches in-house to make reusable rockets financially viable. Again, no idea when and if it is actually feasible. And because he is who he is it works. And now the same with Spaceship while the manned Dragon-2 still didn't have a single manned flight. In both sectors, aerospace and automotive, you simply cannot ignore existing regulations. Regardless if they are stupid or not. If you try look no further than the 737MAX to see what you get. Regardless of feasibility and everything else concerning Tesla, Musk and SpaceX all this is at least a risky way to do business.
_ph_ 7y ago
No, the narrative is, that he expects the technical ability to send humans to space with the Starship next year. It should be obvious, that this is a best-case szenario, especially as there are non-technical considerations in play, when actually flying with humans.
- hef19898 7y ago
  So it might be technically possible but not practically feasible because you have to ignore all the non-trivial non-technical aspects. Well, apparently some people get away with it. Curious thing is that while the pro-faction of these arguments accepts all this and the other side doesn't. And everyone is calling the others out for it.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    No, its about these things being independant. It is one thing to solve all technical problems, the other all legal procedings. They are only very loosely coupled. So they should be considered independantly, especially if Musk has control about the technical aspects, but much less so about the legal proceedings which might come up.