4 ms·
I would imagine because the hardware itself is borderline useless. There's likely significant integration work and they want to understand how much help you're
by tw04 6y ago
I would imagine because the hardware itself is borderline useless. There's likely significant integration work and they want to understand how much help you're going to need to integrate it.
Tesla buying the hardware probably just wants a schematic and a part. GM probably wants a crew of 100 engineers to help put it into a car and support it for the duration.
- colechristensen 6y agoIntegrating a satellite on to a launch vehicle on average is, it is fair to say, more than half the work of your entire mission, whatever it may be. Far more work than integrating a lidar sensor into your product. Source: working with both lidar systems and designing a satellite system for launch in university days.
- tw04 6y agoHow many decades of support do you require from Space-x after the satellite is launched? How many ntsb recalls have resulted from a rocket sensor failure in a satellite launch that wasn’t detected for a decade after initial production? I think you're short changing the differenc e in long term support an automotive MFG needs in comparison to a one time launch
- akiselev 6y agoForget support - just getting a chassis even tested costs an order of magnitude more. For the price of a single five year model refresh and accompanying crash testing, NASA would be able to buy at least a dozen SpaceX launch vehicles or three to five full missions once you include overhead. The average car company will do at least half a dozen of these refreshes every five years like clockwork and you can bet a chassis optimized for LIDAR will have to do the full suite of tests.