Are you gonna get an electric car anytime soon? (Or do you already have one?)

[Marcel Birgelen]

Sometimes, "just because it's cool", should be enough motivation to do something. But I agree that I don't really see much promise in sending people to Mars. If we eventually want to leave this planet, then it may be worthwhile at starting to explore possibilities to do so. But I'd start by building a permanent outpost on the moon first. Although we seem to have sufficient struggles to get back to the moon, we at least have proven before that we know how to get people up there... Also, if something goes wrong, it's good to know that we could reach that place within weeks or maybe even days and not only in a few years.

I'm sure investors have bought Tesla due to Musk's hype but I guess that legally his "promises" are actually "plans" otherwise the SEC would charge him with violations of all kinds of regulations.

Let us be very clear here that he has promised stuff like "cars driving itself from coast to coast" and stuff like the fully autonomous RoboTaxi feature as an "over-the-air-upgrade" in very public events, like public interviews on televisions and specially organized Tesla events.

And I do see a clear connection between Holmes and Musk here. They both over-promised and under-delivered, to a criminal level:

Theranos released a blood-test they knew was flawed, as a result of that, people got hurt, some people may even have died.
Tesla released many FSD releases they knew were flawed, they publicly over-promised the capabilities, it's almost certain, people died as a result of this.

As for the SEC taking action: Remember how long it took before the SEC took action regarding to Theranos or what about Madoff? Also, there are now a sufficient number of entities so deeply invested into Tesla, it's become a Ponzi scheme, almost too big to fail. The stock has already halved from its peak, but if it would crash to zilch, it would send off quite a shockwave. That's the main reason Tesla isn't likely to see the same fate as Nikola.

But things are getting ugly slowly but steadily... The amount of lawsuits, among them a number of class action suits are starting to pile up.

I also don't believe his time frame to get humans to Mars was ever that short. Recently he said he thinks it can happen within 20 years.

Musk has promised before he'd put a human on Mars before 2021 back in 2011. In 2016, he claimed we'll have the first human on Mars before 2025. We have "tapes" and they're no deep-fakes. This infamous guy deconstructs the whole concept behind Starship pretty efficiently. Is that guy a self-righteous, arrogant prick? Yes! But is he right? Let me say, it's hard to prove him wrong, despite being the arrogant prick he is...

Look, I could easily ignore Musk's otherwise idiotic antics if what he was doing was truly groundbreaking, but his actual business track record almost makes Donald Trump's business record look good. While he may have proven that mass-producing EVs based on lithium batteries is technically possible, the feasibility of those vehicles replacing current ICE models still hasn't been proven. Until then, those vehicles remain expensive toys for the happy few that can afford them.

While some may look in awe what he achieved with SpaceX, in reality, most if not all of what was achieved, had been achieved by NASA and other space agencies years before. Most of the technology was given to them and it isn't as if he did it cheaper than any of them. SpaceX has already burned $2 billion of public funds on Starship alone. And while Starlink may sound like a cool idea, nobody has found a way to make it profitable yet and the only way to keep it running is via public money backdoors, as in the U.S. military...

[Lyle Romer]

Sometimes, "just because it's cool", should be enough motivation to do something. But I agree that I don't really see much promise in sending people to Mars. If we eventually want to leave this planet, then it may be worthwhile at starting to explore possibilities to do so. But I'd start by building a permanent outpost on the moon first. Although we seem to have sufficient struggles to get back to the moon, we at least have proven before that we know how to get people up there... Also, if something goes wrong, it's good to know that we could reach that place within weeks or maybe even days and not only in a few years.



Let us be very clear here that he has promised stuff like "cars driving itself from coast to coast" and stuff like the fully autonomous RoboTaxi feature as an "over-the-air-upgrade" in very public events, like public interviews on televisions and specially organized Tesla events.

And I do see a clear connection between Holmes and Musk here. They both over-promised and under-delivered, to a criminal level:

Theranos released a blood-test they knew was flawed, as a result of that, people got hurt, some people may even have died.
Tesla released many FSD releases they knew were flawed, they publicly over-promised the capabilities, it's almost certain, people died as a result of this.

As for the SEC taking action: Remember how long it took before the SEC took action regarding to Theranos or what about Madoff? Also, there are now a sufficient number of entities so deeply invested into Tesla, it's become a Ponzi scheme, almost too big to fail. The stock has already halved from its peak, but if it would crash to zilch, it would send off quite a shockwave. That's the main reason Tesla isn't likely to see the same fate as Nikola.

But things are getting ugly slowly but steadily... The amount of lawsuits, among them a number of class action suits are starting to pile up.




Musk has promised before he'd put a human on Mars before 2021 back in 2011. In 2016, he claimed we'll have the first human on Mars before 2025. We have "tapes" and they're no deep-fakes. This infamous guy deconstructs the whole concept behind Starship pretty efficiently. Is that guy a self-righteous, arrogant prick? Yes! But is he right? Let me say, it's hard to prove him wrong, despite being the arrogant prick he is...

Look, I could easily ignore Musk's otherwise idiotic antics if what he was doing was truly groundbreaking, but his actual business track record almost makes Donald Trump's business record look good. While he may have proven that mass-producing EVs based on lithium batteries is technically possible, the feasibility of those vehicles replacing current ICE models still hasn't been proven. Until then, those vehicles remain expensive toys for the happy few that can afford them.

While some may look in awe what he achieved with SpaceX, in reality, most if not all of what was achieved, had been achieved by NASA and other space agencies years before. Most of the technology was given to them and it isn't as if he did it cheaper than any of them. SpaceX has already burned $2 billion of public funds on Starship alone. And while Starlink may sound like a cool idea, nobody has found a way to make it profitable yet and the only way to keep it running is via public money backdoors, as in the U.S. military...

I'll watch that video when I have time. In my opinion, what separates Musk from Holmes is that she was lying and telling investors and customers that the mini lab thing was performing tests successfully and it was demonstrably NOT able to do what she said it was doing. In Musk's case, he is "predicting" what WILL be able to be done and implying that the currently released software is more groundbreaking and capable than it is with boisterous statements.

What Musk did with Tesla is similar to what Steve Jobs did with Apple. They both created a product that lots of other companies could have created but marketed it in a way that it build a cult following. I'm not a member of said cult (for either Apple or Tesla) and wouldn't buy an EV anytime soon, no matter who manufactures it.

Edit: As for Starlink, it's basically a lower orbit Iridium on steroids. Iridium couldn't make money without government contracts and I fail to see how Starlink can either. At least in the US, many rural areas are getting access to fiber internet service. I just don't see how there are enough potential customers to support a constellation of thousands of satellites. It is very cool from an engineering perspective.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Regarding Starlink: Iridium failed to make a sub-100 satellite LEO constellation profitable for cellphone service, this back in a world where cell-phone reception was far spottier than it is today. The only reason Iridium survives is because the U.S. Department of Defense pays them hundreds of millions of dollars annually for communication services. At one time, the constellation was even operated by that same department, because it was considered critical infrastructure. Globalstar, another LEO satellite operator, also never managed to become a successful company. Teledesic, a LEO constellation based on ±250 satellites and focussed on delivering high-speed internet much like Starlink, backed by the likes of Bill Gates, never made it to orbit.

Meanwhile, StarLink now operates roughly 6k satellites, many of them still generation 1 satellites that can only operate in U-bend mode and don't have inter-satellite links. Eventually, they claim to need 42k (!!!) satellites to complete the service around the globe. A satellite constellation can never deliver the density needed for high-speed bi-directional Internet access in highly urbanized areas, so the primary markets are those less densely populated areas, where far less people live. I simply don't see how you can afford to maintain such a constellation, with normal broadband consumer-level pricing. Musks only hope seems to be to get some big military contracts from some major governments to keep this thing afloat. Keep in mind that those satellites need to be replaced every 5-or-so years...

It's obvious why Musk needs Starship: It has a giant payload capacity on paper, but it doesn't extend well beyond LEO, which makes it worthless for Athemis (see the video), but great to put the lower earth orbit full of future space debris... The irony is that he managed to get NASA to pay for it, further proving that NASA is nowadays also ran by complete morons, only caring about their own political agenda.

As for Musk v.s. Jobs: I'm an Apple user for over 30 years now, but by no means an Apple fanboy, I don't really appreciate their walled garden, for example. But I use Apple, Windows, Linux, Android, whatever fits the bill. I also have been a Tesla customer, in the past. I try not to become a member of a fanboy cult, although I would never claim to be completely unbiased, nobody really is.

But to the defense of Apple: most of the stuff they've announced over the past two decades or so, has materialized in pretty much the way they've announced it. Even though I'm critical about the usability of stuff like the Apple Vision for example, it turned out pretty much like the demonstrations they gave more than a year ago. Especially the things that seemed hard to get right, like the "virtual air keyboard" actually work pretty well. It also was released within the announced time-frame. In this regard, Apple has gathered a pretty solid track-record over the years of delivering what was promised. Have there been issues? Certainly. And they also certainly deserve the criticism they got for those.

Back to Musk: Most if not all of Musks promises over the last decade or so, of which there have been plenty, have already failed (e.g. Hyperloop, SolarCity, Solar Roofs), are still vaporware (FSD, RoboTaxi, Tesla Semi, Roadster 2, Spaceship/BFR, Spaceship 2, Optimus), will never come to fruition (Replaceable battery packs, Inter-City Rocket Travel, Mars colonization), have massively under-delivered (Vegas Loop, Cybertruck) or were delivered years and years behind schedule (fill in any Musk related project you like). And most of the achievements that have come to fruition, have cost the taxpayers around the globe, but especially in the U.S. billions of dollars in subsidies.

If you turn back the clock 10 years, I would still give him the benefit of the doubt, but after more than 10 years of big talk and mostly failures, it's clear to me now that the emperor really has no clothes. I guess the positive aspect of all this is that we can expect the movie of how it all went up into a piling heap of flames in a few years.

In this case, I'd not compare Musk to e.g. your average politician, who usually makes vague claims nobody really can account for, so nobody can later claim they've been lying.. I'd rather compare him to the master of conmanship himself: Donald J. Trump. What they both have in common is that as soon as they open their mouth, what comes out is just gaslighting and make-belief. Even if it's easily provable to be lightyears away from reality, nobody really seems to care. They're both exceptional showmen and people just want to believe... The trouble starts once you let those kind people actually run things and hordes of cultish followers keep on believing in it, despite all the proof to the contrary... The churches of yesteryear now have been replaced by the likes of the Church of Apple and the Church of Musk... Really, I should've listened to L. Ron Hubbard: If you want to get rich, you start a religion.

Edit: Some gender-neutralization, just in case the karma-police is watching.

[Lyle Romer]

I finally got time to watch the video. While it certainly makes some valid points, the presenter also uses spin to make others. For instance, the failed engines on the first Starship test flight are presented as if the engines malfunctioned due to a design issue. The presenter has to know that the failures were due to the concrete that was under the rocket at the launch pad being blown apart and chunks of debris hitting several of the engines. Once they put a proper damping system on the launch pad, that problem ceased to exist.

In the part of the video where he is sarcastically showing Musk speaking gleefully about the video of the uncontrolled second stage, from my recollection of watching that presentation, this is being taken out of context. From what I remember, Musk was talking about Starlink being impressive and allowing the HD video to be transmitted in real time, not that it was awesome that something went wrong with the re-entry sequence.

When he talks about the comparison of cost per launch cost of Starship with Falcon 9, the presenter goes out of his way to say 1/30th the cost of a REUSABLE Falcon 9. However, with Falcon 9, only the first stage booster is reusable so you are comparing apples to a fruit salad. Then he talks about how many launches it would take to average the development cost down to that level. Musk's statement doesn't say that the cost he is projecting includes amortization of development cost. You can look at the cost per trip both ways but the presenter picks the way to analyze it in order to make Musk's prediction look outlandish.

Near the end he states that SpaceX will be bankrupt long before the human landing system is finished but provides nothing to back up that claim.

I'm not a rocket scientist so I have no educated opinion on whether the Starship architecture will or won't work. I can not be convinced that it won't based on the presentation of a youtube channel which appears to have a mission of criticize Elon Musk and tear him down. The channel has way too much bias for me to give a lot of credence to. I mean there is a video on there titled "Elon Musk: 3 Years to Bankruptcy" with "Tesla Dying" pasted over the thumbnail. For a company that had over $13 billion in profit last year, it is preposterous to imply that it is "dying" or that somehow Elon Musk will end up bankrupt in 3 years. Twitter or X or whatever he is calling it these days might end up bankrupt in 3 years but Musk doesn't really have all that much skin in the game since it the buyout was so leveraged.

Like him or hate him, Musk's MO is, and always has been, to come up with unrealistic deadlines for things as a way to achieve the objectives as soon as possible. If I'm doing something and set a "realistic" goal for completion, it will likely be set at a point further out in the calendar than I could have completed it by. If I set an unrealistic goal, I'm not going to be finished by then but I'll likely be finished before the "realistic" date.

I don't really get why Musk gets criticized for over promising more than most in his position. Should I make a youtube channel dedicated to wondering why my Amazon packages aren't delivered by drone or why I can't get on a Virgin Galactic flight yet?

[Randy Stankey]

The presenter has to know that the failures were due to the concrete that was under the rocket at the launch pad being blown apart and chunks of debris hitting several of the engines. Once they put a proper damping system on the launch pad, that problem ceased to exist.

Lack of a damping system isn't a design issue? It's a design issue in the launch pad, not the rocket but a design issue, it is. Since a rocket can't take off without a launch pad, I'd consider them as two parts of the same puzzle.

In the part of the video where he is sarcastically showing Musk speaking gleefully about the video of the uncontrolled second stage, from my recollection of watching that presentation, this is being taken out of context. From what I remember, Musk was talking about Starlink being impressive and allowing the HD video to be transmitted in real time, not that it was awesome that something went wrong with the re-entry sequence.

Elon has a tendency to test rockets by simply lighting the fuse then sticking his fingers in his ears and waiting for a big bang. Sure, there's always an element of risk in testing new designs but he's too public about it. He makes it too easy for people to misinterpret him.

I don't really get why Musk gets criticized for over promising more than most in his position.

A dancing man in a Spandex suit, pretending to be a robot?

https://youtu.be/TsNc4nEX3c4?si=qYqxNM1MLZMuLZ01

He just comes up with half-baked ideas then publicizes them as if they are real when the truth is that they're mostly just a lot of hot air.

Like Musk? Hate him? I don't really like OR hate him. I just think he's a big goof ball with more money than common sense.

[Lyle Romer]

Lack of a damping system isn't a design issue? It's a design issue in the launch pad, not the rocket but a design issue, it is. Since a rocket can't take off without a launch pad, I'd consider them as two parts of the same puzzle.

The water cooled steel plate was being designed already. Somebody miscalculated and thought the pad could handle the thrust for one launch.

Elon has a tendency to test rockets by simply lighting the fuse then sticking his fingers in his ears and waiting for a big bang. Sure, there's always an element of risk in testing new designs but he's too public about it. He makes it too easy for people to misinterpret him.

The iterative design was in the plans for Starship but the intention isn't to launch and see if it blows up or not. The third test flight went relatively well. The first stage did what it was supposed to do until the very end of the "landing" sequence (it was supposed to splash down into the ocean). The second stage got to orbital velocity and then obviously had some kind of control issue on reentry. It was not planned to actually put the second stage into orbit. The early failures of Falcon 1 were not planned that way. They were unexpected issues that were then root caused and fixed with design and profile changes.

Yes you are more likely to have a successful first flight if you exhaustively test every system for years before you try a launch but it will take longer to reach your operational rocket that way. I think it is wrong to characterize the SpaceX development method as if some lunatic just throws a bunch of stuff together to see if it blows up like a kid playing with model rockets.

A dancing man in a Spandex suit, pretending to be a robot?

https://youtu.be/TsNc4nEX3c4?si=qYqxNM1MLZMuLZ01

That was a presentation at a launch event for a project. The actual robot isn't dancing around like that but it is a real thing and can currently do a bunch of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCDqaXT7CVM&t=46s

He just comes up with half-baked ideas then publicizes them as if they are real when the truth is that they're mostly just a lot of hot air.

Like Musk? Hate him? I don't really like OR hate him. I just think he's a big goof ball with more money than common sense.

He's a showman and a salesman. Obviously some of his ideas have yet to come to fruition and possibly never will but his companies have accomplished a lot under his leadership. Even some of the things that Marcel listed as vaporware actually exist. I can buy a solar roof if I want to.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I finally got time to watch the video. While it certainly makes some valid points, the presenter also uses spin to make others. For instance, the failed engines on the first Starship test flight are presented as if the engines malfunctioned due to a design issue. The presenter has to know that the failures were due to the concrete that was under the rocket at the launch pad being blown apart and chunks of debris hitting several of the engines. Once they put a proper damping system on the launch pad, that problem ceased to exist.

The main problem isn't actually the point this Thunderf00t guy raises himself, but the issue this "Smarter Every Day" guy is raising: NASA doesn't even know how many launches of Starship they need to actually get ONE SINGLE mission to the moon, but it's probably about 28!! They only needed a SINGLE Saturn V rocket to get to the moon back in the late 1960s and with the current Starship design they would require 28, just to get all the fuel into orbit, to send a single lander to the moon and back. Don't you think there is a bit of a scalability problem there? Even if it would be technically achievable, are we really going to spend such a massive amount of resources just to prove what we've proven before with far simpler technology?

I'm not a rocket scientist so I have no educated opinion on whether the Starship architecture will or won't work. I can not be convinced that it won't based on the presentation of a youtube channel which appears to have a mission of criticize Elon Musk and tear him down.

My father is a former aerospace engineer that worked for the likes of Airbus, Boeing, DLR, ESA and NASA. He's been retired for quite a few years now and he may not be as bright as he once was, but he doesn't understand Atermis, stuff simply doesn't add up. Quote: While I'm happy to have witnessed when they sent the first people to the moon, I won't be around the next time they'll make it back.

The channel has way too much bias for me to give a lot of credence to. I mean there is a video on there titled "Elon Musk: 3 Years to Bankruptcy" with "Tesla Dying" pasted over the thumbnail. For a company that had over $13 billion in profit last year, it is preposterous to imply that it is "dying" or that somehow Elon Musk will end up bankrupt in 3 years. Twitter or X or whatever he is calling it these days might end up bankrupt in 3 years but Musk doesn't really have all that much skin in the game since it the buyout was so leveraged.

Yeah, the guy is a pretentious, attention-seeking ass-hat, he borrows some qualities from Elon Musk himself. I'm not a particular fan and his channel has become somewhat of an Elon Musk bashing channel. I liked some of his tear-downs of some wacky Kickstarter scams though and to give him credit were credit is due: His predictions have a tendency to become true. About 10 years ago, he pretty much predicted the fate of Hyperloop to the date... And yeah, his track-record at debunking those kickstarter scams has been pretty much flawless...

Like him or hate him, Musk's MO is, and always has been, to come up with unrealistic deadlines for things as a way to achieve the objectives as soon as possible. If I'm doing something and set a "realistic" goal for completion, it will likely be set at a point further out in the calendar than I could have completed it by. If I set an unrealistic goal, I'm not going to be finished by then but I'll likely be finished before the "realistic" date.

We probably learn more from failure than from succes. Most startups with some revolutionary idea eventually end nowhere. The problem is, Musk has been actively gaslighting, faking and misleading investors and potential buyers, not just overstating facts a bit here and there. You remember that Solar Roof demonstration on the set of Desperate Housewives in 2016? That turned out to be completely fake. None of the products demonstrated that day you can buy today, none of those products ever existed. Meanwhile, the competition caught up and you can buy actually solar roof shingles nowadays. That's exactly what Tesla does, their solar roof is made by Hanwah and based on their Q Cells product.

I don't really get why Musk gets criticized for over promising more than most in his position. Should I make a youtube channel dedicated to wondering why my Amazon packages aren't delivered by drone or why I can't get on a Virgin Galactic flight yet?

Because you can do this a few times, people will understand that you may have been too eager, but if you keep on doing this as a default, your credibility will simply reduce to zilch. That's why "nobody" believes your average politician anymore, yet, when Apple announces the next "big" thing, people listen.

But if you continue announcing vaporware after vaporware and if you then continue to seek the spotlight, people may actually start to dislike you, to such extend that your own image as a douchebag starts to be associated with the name of the companies you run. To me, it looks Musk managed to get to that stage and it's starting to hurt the companies he's associated with.

By the way: Maybe you should start that channel, if you look at the channel of our friend Thunderf00t, I'm pretty sure he's making quite a living from his YouTube channel.

[Randy Stankey]

Tesla has a bot that can shuffle its feet and make circles in an office while Boston Dynamics have robots that can do back flips on a parkour layout.

My point is not about what Elon does or says but the way he says and does. He claims that he will make robots in ten years when other companies already have product on the market, that you can buy TODAY which are decades ahead of anything that Elon can even fantasize about.

Take a look at Hyperloop. It was a research project, plain and simple. I'd have no problem with it if Elon said what it was. I'd have no problem if he even said, "This is my vision of the future..." I do have a problem when somebody says that they'll have commercial operations in 2020...2022...2029... and then the project folds and sells off its remaining assets leaving all those people looking for a job.

What about the Vegas Loop? Again, the promise was that it would be the future of transportation but the thing isn't even operational unless the Las Vegas Convention Center has an event. It's little more than a theme park ride...and a boring one, at that. (Get it? Boring? )

Oh, yeah! You can go to Disneyland and ride electric cars through a tunnel. They drive themselves, too. Tesla's cars have to be driven by a human driver. They promise to have self-driving cars in the future
Doesn't Tesla already have self-driving cars? You'd think that driving through a tunnel would be easy for them. It's a pre-planned route. You'd think that, by the way Elon talks, all they need to do is paint some lines on the ground for the cars to follow. Maybe some marker beacons/retro-reflectors on the walls and they'd be good to go.

Again, Elon promises in ten years what others are already doing better.

I understand creativity. I understand optimism. I understand looking to the future of things and wanting to improve the world but the guy's tendency to bluster makes him seem more like a modern day P.T. Barnum instead of a futuristic entrepreneur.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The solution for the Las Vegas Loop is simple: Put in a bunch of light rail and put a bunch of trams on it. Autonomous people-mover and tram systems have been around for decades. Of course, then it would just 've been an ordinary metro system. But hey, those thingws have been proven to work for over 100 years now.

While you can't buy a humanoid robot from Boston Dynamics yet, their "Spot" bot is pretty awesome. I've recently seen it in action, the system works. While it's not an entirely autonomous system, the way it stabilizes itself on rough terrain is pretty spectacular.

The latest V2.0 update offers pretty amazing autonomy options, like patrol and some automated tasks. It will also reliably avoid obstacles, even difficult to predict ones that potentially move, like humans. To me, this technology seems to be much more advanced than any car auto-pilot system currently on the market...

[Lyle Romer]

The solution for the Las Vegas Loop is simple: Put in a bunch of light rail and put a bunch of trams on it. Autonomous people-mover and tram systems have been around for decades. Of course, then it would just 've been an ordinary metro system. But hey, those thingws have been proven to work for over 100 years now.

They've had the monorail there for 20 years (current route). The issue is that the stations are so far back off of the strip that you can be half way to your destination before you finally trudge all the way back there. That, and it doesn't go to the airport or allow easy access to the west side of the strip.

A light rail tunnel under the strip would solve a lot of problems, especially if it connected to the airport. With underground stations in front of the hotels it would be very convenient and eliminate the need for 80% of Taxis and Ubers (which is probably why it will never happen and why the monorail doesn't go to the airport).

Touching back on the Artemis flaws, Film-Tech Forums I agree with the video that I have absolutely no idea why there is even a mission to return humans to the moon. There's nothing useful to do there. Even if they found an infinity stone or similar magical energy source WWIII would wipe out humanity fighting to get it. To me, it would make more sense to expend resources on exploring asteroids for resources. At least I can understand Musk's desire to colonize Mars for the long term survival of humans. However, doing so at a cost that can make it somewhat realistic is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be achieved in my lifetime, let alone the next two decades.

On the one launch vs. dozens, it can make sense to go with the latter IF the cost per launch can be made extremely low (relative to normal rocketry). They build 13 Saturn V rockets at a cost (including engines) of around $84 billion in 2024 dollars. That's about $6.4 billion per launch (if they had launched them all) not including fuel and whatever operational overhead there was. As a swag, if Starship could cost (including R&D amortization) $230 million or less per launch then it would be cheaper to go with the 28 launch plan. I have no idea if that is achievable but, if it was, at least that aspect of the Artemis program can make financial sense.

One of the points I will agree with in the video is the part about the ability to relight the engines after they've been shut down in space for a long period of time being a critical component which should have already been tested and proven. They could have designed a very simple spacecraft, attached a raptor engine to it and launched it into orbit on a Falcon 9 where the engine could be put through its paces and proven one way or another. It is not intelligent program management to have to wait to get those results until after they finally get a Starship into orbit.

Realistically, the entire Artemis program is a "make work" subsidy program for all of the contractors involved, SpaceX included. Essentially, the government is subsidizing the development of Starship which will eventually be able to launch payload into earth orbit at a lower cost than is possible with current rockets so SpaceX will have a profitable launch business for commercial satellites.

[Randy Stankey]

Elon seems to get stuck on certain ideas that often don't make sense.

Why does a rocket need to land upright? Sure, you can do it but why? It doesn't need to land like rockets do in the movies. It's a lot more expensive and difficult but it doesn't do the job at hand very well. The rocket only needs to come down in such a way that it can be recovered and reused or recycled.

What about the Vegas Loop? Why do we need autonomous vehicles to move people around? It's not efficient because you can only put so many people into one car. It's expensive because you have to build whole cars. You can use a conveyor belt system like theme park rides. You can use vehicles on tracks like they use in other venues. Conveyors and tracks can move people continuously instead of in small groups. It's more efficient and isn't such a waste of money.

At the same time, Elon often says that he wants to do things in the simplest way possible. It makes him look like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth or, worse, he seems like he's lying.

If Elon really wants to push the envelope on technology he should have his people spend some time looking into how to do the job the best way it can be done then match the technology to that method. The way he does things, it seems like he's just figuring out novel ways to use existing technology without thought as to whether it's really the right thing to do.

The way Elon does things he uses technology to search for a problem to solve instead of the other way around.

[Lyle Romer]

Elon seems to get stuck on certain ideas that often don't make sense.

Why does a rocket need to land upright? Sure, you can do it but why? It doesn't need to land like rockets do in the movies. It's a lot more expensive and difficult but it doesn't do the job at hand very well. The rocket only needs to come down in such a way that it can be recovered and reused or recycled.

What about the Vegas Loop? Why do we need autonomous vehicles to move people around? It's not efficient because you can only put so many people into one car. It's expensive because you have to build whole cars. You can use a conveyor belt system like theme park rides. You can use vehicles on tracks like they use in other venues. Conveyors and tracks can move people continuously instead of in small groups. It's more efficient and isn't such a waste of money.

The reason for the upright rocket landings is that adding wings to land on a runway is very heavy and those are the only two options to actually have a reusable rocket. You can't let them take a swim in the ocean and fish them out and actually reuse them. The space shuttle solid rocket boosters were only "reusable" in that they basically recovered a big pipe and cleaned it out and filled it with solid rocket fuel.

The space shuttle orbiter weighed 240,000 lbs and, due in large part to carrying wings into orbit, could only put 53,590 lbs in LEO. Using 2021 numbers, the Starship second stage which, unlike the Space Shuttle, includes the fuel tanks, weighs 220,000 lbs and can put (using the low end estimate) 220,000 lbs in LEO. Vertical dry landing is actually the "simple" way to reuse a rocket. The Space Shuttle was more like "refurbishable" than "reusable."

Agree on the Vegas Loop. It's a tunnel. The least space efficient method of moving people through a tunnel is to put them in road vehicles. It would be much better to use a trackless version of the Peoplemover at Disney World so that every person doesn't need to make every stop. Each vehicle can just pop out of line into a station. You can even eliminate the batteries and power them like a bumper car.

[Marcel Birgelen]

They've had the monorail there for 20 years (current route). The issue is that the stations are so far back off of the strip that you can be half way to your destination before you finally trudge all the way back there. That, and it doesn't go to the airport or allow easy access to the west side of the strip.

Even though the current route of the thing is rather convoluted, I'm pretty sure the thing would start instantly making a profit, the moment they'd connect it to the airport. I remember it took me about 20 minutes to walk there from the lobby of the MGM to the station all the way at the back, but at least that was in the shade. I guess this kind of poor urban planning makes monorails look bad.

A light rail tunnel under the strip would solve a lot of problems, especially if it connected to the airport. With underground stations in front of the hotels it would be very convenient and eliminate the need for 80% of Taxis and Ubers (which is probably why it will never happen and why the monorail doesn't go to the airport).

A rail-based public transport scheme, connecting the airport to the strip and the strip to downtown simply makes too much sense for Las Vegas. I guess any such proposal would gain more traction if you'd propose to dig a canal alongside that same route...

Last time I was there, I sometimes waited more than an hour for an Uber to become available. In that same time, I could actually walk all the way from Mandalay Bay up to somewhere around Bellagio. We usually ended up taking the Deuce, which, for some reason, was almost always completely empty. I guess nobody wants to be seen taking the bus?

The reason for the upright rocket landings is that adding wings to land on a runway is very heavy and those are the only two options to actually have a reusable rocket. You can't let them take a swim in the ocean and fish them out and actually reuse them. The space shuttle solid rocket boosters were only "reusable" in that they basically recovered a big pipe and cleaned it out and filled it with solid rocket fuel.

The Solid Rocket Boosters of the space shuttle were pretty effective though, and by far the cheapest component of the launch system. The same for the fuel tank. The expensive part was indeed the orbiter itself, which needed extensive refurbishments after every mission. But the current SLS configuration essentially replaces the winged orbiter with a more traditional spacecraft that simply splashes down in the ocean, the way we did it before and the way the Russians have kept doing it all the while.

While those vertical landing rockets may look extremely cool and futuristic, I'm not convinced by the necessity of such a feat. It costs a lot of extra fuel to pull this off and the maneuver is still pretty dangerous. Would you want to sit on top of such a rocket? If the thing topples over, you're certified toast...

Also, imagine the practicality of landing such a tall thing on the moon. How do you get the relevant payload, including yourself down to the surface or the other way around? Even in low gravity situations, you'll need a serious lift or crane for any serious equipment, which needs to be operated in such way, it doesn't topple over the lander.

While the 220k lbs figure of Starship sounds impressive, remember that Saturn V in full configuration could put up to 310k lbs into LEO. But we really need rockets that can deliver considerable payloads beyond LEO if we ever want to go back to the moon or even aspire as much as send humans to Mars. You need a heck of a lot of stuff to keep a bunch of humans alive up there for a few months or even years and nobody knows for sure if the radiation will not kill you before you even get there.

[Martin Brooks]

Agreed; therefore, mass EV adoption is not going to happen until Type 2 people feel confident enough to buy in; because Type 2 people are, I would guess, around 70-80% of the overall consumer market.

Mass EV adoption is already happening in Europe because gas is priced so much higher there ($6.79/gallon typically at last check). 24% of new cars sold in California are already zero-emission vehicles (mostly EVs). As range increases and prices drop (EV's on leases are already as inexpensive as ICE cars), EV sales will increase over time, but it's going to be slow no matter what because the average car is on the road in the U.S. for over 12 years.
As people see their neighbors get EV's they will get over their fears. People who own their own houses and can install their own Level 2 chargers, will adopt first. Obviously, it will be slower with apartment dwellers unless their garages install multiple chargers (mine has - one charger for every two cars).

There are some very interesting things going on in China. There's an EV called the Zeekr_007. The four lower trims use a Lithium Iron battery (not Lithium Ion) the production of which has less negative impact on the environment and they're claiming a 428 mile range and 311 miles of range in 15 minutes at a DC fast charger. The upper trim gets a Qilin battery from CATL and claims 540 miles of range. The cars have a LIDAR sensor, 12 HD cameras and five millimeter-wave radars. All but the lowest trim have a 21-speaker Dolby Atmos sound system. (I'd love to hear that!). Translated to USD$, they're priced from $29,386 to $41,986, but if they were ever exported here, they'd obviously be a lot more due to transportation costs, modification to meet U.S. regulations and the cost of setting up a dealer and repair network.

CATL has another Lithium Iron Phosphate battery that they're claiming 621 miles of range and 4 car models already used it now and they claim 50 models by end of year. And the Chinese EV brand Hyper is claiming they'll be using solid state batteries for the 2026 model year cars that also get 621 miles of range.

I own a Hyundai Ioniq 6. I love the car. Do I wish it had another 100 miles of range? Sure.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Even over here in Europe, EV adoption is stagnating, since many government incentives have run out and the power grid has serious capacity issues in many places, after many people invested into renewables like solar. This leads to serious imbalances when production of electricity is high due to sunny weather and requirements are low at that time of day. So much even, that nowadays, you can get paid for using electricity.
This also negatively impacts the deployment of new EV chargers. The lack of charging points is the main reason for me not to use an EV, but a hybrid instead for my daily commute. I've started to embrace an electric bike though, which can be charged at a normwal wall outlet.

As for EVs based on LFP batteries: To me this sounds like a typical Chinese "solution". LFP is about 30% less energy-dense than pure Li-ion and also lasts about 30% shorter than Li-ion, even further ramping up the dreaded deprecation curve of EVs, while not solving the essential problem at hand: The shortage of lithium and the environmental impact its mining and refining activities are causing.