Slashdot Mirror
SXSW: Elon Musk Talks Reusable Rockets, Tesla Controversy
Nerval's Lobster writes "Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors, took the keynote stage at this year's SXSW to talk about everything from space exploration to electric cars. Joining him onstage to ask questions was Chris Anderson, the former Wired editor and co-founder of 3DRobotics. Musk used his keynote discussion to show off a video of a rocket test, which he said had taken place earlier that week. In the video, a ten-story rocket takes off from a launching pad and hovers several hundred feet in the air before landing in the same spot, upright. It's an early test of SpaceX's reusable-rocket project. 'Reusability is extremely important,' Musk told the audience. 'If you think it's important that humanity extends beyond Earth and becomes a multitenant species' then reusable rockets will prove essential. Musk also talked about the recent controversy involving his Tesla Motors, which started when a New York Times reporter claimed in a much-circulated column that his electric-powered Model S sedan had ground to a halt during a test drive up the East Coast. 'I have no problem with negative feedback,' he told Anderson, in response to the latter's question. 'There have been hundreds of negative articles, and yet I've only spoken out a few times. I don't have a problem with critical reviews, I have a problem with false reviews.'"
I think the biggest reason he gets so much flak is because no one can figure out how to make a quick buck off his businesses.
The fundamental claim that Musk put out -- that the reporter intentionally drained the battery, and that the towing was faked -- has been completely disproven. The reporter used the car in non-optimal user behavior, and the car failed. This is entirely legitimate reviewing, and Musk called him a liar. '
Ok, You sound very angry and I don't know why, but let's break down your points:
1. 550 miles over 2 days. If the NYT journalist had charged properly and as instructed, then it would have been 3 charges, but even with 4 charges, eating for 1-2 hours over a 2 day period isn't "not good" it's normal. If I stop at a charging point, plug in and go to a cafe for lunch, it's going to take 45mins to over and hour to complete lunch. I don't think Tesla were suggesting you eat solidly for 2 hours without a pause.
2. The temperature is irrelevant. The NYT journalist claimed he turn the heat down to extend range, the logs show he increased the temperature from 72F to 74F. The actual temperatures don't matter, it's the lie that matters.
3. Same with speed. The journalist claimed he had cruise control on at 55, logs show him travelling at 62-81MPH. Again, it's the lie that matters no the actual speeds.
4. It's well know batteries perform worse in low temperatures, if the journalist had used common sense and charged his battery sufficiently then there wouldn't have been an issue. Most cars, no matter the power source, get 10-20% less than the claimed economy figures. Is this right, no, but to single out one company seems to smack of double standards.
Admittedly I don't follow news columns that closely, but I'm not sure where he's ever appeared to want to be considered a god, and I have no idea what the Segway has to do with Elon Musk or the Tesla.
As head of a company, you have an obligation to your employees and shareholders to defend your brand. Lawsuits are a perfectly acceptable means to accomplish that.
The video in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=2Ivr6JF1K-8
This rocket (the Grasshopper RLV) is just a test article. It's a mass simulation of the first stage of a Falcon 9, which has been launched to orbit successfully 5 times in a row. The idea is to test and prove the re-usability concept on the Grasshopper RLV before adapting it to the first stage of the Falcon 9. They've only done small hops so far, but the plan is to continue launching the Grasshopper RLV with more and more fuel until it can replicate the trajectory of the Falcon 9's first stage and safely return, at which point they'd be ready to begin adapting the Falcon 9 first stage for a safe return and landing.
You have some valid points but it's more a matter of changing your perceptions than a problem with the car. Your first point about charging 4 times to cover 550 miles is valid. However you'd only have to charge more than once while on your trip for a total of about 30 minutes if there was something strange going on. Maybe you ought to mention why you feel the need to charge 4 times? Why do you think 72F is too warm? You realize the cars are made to work in Southern California where he lives and where the temperatures routinely are over 100F. So what made you think 72F is too warm for the car? I share your driving speed preferences and perhaps like to drive a bit faster than you. The Tesla car gives amazing neck straining torqued out acceleration at any speed up to about 130mph. Because of it's low center of gravity due to the battery packs people end up looking for curves to take because it feels so good. So when you say 62 to 81mph is too fast I can only assume you left out a qualifier. Perhaps what you meant to say was too fast for optimal efficiency. Despite the Tesla being the best aerodynamic car on the market and second best in the history of cars you still must take into account how aerodynamic drag increasing exponentially as the speed goes up. Take a BMW out and drive it at 55 and then drive it at 155. You'll notice you get about 1/3rd the mileage or even less at 155. It's physics. As for needing to charge your car in a European winter every 50 to 100 miles. Sure. If you say parked it outside and only drove a mile to 3 miles per day you might have to charge it every 50 to 100 miles. The Tesla keeps the battery packs and such at a working temperature and this drains the batteries slowly. Unlike a gas vehicle. So this may make the car unacceptable in a few strange cases or to the luddites looking for reasons to avoid change. By the way the judge declared Top Gear manufactured the lies but threw out Tesla's lawsuit because it was unclear how much financial damage resulted in the outright lies. I don't know about you but I don't start out a long trip without feeling up my gas tank, especially when the gas light is on, like the NY Times author did. I think Tesla should have blasted the NY Times harder because there are still some nutters out there that apparently don't get what happened.
you installed blackboxes without telling ANYBODY
It was not necessary to read any further than this to discover that you are either too ignorant to read, or trolling. The car is a black box. Of course it has logging. And you can bet your bunghole that whatever they had to sign to get their hot, lying hands on the car included a clause about being tracked. You are either an idiot or a liar, or both.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Flying a rocket like this doesn't make much sense.... Here on earth, but as you can't parachute down to the lunar surface, or rely on chutes on Mars for hopping from place to place, then a reusable VTOL rocket becomes really handy. But it does have to be test flown somewhere, and easier to test here than out there.
Almost all BMWs are top speed limited to less than 150 mph. It's policy.
You are going to quibble over 5 mph, when the limiter can be defeated by anyone with money? We call that prevarication.
By the way the judge declared Top Gear manufactured the lies
Do you have a reference? I can't find this by Googling, which is why I ask.
It is nigh-impossible to find a reference because the google results are packed with copies of the same story reprinted by various news outlets with no reason to exist. It's too bad Google won't let you block an arbitrary number of websites from your search results permanently, because it is rapidly becoming useless for actually finding any targeted information on anything which has ever been major news. But the judge ruled that no one would take Top Gear seriously, that factoid shows up in multiple articles. That's because they're known to be full of shit. It's an entertainment program, not education.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Add up to two hours, most likely less. At an average speed of 64 mph the range should be about 275 miles. Two 45 mins charges at a Supercharger should add enough range, provided there are Superchargers available. Three charges of 30 mins would be better though as the charging power falls with higher charge levels. Add an extra 30 mins somewhere if you want higher margins. You could (and should!) spend some of this time eating anyway which you do while the car charges. Charging is not like filling up a gas car. It has to be done more often and it takes more time, but you can leave the vehicle and do other things while it charges. You will not have to spend two hours watching the car. Best example here is overnight charging at home which is quite slow, but most people need sleep anyway so it is irrelevant.
Whether this is acceptable or not is up to you to decide. If "regularly" means "a lot" or even "primary use of the car" it may not be. And if there are no Superchargers along the way, that trip would require at least two days, possibly more, depending on what outlets you can use.
Sure, the idea of an electric car has been around for a while. So has the idea of a rocket, but dismissing every advancement since the Chinese launched glorified fireworks at the Mongols around 800 years ago is obviously idiotic, yet that seems to be exactly what you're doing with respect to the advancements in electric vehicle technology.
What is more important, to get the tube back down very slowly without damaging it (and burning up a huge amount of fuel while doing it and obviously making the entire flight much less efficient) or putting more cargo into orbit? I think he can achieve partial reusability by bringing down the rocket on parachutes (or at least the engines, which are probably the most intricate and expensive part) while using all the fuel in the rocket for its actual purpose - launch cargo.
Have you tried building a parachute to land 25 tons? NASA has for Ares I and it is very heavy and complex, more than a ton in itself. Alternatively you could do just the engines that are about 5-6 tons but then you'd need some kind of detachment system as well and you'll be throwing away a lot of expensive sensors and electronics not just a big tube. The bigger downside is that they're uncontrolled, you need to clear a big sea area, recover them then transport them back to base - not to mention they're drenched in salt water. If you just land there's not any added costs. The empty shell is only 7-8% of the launch weight and you're only slowing the decent so how do you need? Fuel is still only about $200k on a $50 million launch so even if you have to increase that by 10% you're probably shaving many millions off each launch. I think they know what they're doing.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
A lot depends on whether you can land downrange or have to turn around and return to the launch site. The former takes very little fuel as you just have to survive aerobraking and land, the latter takes quite a bit more as you have to cancel all velocity, launch yourself back toward the place you came from, then land.
But still, the mass of the first stage does not have a huge impact on the payload. Adding a ton of structure or fuel might cut 100kg off your payload, and even if you have to add enough return fuel that you cut the payload in half, you'd only need to save half the launch cost by reusing that stage to break even. Reduce the launch cost by 60% and you'd be ahead.
It's the New York Times, I find it hard to believe anyone thinks the article is accurate considering the source. The only thing in the Times worthwhile is the crossword puzzle.
All true but I don't know why rebuttals have to be so complicated:
Broder didn't charge the car to full, charged it less at each charging opportunity, and didn't bother plugging in overnight, cold night or not. Then he hit the road when the car told him he would not make it.
No one that owns a smartphone can say what he did wasn't moronic or malicious.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
A Supercharge will realistically give you approx 150-200 miles of range. If you're driving at 50 mph, that's a 30-45 min pit stop every 3-4 hours, less if you're driving faster. I do not eat every 3-4 hours. Also, my lunches are typically 15-20 minutes. A dinner at a restaurant will be 45 min to 1.5 hours. But not lunch.
If you look at the beginning of the speed and charge logs, there's a little slop there. It looks like the logs start with when the car left Tesla's showroom. The author then drove it home and charged it overnight. The day of the trip it looks like he drove it around town for 15-20 miles. Then the highway speeds start. If you assume the start of the trip is when the highway speeds begin, then the miles into the trip where the temperature is decreased matches exactly with the author's claims. Musk's claim that the author raised the temperature only fit the logs if you assume the trip began at the beginning of the logs.
It's exceedingly rare to find a car review by a major publication done on public roads where the author admits to driving above the speed limit.
No it's not well known. And (barring the development of technology which can charge a battery in a few minutes) if EVs ever hope to become accepted by the general population, the public won't ever have to know this. The computer will have to measure the ambient temperature, location, weather reports, and do its best to accurately report how many miles in range it can realistically deliver.
The initial charges at the Supercharge stations were exactly how you'd want to charge an EV if you want to maximize distance traveled while minimizing time spent charging and risk of damaging the battery. It's the disputed third charge (which was not a Supercharge) that is key, and it's a he-said/she-said. The author claims Tesla staff told him to undercharge because as the battery warmed up it would recover some of the reported range it lost while parked overnight. Musk claims his staff told him no such thing.
cooling is more energy-intensive than heating.
I'n an internal combustion vehicle, heating is essentially free but in an EV every watt comes from the batteries, whether it is for heating or for cooling. I see no reason for heating to be less energy intensive than cooling.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
A lot depends on whether you can land downrange or have to turn around and return to the launch site. The former takes very little fuel as you just have to survive aerobraking and land, the latter takes quite a bit more as you have to cancel all velocity, launch yourself back toward the place you came from, then land.
You are forgetting that the first stage no longer has to decelerate the upper stages nor the filled mass of the first stage itself, just the residual weight of the first stage & whatever fuel+oxidants needed to land. Even if this & whatever weight added for landing gear adds 10% to the first stage's mass, SpaceX has shown that they have plans for performance improvements that should make Return to Launch Site feasible.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
If you're going to be a physics pedant, at least get it right.
Drag is approximated by a Taylor series truncated at n=2 for low velocities. In reality, drag is more complicated than that.
You are quite right. It is more than 100 % efficient since it uses a heat pump. It takes less than 1kWh of energy from the battery to remove 1 kWh of heat from the car. Tesla uses a heat pump for heating too, so it's also more than 100 % efficient, by the way.
That was the prototype. Production cars had none of those problems. What "the man" did was get the SEC to pursue him with a pack of lies. Tucker was acquitted on every single charge without calling a single witness for the defense. He was acquitted based on the prosecution's testimony! One of the prosecution's witnesses stated that he was still driving one of the Tucker 48s and that it had over 30,000 miles on it and still handled smoothly at 90 miles per hour. The SEC charges were baseless and were brought simply to discredit Tucker and cause his company financial difficulty. Not the last time such tactics have been used to destroy competition. If you can't compete, litigate.
That's news to me. Tesla can't make them fast enough for the demand. In their last quarterly report they said that if no new orders came in that there are enough on the books now for the rest of the year, and that's without any advertizing other than their show rooms.
As a new owner of a Tesla model S all I can say is that it is an amazing car. The problem has been that most of the EVs in the past had very limited range or were otherwise serious compromises. Many were converting a conventional ICE body to an electric drive train. Tesla built the car from the ground up around an EV drive train and were able to leverage the advantages of it. I have a 416HP motor with 495 ft-lbs of torque the size of a large water melon hidden underneath my large rear trunk, a large interior and another trunk in the front. The fact that the battery is entirely underneath the car makes for a very low center of gravity so the car handles beautifully.
Right now their problem is supply. They're running at near full-capacity making 450 cars per week. They can't make them fast enough. Once they sell enough cars to improve their finances they'll be able to invest in increasing their production.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.