The Electrify America deal is actually rather amusing, as it's Volkswagen behind that;)
Dry electrode manufacturing isn't important because of some theoretical battery property improvements which may or may not be realized at commercial scale. It's important to reduce manufacturing hardware depreciation costs and operating expenses for battery electrode creation - e.g. greater throughput with less hardware and lower energy consumption.
The ongoing task of reducing cell costs is part capex/opex, and part raw materials costs. Tesla isn't working on the latter themselves, but there's a lot of interesting work going on on that front (for example, producing nickel sulfate from laterite, which historically has only been good for ferronickel and the like - that could tank nickel sulfate prices).
Quoting myself is literally the opposite of revisionist history.
And yes, some variants of the Model 3 were late. Others (such as AWD and P) were early. And this is relative to the timeline for the Model 3 that the company moved forward a year. But not like you actually care.
I often waver between using the US spelling and the British spelling... so a while back I decided to split the difference and use Davy's original spelling;) It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.
I'm not going to post two dozen links; use Teh Google. But if you want, say, a reference that I've always opposed building BFR out of carbon fibre? Here you go.
As a side note, I'm really uncomfortable with their plan to make IPS entirely out of carbon fibre. As they're finding out (and has others have found out in the past), it's really difficult to use LOX with composites. And perhaps most importantly, inconsistently difficult. And the failure modes can be catastrophic - instant explosive rupture at the point of failure. Aluminum is not only light, but (by pure coincidence) one of the easiest things to work with LOX, as the oxide layer does a good job protecting the metal (even still, aluminum can detonate in contact with LOX in the right temperature/pressure/shock conditions, but said explosions are only self-propagating under significantly elevated pressure conditions). Also coincidentally, aluminum-lithium is even more resistant to reaction with LOX than lithium-free aluminum alloys. Basically, rocket manufacturers have been "having it easy" working with LOX by virtue of making rockets out of aluminum. You give that up when you go to composites.
But.... it's their rocket company, I guess we'll see how it goes.
That said, I hope they don't bother making a replacement fairing for the hopper. It completed the hopper aesthetically, but there's no real need for it for small-scale testing. Just launch the tanks. The rate of progress on them has been crazy-fast.
I was frequently Debbie Downer about using CF for BFR. It's not a resilient material, and organics don't play well with LOX, nor does CF like operating at cryogenic temperatures; you're fighting against its innate material properties. I love the use of stainless. It's so much more forgiving, and people who know how to work with it are a dime a dozen. Just everything about this design will be so much easier. And cheaper. And faster. And safer.
I wouldn't be surprised if they outright build Starship and Super Heavy outside, shipyard-style. It wouldn't exactly be the first time giant pressuretight steel vessels designed for dealing with harsh conditions were built outside in salt-air conditions (e.g., almost every refinery on Earth). Corrosion rates in marine environments are on the order of decades to centuries per millimeter, depending on the stainless alloy (unlike alumium which is sensitive to salt) - and galvanic corrosion due to junctions with dissimilar metals (such as alumium) tend to corrode the other metal, not the steel (again, unlike alumium). There should be no issues with an under-construction rocket shell sitting outside for months until they can get it enclosed for more sensitive work on the interior. The LOX tank would need to be well cleaned, mind you, since LOX doesn't play well with contaminants (CH4 isn't particularly sensitive), and as always, welds need to be properly inspected.
It's an unconventional choice, but one which I've been really glad to see.
So a brand primarily bought by fanboys has a high customer satisfaction?
Apparently the vast majority of all EV buyers in the US are "fanboys". What a weird cult! Hey, is it still a cult if the majority believe in it, or does it then get reclassed as a religion?;)
It's great that it now seems to be finally coming, but I'll believe it when I see it
Seriously? I literally point you to a ship full of Model 3s, and you say "I'll believe it when I see it"? Want more? Here you go. They fill up a ship a week at Port 80 in San Francisco. Tons of spyshots watching them do it. Where do you think they're going?
Meanwhile, Audi have already delivered the first few hundreds of e-trons in late 2018.
You're thinking of I-Paces. And they started in Europe, so of course they got to Europe sooner. Their US sales are almost nonexistent so far.
The first 350kW Ionity stations are already operational
You forgot to put "350kW" in quotes. I literally just informed you that they're 350kW in name only. They're "To Be Upgraded Later". For example. They can't even do 175kW yet. It's literally a CCS1 cable. And if you're going to put a CCS1 cable on it then you're not going to bother filling the rack either only to let it just sit around collecting dust, unusable.
But hey, they've got rack space for 350kW, and "plans";)
Tesla can do its own thing and that is fine, but it will soon become irrelevant. Charging stations are popping up everywhere. Sure, many may not yet offer the higher charging current, but the point is that they are there and EV owners can use them and in due time, many will upgraded
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "Everywhere, ever since the Supercharger network was launched".
Sounds good, but Tesla has rounded up specs in its favour once or twice before
It's literally what the hacked computer (factory mode, where you can see this data, is not supposed to be accessible by customers) is reporting as its internal values. Did Tesla tell the computer to lie to itself? On the offchance that someone might hack it?
I swear... do you think the moon landings were faked too?
1) Resale value means bugger all on a relatively new vehicle that is in high demand. I bet that at some point the resale value on Tesla 3's was actually higher than the factory price, since people might be willing to pay for instant gratification.
Wait times in the US for Model 3s haven't been long since the end of 1H 2018.
And "high demand" is exactly the point in a conversation where a person is trying to talk down a vehicle.
3) Not over here they aren't.
There's nearly 4k Supercharger stalls in Europe. Point me to your 4k 175kW CCS stalls.
In the Netherlands, FastNed have way more chargers, and many of them are on the highway.
You know how many 175kW stalls FastNed has open? Zero;) Okay, how many did they have before this screwup that left all CCS drivers without a way to "quickly" charge for some unknown length of time until they literally replace all cables with some yet-to-be-engineered solution? Looks like they had been able to charge maybe 150 cars at once (~75 stations with 175kW chargers, ~2 175kW chargers per station, 1 vehicle per charger)?
Tesla's competing offering, the Model X, is almost 50% more expensive
1) No, it's not. And it doesn't bundle basic tech features into a separate options package.
2) This is after Tesla eliminated the much (nearly $20k) cheaper 75D, leaving only the high margin 100D and the very high margin P100D (the difference in cell costs between a 75D and a $100D is only ~$5k or so).
3) E-Tron isn't even close to the size of Model X. The rear-seats-down internal space is literally 50% larger in the X than the E-Tron. E-Tron has less boot space than even a Model S. Its internal space is roughly a "slightly taller Model 3".
Sure, it may accelerate to 100 km/h a bit quicker
"A bit"? A 66k EUR M3P will do 0-100 in literally half the time. The slowest vehicle Tesla sells in Europe does it in 73% the time.
6,6 seconds and 200kph top speed is totally unacceptable at that price point. Particularly in Germany.
On the other hand, the Audi will probably be much more reliable, be more enjoyable to drive, have a much nicer interior
Yes, that's totally why Tesla scores several ranks 14% higher than Audi (90% vs. 76%) in consumer satisfaction, huh?
while subjective, I think most people will agree it looks a lot better too
Lol.
I am willing to bet it will go round corners faster too
Heavier & higher = Nope. Heck, it's even heavier (although not higher) than a far-larger Model X.
and I am fairly certain it doesn't share Tesla's arbitrary, remotely enforceable limit on the number of times maximum acceleration is attempted.
Additionally, the e-tron is ready for high-current chargers that will soon be everywhere
1. There are two primary factors that determine how long you're waiting at charging stations on a road trip: A) the charging power, and B) your vehicle's consumption. As described above, E-Tron is such a guzzler that even if it can charge on 175kW stations it still would only charge at 3/5ths the number of miles/kilometers per minute. Of course, most CCS stations are far from 175kW.
2. "Soon be everywhere" is a funny statement. You know that Ionity network that's supposed to be making them in Europe? You may be surprised to know that the vast majority of what they're actually building is only CCS v1 (capped out at 200A, not 500A as in CCS v2). It's not even clear that they support 800-1000V yet either, rather than just 400-500V. The "350kW" moniker is designed to be a "later upgrade"; they're 350kW "design intent".
3. Even if this weren't the case, they're years behind the Supercharger network.
while Tesla has not yet announced what the maximum charging power will be for the Model 3.
They've pointed out that all of their current production can take powers well faster than current superchargers can deliver, which is ~117kW. The onboard computer, when put into factory mode, shows a current limit of 525A, which would be ~180kW, give or take.
Also, if you think the interior space of a Model 3 is similar to a Toyota Celica, you've clearly never been inside a Model 3. Interior space is more than a 3-series, even though the external dimensions are similar. They did a really impressive job on maximizing internal volume.
But really what blew me away was how poor they spec'ed it. Almost suspiciously so, like they were trying to avoid undercutting their ICE sales. 80,9k EUR (starting price!) for a vehicle that does 0-100kph in 6,6s and has a top speed of 200kph / 124mph? Really? Power is the easy thing to add more of in an electric vehicle. It's mind-boggling to me that they spec'ed it so low.
E-Tron is a 5-seater with an interior space is only slightly more than Model 3 (the driver's seat and dash are further back from the front end than in the Model 3, eating up its extra ~30cm length, and part (though only part) of its extra height is a mix of ground clearance and pack thickness; width is basically the same). It does get a larger boot however due to its reduced rear taper (though smaller than the Model S's - 605 vs. 894L; Model 3's is 424L). Overall space is far smaller than a Model X. Yet its energy consumption is way higher than even Model X, which is not only much larger, but also uses an inefficient induction motor (unlike the Model 3). It's just a crazy level of consumption for a 5-seat vehicle. Nothing short of an electric F350 should use that much power on WLTP.
Remember that when someone uses the term "CUV" (or more misleadingly, "SUV", although that's outright wrong), that's a statement of form factor, not size. Even the Kona has been being referred to as a "SUV", and that thing is quite small.
** WLTP gives more optimistic figures than the EPA. For example, the Model 3 LR AWD is rated for 560km (345mi) WLTP, but only 310mi EPA. Jaguar I-Pace is 467km (290mi) WLTP, but only 234mi EPA.
E-Tron (a 5-seater) also apparently comes with some truly record-smashing energy consumption figures, even worse than the I-Pace: around 250Wh/km and around 400Wh/mi WLTP combined (worse as EPA combined). Double the energy consumption of a Model 3. The latter of which charges at ~117kW on existing Superchargers, faster when V3 comes out. E-Tron would need to be able to charge at ~240kW to beat it in charge times (actual peak rate: 155kW). By far, most of the actual chargers the E-Tron can charge at are only "50kW" nominal, less in practice. Oh, and then there's this news about Electrify America shutting down its (small numbers of) >50kW chargers
What a joke. Can we get a real "Tesla Killer" on the market, please?
On purpose. The reentry system being tested for Starship is very different from any other ever used. Normally the goal is to radiate heat, so you want a high emissivity (generally black) material. Starship (the actual vehicle, not this test hopper) on the other hand is designed to never get excessively hot in the first place - a double-layer skin with liquid between the layers and the outer layer perforated by tiny holes, through which heated coolant can vaporize out (creating a protective boundary layer while simultaneously removing heat). So the goal is to reject heat rather than absorb-then-radiate it. This means a low emissivity material, which generally means "shiny".:)
It's still going to get tremendously hot, of course - the craft is being designed for direct aerocapture from MTO. So alumium is right out. But stainless is such a great material for so many reasons... most of which is its resilience. Something which carbon fibre isn't, and a big reason I was very apprehensive about SpaceX's original BFR design. It's also 1/50th the cost, comparably easy to work with, and people who know how to do so are a dime a dozen. It's strong, very inert (even in hostile environments), and with the right alloy retains its resilience even at cryogenic temperatures, while its tensile strength only grows. I'm very happy with the switch. Heck, it's even higher-Z, meaning it'll be more effective at blocking solar radiation (won't do much against GCR except kick off secondary radiation, but GCR is a far lower flux).
1) You could never put this thing on its side; it's not designed to bear loads like that. At least not without building some sort of temporary internal scaffolding first. 2) The part that fell over is the fairing. You don't install bulkheads in a fairing. It's just thin tacked stainless sheet - you can't support liquid with that. 3) They're already installing the bulkheads in the actual tankage section (the bottom part). Top bulkhead just went on.
The simple matter is, they're doing everything here at a crazy pace. Could they have slowed down everything to reduce the risk of unanticipated events like this? Sure. They could crawl along like NASA does and not even make a tack until it's been signed off in triplicate by half a dozen managers. But this is a test article, something designed to be cheap and disposable. Delays just aren't worthwhile. They only started building this thing a month and a half ago. Even if the entire thing had been razed to the ground, they'd have only lost a month and a half of work.
The only thing I fault SpaceX for here is not painting it in a yellow-and-black crosshatched crash testing paint scheme so that the general public realizes, "We expect this thing not to survive our testing".;) When people see a shiny rocket-shaped thing, they expect it to be an actual finished rocket.
Love conspiracy theorists;). Are you saying that the hopper, one of the most obsessively-monitored-by-amateur-spy-shots things on the planet right now, isn't real and was just photoshopped? You do realize that there are frequent drone flyovers of the thing, right?
Since I've seen this notion going around the TSLAQ circles before, I'm going to guess that you're part of that bubble who retweets people like Mark Spiegel and the like, since I've seen this conspiracy theory pop up there. It goes like this: "Look, the positioning of the american flag is all wrong! And the things in the background don't match some other pictures I saw! Fake!".
Are you for real? This is a test article. The sort of thing you normally paint in yellow-and-black crosshatched crash testing paint. It'll be a miracle if this thing survives to the end of the testing period, by design. Its only purpose is to be something quickly and cheaply built to collect data for the actual rocket.
And what was destroyed was simply the fairing (read: nosecone), not the actual rocket part (tankage, plumbing, engines, etc). The fairing is far lighter (just very thin sheet steel tacked onto a lightweight frame), and thus vulnerable to winds. The base, while it has the same sheet steel tacked on, is built around a heavy steel framework designed for holding liquids. They may look aesthetically similar, but they're very different.
Remember that everything you're seeing here only started being built in December. This is not some sort of two-year setback.
What was knocked over was an empty, shiny shell. It was the fairing that was knocked over (read: "giant nosecone"). Not the tanks / plumbing / engines / etc (the business end). This is amplified by the fact that unlike with the actual Starship, this hopper's fairing will never face meaningful stress or heating. They could outright launch without it (although it'll be good to explore how it affects the vehicle's handling dynamics).
When initial construction started, people presumed SpaceX was building a water tower. That portion is the "business end", the actual rocket. Because when you build a rocket (aka, a device that's mostly tankage for holding liquids) the size of a water tower, out of steel, it's inherently going to resemble a water tower until you start sticking engines and a fairing on it;) SpaceX started building two other pieces (which were eventually joined together) under the the tent, which are just tacked sheet steel on a frame; their shape was peoples' first clue that there was a rocket being built (although it took a while for people to put two and two together and realize that the "water tower" was the base). It's this fairing that fell over.
Slashdot Mirror
On the upside, if you're a kid being bulled by an anti-vax kid, you can always retaliate by sneezing in their lunchbox... ;)
(Anti-vax kids are like dark humour - they never grow old)
The Electrify America deal is actually rather amusing, as it's Volkswagen behind that ;)
Dry electrode manufacturing isn't important because of some theoretical battery property improvements which may or may not be realized at commercial scale. It's important to reduce manufacturing hardware depreciation costs and operating expenses for battery electrode creation - e.g. greater throughput with less hardware and lower energy consumption.
The ongoing task of reducing cell costs is part capex/opex, and part raw materials costs. Tesla isn't working on the latter themselves, but there's a lot of interesting work going on on that front (for example, producing nickel sulfate from laterite, which historically has only been good for ferronickel and the like - that could tank nickel sulfate prices).
Quoting myself is literally the opposite of revisionist history.
And yes, some variants of the Model 3 were late. Others (such as AWD and P) were early. And this is relative to the timeline for the Model 3 that the company moved forward a year. But not like you actually care.
I often waver between using the US spelling and the British spelling... so a while back I decided to split the difference and use Davy's original spelling ;) It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.
I'm not going to post two dozen links; use Teh Google. But if you want, say, a reference that I've always opposed building BFR out of carbon fibre? Here you go.
That said, I hope they don't bother making a replacement fairing for the hopper. It completed the hopper aesthetically, but there's no real need for it for small-scale testing. Just launch the tanks. The rate of progress on them has been crazy-fast.
I was frequently Debbie Downer about using CF for BFR. It's not a resilient material, and organics don't play well with LOX, nor does CF like operating at cryogenic temperatures; you're fighting against its innate material properties. I love the use of stainless. It's so much more forgiving, and people who know how to work with it are a dime a dozen. Just everything about this design will be so much easier. And cheaper. And faster. And safer.
I wouldn't be surprised if they outright build Starship and Super Heavy outside, shipyard-style. It wouldn't exactly be the first time giant pressuretight steel vessels designed for dealing with harsh conditions were built outside in salt-air conditions (e.g., almost every refinery on Earth). Corrosion rates in marine environments are on the order of decades to centuries per millimeter, depending on the stainless alloy (unlike alumium which is sensitive to salt) - and galvanic corrosion due to junctions with dissimilar metals (such as alumium) tend to corrode the other metal, not the steel (again, unlike alumium). There should be no issues with an under-construction rocket shell sitting outside for months until they can get it enclosed for more sensitive work on the interior. The LOX tank would need to be well cleaned, mind you, since LOX doesn't play well with contaminants (CH4 isn't particularly sensitive), and as always, welds need to be properly inspected.
It's an unconventional choice, but one which I've been really glad to see.
Antivaxxer kids are like dark humour - they never get old.
Apparently the vast majority of all EV buyers in the US are "fanboys". What a weird cult! Hey, is it still a cult if the majority believe in it, or does it then get reclassed as a religion? ;)
Seriously? I literally point you to a ship full of Model 3s, and you say "I'll believe it when I see it"? Want more? Here you go. They fill up a ship a week at Port 80 in San Francisco. Tons of spyshots watching them do it. Where do you think they're going?
You're thinking of I-Paces. And they started in Europe, so of course they got to Europe sooner. Their US sales are almost nonexistent so far.
You forgot to put "350kW" in quotes. I literally just informed you that they're 350kW in name only. They're "To Be Upgraded Later". For example. They can't even do 175kW yet. It's literally a CCS1 cable. And if you're going to put a CCS1 cable on it then you're not going to bother filling the rack either only to let it just sit around collecting dust, unusable.
But hey, they've got rack space for 350kW, and "plans" ;)
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, "Everywhere, ever since the Supercharger network was launched".
It's literally what the hacked computer (factory mode, where you can see this data, is not supposed to be accessible by customers) is reporting as its internal values. Did Tesla tell the computer to lie to itself? On the offchance that someone might hack it?
I swear... do you think the moon landings were faked too?
Wait times in the US for Model 3s haven't been long since the end of 1H 2018.
And "high demand" is exactly the point in a conversation where a person is trying to talk down a vehicle.
There's nearly 4k Supercharger stalls in Europe. Point me to your 4k 175kW CCS stalls.
You know how many 175kW stalls FastNed has open? Zero ;) Okay, how many did they have before this screwup that left all CCS drivers without a way to "quickly" charge for some unknown length of time until they literally replace all cables with some yet-to-be-engineered solution? Looks like they had been able to charge maybe 150 cars at once (~75 stations with 175kW chargers, ~2 175kW chargers per station, 1 vehicle per charger)?
Not exactly. An SUV is by most definitions built on a truck chassis.
1) No, it's not. And it doesn't bundle basic tech features into a separate options package.
2) This is after Tesla eliminated the much (nearly $20k) cheaper 75D, leaving only the high margin 100D and the very high margin P100D (the difference in cell costs between a 75D and a $100D is only ~$5k or so).
3) E-Tron isn't even close to the size of Model X. The rear-seats-down internal space is literally 50% larger in the X than the E-Tron. E-Tron has less boot space than even a Model S. Its internal space is roughly a "slightly taller Model 3".
"A bit"? A 66k EUR M3P will do 0-100 in literally half the time. The slowest vehicle Tesla sells in Europe does it in 73% the time.
6,6 seconds and 200kph top speed is totally unacceptable at that price point. Particularly in Germany.
Yes, that's totally why Tesla scores several ranks 14% higher than Audi (90% vs. 76%) in consumer satisfaction, huh?
Lol.
Heavier & higher = Nope. Heck, it's even heavier (although not higher) than a far-larger Model X.
You're confusing Ludicrious Mode launches (P100D models only) with regular acceleration. Do you really want to compare performance to a P100D? And secondly, that limit hasn't been in place for a year and a half.
Actually, this problem just got worse. The problem appears to be worldwide; it's hitting Europe too.
1. Your "cheaply built saloon" has the highest resale value retention of any car in the US in the US, from a company with the highest owner satisfaction. But don't let facts interfere with a good attack line.
2. Model 3 is on sale in Europe. First customer cars arrive in Europe on a week from now.
1. There are two primary factors that determine how long you're waiting at charging stations on a road trip: A) the charging power, and B) your vehicle's consumption. As described above, E-Tron is such a guzzler that even if it can charge on 175kW stations it still would only charge at 3/5ths the number of miles/kilometers per minute. Of course, most CCS stations are far from 175kW.
2. "Soon be everywhere" is a funny statement. You know that Ionity network that's supposed to be making them in Europe? You may be surprised to know that the vast majority of what they're actually building is only CCS v1 (capped out at 200A, not 500A as in CCS v2). It's not even clear that they support 800-1000V yet either, rather than just 400-500V. The "350kW" moniker is designed to be a "later upgrade"; they're 350kW "design intent".
3. Even if this weren't the case, they're years behind the Supercharger network.
They've pointed out that all of their current production can take powers well faster than current superchargers can deliver, which is ~117kW. The onboard computer, when put into factory mode, shows a current limit of 525A, which would be ~180kW, give or take.
Also, if you think the interior space of a Model 3 is similar to a Toyota Celica, you've clearly never been inside a Model 3. Interior space is more than a 3-series, even though the external dimensions are similar. They did a really impressive job on maximizing internal volume.
But really what blew me away was how poor they spec'ed it. Almost suspiciously so, like they were trying to avoid undercutting their ICE sales. 80,9k EUR (starting price!) for a vehicle that does 0-100kph in 6,6s and has a top speed of 200kph / 124mph? Really? Power is the easy thing to add more of in an electric vehicle. It's mind-boggling to me that they spec'ed it so low.
E-Tron is a 5-seater with an interior space is only slightly more than Model 3 (the driver's seat and dash are further back from the front end than in the Model 3, eating up its extra ~30cm length, and part (though only part) of its extra height is a mix of ground clearance and pack thickness; width is basically the same). It does get a larger boot however due to its reduced rear taper (though smaller than the Model S's - 605 vs. 894L; Model 3's is 424L). Overall space is far smaller than a Model X. Yet its energy consumption is way higher than even Model X, which is not only much larger, but also uses an inefficient induction motor (unlike the Model 3). It's just a crazy level of consumption for a 5-seat vehicle. Nothing short of an electric F350 should use that much power on WLTP.
Remember that when someone uses the term "CUV" (or more misleadingly, "SUV", although that's outright wrong), that's a statement of form factor, not size. Even the Kona has been being referred to as a "SUV", and that thing is quite small.
The new Audi E-Tron just opened for configurations, so now we can see its final stats.
Starting price: 80,9k EUR
0-100kph (0-62 mph): 6,6s
Top speed: 200kph (124 mph)
WLTP combined range**: 381km (236 miles)
** WLTP gives more optimistic figures than the EPA. For example, the Model 3 LR AWD is rated for 560km (345mi) WLTP, but only 310mi EPA. Jaguar I-Pace is 467km (290mi) WLTP, but only 234mi EPA.
E-Tron (a 5-seater) also apparently comes with some truly record-smashing energy consumption figures, even worse than the I-Pace: around 250Wh/km and around 400Wh/mi WLTP combined (worse as EPA combined). Double the energy consumption of a Model 3. The latter of which charges at ~117kW on existing Superchargers, faster when V3 comes out. E-Tron would need to be able to charge at ~240kW to beat it in charge times (actual peak rate: 155kW). By far, most of the actual chargers the E-Tron can charge at are only "50kW" nominal, less in practice. Oh, and then there's this news about Electrify America shutting down its (small numbers of) >50kW chargers
What a joke. Can we get a real "Tesla Killer" on the market, please?
Level 2 means AC.
On purpose. The reentry system being tested for Starship is very different from any other ever used. Normally the goal is to radiate heat, so you want a high emissivity (generally black) material. Starship (the actual vehicle, not this test hopper) on the other hand is designed to never get excessively hot in the first place - a double-layer skin with liquid between the layers and the outer layer perforated by tiny holes, through which heated coolant can vaporize out (creating a protective boundary layer while simultaneously removing heat). So the goal is to reject heat rather than absorb-then-radiate it. This means a low emissivity material, which generally means "shiny". :)
It's still going to get tremendously hot, of course - the craft is being designed for direct aerocapture from MTO. So alumium is right out. But stainless is such a great material for so many reasons... most of which is its resilience. Something which carbon fibre isn't, and a big reason I was very apprehensive about SpaceX's original BFR design. It's also 1/50th the cost, comparably easy to work with, and people who know how to do so are a dime a dozen. It's strong, very inert (even in hostile environments), and with the right alloy retains its resilience even at cryogenic temperatures, while its tensile strength only grows. I'm very happy with the switch. Heck, it's even higher-Z, meaning it'll be more effective at blocking solar radiation (won't do much against GCR except kick off secondary radiation, but GCR is a far lower flux).
You seem to be confused.
1) You could never put this thing on its side; it's not designed to bear loads like that. At least not without building some sort of temporary internal scaffolding first.
2) The part that fell over is the fairing. You don't install bulkheads in a fairing. It's just thin tacked stainless sheet - you can't support liquid with that.
3) They're already installing the bulkheads in the actual tankage section (the bottom part). Top bulkhead just went on.
The simple matter is, they're doing everything here at a crazy pace. Could they have slowed down everything to reduce the risk of unanticipated events like this? Sure. They could crawl along like NASA does and not even make a tack until it's been signed off in triplicate by half a dozen managers. But this is a test article, something designed to be cheap and disposable. Delays just aren't worthwhile. They only started building this thing a month and a half ago. Even if the entire thing had been razed to the ground, they'd have only lost a month and a half of work.
The only thing I fault SpaceX for here is not painting it in a yellow-and-black crosshatched crash testing paint scheme so that the general public realizes, "We expect this thing not to survive our testing". ;) When people see a shiny rocket-shaped thing, they expect it to be an actual finished rocket.
Love conspiracy theorists ;). Are you saying that the hopper, one of the most obsessively-monitored-by-amateur-spy-shots things on the planet right now, isn't real and was just photoshopped? You do realize that there are frequent drone flyovers of the thing, right?
Since I've seen this notion going around the TSLAQ circles before, I'm going to guess that you're part of that bubble who retweets people like Mark Spiegel and the like, since I've seen this conspiracy theory pop up there. It goes like this: "Look, the positioning of the american flag is all wrong! And the things in the background don't match some other pictures I saw! Fake!".
Hint: There's two American Flags on it, one on each side.
Just letting you know: you're not the plucky hero of this story.
Are you for real? This is a test article. The sort of thing you normally paint in yellow-and-black crosshatched crash testing paint. It'll be a miracle if this thing survives to the end of the testing period, by design. Its only purpose is to be something quickly and cheaply built to collect data for the actual rocket.
And what was destroyed was simply the fairing (read: nosecone), not the actual rocket part (tankage, plumbing, engines, etc). The fairing is far lighter (just very thin sheet steel tacked onto a lightweight frame), and thus vulnerable to winds. The base, while it has the same sheet steel tacked on, is built around a heavy steel framework designed for holding liquids. They may look aesthetically similar, but they're very different.
Remember that everything you're seeing here only started being built in December. This is not some sort of two-year setback.
What was knocked over was an empty, shiny shell. It was the fairing that was knocked over (read: "giant nosecone"). Not the tanks / plumbing / engines / etc (the business end). This is amplified by the fact that unlike with the actual Starship, this hopper's fairing will never face meaningful stress or heating. They could outright launch without it (although it'll be good to explore how it affects the vehicle's handling dynamics).
When initial construction started, people presumed SpaceX was building a water tower. That portion is the "business end", the actual rocket. Because when you build a rocket (aka, a device that's mostly tankage for holding liquids) the size of a water tower, out of steel, it's inherently going to resemble a water tower until you start sticking engines and a fairing on it ;) SpaceX started building two other pieces (which were eventually joined together) under the the tent, which are just tacked sheet steel on a frame; their shape was peoples' first clue that there was a rocket being built (although it took a while for people to put two and two together and realize that the "water tower" was the base). It's this fairing that fell over.
GAAP profits of +$312M, non-GAAP profits of +$512M.