[sneak]

It is insanely valuable, both commercially and strategically.

If it weren’t that hard to replicate, several countries (and Bezos/Blue Origin) would have replicated it by now.

I think you vastly underestimate how difficult rocketry is. There’s a reason “rocket science” is colloquially a metaphor for an extremely difficult and technical task.

[llm_nerd]

>If it weren’t that hard to replicate, several countries (and Bezos/Blue Origin) would have replicated it by now.

There is a 100% chance multiple countries/companies will have replicated it in the next decade. If SpaceX never existed, they likely would have achieved it at the same pace regardless.

This is the same with EVs. If Tesla never rose, the world EV market outside of Tesla would have seen precisely the same rise.

There is a tendency to attribute the early movers with innovation in the inevitable, where we all stand on the shoulders of others and just reach a little higher.

As to the rocket science misnomer, that's a space race hangover where an engineering role was extremely public and celebrated, but in actual reality "rocket science" is a mediocre field with miserable pay and high unemployment.

As to how valuable it is, "insanely"? The world has a fairly finite launch need, such that SpaceX made a whole new business -- Starlink -- to make work for their capacity. Economically the space launch business is relatively minuscule.

[jmpman]

I question your EV take. Tesla proved a business model, the technology and path from niche sports car to the best selling car on earth, and now on to the lowest cost per mile robotaxi. Simply knowing that a solution exists and is financially viable, is enough to motivate the competition.

[llm_nerd]

>Tesla proved a business model

Through almost all of Tesla's existence, its business model was ironically the sale of gasoline vehicles. Because, of course, Tesla's entire business model relied upon selling green credits to incumbent ICE vehicle makers.

So it didn't really prove much of a business model, effectively being parasitic.

>the technology and path from niche sports car to the best selling car on earth,

The overwhelming bulk of the technology advancements that enable modern EVs -- from advances in batteries to cameras to sensors to embedded controllers and CPUs -- is thanks to the smartphone industry. Modern EVs owe infinitely more to those than they do to anything Tesla did.

>knowing that a solution exists and is financially viable, is enough to motivate the competition.

I think of this much like compact fluorescents. Remember those? We all rushed to transition, and then they were absolutely demolished in every metric -- efficiency, colour, and most importantly the amount of environmental contamination when disposed -- by LED lights. I feel like we're going to feel the same about early EVs.

>now on to the lowest cost per mile robotaxi

Is this a serious comment?

[jmpman]

>now on to the lowest cost per mile robotaxi Is this a serious comment?

Absolutely a serious comment and why Waymo will likely be unable to compete. Tesla is designing their fleet for the lowest cost per mile, and likely the real reason why they have pushed back on Lidar versus camera - humans can drive with binocular (some with just monocular) vision, why use Lidar as it’s more expensive.

If a Waymo car costs $100k and is good for 100k miles, then that’s $1/mile. Tesla’s robotaxi is likely designed for 500k miles at under $0.10/mile. Tesla’s robotaxi will be able to drive me for cheaper than I’ll be able to drive myself. Think of a cab company with scale enough to build their own cabs, optimizing for the lowest cost per mile, and with $0 labor costs. That’s going to be their huge win. And no, I’m not an Elon fan, but I do understand his business plan, and it’s brilliant. And no, I don’t think it’s going to displace personal cars. There’s too much burst demand during rush hour for a peak scaled fleet to be cost effective (I haven’t run the numbers, so even that slight may be incorrect). However I do expect to never have to drive myself once I hit retirement age, and I’ll probably not even own the vehicle. My hope is that there will be a fast follower, able to compete against Tesla, otherwise I’ll be paying Tesla $0.99/mile instead of $0.12/mile.

[trogdor]

> The overwhelming bulk of the technology advancements that enable modern EVs -- from advances in batteries to cameras to sensors to embedded controllers and CPUs -- is thanks to the smartphone industry.

Would you point me to a source where I can read about this?

[dagw]

If Tesla never rose, the world EV market outside of Tesla would have seen precisely the same rise.

would have seen the same rise _eventually_. I know from a friend that worked R&D at a major car company that Tesla really lit a fire under then and 'forced' them to push their own EV experiments from proof of concepts to commercial product much faster than they where originally thinking about doing it.

[llm_nerd]

The EV ventures of most automakers are massive money losers (just as it always has been for Tesla outside of selling green credits and subsidies). But for sure they all rushed to get there not because the EVs themselves were valuable, but because of the insanity of the capital markets where Tesla is valued at a trillion dollars at a 200x P/E, while the rest of the market is at like a 7-14x ratio. Everyone wanted some of that irrational hype.

[4gotunameagain]

The problem lies in forming and managing such a huge organisation that deals with the problem in an efficient and lean way, not the technical aspects.

The materials science aspect is a challenge, not to produce, but to produce with a sane cost.

The rocket science aspect of things (namely the linearisation of the booster model in order to be able to be solved in constant time by an MPC) is more or less a solved problem.

Coordinating such complex interconnected systems will always remain one.

[tonyhart7]

so it still "rocket science", you saying that the hard part is to make it lean and efficient

isn't that what they do in SpaceX????, your comment literally counterproductive

[4gotunameagain]

It is comparably hard to creating a lean and efficient car manufacturing company.

Yet you don't hear people throw the phrase "automotive science" around.

Rocket science has some niche parts that are very hard indeed. But this is not where the major challenge lies.

[vFunct]

SpaceX itself replicated the DC-X from the 90's. The reason the DC-X was cancelled was because of the economics. Reusable rockets are a solved problem, with only the economics of it a barrier (see Space Shuttle). SpaceX has to rely on their own investor funding for Starlink to remain a viable entity.

[peterfirefly]

The DC-X was stupid, dumb, insane, bunkers, and a waste of money and not replicable.

"sure, let's put four RL-10 hydrogen engines on it! They are expensive and the worst possible for the low-altitude flights we are going to do so some sucker will believe we can do multi-stage reusable flights to orbit".

"sure, we don't actually need to go to orbit anyway. That was always a dumb idea. Who said we ever wanted to do that? No, suborbital is really useful, we promise. And we are going to do it with a single stage (using hydrogen) cuz we are so smart and the future and everything!"

"sure, let's build a specialized hydrogen tank in a stupid shape."

"sure, let's give the whole single-stage low-altitude rocket a k00l shape that makes it more expensive."

"People knowing it can't be done shouldn't interrupt people doing it wrong."