Starliner is a completely different vehicle designed for completely different requirements. The only thing that they have in common is that they can both operate in a vacuum.
That's like saying that a motorcycle could replace a semi, because both have wheels and a motor.
Yeah, Orion is a huge bottleneck to future moon missions, because it is the only way to get off the moon back to earth. Everything else has multiple solutions. The entire idea behind the lunar gateway was to make it possible for CLPS companies to reach NRHO with underpowered rockets instead of only a hypothetical launch vehicle such as the lunar Starship, which does not even exist as of today.
Lockheed Martin is building a cislunar transporter for getting fuel to NRHO. What is needed is a cislunar crew transporter in addition to the fuel transporter.
as long as we ignore the CO2 dumped by Camry/Prius and its cohorts across the industry causing existential crisis hey they will beat others on cost/mile.
If you really want to go down this route and account for this externality, you should calculate the cost of carbon capture. Costs of carbon capture are around $100 per metric tonne. The above link suggests a differential of around 6-10 tonnes of C02 in favor of the Tesla over a hybrid. This amount to an extra $1000 in favor of the Tesla. Once again, this doesn't change my point about cost per mile at all.
Note that it's not a 35% improvement/decrease, it's a 65% decrease, or put another way, 1/3 the emissions. It's not an order of magnitude, but a factor of 3 ain't bad, and CO2 from battery pack production will get better as the energy sources used get cleaner. Also, it looks like they're assuming a car lifetime of 250k km, which I think is pretty conservative for these. They also assumed a linear decrease in CO2 in power generation, which they say is a conservative assumption, and I agree. A number of their other assumptions lean on the conservative side, I assume for being more defensible, so I'd be somewhat surprised if the real difference isn't a good bit larger.
I have an eithical dilemma for you. As of now on an average 33000 ppl are killed in road accidents in USA. Lets say Tesla's or other ICE makers' autopilot reduces this to 20000 deaths. But of those 20000 deaths, say 2000 were purely because of autopilot alogrithm which wouldn't have happened if there was no autopilot. As a regulator what will you do. Approve autopilot because it saved 13000 people or ban it because 2000 were killed just because of it? I know how this will play in media. Unfortunately autopilot will be demonized and most likely will get banned.
I have had the same question as well. I dont think it will get banned, I just think the society as a whole will take a long time to adjust those perception.
And we will likely have zones where all cars are AV. So as long as human sticks to rules and not popping out on a street for no reason. I still think we could have a future where AV becomes the default.
>>the reality is that they are gone continue to increase as Tesla delivers more vehicles they actually get more credits,
People completely miss this point (some deliberately so). At least in Europe, as each year progresses, the number of grams/km allowed will keep going down. It is 95g/km for this year. Thos who miss will have to pay a fine. FCA is pooling with Tesla to avoid this. Ford will miss due to fire hazard debacle. So on. Now even if the ICE makers are able to meet 95 gms/kms now, next year it will become harder. ICE innovation is not fast enough to keep up with regulation. Only way to avoid fines is to accelerate the EV+ICE mix. Some will do this not all. And this will hit their profitability. They have huge sunk cost on ICE side. They can't willy nilly junk that investment and move over to EVs. This mostly implies the legacy car makers will have to keep paying fines to EU or to pool with Tesla and subisidies the competitors growth. Win win for Tesla.
Thanks for this. I don't know why people make easily disprovable statements. Do they think their ability to mislead is greater than peoples ability to read financial statements? Furtermore, CNBC brought on the "biggest" bear Gordon Johnson. He used the same technique to mislead. He used Tesla's update that they are now at 840K installed capacity, to claim that they have always been at that capacity and since guidance is to hit 500K, there is a drop in demand. This was a galling attempt to mislead and to prop up his own analysis.
