# Elon Musk is boring



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

Musks 'Boring Company' has begun digging just outside his SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. 

The trench measures 30 feet (9 metres) wide, 50 feet (15 metres) long, and 15 feet (4.5 metres) deep, and was started earlier this month, Wired reported.







'We're just going to figure out what it takes to improve tunneling speed by, I think, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 percent,' he said during a Hyperloop design competition at SpaceX earlier this month.


Nicknamed Nannie, Musk's tunnel boring machine is 26 feet in diameter and about 400 feet long, weighing around 1,200 tons.

It was used by Washington's water utility to dig a tunnel to prevent sewage from overflowing into the Anacostia River.

The machine is named after Nannie Helen Burroughs, nationally prominent Black educator, Church leader, and suffrage supporter who founded the National Training School for Women and Girls in Washington DC.

The 1,248 ton machine created a 23-foot diameter tunnel beginning at RFK Stadium that ends at the Poplar Point Pumping station in Southeast, approximately 100 feet underground. 

It goes underneath the Anacostia River, CSX railroad tracks, and the Green Line. 

The entire project - which traverses underground 13 miles from Bloomingdale to DC Water's Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in Southeast - is designed to supplement the existing sewer system by capturing excess storm water and curb area flooding.



more info
_WIRED.com_


----------



## Frick (Apr 28, 2017)

Bah, I thought you were going to talk about how he is a bad speaker (technically), but nooooo. Because he is not a great speaker.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I am deeply fascinated by the guy. He is an actual visionary, and those are not common. He's just not a good speaker, and for some reason that annoys me.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

I have much admiration for the man....but not his speeches.


----------



## Raevenlord (Apr 28, 2017)

Frick said:


> Bah, I thought you were going to talk about how he is a bad speaker (technically), but nooooo. Because he is not a great speaker.
> 
> EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I am deeply fascinated by the guy. He is an actual visionary, and those are not common. He's just not a good speaker, and for some reason that annoys me.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I have much admiration for the man....but not his speeches.



Amen to that.


----------



## zerotuL (Apr 28, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I have much admiration for the man....but not his speeches.


Thanks to gods of Olympus his speeches do not impact his dream to drag this stubborn humanity into bright future.


----------



## Folterknecht (Apr 28, 2017)

zerotuL said:


> Thanks to gods of Olympus his speeches do not impact his dream to drag this stubborn humanity into bright future.



If he was a better speaker that dragging of stubborn humanity would maybe work better.


----------



## zerotuL (Apr 28, 2017)

Folterknecht said:


> If he was a better speaker that dragging of stubborn humanity would maybe work better.


Maybe, but we have what we have. Nice speech skills is just a tiny pleasant bonus you can actually live without.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 28, 2017)

Steve Jobs on the other hand wasn't as nice as a inventor, actually used other people for that and sold it as his own ingenuity, but a great speaker instead.


----------



## zerotuL (Apr 28, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Steve Jobs on the other hand wasn't as nice as a inventor, actually used other people for that and sold it as his own ingenuity, but a great speaker instead.


Agree, but his company didn't do a lot of progress producing same crap for x3 price comparing to rivals . Just a good marketing nothing more. Musk did a lot more progress for humanity by landing engine back on Earth then the whole apple company did since its foundation.No innovation, just money making.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

In an appearance at the TED conference in Vancouver, Musk showed off a new video of electric 'skates' transporting cars in a narrow tunnel under a city before raising them back to street level in a space as small as two parking spaces.

Inside the tunnels, Musk said cars could travel as fast as 200 kilometers per hour (roughly 130 MPH) according to Axois.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 28, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Steve Jobs on the other hand wasn't as nice as a inventor, actually used other people for that and sold it as his own ingenuity, but a great speaker instead.



Yup a total narcissist,  just like Boyd Coddington(ahole).


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 28, 2017)

Someone say my name ?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 28, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> Someone say my name ?



That guy died in 2008.


----------



## droopyRO (Apr 28, 2017)

Whenever i hear his name i pray that he completes at least a quarter of what he desires. Life is ironic with this kind of very special people unfortunatley.


----------



## Vario (Apr 30, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> In an appearance at the TED conference in Vancouver, Musk showed off a new video of electric 'skates' transporting cars in a narrow tunnel under a city before raising them back to street level in a space as small as two parking spaces.
> 
> Inside the tunnels, Musk said cars could travel as fast as 200 kilometers per hour (roughly 130 MPH) according to Axois.


The thing that I find idiotic about the driverless car ideas that Musk is promoting is there will be no reason to own a car once they are all driverless.  It will make a lot more financial sense to just use a ride sharing service, or a train, or bus.  On those, you are just as much a passenger.  Atleast you won't have to spend a sizable chunk of your salary on a heap of metal and plastic.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 30, 2017)

Vario said:


> The thing that I find idiotic about the driverless car ideas that Musk is promoting is there will be no reason to own a car once they are all driverless.  It will make a lot more financial sense to just use a ride sharing service, or a train, or bus.  On those, you are just as much a passenger.  Atleast you won't have to spend a sizable chunk of your salary on a heap of metal and plastic.


I guess owning a car still makes it easier to reach one and saves a lot of money on the long run compared to services. But other than you're probably right. I guess high usage drivers will need a car anyway.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 30, 2017)

Owning Cars is A GOD GIVEN RIGHT   and Heavens angels (Your Government ) will ensure you continue this God given Right
How Else Can they Ensure you Tithe the GovernmentChurch with those Taxes


----------



## Countryside (Apr 30, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I have much admiration for the man....but not his speeches.



If only he could give speeches like Neil Degrasse Tyson.


----------



## Solaris17 (Apr 30, 2017)

The thing I really love about Musk is not only is he such a visonary, but he seems to be grounded enough to not come off as a total dbag like some other fruit company founders, which isnt to say they are totally at fault it seems to be a public trait for most of the top $ %. Elon though seems different. Not so pressurd by investors. When his rocket exploded he just keeps trucking, same with Tesla, boring, energy cells, home solar panels and home UPS batteries. I mean the guy is an energy legend IMO. Like his stance on electric or not he has moved very fast in a few years. Like I said though he still seems down to earth without the attitude that comes with being someone who has a light on them all the time.


----------



## Vario (May 1, 2017)

Just seems like mass transit would be a better thing to focus innovation on.  Its much more sustainable and affordable and theres so much room for improvement in quality, comfort, speed, safety, price, environmental friendliness.  I know his hyper loop is being developed.  Sounds like a good idea, especially if it could get you from city to city in minutes.

The actual Tesla cars seems a step forward in the wrong direction.  The vehicles are too expensive and once they are fully driverless, why own them?  I only have a car because I like being in control of the vehicle.

I was a car enthusiast and still drive a 5 speed mustang with a v8, some bolt on mods, but cars are a terrible way of moving people.  Just look at how inefficient highway rush hour traffic is to see the flaws.  One or two people per vehicle.  Each vehicle costs a small fortune.  Most of the energy is wasted just sitting idle on the road not moving.  Then you get it home and it sits in your driveway rusting away.  Most of the time you don't even use it, it just sits around.   I'd rather have a good set of rails that can take me across north america for a few bucks in a few hours with minimal pollution, minimal stress, fast, safe.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 1, 2017)

Vario said:


> Just seems like mass transit would be a better thing to focus innovation on.  Its much more sustainable and affordable and theres so much room for improvement in quality, comfort, speed, safety, price, environmental friendliness.  I know his hyper loop is being developed.  Sounds like a good idea, especially if it could get you from city to city in minutes.
> 
> The actual Tesla cars seems a step forward in the wrong direction.  The vehicles are too expensive and once they are fully driverless, why own them?  I only have a car because I like being in control of the vehicle.
> 
> I was a car enthusiast and still drive a 5 speed mustang with a v8, some bolt on mods, but cars are a terrible way of moving people.  Just look at how inefficient highway rush hour traffic is to see the flaws.  One or two people per vehicle.  Each vehicle costs a small fortune.  Most of the energy is wasted just sitting idle on the road not moving.  Then you get it home and it sits in your driveway rusting away.  Most of the time you don't even use it, it just sits around.   I'd rather have a good set of rails that can take me across north america for a few bucks in a few hours with minimal pollution, minimal stress, fast, safe.



I'm not big on autonomous cars, let alone hybrids. Think of demolition man. Only problem is some cities built too close to the roads to establish a mas transit train system.


----------



## Vario (May 1, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> I'm not big on autonomous cars, let alone hybrids. Think of demolition man. Only problem is some cities built too close to the roads to establish a mas transit train system.


My dad is a road biker and he is scared about driverless car implementation.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 1, 2017)

Frick said:


> Bah, I thought you were going to talk about how he is a bad speaker (technically), but nooooo. Because he is not a great speaker.
> 
> EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I am deeply fascinated by the guy. He is an actual visionary, and those are not common. He's just not a good speaker, and for some reason that annoys me.


They should hire me. I'm a great public speaker. I can also spew BS with the best of them. Just give me some loose facts and Ill have the investors creamin in their jeans.


----------



## Sasqui (May 1, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> The thing I really love about Musk is not only is he such a visonary, but he seems to be grounded enough to not come off as a total dbag like some other fruit company founders, which isnt to say they are totally at fault it seems to be a public trait for most of the top $ %. Elon though seems different. Not so pressurd by investors. When his rocket exploded he just keeps trucking, same with Tesla, boring, energy cells, home solar panels and home UPS batteries. I mean the guy is an energy legend IMO. Like his stance on electric or not he has moved very fast in a few years. Like I said though he still seems down to earth without the attitude that comes with being someone who has a light on them all the time.



Well put.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 1, 2017)

Vario said:


> My dad is a road biker and he is scared about driverless car implementation.



Cant blame him, eyes are faster than cameras still, as long as not distracted or intoxicated.


----------



## R-T-B (May 1, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cant blame him, eyes are faster than cameras still, as long as not distracted or intoxicated.



Actually, that's one of the few benefits I think a computer would have over a human:  Way faster reaction time.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 1, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Actually, that's one of the few benefits I think a computer would have over a human:  Way faster reaction time.



they don't, check with fighter pilots


----------



## R-T-B (May 1, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> they don't, check with fighter pilots



I'm going to throw some "citation needed" there, because I'm pretty sure all modern fighter jets use some form of computer assist for certain manauvers due to the extreme speeds involved.

Further reading:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-inherently-unstable-that-a-human-cant-fly-on

For the record, I'm not really "for" self-driving automobiles, but I am for having our facts straight.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 1, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm going to throw some "citation needed" there, because I'm pretty sure all modern fighter jets use some form of computer assist for certain manauvers due to the extreme speeds involved.
> 
> Further reading:
> 
> ...




Duly noted, but i used to work on flcs, radar, com, nav, fc, etc. F-16 A-Cj


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 2, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm going to throw some "citation needed" there, because I'm pretty sure all modern fighter jets use some form of computer assist for certain manauvers due to the extreme speeds involved.
> 
> Further reading:
> 
> ...


As someone who studied aeronautics' I can tell you for a fact you are only 50% correct. Yes in fact super sonic jets are all fly by wire now. But, that is for plane control. Control of the vertical stabilizers at 1000 mph and such. With that being said It's still a pilots brain that give the plane It's direction. Computers are supplement's to his/her brain. In other words no combat jet is autonomous. Even drones don't fly themselves.


----------



## R-T-B (May 2, 2017)

TheMailMan78 said:


> As someone who studied aeronautics' I can tell you for a fact you are only 50% correct. Yes in fact super sonic jets are all fly by wire now. But, that is for plane control. Control of the vertical stabilizers at 1000 mph and such. With that being said It's still a pilots brain that give the plane It's direction. Computers are supplement's to his/her brain. In other words no combat jet is autonomous. Even drones don't fly themselves.



Wasn't claiming to know everything, just thought further input would be good as backup.  Appreciated.


----------



## Hood (May 2, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> The thing I really love about Musk is not only is he such a visonary, but he seems to be grounded enough to not come off as a total dbag like some other fruit company founders, which isnt to say they are totally at fault it seems to be a public trait for most of the top $ %. Elon though seems different. Not so pressurd by investors. When his rocket exploded he just keeps trucking, same with Tesla, boring, energy cells, home solar panels and home UPS batteries. I mean the guy is an energy legend IMO. Like his stance on electric or not he has moved very fast in a few years. Like I said though he still seems down to earth without the attitude that comes with being someone who has a light on them all the time.


I for one am heartened by the fact that Elon Musk has not spent the time and effort to become a proficient public speaker - that would make him just another lying figurehead like Jobs, and not a visionary CEO who actually understands the technology he's selling and developing.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 2, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Cant blame him, eyes are faster than cameras still, as long as not distracted or intoxicated.



Nah, eye movement perhaps, but the brain can't process the information nearly as fast as a computer can, let alone convert that information into an actual response. Comparing to fighter pilots is also completely off the mark because the average driver is not nearly as trained, nor as concentrated on driving. IF everyone would be in an autonomous vehicle, we would instantly solve a good 75-90% of all car accidents and probably also more than half of all congestion.

Fear of autonomous cars however is very natural, I'm not a fan either, and I strongly doubt we'll see them in our lifetime as road legal and used by everyone, simply because cars are too holy for that and we don't change too easily. This will take one or two generations at least.

Regardless of all this, I'll keep driving as long as I can. I have a deep hatred for humans outsourcing everything in their lives to automated stuff, its very healthy to do things yourself and be forced to think about it, focus on it, get better at it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 2, 2017)

I was trained with the smith system as I drive a 24 foot box truck as a living now. 


Vayra86 said:


> Nah, eye movement perhaps, but the brain can't process the information nearly as fast as a computer can, let alone convert that information into an actual response. Comparing to fighter pilots is also completely off the mark because the average driver is not nearly as trained, nor as concentrated on driving. IF everyone would be in an autonomous vehicle, we would instantly solve a good 75-90% of all car accidents and probably also more than half of all congestion.
> 
> Fear of autonomous cars however is very natural, I'm not a fan either, and I strongly doubt we'll see them in our lifetime as road legal and used by everyone, simply because cars are too holy for that and we don't change too easily. This will take one or two generations at least.
> 
> Regardless of all this, I'll keep driving as long as I can. I have a deep hatred for humans outsourcing everything in their lives to automated stuff, its very healthy to do things yourself and be forced to think about it, focus on it, get better at it.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 2, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> I strongly doubt we'll see them in our lifetime as road legal and used by everyone,


Never going to happen
Reason To many people live out of built up area's   ie off Grid
Great and possible if you live in a Built up conurbation  not so great if you live in the Backwoods of nowhere


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2017)

Hood said:


> I for one am heartened by the fact that Elon Musk has not spent the time and effort to become a proficient public speaker - that would make him just another lying figurehead like Jobs, and not a visionary CEO who actually understands the technology he's selling and developing.


Nothing Musk has done thus far has really been revolutionary.  The same can be said for Jobs.  What both men succeeded at was making people want their product.  There were Blackberries and Windows CE before iPhone.  There were all electric cars and trucks before Tesla.  In both cases, they said "risks be damned" and released their product to consumers at large.  The products no one else thought there was much market for turned out to be more popular than anticipated.  That popularity comes from mindshare than the actual products though.



Vayra86 said:


> Fear of autonomous cars however is very natural, I'm not a fan either, and I strongly doubt we'll see them in our lifetime as road legal and used by everyone, simply because cars are too holy for that and we don't change too easily. This will take one or two generations at least.


They're talking the next 10 years.  It's coming and coming fast.



Vayra86 said:


> Regardless of all this, I'll keep driving as long as I can. I have a deep hatred for humans outsourcing everything in their lives to automated stuff, its very healthy to do things yourself and be forced to think about it, focus on it, get better at it.


They already practically are judging by how many accidents are caused by phone use.  Non-automated vehicles will be for recreational use (e.g. racing and rock climbing) while the majority will be for transportation use.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They're talking the next 10 years.  It's coming and coming fast.



They talk alot, just like electrical cars which were the future for 20 odd years but are only just now taking off, and only a little bit for the wealthy. Meanwhile, there are still problems with this technology that haven't been solved, let alone rolled out. There are many issues that will also massively increase once 'the masses' go electric - such as extremely high strain on the power net.

Other problems: insurance and liability. Security and privacy. And above all, there isn't a failsafe system yet for autonomous driving, it still is all in development and not a single manufacturer is ready to burn itself on actually releasing it to the public yet. The risks are huge: if your autonomous car is pioneering this and it goes wrong, you can say your multi million dollar investment goodbye overnight.

Remember, any time big companies push something, they say its the next best thing and it will be here tomorrow. Everything to gain momentum. VR is a great recent example of this, meanwhile, some VR startups are already withdrawing from the race and we've been in uncanny valley for about a year now with that tech.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2017)

Ford Is Planning To Mass Produce Self-Driving Taxis By 2021
General Motors, Lyft to build test fleet of self-driving Chevy Bolts, deploy thousands of EVs in 2018
Sciences Academy Panel Sees Self-driving Trucks on Road in Five Years

Electric vehicles were and still are held back by their batteries.  There's really nothing holding back self-driving cars because of deep-learning AIs.

Research that has already been done shows the autonomous vehicles have fewer accidents per mile than average.  Of all the recorded accidents, I believe only two instances the AI was at fault because it wasn't programmed to deal with a rare situation involving an 18 wheeler.


----------



## Vario (May 2, 2017)

If its the Tesla one, it wasnt that rare an incident, the truck's side was same color as the sky and the computer wasn't able to distinguish.  Also Tesla did some CYA (cover your ass) and said "oh you aren't supposed to use the autopilot system as an autopilot system"


----------



## f22a4bandit (May 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Nothing Musk has done thus far has really been revolutionary.



Would you include the successful launch and landing of reusable rockets in that statement? Because that's a first in aerospace history. I think the success has just normalized the accomplishments.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 2, 2017)

That was pretty remarkable at the same time, a parachute costs a lot less.  Like everything else Musk has done, it's not that it was impossible to do previously, it's that no one could justify the cost of doing it.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That was pretty remarkable at the same time, a parachute costs a lot less.  Like everything else Musk has done, it's not that it was impossible to do previously, it's that no one could justify the cost of doing it.



Nah, no one had the long term plan to justify the cost, nor the vision, or even the slightest grasp of the technology needed to get there.

The race to the moon was never, ever in a million lightyears a cost effective mission. The only justification was beating CCCP. Since then, nations have turned inwards and stopped looking at the horizon, too busy guarding their own assets and borders. In the meantime the free market turned global, and that is now the vehicle for visionaries to ride on.

Any direct comparison to 'but we do it like this now and its cheaper' falls apart once you can scale your solution to the masses, which is Musks' long term business plan for this adventure.


----------



## notb (May 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I'm going to throw some "citation needed" there, because I'm pretty sure all modern fighter jets use some form of computer assist for certain manauvers due to the extreme speeds involved.
> 
> Further reading:
> 
> ...



Correct. Some fighters are designed to be aerodynamically unstable and supermaneuverable. In such case plane's flight control surfaces (flaps etc) are constantly moving to keep the plane on course. Pilot is merely choosing a direction.
The best example to date is F-22. This plane changes direction so quickly it's very hard to target. In controlled experimental dogfights F-22 was winning against multiple enemies (I've heard about 5vs1, 8vs2).

Going back to cars: obviously a human is NOT faster than the machine. This is exactly why we get safety braking systems in cars lately. The computer recognises a collision and starts braking way before a human would move a leg.
And of course sensors can control a huge area around the car and even behind obstacles.




f22a4bandit said:


> Would you include the successful launch and landing of reusable rockets in that statement? Because that's a first in aerospace history. I think the success has just normalized the accomplishments.



Like @FordGT90Concept has mentioned - Musk isn't really inventing anything. He simply uses his vast amounts of money to make and sell things with financial loss.
Most car companies are working on electric and autonomous cars - they could make their own Tesla alternatives easily. They simply wait for a good moment (when it's profitable and sustainable). Musk did it few years earlier and is loosing huge amount of money.
The only thing that saves Musk is that... there aren't that many Teslas sold yearly, so the loss is limited. They sold just 80k cars in 2016 - that's only 1/3 of Porsche's result.
The big companies: VW, Toyota, Mercedes etc are looking for a way larger volume.

It's also widely known that most of Musk's ventures are built around some sort of public subsidies:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2017)

notb said:


> Correct. Some fighters are designed to be aerodynamically unstable and supermaneuverable. In such case plane's flight control surfaces (flaps etc) are constantly moving to keep the plane on course. Pilot is merely choosing a direction.
> The best example to date is F-22. This plane changes direction so quickly it's very hard to target. In controlled experimental dogfights F-22 was winning against multiple enemies (I've heard about 5vs1, 8vs2).


The most unstable aircraft was the Nighthawk.  It had the nickname "wobblin' goblin" for a reason.  Second most unstable is the flying wing designs (like B-2).  Without onboard computers keeping it steady, they're simply too unsafe to fly (predecessor crash landed because pilot couldn't counter the ground effect while landing).

That said, some aircraft (like stunt planes) have wings that are designed not to generate any lift.  This allows them to fly upside down as well as they fly right side up.  Problem is: their endurance is poor.


Eurofighter Typhoon successfully got kills on the Raptor, especially when thrust vectoring.  The velocity falls so much, they become an easy target to other aircraft operating in the theater.  Raptor's strength is in distance and stealth.  In a dogfight, it struggles when outnumbered.

The Pentagon canceled more orders for the F-22 for a reason.  Against modern adversaries (which USAF hasn't faced in a long time), it's not as effective in reality as it is on paper.



notb said:


> Like @FordGT90Concept has mentioned - Musk isn't really inventing anything. He simply uses his vast amounts of money to make and sell things with financial loss.
> Most car companies are working on electric and autonomous cars - they could make their own Tesla alternatives easily. They simply wait for a good moment (when it's profitable and sustainable). Musk did it few years earlier and is loosing huge amount of money.
> The only thing that saves Musk is that... there aren't that many Teslas sold yearly, so the loss is limited. They sold just 80k cars in 2016 - that's only 1/3 of Porsche's result.
> The big companies: VW, Toyota, Mercedes etc are looking for a way larger volume.
> ...


I think Tesla mostly makes its money through investments (stock market being the biggest one) over actual product sales.  Tesla is now worth more than GM even though it lost $600 million last year.  I don't think I have to explain what's wrong with this picture.






I don't think they've ever made money, actually:





I don't get it.  I really don't.  Tesla should have folded by now and it's stock should be a penny stock.  Someone is propping them up and it isn't just Musk himself.  Government subsidies explains some of it, not all of it.


----------



## Steevo (May 7, 2017)

Electricity is currently what we need more of, in cars, and other in city transit and over the road trucks with wires buried under the asphalt to provide continuous power. Make nuclear base load, and all other types supplemental for peak demand.


----------



## notb (May 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Eurofighter Typhoon successfully got kills on the Raptor, especially when thrust vectoring.  The velocity falls so much, they become an easy target to other aircraft operating in the theater.  Raptor's strength is in distance and stealth.  In a dogfight, it struggles when outnumbered.
> 
> The Pentagon canceled more orders for the F-22 for a reason.  Against modern adversaries (which USAF hasn't faced in a long time), it's not as effective in reality as it is on paper.



The experiments I've mentioned where conducted by USAF, so F-22 was put against other F's (F-15, F-16).
Of course it is well known that European/Russian planes are more agile. AFAIR F-22 was the first mass-produced supermaneuverable fighter from US. Typhoon is way more advanced and so are a few of currently made russian fighters. In fact almost all MIG/Su fighters designed since 1980s had some supermaneuverability properties.

As for the cancelled orders - I thought it was mainly because of the cost. F-35 can carry the same missiles and destroy the same targets. I think they've found F-22's stealth superiority not worth the money.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I think Tesla mostly makes its money through investments (stock market being the biggest one) over actual product sales.  Tesla is now worth more than GM even though it lost $600 million last year.  I don't think I have to explain what's wrong with this picture.
> 
> I don't think they've ever made money, actually:



Yes, in a way it's very much like IT stock bubbles we've already seen. Tesla's stock cap has nothing to do with financial plans etc. It's all built around a belief that they might rule the world one day.

Tesla is not paying any dividends and declared to keep it that way when they become profitable:
"Tesla has never declared dividends on our common stock. We intend on retaining all future earnings to finance future growth and therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future."
[http://ir.tesla.com/faq.cfm]

The current stock cap is so high they'll need over a decade to match it in actual cashflows (if they develop as planned...).

Also, we should not think about cars. Tesla is actually all about batteries and autonomous driving. The car is just a tech showcase and is not exactly a great all-rounder. It's neither fast nor comfortable.
I didn't have an oportunity to drive it (and I don't think it'll happen), but I was a passenger once and it was really disappointing. With the flat floor, huge LCD and very weird seats, I felt like sitting on a sofa, watching a TV.
So it makes total sense that Musk now plans to give us tunnels with platforms that will carry the car, so you don't have to drive at all. Basically, he's hoping to give us a mobile living room. I'm just waiting for a moment when the car becomes modular. You know: once home the seat will detach and carry you inside (no innovation here - The Jetsons had that 50 years ago  ).
If that's the future, Tesla is clearly the company that understands it best.
But if I actually wanted to buy an electric CAR, I'd rather get the e-Golf...



FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't get it.  I really don't.  Tesla should have folded by now and it's stock should be a penny stock.  Someone is propping them up and it isn't just Musk himself.  Government subsidies explains some of it, not all of it.


Simple speculation - IMO driven mostly by individual investors (also investing via large institutions). Americans love american companies - especially if they find them innovative and patriotic. Musk's empire fits beautifully.

Also, at any moment, Tesla could drop the car and become a worldwide leader in car batteries and auto driving systems. They could instantly become profitable, so maybe that's what investors are hoping for.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2017)

notb said:


> As for the cancelled orders - I thought it was mainly because of the cost. F-35 can carry the same missiles and destroy the same targets. I think they've found F-22's stealth superiority not worth the money.


YF-23 was stealthier than YF-22.  They choose YF-22 because they wanted more dogfighting capability.


----------



## notb (May 7, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> YF-23 was stealthier than YF-22.  They choose YF-22 because they wanted more dogfighting capability.


I meant the comparison between F-22 and F-35.
F-35 is cheaper and not behind in long-range efficiency. F-22 is superior in close-combat, but this is a dying scenario.
As you've said - YF-23 was stealthier, but it was also faster and with almost twice the range of F-22. It might have been a much better all-round machine (e.g. for bombing), but it lost because of lesser dogfight properties.
Let's not forget the ATF development program started in 1981 (AFAIK) and F-22 was chosen in 1991. A lot has change in air combat since then. It's not Top Gun anymore.

Hey... we lost the Musk topic a bit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 7, 2017)

They want F-35 because Marines want to get rid of Harriers and Air Force/Navy want to get rid of A-10, F-15, and F-16.  F-22 was meant to replace the F-18.  Most of the F-18s are going to be sticking around because the F-22 orders were canceled.



notb said:


> Hey... we lost the Musk topic a bit.


Nevermind Musk, we lost the boring topic.


----------

