The battery pack contactor is one of the only, if not actually the only, moving pieces in a battery pack. A solenoid connects or disconnects the battery pack from the rest of the car's electronics. In this case, it seems to fail in the open state, meaning the battery was not able to power the car. Either there was simply a bad production batch of these particular solenoids or a change in supplier for this part.
Model Ys still have a separate, standard 12V battery that power many of the car's non-drivetrain related parts. So in this case, the battery pack contactor failing open would cause the car to lose the ability to drive, but the doors/windows/lights/screen would all still likely be working.
That's not correct; you can say sentences like "The only moving parts in a dishwasher are the two pumps, the sprayer arms, the water inlet valve, and the detergent dispenser"; or "there are only two hard problems in computer science". So "one of the only" sounds just fine to me.
you can say sentences like "The only moving parts in a dishwasher are the two pumps, the sprayer arms, the water inlet valve, and the detergent dispenser"; or "there are only two hard problems in computer science".
In the dishwasher example, "only" refers to "moving parts" which is a collective singular, like how "baseball team" is properly an "it," not a "they."
Same goes for the compsci example. By modifying the plural with adjectives, you narrow its scope.
It's definitely not a collective singular, you say "the moving parts are", not "the moving parts is"; and "there are hard problems", not "there is hard problems".
Either way, the usage in the original comment was exactly the same as the dishwasher example: "the only moving parts are X, Y, and Z" => "X is one of the only moving parts".
"8 is one of the only" is a little off because it doesn't have an object, it relies on that being implicit from the prior sentence. "Only" here is an adjective, not a noun. The usage is a little awkward.
It would be more correct to say "there are only 4 positive integers less than 10. 8 is one of them."
This is only true on the energy and transportation sides of emissions. Some processes like the creation of cement and refining of steel create CO2 through chemical processes, regardless of the energy source.
You don't necessarily need fossil fuels for steel production. It is also nothing impossible in capturing CO2 from cement making - it's mainly centralized production and much simpler problem than transportation.
You do need a carbon source for steel production. It’s integral to steel. You don’t need coal per se, but you do need to burn carbon. Every technique so far will release some CO2 as a waste result.
The steel industry is one of the largest emitters of CO2, contributing 6%–7% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
That said, there's a difference between sourcing that carbon from fossil fuels, carbon "new" to the current land|sea|atmosphere cycle having been drawn up from where it was sequestered millions of years past, and carbon that is already part of the surface dynamic.
Major steel players, those in the billion tonne per annum mining and processing chain, are already going hard at replacing current steel making with several alternatives and have already built pilot plants to trial low | zero "new carbon" production techniques.
The carbon needed for steel as an alloying element is a small fraction of the carbon needed for reduction of iron ore. The latter is replaceable with renewable energy (hydrogen or direct electrolytic reduction).
Also, note that 70% of steel production in the US isn't from ore at all, but is from scrap metal. Most of the steel used in renewable energy infrastructure will not be consumed, but will be recycled.
On the other hand, steelmaking also uses limestone as flux, to remove impurities from molten steel. When heated on the steel this drives off CO2. Calcium oxide could be used instead, but then that has to be sourced without CO2 emission, just as in cement manufacture.
I think there are at least two ways to make lime without CO2 emission. The first is normal limestone calcination, but with CO2 capture. The other is to use calcium silicate. This means dissolution of the silicate with hydrochloric acid, separation of silica, then high temperature reaction of calcium chloride with steam to produce lime and hydrogen chloride. I understand there's a company trying to commercialize this latter process.
You can eliminate the vast majority of emissions by using hydrogen. Then the waste will be water instead of CO2. This is no longer hypothetical. Pilot plants have been successful enough that at least SSAB is investing billions into hydrogen-based steel production.
Interestingly, I got substantially different results depending on whether I used chrome with my typical extensions or not. Looking at the flamegraph, I don't seem to see the full picture of why there's such a substantial difference. Bitwarden/React Developer tools (the 2 primary extensions I use) don't seem to make enough of an impact to account for the roughly 40% performance increase seen without them. The browserbench javascript accounted for ~38.6% of the overall time taken for the benchmark, but the sum of my extensions was only 6.5%. I'm not incredibly familiar with browser performance profiling, so there's probably more to the story.
I understand where that sentiment comes from, especially looking at the slew of mid-sized companies that have never turned a profit despite paying multiple hundred K TCs, but if you look at the profits of the giants, it paints a different picture. The labor of thousands of very highly compensated engineers is still a drop in the bucket of the revenue generated by their labor. Alphabet seemingly employs somewhere between 20-40 thousand engineers, and it is their labor that produced all (?) of their revenue generating products. Spreading last year's revenue (~$282B) across their engineering staff would yield a revenue in the ballpark of $9M per engineer.
We all know that their engineers are paid well, but that's still potentially more than an order of magnitude off of the value they generate. Of course, there are many other expenses to running their business, but to claim that broadly developers are overvalued when one of the most prolific employers of developers is generating 10x+ the revenue of what they spend on them, is likely no more than only occasionally correct.
That raises an interesting question. If developers are toiling equally hard at company A and company B, on similar products, but company A currently had a dominant market position over company B thanks to network effects - are the developers at company A in any way responsible for its outsize gains and therefore due millions of dollars in TC?
I don't think OP is being overly negative in relation to the tone of the rest of the comments here. Nobody else up until this comment had mentioned anything about the actual important performance characteristics that the paper's authors' are claiming, and this does put it into perspective with the current state of the art. And OP does even end on an optimistic note anyway. No need to resort to personal attacks.
Edit: I appreciate you toning down the more combative part of your comment.
I think the excitement around this is partially people overestimating the properties of this particular material, but also partially people excited that if this is true, the method by which it works might result in the discovery of materials with even better properties.
Even this paper doesn't claim to have a particularly good superconductor as far as overall performance is concerned. It's not particularly close to the state of the art in critical field or current. But if it does turn out that their hypothesis claiming that the internal stress of the material allows it to bypass the current need for extremely high pressures / low temperatures, then perhaps there can be new materials developed that are better superconductors while still overcoming the current limitations presented by REBCOs and other leading superconductors. Also, that's not even mentioning that LK-99 has no particularly exotic materials. REBCOs rely on rare earth elements like Yttrium, but this just uses lead, copper, and phosphorus.
Hey Billy, very small nitpick on your site: The "Mission Sets" nav button is broken on the Viceroy page, and it looks like it's just down to the href missing the correct target (# instead of #mission-sets).
Tiny bug aside, I hope you find success in this venture. I'm sure there'll be a lot of naysayers, but I find it inspiring that someone is actually trying to do something in the sustainable air travel space with technology we have today rather than putting all of their eggs in the basket of yet to be seen technology.
SpaceX undoubtedly does have US government agencies as some of their biggest customers, but 98% must be a gross exaggeration. The Falcon 9/Heavy have made nearly all of their launch revenues, and from just perusing the lists [1][2] of all launches, the US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage.
SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also related to providing services to them, not just receiving money for nothing.
98% wasn't a number I pulled out of thin air. It's hard to know exact figures, but there are some people who publicly track what they can. [1]
From that source, SpaceX has about ~$5.515B in contracts. Of that, about $5.411B is from government contracts (military, NASA). That's about 98.1%.
There's probably a good chance it's higher, if they have govt contracts that aren't allowed to be public knowledge for security reasons.
Also, nobody is claiming SpaceX receives "money for nothing" from the govt. They are a contractor who, at least at these relatively early stages, need government contracts to survive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's the way many nascent industries survive. But we need to call a spade a spade.
That source only lists contracts where the price is known or can be reasonably estimated. Naturally, US government entities which have a semi-public bidding process are much easier to obtain a price estimate from. There's a large amount of foreign government contracts and private commercial contracts that are omitted from that list. Just from 2020 alone, SkySats 16-21, ANASIS-II, SXRS-1, SAOCOM 1B, GNOMES 1, Tybak-0172, SXM-7, and NROL-108.
Edit: I did unreasonably make the assumption that you were making the case the SpaceX was receiving subisidies for "nothing" and I see that you weren't now.
Hell, SpaceX is private so we have limited information across all domains. I acknowledged in my first post that accurate numbers are hard to come by. But we have to work with what information we have.
Foreign govts would still be govt money; many of those you listed are still public projects. Do you have estimates for those other private launches? If not, it's just speculation. Based on the information we have, it seems like it's safe to say the bulk of their launches are for governments. It's not a knock on them, and I'm not saying this is your perspective, but there's this kinda weird sentiment that they are some paragon of free-market capitalism when in fact they are a company highly dependent on government money. But that's exactly what I think is reasonable to expect in a nascent industry.
As a side note, There are easy esimates for private launches. SpaceX widely publicises their launch pricing, which lines up pretty well for the publicly disclosed contracts.
That’s fine. I’m completely ok with someone saying “I don’t know”. But the original post was trying to make a wild claim with zero evidence. I’m at least trying to ground my claim in some actual data while clearly acknowledging the limits of that data. I’m also completely fine with the veracity of that data being brought into question. What I’ve yet to see is anyone trying to refute it being an any additional data to the discussion that is of better quality. Losing Wikipedia launches (with little understanding of the business context and no actual revenue claims) is even more specious than I was using. It’s not a more informed or more rational argument, it’s an emotional bias.
Put differently, why do you think there isn’t an abundance of people chiming in to say “there’s not enough data to make a claim” rather than jumping to defend SpaceX’s honor? If people were truly rational, the strength of their convictions would be proportional to the strength of the data being it.
The other respondent brought up a good point regarding selection bias. A different way to approach the problem would be to look at total SpaceX launches by customer. This has its own problems, but might paint a better picture.
When talking about funding in general, you also have to consider that SpaceX has significant non launch Equity funding to the tune of $10B, and that contracts can include potential future Revenue instead of funds received.
Edit: If you look at their launches for 2020 onwards[1], Their number 1 customer is SpaceX (themselves), followed by US and other governments, followed by private companies.
While your borader conclusion is probably accurate regarding income, your spreadsheet only 71 of 216 Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, for ~$9B total. This is roughly on par with the VC funding they have recieved.
Sure, I can acknowledge there is likely a selection bias based on public reporting. But I would push back that it skews the data by an order of magnitude as suggested. We'd likely see many, many more private launches compared to public for that to be true. Let's be super generous and say that Starlink brings in $1B in revenue; that still means govt funding accounts for 80% of their revenue.
And, yes, we can talk about different ways of accounting. But I wouldn't count the fickle or volatile ones like "potential future revenue" as better than measuring actual contracts. (This is what SpaceX is investing in with their own launches, to be fair, but that's different than actual revenue). People trying to raise capital are always talking about potential revenue and potential market share, but you'll get much more investor money if you have actual purchase orders.
Like I said, I dont disagree with your broader point, and would agree that 80+% is a reasonable estimate.
$1B income for Starlink makes sense given they have ~1M customers paying ~$100/mo, and a $4-500 hookup cost.
Lasty, you have to consider that the government contract numbers you have are cummulative going back to 2012, while the Starlink revenue is annual (2022 only). If you look at government contracts for 2021, you only get $1.6B. Using those numbers, Starlink internet would be closer to 40% of revenue, with launch contracts at 60%, which starts to paint a very different story.
I think a lot of the feedback you are getting is a kneejerk reaction based on language. E.g.
"government funding" had a very different connotation than "government sales". People think subsidies and then their minds short circut.
You're probably right; I could have phrased it better. I think we pretty much agree, given what data is available. My main point is that their business model is predicated government contracts early before they can transition to other income streams. That's not really crony capitalism and it's part of the intent of the government to spur new industries. But I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capitalism that can exist outside of government money. (Which, ironically, is a point many people hold against legacy aerospace). And I think that latter point is relevant because SpaceX (and Musk himself) is often held up as some sort of capitalistic ideal and any counterpoint to that makes people bristle. In all, however, I think that hybrid approach is ultimately beneficial to both SpaceX and the public.
I think we prettymuch agree to, but I have an obvious quibbling problem.
> I would also hold it as distinct from pure free-market capitalism that can exist outside of government money. (Which, ironically, is a point many people hold against legacy aerospace). And I think that latter point is relevant because SpaceX (and Musk himself) is often held up as some sort of capitalistic ideal and any counterpoint to that makes people bristle. In all, however, I think that hybrid approach is ultimately beneficial to both SpaceX and the public
I think a lot of people dont really get this nuanced distinction. Rockets and spaceships have always been never been built by the government. Most of the work was always done by publically traded companies. NASA, whomever, would put out a contract, and then be involved in high level diretion of the design process.
The difference with SpaceX is that 1) they not publically traded (who cares?) and 2) they dont take design direction from NASA for their rockets, and built what they wanted. Thats it!
The cool part is that they built somthing more ambitious buy cutting NASA out of the design process, and relied on the fact that it will be so good that NASA will want it when they saw it.
My quibble is that this is very different than the classic case of the government spuring new industires. The government was already buying rockets from established manufactures for a half centry. SpaceX just came in and ate other companies lucnhes by being more focused and more efficienct.
This isn’t new. It’s exactly how the airplane was invented over 100+ years ago.
The Army didn’t tell Orville and Wilbur how to build. They dangled the carrot of a lucrative military contract to incentivize their innovation. It’s what transitioned the effort from hobbyists to an actual industry. There was no “industry” until the govt put up money because the govt was really the only entity that could bear that kind of risk. It’s the same with the initial days of SpaceX.
I think that is where we differ, but maybe I didnt explain my stance well.
I agaree that the government contracts are a carrot, and broadly speaking supports the entire space industry. Im not debating that at all.
However, I do think there is a narrative difference between companies that that humm along doing the same thing eating eating their carrots, and a new one that beats them at their own game and steals all the carrots. The carrots have been there for decades, and then someone came along and radically shakes up the industry and it makes it jump forward. Thats exciting!
It is like when a chef tells the customer "I wont make what you ordered, But I will make something so much better you can't resist.
It is as if Lockeed were to tell the military I won't build the F-35 to your specs, but when you see it, you will want it more than what you designed.
This is exciting because it marks a transition of industry dynamics. Something changed, and it wasn't the carrots. SpaceX brought something new to the table in a 60 industry, and they deserve credit for that change. The government deserves credit too, but the dynamic is different than if it were year 1 of the space industry.
The carrot did change, though. What’s fundamentally different about this carrot is that it is the first time large service contracts for space have been leveraged. Previously it was product contracts. In the latter, the govt provides specs on the hardware and drive the design. The entire mechanism of the CCP carrot is designed around a relatively hands-off approach to the hardware design to instead just specified the purchase of a ride. It doesn’t matter if it’s sci-fi tech or a donkey, as long as it gets the job done.
I still give SpaceX credit that they did a much better job of raising the bar in response to that incentive. I have some reservations about the way they’ve gone about some of it, but at the end of the day I think they have done a much better job than the legacy aerospace companies.
The bulk of their own launches are for their own infrastructure. That doesn't bring revenue at the launch date. They aren't paying themselves to launch their equipment; it's an investment in future revenue. Even looking at optimistic projections for 2023 Starlink revenue puts would still mean govt contracts dwarf Starlink revenue by 4:1.
>And that is outside of their Starship business, that is by now a large part of its revenue.
Starship is bringing in investment money, not revenue that I'm aware of. I don't know what revenue it would be bringing without actual launches. Maybe I'm wrong and you can correct me here, but I think you are conflating some business aspects.
Now if you're saying that the private money will be a bigger factor in the future, I agree. That's the whole idea behind govt money being used to foster along nascent industries: the govt props them up early until a viable private enterprise can exist later.
I meant to say Starlink rather then Starship. They have over a million subscribers now. Plus larger clients in shipping and air travel, plus the military.
Honestly I don't get your issue. You can just go to wikipedia and look at the list of the launches. So clearly the 98% is wrong, this isn't a question, its not speculation.
The original claim was “US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage”.
Let’s say it’s by “low double digit percentage” we’re generous and say 20%. (I interpreted their stance to be lower, but they didn’t specify).
We can are there is incomplete data but we have reasonably good data on the the govt side: U.S. govt contacts are at least $5.4B, likely higher. So that means we expect the complementary private side to be 5x, or over $22B. The absolute most optimistic Starlink estimates about $2B through 2023. Do you think the other private streams dwarf Starlink by 10x? I just don’t see how we get there given the govt is still there #1 launch customer after Starlink, and this is the most generous interpretation to steelman the case. The only way is true is if there is some unknown customer launching nearly 3x that of the US govt.
The only way the numbers work out is if the govt is the major revenue stream or there’s some secret launch customer that dwarfs the US space agencies.
It’s a claim based on wishful feeling, not on data.
No disagreement; this actually is proving my point. I'm pretty clear about using the larger business cycle as my point. I'm not taking a snapshot in time, I'm saying relying on govt contracts early is necessary for their business to survive. Others are either twisting or misinterpreting my point.
To be absolutely explicitly clear: their business model requires using govt contracts/funding/sales early before they can transition to other viable means of revenue. They could not survive as a company without those early govt contracts, but this does not mean they are dependent on govt contracts into perpetuity.
A dependency on govt contracts early and an increasingly private revenue stream can both be true. This isn't bad, but it also isn't the often-lauded ideal of free-market capitalism.
Model Ys still have a separate, standard 12V battery that power many of the car's non-drivetrain related parts. So in this case, the battery pack contactor failing open would cause the car to lose the ability to drive, but the doors/windows/lights/screen would all still likely be working.