Flying Tesla Roadster

[Cyclotron]

Look at Analog Kid and Randy222 coming here to spend their time discussing something they're apparently so uninterested in.

It's almost like watching a couple of old-timers shaking their fists at those darn gee-whiz kids playing with their newfangled vacuum tubes, transistors, and film capacitors, dismissing them as sci-fi fanbois.

Is it the engineering that bothers you, Musk, or simply the fact that others find it fascinating?

For two people so thoroughly unimpressed, you certainly seem remarkably invested in telling everyone just how unimpressed you are.

So, Musk has always been in my eye just a crafty scam artist. A lot of the money used by Musk was from taxpayer money. Legal is legal though.
Another example, crapple just ripping people off on handheld limited-use computer. Yeah, their new fold phone, which has been done for years now by another company, will cost near $3000 for the "high end" model. But hey, if people buy it, so be it.

Thruster systems have been around since,.................. 1950? (check my math). So from that angle it's rather dull in 2026. To see the system applied to a falling car, like they have done on the rockets for years now, is not that impressive at this point.

Randy, I asked whether it was the engineering or Musk that bothered you, and you opened with Musk, took a scenic detour through Apple's pricing, and eventually made it back to the Roadster.

As for the tax incentives, I'm not necessarily a fan of them either, but had Musk declined to take advantage of what's legally available, I suspect you'd be criticizing him for neglecting his fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. Seems like a no-win proposition.

Yes, thrusters have been around for decades. So have wheels, electric motors, and microcontrollers. Fortunately, real engineers haven't concluded there's nothing interesting left to do with them.

The interesting part isn't inventing a thruster. It's integrating propulsion, control systems, and vehicle dynamics to make a car perform those maneuvers.

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

[Analog Kid]

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

Not really. It'd still be hubris and fanboi stuff.

[Cyclotron]

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

Not really. It'd still be hubris and fanboi stuff.

There's a certain irony in accusing others of hubris while seemingly treating your own assessment of what's worthwhile in engineering as the definitive one.

Considering the scale of engineering challenges SpaceX and Tesla undertake, this Roadster demonstration seems like a relatively modest exhibition of technical capability. Some engineers got to push boundaries and have a little fun showing what they accomplished.

Why must appreciating that be an exercise in hubris or fanboyism? Sometimes engineering is simply about exploring what's possible, whether or not someone else considers it worthwhile.

I'd have thought an engineering forum, of all places, would appreciate that distinction.

[Randy222]

Randy, I asked whether it was the engineering or Musk that bothered you, and you opened with Musk, took a scenic detour through Apple's pricing, and eventually made it back to the Roadster.

As for the tax incentives, I'm not necessarily a fan of them either, but had Musk declined to take advantage of what's legally available, I suspect you'd be criticizing him for neglecting his fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. Seems like a no-win proposition.

Yes, thrusters have been around for decades. So have wheels, electric motors, and microcontrollers. Fortunately, real engineers haven't concluded there's nothing interesting left to do with them.

The interesting part isn't inventing a thruster. It's integrating propulsion, control systems, and vehicle dynamics to make a car perform those maneuvers.

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

You skipped fact I mentioned, that Apple is doing a fold phone that has already been done, yet I not sure why anyone is so excited about that, it's old hat now.

I have seen people put a jet engine on a car too, back in early 1960's. Not much ever came of it in terms of propulsion.

I wonder how many engineers get complete satisfaction building useless things? I know in automotive world, 10yrs of R&D to enhance or solve a problem is very normal progression. I know Toyota does years of heavy R&D just to gain 0.1 in engine efficiency.

So the difference is, practical real-world engineering and cool stuff, vs the thruster lander Tesla car.

[Psi]

So, Musk has always been in my eye just a crafty scam artist. A lot of the money used by Musk was from taxpayer money. Legal is legal though.

Seems like the taxpayer got a good deal, it brought in mass EV adoption, built a big charging network that other cars can use, etc.. How much gas-money have taxpayers saved by owning EV's that they wouldn't have had without the mass EV adaption caused by Tesla ?

I think there's way more taxpayer money being wasted with nothing to show for it, and in way higher volumes that what Tesla got.   It's totally fair to question all taxpayer money being usage but I don't see anything wasteful in this case.

[EEVblog]

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

Not really. It'd still be hubris and fanboi stuff.

It's totally because of Musk.
It would even be different if it was "old Musk" that all the eco-leftist's used to absolutely love, before, you know, he became Hitler or something.

[mtwieg]

Go watch one of the Falcon Heavy launches and then watch the booster rockets safely land by themselves

I definitely did, not only was that extremely impressive on a technical level, there was an obvious and practical application for it (lowering the cost of orbiting payload).

and then ask yourself again "How can we take this guy seriously?"

Okay. How can anybody take this guy seriously?

Elon's flying car make not be practical today but the guidance and control technology that it clearly demonstrates could be directly useful for emergency escape systems for manned aircraft and manned rockets and all sorts of other applications that no one has even imagined yet.  Any creditable engineer should be able to look at this demo and see the tremendous numbers of ways that this this technology could be employed in hundreds of applications. But some of you can't see any practical use because all you can see is your hatred of Elon Musk.

You seem to be under the impression that there's some sort of groundbreaking technology on display here. AFAIK these are just aerospace propulsion systems jammed into the form factor of a car. That's literally the only novel aspect of it. And I can't take it seriously.

[Cyclotron]

You skipped fact I mentioned, that Apple is doing a fold phone that has already been done, yet I not sure why anyone is so excited about that, it's old hat now.

I have seen people put a jet engine on a car too, back in early 1960's. Not much ever came of it in terms of propulsion.

I wonder how many engineers get complete satisfaction building useless things? I know in automotive world, 10yrs of R&D to enhance or solve a problem is very normal progression. I know Toyota does years of heavy R&D just to gain 0.1 in engine efficiency.

So the difference is, practical real-world engineering and cool stuff, vs the thruster lander Tesla car.

Randy, your folding-phone example rather illustrates my point. Someone doing something first doesn't mean there's nothing left to engineer, improve, or explore. By that logic, we should have stopped developing automobiles after the Model T.

Edison famously found plenty of ways *not* to make a practical light bulb. Experimentation, including efforts that don't lead directly to a commercial product, is part of engineering.

Nobody is suggesting this Roadster demonstration will revolutionize transportation. It's an exhibition of engineering capability, and sometimes that's reason enough to appreciate it.

What I find puzzling is your insistence that engineering must meet your particular standard of practical usefulness before it's worthy of interest.

You seem far more interested in explaining why this achievement doesn't matter than discussing what the engineers actually accomplished.

Given that your first response was about Musk, it's increasingly difficult to escape the impression that your objection has more to do with who's behind the demonstration than the engineering itself.

[EEVblog]

You seem to be under the impression that there's some sort of groundbreaking technology on display here. AFAIK these are just aerospace propulsion systems jammed into the form factor of a car. That's literally the only novel aspect of it. In I can't take it seriously.

There is a lot of control systems engineering at play here.
They have released some test footage:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/40708251/musk-flying-car-crashes-flames/

[Cyclotron]

I suspect if someone other than Musk had demonstrated it, we'd be having a rather different engineering discussion.

Not really. It'd still be hubris and fanboi stuff.

It's totally because of Musk.
It would even be different if it was "old Musk" that all the eco-leftist's used to absolutely love, before, you know, he became Hitler or something.

I agree. I guess what I find amusing is that they could just say "F Musk" and move on. It's like they cant admit it or something. I have to guess they have themselves convinced and believe they can convince everyone else. 

[Randy222]

Randy, your folding-phone example rather illustrates my point. Someone doing something first doesn't mean there's nothing left to engineer, improve, or explore. By that logic, we should have stopped developing automobiles after the Model T.

Not sure what's new is in the fold ability of the phone that is different than any other fold done by others, nothing that I can see, the phone folds open, nothing magic or new there, not really that exciting.

And doing it after someone else was not my point. My point was, the apple fans are all excited about it the same way the Tesla fans were of the "f-lying" car. That's my point.

[Andy Chee]

For someone emphasizing that this is an engineering forum, I'd suggest applying a little more rigor to examining the available data before drawing conclusions.

According to available data so far, your contribution in this thread is weighted significantly towards non-engineering aspects.

Reply #40 contains no engineering comment (praise of Tesla's engineers is not an engineering comment).
Reply #71 also contains no commentary on the engineering.
Reply #75 also contains no commentary nor questions about the engineering.
Reply #76 similarly contains nothing relevant to the engineering of the flying Roadster.
Reply #79 is mostly a personal reflection.  But the comment about telemetry is the first engineering related question you raised.
Reply #81 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #85 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #91 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #93 raises good question about the suction system
Reply #98 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #100 could've been more about system integration....but instead much of the post is not about system integration
Reply #102 no engineering or technical contribution
Reply #107 philosophy of science and philosophy of engineering
Reply #109 no engineering or technical contribution

I will freely admit that this post is definitely not contributing to the engineering nor technical content of this thread.

[temperance]

There is a lot of control systems engineering at play here.

Naah, you are taking a complete leg on me. From what I saw it always lands on its wheels. The solution is probably very simple and they just put a cat in it.

[Cyclotron]

For someone emphasizing that this is an engineering forum, I'd suggest applying a little more rigor to examining the available data before drawing conclusions.

According to available data so far, your contribution in this thread is weighted significantly towards non-engineering aspects.

Reply #40 contains no engineering comment (praise of Tesla's engineers is not an engineering comment).
Reply #71 also contains no commentary on the engineering.
Reply #75 also contains no commentary nor questions about the engineering.
Reply #76 similarly contains nothing relevant to the engineering of the flying Roadster.
Reply #79 is mostly a personal reflection.  But the comment about telemetry is the first engineering related question you raised.
Reply #81 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #85 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #91 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #93 raises good question about the suction system
Reply #98 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #100 could've been more about system integration....but instead much of the post is not about system integration
Reply #102 no engineering or technical contribution
Reply #107 philosophy of science and philosophy of engineering
Reply #109 no engineering or technical contribution

I will freely admit that this post is definitely not contributing to the engineering nor technical content of this thread.

Andy, I must admit, I didn't expect my participation in a discussion about a flying Roadster to undergo a formal engineering content audit.

You've clearly put considerable effort into cataloguing my posts, although I'm not sure when we established a minimum technical-content requirement for participating in General Technical Chat.

Engineering isn't exclusively about calculations, schematics, and system specifications. It's also about experimentation, innovation, engineering culture, and appreciating what others have accomplished.

You even acknowledge that I've raised technical questions about telemetry, suction systems, and integration, so apparently the issue isn't whether I've contributed anything technical, but whether I've met your preferred quota.

I'm happy to discuss the engineering. I'm also happy to celebrate the people doing it.

Perhaps we could spend a little less time engineering a classification system for my posts and a little more discussing the Roadster?

[Cyclotron]

Randy, your folding-phone example rather illustrates my point. Someone doing something first doesn't mean there's nothing left to engineer, improve, or explore. By that logic, we should have stopped developing automobiles after the Model T.

Not sure what's new is in the fold ability of the phone that is different than any other fold done by others, nothing that I can see, the phone folds open, nothing magic or new there, not really that exciting.

And doing it after someone else was not my point. My point was, the apple fans are all excited about it the same way the Tesla fans were of the "f-lying" car. That's my point.

Ah, so the objection isn't that someone did it first, but that people are excited about it?

I'm not sure why enthusiasm for technology needs to be justified by novelty or practical usefulness. Sometimes people simply appreciate seeing engineers do something extraordinary, even with established technology.

I'd have thought an electronics engineering forum would be one of the last places where we'd need to explain the appeal of that.

After all, we're still getting excited about glowing vacuum tubes, and those aren't exactly breaking news.

[Cyclotron]

For someone emphasizing that this is an engineering forum, I'd suggest applying a little more rigor to examining the available data before drawing conclusions.

According to available data so far, your contribution in this thread is weighted significantly towards non-engineering aspects.

Reply #40 contains no engineering comment (praise of Tesla's engineers is not an engineering comment).
Reply #71 also contains no commentary on the engineering.
Reply #75 also contains no commentary nor questions about the engineering.
Reply #76 similarly contains nothing relevant to the engineering of the flying Roadster.
Reply #79 is mostly a personal reflection.  But the comment about telemetry is the first engineering related question you raised.
Reply #81 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #85 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #91 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #93 raises good question about the suction system
Reply #98 has no engineering or technical contribution.
Reply #100 could've been more about system integration....but instead much of the post is not about system integration
Reply #102 no engineering or technical contribution
Reply #107 philosophy of science and philosophy of engineering
Reply #109 no engineering or technical contribution

I will freely admit that this post is definitely not contributing to the engineering nor technical content of this thread.

On second thought, I totally missed the complement to me and apologize for that.

To think I've lived rent free in your mind, you spent either your llm tokens, time, or both on me. What a compliment, I think I blushed a bit. 

[MT]

Elon is a bit late to the game! Perhaps hes desperate due to Cyber Fuck became the biggest fiasco in car history.

[cunningfellow]

Multi Kill is hypergolic isn't it.

[Cyclotron]

Elon is a bit late to the game! Perhaps hes desperate due to Cyber Fuck became the biggest fiasco in car history.

At least that was a cool video just like that of the Roadster.

It's a long ways from lethal (nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine-type derivatives) propulsion systems on a shoebox to a car spewing air don't ya think?

I know you hate Elon and are just dropping by to say so but, don't you think Elon would enjoy that you compared him to Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars program?

[Cyclotron]

Multi Kill is hypergolic isn't it.

Yup, handle with care. Just more Kill for the multi. 

[MT]

Elon is a bit late to the game! Perhaps hes desperate due to Cyber Fuck became the biggest fiasco in car history.

At least that was a cool video just like that of the Roadster.
It's a long ways from lethal (nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine-type derivatives) propulsion systems on a shoebox to a car spewing air don't ya think?
I know you hate Elon and are just dropping by to say so but, don't you think Elon would enjoy that you compared him to Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars program?

I know you are a butt hurt Elon fanboi and are just dropping by to say so according to available data so far you still contributes nothing towards the engineering aspects of Elons latest dazzler
for idiots, i mean Elon could as well put rocket engines, magnets whatever he uses on a 1 ton brick and do the same thing. Btw i dont hate Elon and his Hitler salutes as Cyber Fuck still remain
among car industry heavyweights as the biggest engineering fiasco in car history on so many levels it also now regarded as a engineering dazzler for idiots.

[Cyclotron]

Elon is a bit late to the game! Perhaps hes desperate due to Cyber Fuck became the biggest fiasco in car history.

At least that was a cool video just like that of the Roadster.
It's a long ways from lethal (nitrogen tetroxide or hydrazine-type derivatives) propulsion systems on a shoebox to a car spewing air don't ya think?
I know you hate Elon and are just dropping by to say so but, don't you think Elon would enjoy that you compared him to Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars program?

I know you are a butt hurt Elon fanboi and are just dropping by to say so according to available data so far you still contributes nothing towards the engineering aspects of Elons latest dazzler
for idiots, i mean Elon could as well put rocket engines, magnets whatever he uses on a 1 ton brick and do the same thing. Btw i dont hate Elon and his Hitler salutes as Cyber Fuck still remain
among car industry heavyweights as the biggest engineering fiasco in car history on so many levels it also now regarded as a engineering dazzler for idiots.

Big sloppy kisses MT. My butt only hurts for you.
Maybe stay away from that hydrazine, nasty stuff.

[Psi]

I know you are a butt hurt Elon fanboi

Big sloppy kisses MT. My butt only hurts for you.
Maybe stay away from that hydrazine, nasty stuff.

MT, if you think someone is a fanboy there's a simple test. Just ask them to list some negatives about the person. If they can't/won't tell you any then they're a fanboy. But if they list you some valid negatives you agree with then they're not.  I think you'd find Cyclotron could easy list negatives about Elon that you agree with and hence prove rational thought that weighs all the pros/cons to come to his viewpoint.
Interpretation and weighting of those pros/cons to come to a final view is of course down to the individual person. But just calling Cyclotron a fanboy is stupid.

[Cyclotron]

I know you are a butt hurt Elon fanboi

Big sloppy kisses MT. My butt only hurts for you.
Maybe stay away from that hydrazine, nasty stuff.

MT, if you think someone is a fanboy there's a simple test. Just ask them to list some negatives about the person. If they can't/won't tell you any then they're a fanboy. But if they list you some valid negatives you agree with then they're not.  I think you'd find Cyclotron could easy list negatives about Elon that you agree with and hence prove rational thought that weighs all the pros/cons to come to his viewpoint.
Interpretation and weighting of those pros/cons to come to a final view is of course down to the individual person. But just calling Cyclotron a fanboy is stupid.

I think you're right and it is 100% something I've seen people do on various sides of whatever the socials is fighting over at the moment. I have used it in conversations even with people supporting someone I also tend to support. Because a zealot is a zealot and its hard to find considered thoughtfulness and insight from zealots.

No one has to ask. I have made these observations here before but can summarize them again.  Elon is weird (I'm weird so I recognize it) and pompous, and egotistical. I think he gets giddy and overly stimulated and makes wild claims that are not helpful.  He's apt to latch onto dumb threads and say some dumb shit.  I have no idea why he thought it was a good idea to get so tight in politics but its his right. I don't think he should have bought X, I think he should have walked away and let it die as it was doing. I understand he had a passion about speech and he put his money where his mouth is but that''s also a sunk debt fallacy.

I also think he's a bit too elitist for my taste but its hard to argue with the majority of his results. Technically he's got a batting average of predicting things that few have shown.  In some ways he's parallel Warren Buffet's ability to see business outcomes in Elon's ability to rightly predict technology outcomes.  Not a big fan of Warren Buffet either but its hard to argue with his success in predictions.

I really believe that he provides an engineering work place and environment that breeds some amazing things. The Roadster is such a demonstration of the type of stuff he has let go on. It isn't going to make Tesla any substantial money. They had to cut other things from production to free space for it. But I'd bet you every engineer in those facilities wants to work on it. I know I would. That is thought leadership and just pure nerdy. 

Lastly, I'm autistic and so is Elon; I've seen some of his social faux pas and I know how it feels.   I consider that I might have some bias due that sorta of kinship?

[Psi]

It's pretty normal for anyone who achieves great things in life to have done some not-so-great things too. And these sort of people are normally a bit of an asshole in one way or another. It tends to come hand in hand with having the personality needed to actually get things done. 
I'm not sure exactly what makes people focus on the negatives and ignore the sum of everything. I guess it just comes down to what you feel is more important in life.

Taken to an extreme fictional example, if someone created the cure for all cancers but they were also convicted of CP I think some peoples heads would explode. There would likely be a rather large % of people who would rather die than take the cure.  As if one thing has anything to do with the other.
In this example I would only view refusing the cure as a valid moral standpoint if the CP was in some way used to create the cure. eg, if there was a link between them.  But I think many people would disagree. I think in some peoples eyes doing bad things forfeits your right to be allowed to do anything good for society. Which is fucked up.