- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Analysts criticise lack of detail about the ‘robotaxi’ showcased by CEO Elon Musk
Tesla shares fell nearly 9% on Friday, wiping about $60bn (£45bn) from the company’s value, after the long-awaited unveiling of its so-called robotaxi failed to excite investors.
Shares in the electric carmaker tumbled to $217 at market close following an event in Hollywood, where the chief executive, Elon Musk, revealed a much-hyped driverless vehicle. The stock price is down roughly 12% year-to-date.
…
However, analysts said the event was short on detail and also expressed disappointment over a lack of specifics about other Tesla projects. Musk has a history of making grand projections about upcoming products and failing to follow through in the timeframe he has set, or at all.
Don’t worry, Trump and Elon said that if Trump wins 2024, we’ll have a man on Mars before Trump’s term is over.
So from someone who works in human spaceflight, this is ridiculously outrageous.
I’m not insinuating that anyone thought it was realistic, but just confirming your suspicions.
Don’t worry, since Trump will install himself as dictator for life, this means he has more than 4 years to get someone to Mars.
Then again, given Trump’s age and diet, maybe 4 years is generous in and of itself…
Can you think of any realistic benefit to a manned mission to Mars?
Bringing back samples would be an amazing feat, and that seems a worthwhile mission. Having a human onboard seems to complicate things far more than any data that would give us would be worth.
Once those ring gates open, Mars will be finished.
🤞
I’m not the person you asked and I don’t know anything about such things so this is just supposition but…
I guess it’s an important milestone on the way to colonising Mars. It would be an acknowledgement that we’ve solved (or mitigated…) all the problems in getting a human to and fro.
Now, if you’re asking whether there’s any realistic benefit to colonising Mars, the answer IMHO is “not in the next 50 years”.
Yeah, that’s about what I’m thinking. A manned mission to Mars could be an interesting project for our kids or grandkids. Anyone talking about it in our lifetimes is just a grifter.
Lots of side benefits when solving the problems faced getting there.
There are lots of useful minerals on Mars.
Backup planet if earth gets asteroided
An asteroided earth is still more habitable than Mars.
Probably. And a lunar base is likely much more achievable for the same objective.
First, it’s crewed or human mission - inclusive language is important! :)
I do think human exploration is important because humans can cover longer distances faster. So your overall options for exploration increase. I do think both human and robotic are important and serve valuable purposes.
It would be more complicated with humans, but I think that’s also a valuable learning experience that could lead to technology that would benefit Earth.
I do not think “colonization” or whatever term you want to use should be a priority. I think science and exploration are what we should stick to, and if your excuse for colonization is because something bad will happen to Earth so we have to go somewhere else…just spend that time and those resources figuring out how to not fuck up Earth just to go fuck up the next place.
Will this man be alive by the time he reaches mars, or returns to earth? Will the mars spacecraft have the same build quality and reliability as a Tesla Cybertruck, or will it blue screen after leaving the Earth’s orbit?
Dude, I’m positive he won’t make it 2 years and then those christofascists can start with their project with JD couchfucking Vance as the president.