/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10271211]

why the fuck is no one talking about this
>24 hour engine assembly time
>72h launch interval
>electric pumps, ensuring easy startup and throttle and reducing complexity
>cheap as fuck while maintaining the same cost/kg as falcons
>already several successful launches and 12 planned ones next year

[Anonymous No.10271219]

>>10271211
>loses charge before max Q
>unable to cross the Karman line

[Anonymous No.10271222]

>>10271219
are you retarded? they have reached orbit several times already
there are actually multiple moon missions planned for next year, and so far there has been no overpromising or pipedreams, the company is pretty down to earth and transparent in its goals

[Anonymous No.10271224]

>>10271211
I don't see the point in launching cubesats on dedicated missions when pretty much every launch has enough margin to take 20.

[Anonymous No.10271228]

>>10271224
They can't take so many, they need the payload space for the batteries

[Anonymous No.10271230]

>>10271224
>this is now considered a cubesat

[Anonymous No.10271247]

>>10271224
>more affordable for certain companies, thus filling an insofar unexplored market niche
>overall bigger margins considering the potential launch interval
>smaller launch profile in general reducing complexity and preparation

[Anonymous No.10271248]

>>10271211
>why the fuck is no one talking about this
Because people are not getting paid to shill for this company and SpaceX fans don't care about spaceflight or rockets.

[Anonymous No.10271250]

>>10271230
yeah that i understand but don't they market themselves for cubesats mostly?

[Anonymous No.10271254]

>>10271211
Is there an Elon's dick to suck?
Don't think so kiddo.

[Anonymous No.10271259]

>>10271248
it is really interesting, isn't it
I literally just discovered it by randomly reading an article about the Rutherford engine

[Anonymous No.10271261]

Slightly less interesting than amateur rocket launches.

[Anonymous No.10271262]

>>10271211
I think that it's because they are just born, i know that they already made several successful launches, but you have to wait for them to put something on the moon to have at least 3 threads on /sci/.
Almost nobody was talking about spacex before they tried to land a booster

[Anonymous No.10271271]

>>10271230
That's a render of a lunar lander which doesn't exist...

[Anonymous No.10271282]

>>10271271
like BFR ?

[Anonymous No.10271288]

>>10271271
>several successful tests, including flight
>no delays so far
>partnered with NASA
>still scheduled for 2019
just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it will, unless you go by the same logic as >>10271282

[Anonymous No.10271326]

>>10271282
>>10271288
You guys obviously don't know that the lander in question isn't being developed by Rocket Lab, but another company called Moon Express, who have bought a flight on the Electron. Moon Express are a dodgy company who haven't built anything more than a plastic mockup of the lander, with no evidence of any real hardware, leaving employees and evidence of funding troubles. The MX-1 launch on the Electron was originally scheduled for 2017, then slipped to 2018 and is now 2019. Although they did win a NASA CLPS contract, I have very little faith in Moon Express. SpaceX on the other hand are going to launch the first ever commercial lunar lander in February, in the form of the Israeli built Beresheet.

[Anonymous No.10271327]

>>10271211

[Anonymous No.10271338]

>>10271326
You guys obviously don't know that the lander in question isn't being developed by SpaceX, but another company called SpaceIL, who have bought a flight on the Falcon. (((SpaceIL))) are a dodgy company who haven't built anything more than a plastic mockup of the lander, with no evidence of any real hardware, leaving employees and evidence of funding troubles. The Beresheet launch on the Falcon was originally scheduled for 2017, then slipped to 2018 and is now 2019. Although they did win LITERALLY NOTHING, I have very little faith in Moon SpaceIL. Rocket lab on the other hand are going to launch the first ever commercial lunar lander in 2019, in the form of the US built MX-1.

[Anonymous No.10271421]

>>10271338
LOL seething

[Anonymous No.10271432]

>>10271230
This engine bell looks way too small for vacuum.

[Anonymous No.10271434]

>>10271248
It's a tiny rocket that's good for launching cubesats but can't scale for anything bigger.

[Anonymous No.10271449]

Electron a cute! There's honestly not much to talk about; I make the launch threads whenever I can. Couldn't for the last one but another anon did.

It's a beautiful launch site. Will have to visit some day.

[Anonymous No.10271457]

>>10271449
I want to immigrate to NZ some day, really love the country, just need a reason

[Anonymous No.10271461]

>>10271457
cheap RHD imported Japanese cars is a good enough reason, no?

[Anonymous No.10271529]

>>10271224
If you have a pressure vessel over 1.2atm or more than 300kj of chemical energy you need to buy insurance for all other payloads on the launch.
If you are riding with 19 cubesats that is much cheaper insurance that riding with a ISS resupply mission or commsat.

[Anonymous No.10271543]

>>10271461
how's the property cost there? can I buy a comfy house if I'm moderately rich or is it California "1million cuckshed" tier?

[Anonymous No.10271578]

>>10271543
Austfag here, NZ is basically Australia's south. Everything is cheaper, they get paid less and they can own decent guns.

[Anonymous No.10271598]

>>10271578
>cheaper
>nothing trying to kill you
>muh guns
>climate miles better
why aren't you moving there? I mean, I'm half the world away and haven't finished my education yet, but surely it should be easier for you?

[Anonymous No.10271609]

>>10271598
He have immigration deals where I could move there and be a citizen tomorrow, catch is I see so many of them coming here I question their job market.
I'll go there to play with the electron once I'm done with study but if I'm not going to a guaranteed job I'm not going.

[Anonymous No.10272325]

>>10271211
and also
>carbon fiber tanks
>launches from New Zealand

the Electron is a pretty well designed small launcher. The engines give the smoothest ride to orbit, apparently.

The only problem is the electric pumps can't scale up very far, so they are stuck in the small payload market. Also, they've had to delay launches a lot because the weather at their launch site can get very windy. They will need to open more launch sites to obtain their promised monthly launch rate.

[Anonymous No.10272649]

A fucking small sat launcher lol

[Anonymous No.10272653]

>>10272649
yes and?
is the requirement of talking about spacecraft the complexity of the mission or the size of the payload?

[Anonymous No.10272663]

>>10272653
No, but large payload is naturally more exciting than a tiny one.

[Anonymous No.10272669]

>>10272663
lots of small payloads can be exciting. As >>10272325 said, their goal is like a launch a week. When that happens it’ll be quite exciting

[Anonymous No.10272671]

>>10271211
Pretty grand, hope they keep doing what they're doing, and more.

[Anonymous No.10272723]

>>10271598
Kiwis are insufferable desu

[Anonymous No.10272760]

>>10272723
are they? I somehow doubt they are more insufferable than either brits, Canadians or amerifats

[Anonymous No.10272787]

>>10271211
>why the fuck is no one talking about this

Poor marketing.

[Anonymous No.10272804]

>>10272723
Funny, that's what we think about you cunts.

[Anonymous No.10273154]

>>10272649
It's really cool technology

[Anonymous No.10273261]

>>10271211
Honestly the coolest part of their rocket is the 3d printed engine. I'm keeping an eye on them and Relativity Space for that very reason.
But outside of that, they're just not going to revolutionize space travel. They're a non-reusable SLLV company and a lot of their central tech doesn't scale up past that size. They have a market now by guaranteeing launch times but its unclear how that will hold up long term with reusable rockets driving prices down. Even now a Falcon 9 is <10% of the price per kg to LEO than the Electron. Added all that to the fact that they're still young, it makes sense that Blue Origin and SpaceX have more fanboys.

[Anonymous No.10273266]

>>10273261
yeah, there’s currently over a hundred smallsat launch vehicle companies in the works right now. Only 3-4 will make it to orbit. That’s still a extremely saturated market

[Anonymous No.10273287]

Reminder that twelve Electron launches are less profitable than two Falcon 9 launches.

[Anonymous No.10273367]

>>10271222
>there are actually multiple moon missions planned for next year
>there has been no overpromising or pipedreams
pick one

[Anonymous No.10273547]

>>10273261
>a Falcon 9 is <10% of the price per kg to LEO
this is literally false
>>10273287
>twelve Electron launches are less profitable than two Falcon 9 launches
this as well, especially considering the government subsidies SpaceX gets

[Anonymous No.10273585]

>>10271211
Because it's not reusable

[Anonymous No.10273593]

>Let's have a thread about Electron
>Uses it to barely discuss Electron and just spend the whole thread throwing shit about SpaceX

OK?

[Anonymous No.10273597]

>>10271578
>Everything is cheaper, they get paid less and they can own decent guns.

2/3, cost of living and housing is fucking horrendous.

[Anonymous No.10273604]

>>10273593
>Let's have a thread about Electron
>Muskfags storm in and say it's shit without any reasons and not worth discussing
>complain about muskfags
ftfy

[Anonymous No.10273618]

>>10273604
And instead of ignoring it and getting on with the thread you choose to sling shit around instead? No wonder this board is so shit.

[Anonymous No.10273627]

it's very interesting but they don't release much interesting stuff for the public

>>10273367
>STOP DOING ROCKETS

[Anonymous No.10273658]

>>10273367
what part about a moon mission with the same fucking rocket that already exists and has flown several times is overpromising, retard

[Anonymous No.10273703]

>>10273658
It's flown like what two or three times? And the company that is doing the lunar landing vehicle is sketchy as fuck and has shown literally 0 actual hardware. If this was a SpaceX mission you would be screeching about frauds and exploding rockets.

[Anonymous No.10273710]

>>10273703
>it's flown like two or three times?
successfully. and there are several launches before the moon mission. so there is absolutely no reason to believe why the moon carrier suddenly won't work
as for the lander, they're already doing flight tests, unlike other xprize companies which all have nothing more than a plastic model

[Anonymous No.10274023]

>>10271211
>>cheap as fuck while maintaining the same cost/kg as falcons
Objectively wrong, Electron costs way more than Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy per kg payload

[Anonymous No.10274172]

>>10273547
>a Falcon 9 is <10% of the price per kg to LEO
>this is literally false
My bad, you're right I was looking at the wrong numbers.
>Falcon 9
A F9B5 launched 4000kg to 575km SSO on Dec 3 and was recovered. The standard price for a B5 mission that allows for attempted recovery is $50 million USD. If we assume thats maximum (its likely not but it is the most they've ever launched to SSO and I can't find hard numbers) that comes to $12,500/kg to SSO.
>Electron
By their own site, max payload for that orbit is around 144kg. At $5.7 million USD per launch thats $39,580 dollars per kilogram.
>Comparison
So Electron costs over 3x as much, not over 10x as much. Well, assuming that the F9 max is correct which it almost certainly isn't.

[Anonymous No.10274173]

>>10274172
f we assume thats maximum payload*

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10274174]

>>10271211
>why the fuck is no one talking about this
Because it's propaganda and fake

[Anonymous No.10274214]

>>10273547

>subsidies

t. Ariane Space employee
Nice way of calling public-private parnerships subsidies shill.

[Anonymous No.10274219]

>a fucking cubesat launcher

[Anonymous No.10274243]

>>10274172
4 tons is certainly not a maximal payload for the falcon to LEO

[Anonymous No.10274256]

>>10271254
>Is there an Elon's dick to suck?
Elon's BBC (Big Black Co-) i mean BFR (Big Fuckin- ... Falcon Rocket)

[Anonymous No.10274259]

>>10274172
>The standard price for a B5 mission that allows for attempted recovery is $50 million USD
Source?

[Anonymous No.10274291]

>>10274243
>4 tons is certainly not a maximal payload for the falcon to LEO
To Sun Synchronous Orbit he said. Because of the constraints of the orbit, it will necessarily be lower than its nominal LEO payload. Not that much lower but if I had to guess, he's trying to avoid autists by making as few assumptions as possible.
Shoulda picked the Iridium launches though. 9,600 kg in a 770km Polar orbit.

[Anonymous No.10274304]

>cubsats

Best thing ever.

[Anonymous No.10274331]

>>10274259
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/block-5-spacex-increase-launch-cadence-lower-prices/
>Due to the Block 5’s reusability, SpaceX has lowered the standard price of a Falcon 9 launch from $62 million to about $50 million.
>>10274243
See what >>10274291 said
>trying to avoid autists by making as few assumptions as possible.
Yup thats exactly why.
>9,600 kg in a 770km Polar orbit.
Using those values it ups the comparison to 8-9x the cost/kg. I don't know exactly how different they are though. I know an SSO is nearly polar but exactly not exactly how near.

[Anonymous No.10274353]

>>10274331
The price isn't necessarily the cost. SpaceX subsidises its loss-making commercial launches with the money from NASA/DoD launched which pay well above market rate.

[Anonymous No.10274381]

>>10274353
No they dont
Though obviously you take a loss on development costs in the beginning

[Anonymous No.10274393]

>>10274353
>The price isn't necessarily the cost. SpaceX subsidises its loss-making commercial launches with the money from NASA/DoD launched which pay well above market rate.
Source: Your ass.
But whats hilarious is that even if they were, and you do the math, the """""actual""""" price per launch is still so much cheaper than its competitors that it wouldn't really make a difference.

[Anonymous No.10274395]

>>10274381
They sell at a loss, their operations are expensive. They have sites all over America, in some of the most expensive states, they have four launch pads over three states, landing pads, expensive drone ships that are doing nothing most of the year but still costing money, thousands upon thousands of employees, way more than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.10274455]

>>10274395
You have literally no proof of your claims. You have exactly 0 way of knowing their profit margins. You can say "oh but they have have 2x as many employees as ULA" but that means nothing when they have the market share to back that up and more.
So unless you can show hard numbers from inside sources to prove, its little better than an idiotic conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.10274490]

>>10274455
It was recently released that they didn't make any profit. And if they did, why are they borrowing money?

[Anonymous No.10274526]

>>10273618
see retard, that's what I meant. the spacexfags storm in and claim everything is shit aside from their subsidized, nasa-supported rocket with magic INFINITE PROFITS sprinkled in-between.
meanwhile, the actual topic is laughed at, despite being completely privately funded , started from a hobby project and actually surpassed bezos karman rocketlets.

[Anonymous No.10274542]

>>10274490
No growing company makes profit.... same reason amazon has never made a profit

[Anonymous No.10274547]

>>10274542
>muh Amazon
why is this the only argument you retards can come up with?

[Anonymous No.10274556]

>>10274455
What happened to the sea launches?

[Anonymous No.10274558]

>>10274547
I love this graph, it always BTFOs Musk fanboys.

[Anonymous No.10274561]

>>10274547
How about 2018?

[Anonymous No.10274586]

>>10274547
>>10274558
What does a online marketplace have to do with a niche car company?

[Anonymous No.10274587]

>>10274547
It's good I guess that people are sort of getting an idea of new companies not turning a profit for a long time being normal and a thing, although I doubt any of Musk's cloud of fans either understand why it's a thing, or will extend the same goodwill to other (maybe more deserving) companies.

The numbers themselves like that are not worrying imo. The most worrying thing is how Tesla has financed itself, like a lot of it is extremely unstable financing like "buy now get much later" that seems to have seeped in from software shit. And a lot of people don't understand that. A common theme seems to be about shareholders pulling out being a problem, and while it is a problem Tesla gets to keep their money without any issues, they are under no obligation to purchase stock back.

[Anonymous No.10274589]

>>10274455
Graphs like that are why people hate graphs.

[Anonymous No.10274590]

>>10274586
Business my man. Business.

[Anonymous No.10274593]

>>10274589
At least it isn't a series of pie charts.

[Anonymous No.10274594]

>>10274590
Is Amazon making cars too?

[Anonymous No.10274607]

Didn't they unveil plans for a much bigger rocket last year?

>>10271259
>>10271248
They can take something like 2/3s of current pay loads. Got to respect that Pareto backed thinking.

[Anonymous No.10274610]

>>10274594
Is it only business if you're manufacturing cars now?

I think Bezos would have a much easier time than Musk has had if he went into the auto industry. Musk has serious problems with managing inventory, logistics... stuff that Bezos has been able to do really well.

[Anonymous No.10274622]

>>10274610
What on earth are you talking about? Why compare Amazon with Tesla when they are in business in two completely different types of business. Why not compare one to Trump's businesses or Schwarzenegger's & Columbu's bricklaying business? There's no logic behind the comparison. Especialyl since neither one has anything at all to do with space flight, let alone Rocket Lab. Are you mental?

[Anonymous No.10274629]

>>10274622
I believe the original comparison was in response to the often said "but Amazon didn't make any profit for the first few years" in response to "Tesla doesn't turn a profit".

It's something that you should look at with any business, it should worry an investor if a new business that ought to be in growth is turning profit very quickly. So in that sense yes it applies to everything.

[Anonymous No.10274635]

>>10274629
>completely off topic posting is related to Rocket Lab's rocket and putting satellites in orbit

[Anonymous No.10274657]

>>10274586
>muh Amazon didn't make profits either
>lol no you're retarded and here's why
>b-but what does Amazon have to do with it??

[Anonymous No.10274663]

>>10274657
Did you quote the wrong post?

[Anonymous No.10274664]

>>10274635
>completely off topic posting
Yeah, I see why you're annoyed in this instance, although maybe say that more directly. I thought you were complaining about someone daring to compare anyone to Elon Musk.

I like rocket labs. I wish someone would do actual equatorial work/launches though, but infrastructure in those places is so much of an issue.

[Anonymous No.10274667]

>>10274586
>What does a online marketplace have to do with a niche car company?
>>10274622
>Why compare Amazon with Tesla when they are in business in two completely different types of business
It's Tesla fans who bring up the comparison.

[Anonymous No.10274671]

>>10274664
I could care less who gets shit into space (except the Chinese) or how much it costs. I just want results.

>>10274667
There's actually a report function for, "This post is off topic." Perhaps it needs used the next time there's a legit derailment.

[Anonymous No.10274685]

>>10274671
>I could care less who gets shit into space
>(except the Chinese)
just admit you're a murifat and only care of its muricans

[Anonymous No.10274688]

>>10271211
It's for the lower segment (in mass) launches which many think is boring. Also, electric pumps is a cool feat but not applicable (yet) for real high mass flows and/or chamber pressures.

[Anonymous No.10274696]

>>10274685
I wouldn't care if the Russians or North Koreans made it into space with colonies, but not the Chinese. That would be the death of everyone else. If you are Chinese sympathizer you should probably go back to /pol/ where you belong. This isn't 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10274712]

>>10274688
Electric is a dead end period. Batteries are a total meme. The energy density is abou 0.000001% that of chemical energy. It will never compete

[Anonymous No.10274721]

>>10274696
China is a lot better than kleptocratic american dick sucking shithole that betrayed its own population and the socialist ideals. And lol at korea.

[Anonymous No.10274725]

>>10274721
Are you having a seizure?

[Anonymous No.10274735]

>>10274712
>>10274688
There's a big reason why rail guns/mass drivers for space launches don't exist in commercial use, yet rockets have been around for nearly 800 years. Combining electric with rockets is just....grant chasing is all I can think of...

[Anonymous No.10274750]

>>10274735
Can electric pumped engines surpass solids and hypergols for military use? Performance, storability, etc?

[Anonymous No.10274805]

>>10274750
No electric is a meme

[Anonymous No.10274807]

>>10274805
>using electric for pumps is a meme, that's why literally every pump is electric
>I will somehow try to compare electric pumps to fucking sci-fi rail guns

[Anonymous No.10274843]

>>10274807
>all electric pumps use electric

[Anonymous No.10274888]

>>10274843
>I can't read
btw they use electric because the drawback of inefficiency is more than compensated by the low cost and easy,fast engine production. every space company does this: SpaceX wants to use "muh methane" instead of more efficient fuels, and "muh steel" instead of lighter components.

[Anonymous No.10274920]

>>10274888
>muh...muh
>knows better than people with actual rocket science jobs

Holy shit anon, you are on 4channel, what is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.10274929]

>>10274920
what? I'm not saying they are bad ideas, it's literally what you are doing with "I know better than to use electric pumps". learn to not take a meme seriously

[Anonymous No.10274937]

>>10274929
>t. Chinese sympathizer

[Anonymous No.10275051]

>>10274888
Electric motors are literally impossible to scale beyond this tiny form factory because of batteries. When they develop muh magic Graphene pipedream battery you may have a point, until then they are pointless except to send babby payloads.

[Anonymous No.10275110]

>>10271598
I lived there for 5 years. The outdoors is excellent but the living standard is low and it starts to get you down after a while. Everything is very expensive eg $5 for a single bell pepper. Also in the main city Auckland everything is owned by chinks and building standards are very poor. The south island is the place to live if you want to make a home there, and indeed many ultra-rich are buying up land in the Wanaka valley, near Queenstown in the Crown Range mountains. Beautiful country and in theory far away from the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.10275114]

>>10272760
>>10272723
Kiwis have a kind of dollar store nationalism. They have the delusion that there exists a rivalry with Australia, when Australia is hardly aware they even exist.

[Anonymous No.10275356]

>>10271211
>Rocket Lab
Literally why do they bother at all, considering they've already lost?

>cheap as fuck while maintaining the same cost/kg as falcons
Not even close. 5 million for ~200kg to LEO (25,000$ per kg aka STS-tier piece of shit)- what a fucking cringy joke.

[Anonymous No.10275723]

>>10275356
Yeah but it's a true blue kiwi small business. Don't you want to support hard working kiwi families, bro?

[Anonymous No.10275760]

>>10275723
Isn't it run by a rich American with US government contracts and backing with plenty of American employees?

[Anonymous No.10276007]

>>10275760
no retard, the founder and CEO is a native kiwi and NZ is not the only branch, they are going to launch from Florida soon

[Anonymous No.10276010]

>>10275356
>Literally why do they bother at all, considering they've already lost?
against whom? they are the only company in that specific niche

[Anonymous No.10276109]

>>10276010
Make a few NZ funbucks until BFR launches, why not.

[Anonymous No.10276148]

>>10276109
>muh bfr

[Anonymous No.10276158]

>>10276148
Screencapped for 2020.

[Anonymous No.10276160]

>>10276148
Wow, that bodywork looks better than a Tesla's.

[Anonymous No.10276166]

>>10276158
screencapped for 2020
actually make that 2021 and 2022 too

[Anonymous No.10276169]

>>10276166
COPE

[Anonymous No.10276173]

>>10276166
SLOW AND STEADY

[Anonymous No.10276176]

>>10276169
>>10276173

[Anonymous No.10276179]

>>10276176
COPE

[Anonymous No.10276180]

>>10276176
STOP SCREENSHOTTING ME
THAT'S COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
READ THE FAQ

[Anonymous No.10276494]

>>10274712
There are pros for an electric pump like not needing a turbine and simplified plumbing but with current battery tech it's not practical for heavier applications. It's not dead before we can rule out significant improvement in electrical energy storage/generation.

[Anonymous No.10276680]

>>10276494
>pros for an electric pump
lol no
>significant improvement in electrical storage
never going to happen ula shill
but you know what's going to happen? BFR REPLACING EVERY SINGLE ROCKET AND GOING TO MARS

[Anonymous No.10276774]

>>10271211
>maintaining the same cost/kg as falcons
It doesn't come near competing with the Falcon 9 launching expendably in $/kg, and Falcon 9's prices are going to drop as reusability matures.

They've got no plans for a larger vehicle or a reusable vehicle. Dead-end company with only a few years of life in it.

[Anonymous No.10276836]

>>10276774
>going to drop
musk and going to, a tale as old as time reminder he was going to do moon missions last year

[Anonymous No.10276959]

>>10276836
Their costs have already dropped, so they're raking in big profits per launch, but it doesn't make sense to lower the prices until they get the flight rate up higher and run out of customers willing to pay their current price.

As for the moon flyby, that's a combined case of NASA being ridiculous holding back Dragon 2 and raising their sights to a more ambitious goal of sending the much larger Starship on a moon flyby, with ample space for a comfortable cruise with a big group of people.

[Anonymous No.10277081]

>>10276680
How about a counter argument instead of changing the subject to fanboiism.

[Anonymous No.10277351]

>>10276010
Yeah- literally no one else launches cubesats for pocket money as additional payload.
There also aren't ~10-15 other small/cubesat launchers being developed or in commission with lower $ per kg. Even the hypermeme that is virgin galactic is developing a cheaper per kg launch system.

[Anonymous No.10277375]

>>10274561
rev somewhere around 20b+ and deep positive cash flow for q3 and q4

[Anonymous No.10277388]

>>10277375
>n-nothing suspicious to see here anons, keep going

[Anonymous No.10277440]

>>10277388
revenue nearly doubled between q3 and q2.Company makes a big investment to drive growth of revenues and it takes time to ramp up production while you pay for all the whole time.

[Anonymous No.10277580]

>>10277388
Notice how insane the drop is after the last positive revenue. It's creative (but [possibly] legal) accounting.

[Anonymous No.10277589]

>>10277580
>It's creative (but [possibly] legal) accounting.
What are you talking about? That's free cash flow. That's operational cash flow minus capital expenditures.

If you do something like build a factory or develop a new product, that's a capital expenditure. All this chart shows is heavy investment in Tesla's future, occasionally overwhelmed by sales revenue. There's no "creative accounting" involved.

[Anonymous No.10277637]

>>10277589
You have some control over how you account for expenditures and exactly when they happen in those accounts. You usually see it the other way tho, you'll often see large expenditures and debts declared when other bad news comes out.

I'd guess as well that they've timed when they've claimed back the government subsidies. My main problem, aside from the FBI investigation into production numbers and the extreme brief swings, is that there's no tangible reason why revenue was suddenly so high/expenditure was so low in Q32018.

[Anonymous No.10277649]

>>10277637
>there's no tangible reason why revenue was suddenly so high/expenditure was so low in Q32018.
They started meeting their Model 3 production goals in the third quarter of 2018, you absolute dunce.

[Anonymous No.10277671]

>>10277649
Firstly, it was an arbitrary goal set by no one in particular. Secondly, there was a much more dramatic increase in production from Q1 to Q2 than from Q2 to Q3. Thirdly, none of that explains the $2B swing from Q2 to Q3. Fourthly they've already reduced the price of all their cars despite the demand allegedly being high. Fifthly the FBI investigation. Sixthly Musk is not above committing fraud. Seventhly...

[Anonymous No.10278210]

>>10275760
I think there's another partially NZ one from a while back that reckoned they were getting into reusable rockets as well. There's Dawn Aerospace that do space plane stuff, I'm sure there's another one.

[Anonymous No.10279685]

>>10274888
>SpaceX wants to use "muh methane"
They want to use sub-cooled methane, which is as volumetrically dense as kerosene yet significantly more efficient, allowing for a significantly more powerful engine that also gets a higher specific impulse than is possible with any heavier hydrocarbons.
Hydrogen does offer much more specific impulse than anything else, but has garbage density, making it extremely difficult to design a powerful engine using hydrogen.