A Twitter message is a publicity stunt, not a sincere offer for help. I'm sure Elon knows the right people to contact at Boeing directly if he really wants to work something out.
Aside from which, it would be a cold day in hell before Boeing took him up on this. A highly publicized left turn to an outside team, to re-do portions of a decades-long, $32 billion R&D program, which has already entered passenger service and is supposed to be completely safe? I can't even begin to fathom the PR shitstorm that would result from that.
Really? You have a problem with LiIon batteries and you get help from the best electric car company in the world? It's called consulting. It happens all the time. I don't see the public giving a shit.
"get help from the best electric car company in the world"
Tesla has revenue of 200m/yr. At this rate, it'll be 160 years before Tesla pulls in revenue equal to the R&D on this plane.
Tesla doesn't even manufacturer their own batteries.
Boeing doesn't need to go ask Tesla for help, they can buy the company with the change in their pocket if they thought there was anything there of value to them.
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Did I already mention that Tesla does not manufacturer their own batteries.
Agree and also cocky hubris as well. As if to imply that Boeing doesn't have capable people coming from someone who while certainly has had his achievements doesn't have that long of a history. 787 was a huge "bet the company" type undertaking. It's a black eye but they will fix it. Nobody can accuse Boeing as a company of just being lucky either with their history.
In fact, even the articles you link all point to a plan that involves $400M revenue for the year, and each article indicates that they're on-plan. Of course, the plan COULD be wrong, and it could be deceitfully wrong, but it seems utterly plausible, and apparently all analysts agree (within say 10%).
Aren't those the numbers that were released back in september? When they cut their revenue forecast from 600m to 400m?
Tesla hasn't released any numbers for 2012 yet.. so unless you work there, you have no idea if they will break 400m for 2012. And even if you do work there, 1b for 2013 is pure speculation on your part.
Or he could be looking at public guidance given by the company or estimates from wall st. The estimate avg for 2012 is 402 mil. The avg for 2013 is 1.6 bil, with a low estimate of 1.4 bil. I'd say he's perfectly reasonable, and you are being rude and unpleasant.
But isn't that the basis of the stock market? Analysts estimate and the CEO executes to meet or exceed those expectations. Are you just skeptical of Tesla meeting those expectations or all companies that are public? Do you have information that the Analysts don't have access to as the basis of your skepticism?
It is a highly educated guess. The point is that he didn't just pull the number out of his ass. Clearly nobody knows the future for certain, and there isn't any way to know exactly how much revenue they are going to have in 2013, but using company guidance and analyst estimates seems like a pretty good starting point.
I think what the OP is trying to point out is that this would be seen as an "oh shit we don't know what went wrong" consulting job rather than a "we knew we weren't good at this from the start, so we contracted out to another company who was" job. They've already implicitly asserted that they knew what they were doing by putting the batteries into a certified plane, so this would likely be construed as an emergency cry for help.
Also, most of the time the use of consultants isn't publicized - taking help from Elon Musk would no doubt be broadcast heavily by the media, and most likely not in a positive light.
Not necessarily. Even if you're Elon Musk, unless you already know the direct number of just the right person to contact going about it publicly might be the fastest way of doing it, otherwise you end up having to go through layers of intermediaries.
I see it as being more on Boeing to initiate official correspondence if they want the help. Elon is just casually letting them know that they would be receptive to such a request.
Right, and as the poster above is saying, if he actually wanted to help, he would contact Boeing. If he wanted publicity, he would make a tweet offering help.
Dreamliner customers got a choice of GE or Rolls Royce for the engines.
Would there be anything unreasonable about Boeing also giving their customers a choice of Thales/Yuasa or Tesla/Panasonic?
If a Boeing customer has been informally talking with both Tesla, and their Boeing sales rep, and the Boeing sales rep thinks it's unlikely Tesla would be willing to help out, is it possible that a tweet like this would help the Boeing customer to get useful conversations going within Boeing?
This is about more than who has better engineers or a publicity stunt. This is damage control.
Right now lithium is under heavy fire (no pun intended) both because its expensive and explosive (besides this, many Fisker Karma cars burned).
Since Tesla is still losing money and has to raise money by selling stock, Musk has to keep up appearances by showing Tesla has the know-how to make lithium safe.
Or else, Tesla will run out of money soon, and game over.
I think of it as being both a sincere offer and Musk continuing in his role as innovator and cheerleader for this technology.
Musk has previously stated that he has conceptual designs for an electric jet, so his interest in FAA certification of Tesla battery technology is most likely not something borne out of Boeing's current troubles.
Musk said in October that Tesla would be cash flow positive in a month's time. If he was correct, it's no longer accurate to say that Tesla is losing money.
"We will NOT hold your Reservation Payment separately or in an escrow or trust fund or pay any interest on Reservation Payments, except to the extent required by law."
So. People are giving Tesla cash and they are counting that as cash flow. When they build a new plant they don't take that money off the books because it hasn't made any saleable cars yet.
isn't the point of "amortizing" (sorry not sure about the english word) exactly that of putting the money used to build a plant off the books for years?
I think GP's point is that if in the next period they don't get more reservations than they would be in the red, so the current black is to be considered with a pinch of salt.
There are roughly two ways to do accounting. One: you count when cash enters your bank account and when cash leaves your bank account. This is cash accounting and it measures cashflow. This is important to track because if you run out of cash, you're pretty boned.
The other way is more sophisticated. I think this is called accrual accounting. With accrual accounting, if I sell you a widget, I count the expense of the widget and the revenue from selling the widget at the same time and trust that the cash flow will work out in the long run. So it doesn't matter if you pay me first and then next year I ship you the widget, or if I ship you the widget today and then you pay me, or if I buy the parts for the widget on credit and pay my supplier after I sell the widget, because as soon as I account for the revenue from the widget, I simultaneously have to account for the expenses as well. This is more honest than cash accounting in the sense that it's harder to game, but it's less honest in the sense that I have to keep track of more accounting fictions. Amortization is one of these accounting fictions.
You need to do both types of accounting at the same time. They just solve different problems. Accrual accounting makes sure things will work out profitably in the long run and cash accounting makes sure you won't run out of money before then. What you don't do is mix and match approaches. If you take in a bunch of cash now and then spend it on a manufacturing plant, you can't say, "well, we're amortizing that" because amortization or not, you don't have the cash anymore.
(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant. In college, I took two classes in accounting, in the summer of 2004. I got a B and an A. The one I got a B in was a 7 AM class and I usually slept in instead of bothering to go when there wasn't a test. I did have the textbook for the class, so I was able to read it at my leisure, though I focused a lot more on my infinitely more interesting class on "Science Fiction and Philosophy". It was a summer class, and there were six tests, one per week, and my grade was based on those six tests. Before test #6, I calculated that I would get a B if I scored anywhere between 50% and 95%, so I didn't study very hard. Fortunately, the tests mostly covered various extremely tedious details, not the general principles outlined above. I believe I got an A in "Science Fiction and Philosophy".)
Tesla was cash flow positive in November and will probably turn profitable sometime in 2013. It's currently got way more reservations than production capacity, although production capacity is already at the stated 2013 goal of 20,000 cars per year.
Presumably production is still being scaled up, since Tesla is still planning and opening up stores all over the US and doing this without scaling production would just create unmet demand. The level of vitrol from some commenters in this thread is unwarranted.
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/dreamliner-batteries... implies that Tesla battery packs do a better job of containing thermal runaway than many other battery pack designs; it may be that simply replacing the Dreamliner's current batteries with a design very similar to what Tesla uses in their cars would address the Dreamliner problems.
Elon has been trading jabs in the press with United Launch Alliance (Boeing + Lockheed Martin) over US military satellite launch, with Elon claiming he can provide better pricing because SpaceX has more advanced technology; perhaps there are multiple places Elon has more advanced technology than Boeing.
The other possibility is that Boeing may revert to using a non-lithium ion battery technology. I haven't found any description of how much work they'd need to do to make that happen.
Pretty clever PR move by Elon Musk. Now, if Boeing accept the offer, they give the impression that Musk has better engineers. If they reject it, they look arrogant and ungrateful.
That's the problem. Its now public that Elon made the offer. If it was done quietly, that would be a different story. Maybe he did make the offer quietly, but it was refused.
Boeing fly F-16s and Lockheed sometimes fly F/A-18s. I've heard stories about the engineers/test pilots exchanging safety of flight related information to a competitor. This is done with full permission of both companies.
If they reject it, they look like a massive company with 70 billion dollars yearly revenue turning down an informal offer on Twitter from a guy who founded a car company with 200 million dollars yearly revenue and a space transport company with 4 billion dollars of contracted revenue. I can't imagine anyone an Boeing giving a moment's pause to this offer.
"Do you like random people offering help when you are doing something?"
If they are domain experts and they are actually likely to be helpful, then absolutely I do. If they are just being polite and can't really help, then not so much but I'll usually still appreciate the offer unless they are being persistently annoying about it.
When I was younger and more insecure about my own abilities, I did not accept help so graciously, but luckily I grew out of that phase.
Musk isn't some random dude. Between SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, he probably knows a thing or two about putting large things in the air and electric batteries.
He's also said he would ultimately like to make electric airplanes, so this is probably not the first day he's thought about it.
" Musk isn't some random dude. Between SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity, he probably knows a thing or two about putting large things in the air and electric batteries."
No doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing engineers know a thing or two or three or four about putting large things in the air and electric batteries, but this is a specific and unfortunate problem. Inviting a few twitting strangers (competitors too) out of the blue, unless they have a specific tip, maybe isn't the way to go. If Elon knew the problem, he'd get 100 times better press by telling them.
Small correction: Boeing outsourced the power design to Thales, and they chose Yuasa as the battery provider. So there are 3 companies involved in the investigation so far.
That reminded me the explanation of why Space X could reduce the costs of making a rocket by fractions.
Elon said that the problem with NASA was that they had sub-contractors, that had sub-contractors ad. infinitum. So each one of these sub-contractors had to make a profit. SpaceX try to make everything in the building process.
NASA, Boeing, etc. optimize for a different cost structure than Space X. Space X wants to build cheap rockets, Boeing wants to build products that will be funded by governments. This means Boeing has subcontractors in various voting districts in the US (military contracts) or around the world (other government / commercial).
If some rule said Congress couldn't pick projects based on what districts got the work (good luck with that), then Boeing would change its model.
No, SpaceX wants to build cost-efficient rockets, that's completely different than cheap. But anyway, what you're saying is that Boeing want's to suck money from the government however it can, while SpaceX wants to actually build stuff? You are just confirming the comment you replied to.
I meant no insult with "cheap" and thought it positive.
The business model Boeing is operating under is different. You can disparage it, but it is a fact of live for any defense contractor or airplane manufacture in the last 50 years of the 1900's. Boeing wants to build stuff too, and its engineers are very good.
SpaceX didn't grow up under these conditions. It will be interesting if they have to change after a few trips to DC.
Evidently something went wrong with the batteries on the Boeing 787, so if those engineers were so good, how do you explain that there was a problem? The proof's in the pudding. Have you heard of Tesla batteries catching on fire? Me neither. (GM's Volt, however, is another story.)
Yes, there was a recall, and Tesla recalled all their roadsters because there might have been a fire in a cable (not in the battery mind you), but none of the articles you pointed to showed that there was, ever, one Tesla battery system that caught fire.
I am ready to be disproved, but I'd need actual proof.
Your criteria for being "proven wrong" are fairly narrow.
Tesla has clearly had quite their share of battery related difficulties, including the infamous bricking problems. They have domain knowledge, but let's not pretend they are in the same zip code - let alone ballpark - as Boeing.
Umm, I own Boeing stock, I have friends who work there, I have friends who have retired from there. I have a healthy respect for them, and I have bought Ford stock on the strength of Mullally's performance at Boeing.
Since a bunch of NASA guys have gone to SpaceX and since Toyota and Daimler both work with Tesla (both are multi-billion dollar companies), I think the zip-code/ballpark analogy went too far. The company is younger and smaller, granted, but I wouldn't put it past them to put a serious dent in Boeing's businesses.
And, about the criteria being narrow: yes, of course it is.
You think someone is going to waste time to find you "proof" especially in light of your previous comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5081667 ? I tell you what, using your logic, maybe those Tesla engineers can fix the battery but they'll f-up the cable and the plane will burn totally next time. Proof is in the pudding and all, no?
Ever build anything with a lot of parts? Things do go wrong.
Granted, things do go wrong, but Boeing is in a pinch. They were years behind on delivery of the 787, they now have 45 787s grounded, they can't make new deliveries to customers, and that means their supply chain is getting all jacked. I think they should look long and hard at all their options.
As far as proving me wrong, perhaps it's because I did my research on Tesla too. And in the interest of disclosure, I own Tesla stock as well as Boeing stock.
I suspect the most useful help would be helping the FAA come to grips with lithium ion safety issues. Confronted with concerns about a novel technology the FAA is going to have a hard time deciding how to sign off on safety.
I'm sure Musk's people have all sorts of checklists and criteria to be satisfied for large lithium ion batteries in vehicular use. The FAA can then apply those to Boeing's work.
I'm sure Boeing does, but the FAA has doubts about those. They need more input. I'm sure Tesla has more batteries in the field for longer periods and probably harsher vibration environments. This is engineering and safety, not finance. Dollars and the length of your list are not helpful metrics.
Since Boeing is a huge asset to the US, in image projection and jobs and prestige. This should be something that the US take seriously and throw whatever it takes at it to solve the problem. The airliner being a success is strategic to the US
I highly doubt if Boeing would be interested, considering Elon and his band of engineers at Space X are competitors to Boeing's rocket business. It is amazing to see how both Boeing and Elon are pushing the envelope on the development of battery technology.
If it's faster and cheaper to do it through Tesla then they'll do it. At the end of the day they're businesses and if this means making more money - they don't hold grudges.
That's exactly what grecy was talking about. It is a different thing and that's what's wrong with the world today. Boeing is a competitor, yes, but all in all, they're together in the same game - making world a better place by developing aviation technology. Right now Musk doesn't have an awesome airliner, so why not help the guys who do?
(I'm not saying it is his motivation. But damn sure I'd love if things worked this way. They should.)
PR. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the process of regulatory approval for new types of aircraft batteries might take a little more time than anyone wants to leave the 787s on the ground for
I think that the battery is used to restart the engines in some emergency situations. Do you really want critical components that have been tested for many hours/weeks/months in the aeroplanes systems to be replaced without an approval process?
Now would you let Boeing make that choice? The customers American Airlines, Al Italia, Aeroflot, Air Timbuktu?
Remember the rules have to apply to all planes, manufacturers and airlines including the ones about to go bankrupt.
In my view the answer would be a definite YES although I would hope the approval could be expedited if there are clear issues with the existing solution and good reasons to believe the new solution will solve it without causing other issues.
Heh, I meant it as an actual question, is there a regulatory process for changing batteries. I could see something like this either being covered or not.
I have little experience with the aviation industry besides once having been a student pilot, but I have a fair amount of experience in the medical device industry. If this were a medical device, there would not be a regulatory process specifically for changing batteries, but there would a process for changing anything about the design of the product.
Briefly, that means that a Risk Assessment of the proposed design change must be made, the design change will be controlled (i.e., Requirements, Design, Testing and Reviews of all phases will be performed and properly documented), then the Design Output must be reviewed for correctness and the results may be used to update the initial Risk Assessment if needed.
Similar processes will apply to an airliner, the question is will they be more or less rigorous.
So yeah, changing a critical component is a time consuming and expensive process.
Sorry I read it as a 'it is only a battery' and 'regulation sucks the government can stay out the free market will be self regulating' post. Apologies if this was not your meaning.
It's high RoI for him almost no matter what happens.
Imagine that he puts Tesla and SpaceX engineers to work on the problem and they aren't able to help. Well, that's pretty much just a waste of resources, but he still probably gets decent PR out of it and he gets to cement the idea of his companies being "good guys", which is useful even down to the level of employee retention.
Imagine that "his" engineers are able to help. Well, now he's done several things. Increased the prestige of his companies, increased the satisfaction of his employees, etc. Also, he's made the world a better place by making planes safer and keeping planes flying, which has significant positive (though often diffuse) trickle down effects on the future.
On the other hand, imagine that his offers are rebuffed, in which case he gets to take the high road and still gets a decent PR win.
The only way this could backfire would be if somehow he helped out and made things worse. Or, say, Tesla/SpaceX engineers fix the problem and then a month from now a 787 falls out of the sky for undetermined reasons, potentially leaving him with some of the blame. That sort of thing is rather unlikely though.
The batteries used in the Tesla and the 787 are completely different.
And the ones on the 787 are made in Japan so I am sure the quality is extremely high, there is just an engineering problem they didn't anticipate or maybe they outsourced a component that failed.
Bearing in mind that it was Boeing innovating by introducing lithium ion batteries (by subjecting them to a couple of hundred thousand hours of testing at their own expense) that caused the problem, I'm not sure what further risking their reputation with "Boeing puts the zero in being" Musk would prove. Desperation?
Maybe. I suppose Boeing could force the subcontractor, Hamilton Sundstrand, that developed the Auxiliary Power Unit to work with Tesla/Musk in coming up with a solution.
Not sure I like this move, seems very opportunistic. If Elon has any concrete tips he knows how to give them for free, or even sell to Boeing. Taking to twitter seems cheesy. Imagine Google doing it to Amazon when AWS goes down.
Things happen even to the brightest so Elon and others should keep that in mind.
I commented about this in one of the other threads, but didn't really get to the important point, so I'll throw it out here.
Basically every new airliner design suffers delays and problems entering commercial service. That's not new, but the level of media saturation (aided by this "internet" thing) probably is.
The other thing that's new... is that the planes aren't crashing and killing people. New airliners of yore had a tendency to do that (as with the DC-10's cargo door, for example). The last two to enter service -- the A380 and the 787 -- have both had problems that resulted in voluntary or involuntary grounding, but the planes have stayed in the air, landed safely when in-flight problems occurred, and everybody's survived those problems.
Which, given how vastly more complex modern airliners are, is really a hell of an accomplishment.
It's a real testament to the safety practices of modern aircraft design, manufacture, maintenance, and management. I'm not convinced that someone from the space industry, which by the statistics has worse results, would have anything to teach them.
It would be great if some of the aircraft industry's techniques could influence IT (although admittedly many of the things we do are less life-threatening than flying at 35,000 ft). It would be even better if they could influence medicine. Far too many people die because there is no systematic measurement and analysis of medical practice.
We get a story about it happening on a new laptop every few years - it seems like every time you create a new battery there's a risk of this. One would hope Boeing would use an old, certified design, but perhaps modern in-flight entertainment systems use enough power that they needed higher-capacity batteries than had previously been used on aeroplanes?
The batteries are not for IFE. One is for starting the APU (a generator that starts the main engines and supplies power on the ground), and the other is for supplying the critical systems when both engines and the APU fail simultaneously (i.e., they run out of gas).
When the engines are turning, there is no shortage of power for amenities.
They used LiIon batteries for the same reason your laptop and phone do: they're small and have good energy density. The older technologies are not. Weight is a big deal and when you want 10% better fuel economy than you had before, you need to cut every gram.
