Tesla releases teaser for new Model Y | Hacker News Reader

Tesla releases teaser for new Model Y

theguardian.com

26 pointsdmitri198119 comments

We've got the model S, the model E/3, the model X, and now the model Y.

It seems they've neglected a critical tenet of naming systems: Preserving expandability for future models. I mean, what model comes next?

100% shot in the dark; the line up is currently SEXY so whatever letters or words can be tacked onto that is probably what the next models will be.

Predictions:

Model B

Model I

Model P

Model A

Model N

SEXYBIPAN?

Model A is probably out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_(1927%E2%80%9331)

Also Model T, of course. But interestingly, there was also a Ford Model S as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_N)

He's just going to start spelling out his ex's name.

Now that they have the adjective, they could start spelling any noun they wanted.

Obviously they are trying for SEXY. They were not able to use Model E because Ford still owns the trademark.

http://fortune.com/2014/05/07/tesla-drops-model-e-trademark-...

Like other car manufacturers they might just go by model years.

The image is supposed to be a teaser?

Yes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teaser

What I'm saying is: It does neither tease nor arouse interest. So neither definition is fulfilled.

Somebody called these companies as being some kind of fraud , in an earlier post, with some compelling arguments (for me ofcourse). But I think it was quickly downvoted and got disappeared...

https://dissention.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-business-mod...

That article has roughly one logical fallacy per sentence.

Perhaps you could discuss why you think their points are compelling? Looking through them, they seem to mostly be the author's opinions without any real research or evidence, and some seem to be counter-factual.

As a couple examples -

1) it talks about how engine refurbishment is a pipe dream, but the only evidence is that 'rockets are hard' basically, and that the Russians didn't do it. But while the shuttle wasn't exactly a model of cheap refurbishment, the RS-25s that were the main engines flew an average of nearly 9 missions each, and some were more (not sure what the most was). That's in addition to all the test fires, of course. So, reasonable people can argue how reliable/cheap the refurbishment process will end up being, but the assertion that we can't go from the SSMEs to a reasonably cost-effective refurbishment of an engine that can fly 10-20 times after 30 years of progress and that they're a fraud requires a bit more evidence/analysis.

2) The assertion that 'almost nobody outside the USA' will use SpaceX seems odd given that their next launch is for a company from Bulgaria. And they've previously launched for customers in the UK, Thailand, Luxembourg, Japan, France, and Turkmenistan in just the past year. Maybe the author meant national payloads from other countries? If so, sure, SpaceX probably won't be launching Russian or Chinese Spy Satellites, but meh?

> author's opinions without any real research or evidence...

Not everything need to be a research or evidence to be compelling. It is just some new thought, some new possibilities, that I find interesting.

>only evidence is that 'rockets are hard' basically, and that the Russians didn't do it..

Well, basically the idea is that if a company can do it without any technological breakthrough, then what is limiting others(Russians?) in the same field? Do these other competitors are not smart enough they couldn't see the possibility, but the average HN or reedit user can see? Just questions..

>30 years of progress

This imply that there is a steady rate of progress.

>The assertion that 'almost nobody outside the USA' will use SpaceX seems odd given that their next launch is for a company from Bulgaria.

The assertion is that "almost"..May be the authors point is that It cannot expect a major income from outside...The next launch is from Bulgaria does not contradict it..I mean, if you are really impartial..

So, I fear I'm being trolled, but you didn't actually mention what in particular you find compelling as "new thought, new possibilities" would be equally as applicable to alot of science fiction.

I would say evidence is needed for a compelling post accusing people of being being frauds. Having 'new thoughts' is insufficient to meet that bar for me, but apparently your mileage may vary.

I would say landing an orbital class booster and re-using it are actual technological breakthroughs. I'm curious why the author asserts it isn't. But I'll let the Russians speak for me:

> Instead of being dismissive, Komarov [edit: that is, Roscosmos CEO Igor Komarov] congratulated SpaceX and Elon Musk. "This is a very important step, we sincerely congratulate our colleague on this achievement," he told journalists. "The innovations SpaceX is making are forcing us to work on lowering the cost price and raising the product quality. The main thing is to ensure a competitive product," he added. Those innovations will include development of reusable boosters. "We are running pilot projects in the sphere of retrievable components," Komarov said. "Speaking of components, we have engines which can work a multiple number of times, for example Engine 191 and the engine for Angara (another Russian rocket). We will also be using the potential of retrievable rocket components."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/after-spacex-launch-...

So, they are now doing it. My understanding is they believed it couldn't be done in an effective (both in reliability and cost) manner and never pursued it. And as far as whether they'll be able to do it too, I see no reason why not. But SpaceX has a first mover advantage now.

And as far as Bulgaria not contradicting it, I also listed 6 other countries. I hope you would consider 7 launches worth of income to be a major source, I mean, if you're not just trolling...

> My understanding is they believed it couldn't be done in an effective (both in reliability and cost) manner and never pursued it.