I'd be very interested in what they are saying if --and only if-- they had access to Boeing and FAA design and test data.
You have to remember that the FAA had to approve these subsystems as well. I don't have any first-hand experience on just how detailed (or not) this certification process might be. Once again, how could anyone say anything at all without looking at data.
To make a really dumb analogy, it's like claiming to know what happened with a race horse that died clear across the country because you know race horses. Wouldn't you first have to see the veterinarian's records on that horse as well as such things as dietary and other data before really being able to say anything at all.
In other words, I am not detracting from the expert status some of these folks enjoy. Not at all. I think it is precisely because they might be domain experts at some level that they should behave with decorum and refrain from making comments without a full stack of the necessary data.
> it's like claiming to know what happened with a race horse that died clear across the country because you know race horses. Wouldn't you first have to see the veterinarian's records on that horse as well as such things as dietary and other data before really being able to say anything at all.
If the differential has 5 items, and the most likely is most likely by 99% just on demographics, then it's going to take a lot of lab data to refute that.
Similarly, heat dissipation is a first-order problem in battery design. Especially in these high-capacity designs using high-density chemistries. What else is on the differential?
What else? Shorting. Chemical impurities (less likely). Failed peripherals like fans (hopefully less likely to have this result, due to thermal cut-offs). Improper assembly. Those are my next candidates anyway, after a thermal design defect as you said (which is fairly broad).
Your points are common sense. You can therefore assume that other men, including the men you are criticizing, know them. Given this, and given that they are speaking publicly, I would wager that they have more access to data than you presume.
You think Musk is grandstanding in hopes that consumers will demand SpaceX rockets for commercial airline travel instead of Boeing 787's? Well, duh, I'd take a ride in a rocket over another boring commercial flight any day.
I for one think it likely that Musk talks with a good grasp of the facts.
But I will say on the PR angle, he does compete directly with the entrenched manufacturers in the space arena and all discredit and doubt cast would serve him well.
Youre focusing on what Elon Musk has to gain, which is very, very little. This is actual all about what he stands to lose. Tesla's business is predicated on the public accepting that cars packed with Li batteries are safe. If the public loses faith is Li batter mass power storage, Tesla is toast.
That doesn't mean Elon is either right or wrong, but it's sufficient to explain why he feels a pressing need to be involved in the debate.
This is exactly why he is out in front of this issue.
I worked in a hardware store after the first space shuttle accident in 1986. More than one customer thought the store should not be selling O rings since they caused the shuttle to blow up.
Did these seem to think that the o-rings were made of an explosive material, or did they seem to be worried that by selling o-rings the store was somehow enabling shoddy safety engineering?
Sometimes, I just have to try and convince myself that I'm missing the sarcasm and the general public is smarter than it appears.
Let's just say I don't think Musk emailed Flightglobal because he couldn't figure out how to get in touch with anyone at Boeing. It was not a mistake that his statement went to the press.
I do think Musk is a brilliant innovator, but that does not preclude him from also having an aggressive PR strategy.
FWIW, Boeing is a direct competitor to SpaceX for private launch contracts.
> I'm betting Musk has as much data about those batteries as Boeing, the FAA, or anyone else alive.
You're betting that, are you? Based on a couple of paragraphs in a news article, you're betting that Mr. Musk has as much data as anyone alive - including the Japanese designers and manufacturers of the battery?
If there were a viable way of determining the facts of the matter, I would be happy to bet pretty much any sum you cared to name against you.
"Finally, the FAA changes so slowly that if this were even all possible, the adoption and certification would all take at least 50 years." --Eric Schmidt, http://longbets.org/4/
I'm not sure that erring on the side of caution is a bad thing when it comes to commercial jets, especially when "erring on the side of caution" means requiring an airline carrying large numbers of paying passengers needing to pay two qualified pilots to sit in a cockpit just in case things go wrong. I suspect most people underestimate just how many different separate electronic systems, usually developed and manufactured by independent specialists, are involved in controlling an aircraft (not to mention the new ones that would need to be developed for when things go wrong: there's a big difference between an autopilot landing an an instrument landing system and a pilot gliding his plane to a perfect stop on the Hudson River.)
Also worth pointing out that the CEO of Google (yes...I know his company tests driverless cars) isn't really more of an expert on the FAA certification process than the average person here.
I think he's on the right side of the bet, but I'd also note that the avionics which assist the pilot in controlling the plane and monitoring what's going on have changed more in the last 50 years than any other aspect of commercial aircraft.
Commercial considerations are a bigger factor than certification in new aircraft programme inertia: airlines' economies of scale hugely favour existing models, and expensive radical innovation in aircraft programmes can often be improved upon at lower research cost by rivals.
You seem to think that the burden of proof is on the critics. When an airplane has multiple failures, I'd say the burden of proof is on Boeing. Especially when the critics know a lot about the technology in question.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better
than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper
proposing reliable overnight delivery service.
(Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
-- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
-- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.
I did come across an interesting letter that is not necessarily relevant to this discussion but might be worth reading:
There is no evidence for the Gates alleged quote. Same for the Watson alleged quote.
As far as Smith and FedEx goes, according to Smith himself he wrote one paper that touched on the idea while an undergraduate. He doesn't remember what his grade was. The "C" notion came about, he says, because a reported asked him what his grade was and he said "I don’t know, probably made my usual C". [1]
The Ken Olsen quote is taken way out of context. He was thoroughly aware of personal computers in 1977. He was referring to behemoth home automation systems:
Well, here he's not saying that its safe, and never going to have problems.. He's saying its a bad design.. which I think he's competent enough to recognize the physics of
Isn't that exactly what both Musk and Professor Sadoway are suggesting in the linked article?