
Tesla releases teaser for new Model Y - dmitri1981
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/07/tesla-teases-new-model-y-car-cheaper-model-3-production-elon-musk
======
LeifCarrotson
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?

~~~
castis
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.

~~~
rainbowmverse
Predictions:

Model B

Model I

Model P

Model A

Model N

~~~
mason240
Model A is probably out.

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

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

------
erikb
The image is supposed to be a teaser?

~~~
jameskilton
Yes. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teaser](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/teaser)

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

------
babyrainbow
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...](https://dissention.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-business-model-of-
spacex-is-a-quintessentially-american-fraud/)

~~~
dtparr
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?

~~~
babyrainbow
> 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..

~~~
dtparr
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-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/after-spacex-launch-
russia-now-says-it-is-interested-in-reusable-rockets/)

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...

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

Read that a couple of times and you might see how illogical that is sounds....

Please take a look at the original post

[https://dissention.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-business-
mod...](https://dissention.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-business-model-of-
spacex-is-a-quintessentially-american-fraud/)

The author have answered to a lot of questions and comments..

