-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
So basically Tesla shareholders are seeing their shared diluted by the tune of $2.6B for something that should only really cost an additional few hundred millions of investment? Isn't that my entire point? Tesla is doing the heavy lifting here : it's their revolutionary battery tech and their continued innovation like you point out re the P100D pack and their high voltage inverter technology according to Elon that they are going to apply to what is basically an empty shell and sell through their retail channel. What does SolarCity bring to the table? Tesla is more than capable to do development on PW2.0 with their integrated inverter themselves an release a product that is essentially installable by any solar company themselves. And if it really wanted to expand an get an in house installation force to provide a smooth experience, it could raise a much more modest sum from its shareholders and hire the necessary staff themselves (probably straight away from a bankrupt SolarCity)
racer26
Active Member
I can't help but feel like TSLA freefall is in part related to the SpaceX static fire explosion.
Indeed, just adding to the general anti-Telsa sentiment that seems to be floating around for the moment.
Funny though, anything related to Elon that goes good = no SP impact, anything goes bad, SP falls. Sigh...
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
There's a reason these companies are separate entities. As we are seeing spacex impact Tesla today. It's related because it speaks to a pattern of behavior. Taking risks when doing things correctly would be better. Reusable rockets are good but they should work on reliability of the original ones. Just like Tesla should have avoided the mess with the falcon doors and seats in the Model X
Gerardf
Active Member
Well, I think there is to much uncertainty after the SEC filing of the merger document, and the shorts are trying to benefit from that.
IMHO it is time for Tesla to start sharing the reasoning for the SCTY acquisition and share their TE-2.0 plans.
IMHO it is time for Tesla to start sharing the reasoning for the SCTY acquisition and share their TE-2.0 plans.
racer26
Active Member
SpaceX has not historically had a reliability problem. They've static fired every Falcon 9 produced at MacGregor, and then again at the launch site. Every Merlin engine on their rockets is running for the 3rd (minimum) time on the actual launch. Out of 28 launches to date, there has been one total loss vehicle failure, and one partial failure to put a tagalong customer's payload in the correct orbit on a mission NASA was paying for, on an actual mission launch. This failure on the pad during static fire testing is exactly why they do static fire testing.
Falcon 9 is not out of line with other rocket designs on a reliability factor. The problem with rockets is that they're low-production and with the exception of SpaceX, you can't get them back after they've been used to triage where failures might occur to better the design for next time.
So that's three failures plus the first two when the company was started. So five total.
Ulmo
Active Member
This is what I remember about Elon saying the reason to purchase Solar City is:
Elon said innovative solar roof, integrated battery and inverter, and a single Tesla sales contact point when getting those, hopefully + car and car charger, one install, one payment plan (one contact point). He says that's not as possible with SCTY separate, and reading between the lines, I think he's also avoiding saying Rives wasn't that innovative and only did little better than a mediocre job from the POV of someone with Elon ambitions. Also, Elon thinks SCTY is the right company because he's already involved.
I like solar integration. My take is this is the horse Elon wants to ride to get there. I'd prefer a better partner, but Elon said he already tried partners and it sucked with respect to Solar City. Does he fail to try other solar solutions besides SCTY? Maybe, possibly, probably. But I think he'll fix Solar City if he brings it into Tesla. I hope anyway.
I wonder why Elon hasn't already done more of that integration work already. Maybe Rives just loves the hard push sales and won't give it up, and hasn't been cooperating with integration. Or maybe Rives is not an inventor. In those two cases, Elon has a reason to take it over. That's especially true if he's running into the same problems with other solar concerns.
That's why I was put over the edge to be for this. I'm looking forward to it already. I just wish they weren't riding a pig there.
Elon said innovative solar roof, integrated battery and inverter, and a single Tesla sales contact point when getting those, hopefully + car and car charger, one install, one payment plan (one contact point). He says that's not as possible with SCTY separate, and reading between the lines, I think he's also avoiding saying Rives wasn't that innovative and only did little better than a mediocre job from the POV of someone with Elon ambitions. Also, Elon thinks SCTY is the right company because he's already involved.
I like solar integration. My take is this is the horse Elon wants to ride to get there. I'd prefer a better partner, but Elon said he already tried partners and it sucked with respect to Solar City. Does he fail to try other solar solutions besides SCTY? Maybe, possibly, probably. But I think he'll fix Solar City if he brings it into Tesla. I hope anyway.
I wonder why Elon hasn't already done more of that integration work already. Maybe Rives just loves the hard push sales and won't give it up, and hasn't been cooperating with integration. Or maybe Rives is not an inventor. In those two cases, Elon has a reason to take it over. That's especially true if he's running into the same problems with other solar concerns.
That's why I was put over the edge to be for this. I'm looking forward to it already. I just wish they weren't riding a pig there.
Last edited:
Just rolled some short 300 puts to short 290 puts expiring Jan 17. Have been holding since about April. This selloff isn't very fun.
However, I think we bounce off the 204.50 area last seen May 17. I'm not counting the SCTY announcement dip, although it's certainly not out of the question that we revisit that area (193).
However, I think we bounce off the 204.50 area last seen May 17. I'm not counting the SCTY announcement dip, although it's certainly not out of the question that we revisit that area (193).
I assume you are measuring by mission failures. One of these was secondary of course. However, we don't know the status of the payload and unconfirmed reports say that it was not integrated. I wouldn't count it as a failure if the customer's payload was somewhere safe. This is just a test failure. EDIT: scratch that - sounds like full on failure now that SpaceX has commented.
I think the analogy is that landing rockets on barges has a lot of upside but it takes resources away from other parts of the company just like buying SCTY has a lot of upside but places unnecessary liquidity pressure on TSLA.
Straight up capitulation. Stop losses getting murdered. The bottom should be in soon. This place is surprisingly quiet and calm right now.
racer26
Active Member
The first 3 Falcon 1's failed. Elon put up his last dollars to make the 4th one happen, (at the same time as he put a bunch of money into Tesla to make sure it survived long enough to get Roadsters out). 4th launch of Falcon 1 was a success, and gained SpaceX commercial customers.
Falcon 9 is a derived but unique design. It isn't fair to count failures of an early design with those of a mature design.
CRS-1 in October 2012 was the partial failure. It launched to ISS with a secondary payload for another customer which was to be sent to a higher trajectory. During ascent, one of the 9 engines lost fuel pressure and was shut down. This necessitated a longer burn on the remaining 8 engines, and left the rocket with less fuel than it otherwise would have had. NASA required greater-than-99% probability that the secondary payload would reach its orbit clear of the ISS, and nixed the secondary mission. SpaceX believes it could have successfully achieved it. NASA made the call to abort the secondary mission, as their mission took priority.
CRS-7 in June 2015 was the only total vehicle failure of Falcon 9. A strut inside the LOX tank which holds a helium tank inside gave way, and caused a failure of the LOX tank when it collided with the LOX tank pressure vessel, resulting in a RUD during ascent.
Reports coming in now seem to suggest it was a pad anomaly, and not a vehicle anomaly that resulted in today's problem. Rockets by their very nature have a lot of boom stored. Bad things happening in the vicinity will cascade.
Gerardf
Active Member
Yes, we all know about these.
But now we are getting closer to the vote and the merger itself, I feel Tesla could do a somewhat better job on sharing more concrete and detailed plans and financial analysis in order to 'sell' this to the shareholders. It is a big investment for them after all.
Also good timing to present PowerWall 2.0, the plans for the Tesla-Solar roadmap and inform us all about the expected TE residential & utilities deliveries for Q3 & Q4. Finally put some numbers behind it. This will help to defend the case for adding SCTY to Tesla Energy.
hockeythug
Active Member
I said all along Musk needs to resign from one of the companies. He will be dealing with this latest incident for a long time. A loss of vehicle and payload during a static fire? Yikes.
racer26
Active Member
If you believe that the merger goes through though, there's a $27 arbitrage with SCTY right now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
