Elon Musk Newest Interview With Joe Rogan

Elon Musk was interviewed by Joe Rogan for the second time. Unlike the first time there was no smoking of marijuana.

Elon discussed getting the neuralink brain interface into humans in about one year.

Neuralink will replace a one inch section of the skull. Neuralink could stop epilepsy, restore eye sight and repair stroke damage.

Eventually in order to merge with AI, there would be the need to replace the top of the skull in order to fully integrate the brain with machine intelligence.

The new Tesla Roadster will come after the Cybertruck. The Roadster will have unfair things. Previously it as mentioned the Roadster will have tiny rockets. Elon says the base model will have a 0 to sixty time of 1.9 seconds. There will be high performance version that will have even better acceleration.

35 thoughts on “Elon Musk Newest Interview With Joe Rogan”

  1. I expect them to learn what to improve to add more launches. If he gets Starship to work the rest of the world will have to adopt.

    I am not sure he will reach $10/kg but he doesn’t have to. All he has to do is to be much cheaper than everyone else.

    Reply
  2. It is exactly what Dr.Erickson has been stating.
    Look at worldometer for the numbers.
    1.3 million tested positive out of about 7.6 million tested, total. 17% positive out of the sample population. That is a large sample size and thet test has either nonspecific or no symptoms at all. Sampling bias is unlikely and immunoassays and PCR are pretty specific.
    So the sample probably represents the US population accurately, giving us about 55 million infected.
    Out of 60k dead, that is a mortality rate of about 0.1%. 50-60 times less than what we were inititally told, per models.

    Reply
  3. It’s less about launches per year for costs as launches per rocket – every extra launch defrays the cost of the new rocket until the point its only the cost of the maintenance per launch, ground control staff and the fuel causing expense to SpaceX per launch.

    Reply
  4. What concerns me a lot about the new cheaper age of space launch SpaceX is bringing is space traffic and garbage.

    At this point the sheer cost of launching things into space has limited just how much crap is floating about up there, but this change has the potential to dramatically increase it.

    I sure hope that someone is putting serious thought into how to deal with all of it, because a Gravity level disaster begins to sound a whole lot more possible when this level of space proliferation is possible.

    Reply
  5. Well actually 6 depends a lot on the level of automation in your production.

    5 requires a common approach full stop – not possible in the US where the individual state governors have the freedom to act as dumb as they want to be, and obviously many have.

    As for nearly everything else, it sounds closer to speculation from a conspiracy theorist layman than anything real – especially the part about hospitals inflating numbers, what a colossal prick!

    But not surprising from the guy that called a hero a paedophile just because he was called on his bullshit – Musk is smart yes, but not nearly so smart as he thinks he is, and certainly not as smart as he tries to make people think he is. He’s far from infallible, and has demonstrated a mean streak when called out on it.

    This whole thing sounds exactly like what you would expect from a rich guy seeing his profits not hitting the level he expected for the time and mad about it – his factories had to be ordered closed because he was not doing so himself, so anything he says about this should be taken with a mountain of salt at the very least.

    Reply
  6. I agree, there has to be regulation against companies so they protect induviduals with this enhancement. The potential downsides are there, but I think unless Musk wants a litanny of lawsuits he’s going to ensure its safety. I’m personally very excited about this advancement because as an engineer thinking down what I did onto the page 100 times faster will be very useful. Companies that have Nueralink would be exponentially more efficient, imagine paperwork that takes hours only taking minutes.

    Reply
  7. My personal inclination is to be very conservative about that sort of thing, even if it works perfectly the potential downsides are immense. (Imagine targeted advertising direct to your brain.)

    But I become more open to the idea as my own brain deteriorates.

    Reply
  8. Difficult to avoid entraining rocks in the air flow, you’re going to be a hazard to the other cars on the road.

    Reply
  9. I think you actually could make a kerosene engine reusable despite coking. Maybe using transpiration cooling, or introducing some other non-coking fuel around the edges of the combustion chamber, and counting on laminar flow to isolate the carbon rich flow from the walls.

    But it’s not worth the development effort, given Methane’s other advantages.

    Reply
  10. The primary difference is SpaceX actually making their design choices with that reusability in mind. The Nasa engineers might have wanted the Space Shuttle to be reusable, but they were compelled by political considerations to make a LOT of design choices that compromised reusability.

    Aluminum airframe instead of titanium, which forced them to use a much more fragile heat shield.

    Replacing the originally planned piloted aircraft style first stage with those solid rocket boosters, and making those segmented so that they could be manufactured at a remote site in a key Representative’s district.

    Both of these politically driven decisions not only reduced reuse, they directly led to disasters.

    Reply
  11. Number 6 about people don’t realize you have to make stuff to buy it. This is a pervasive thought currently. I have seen proposals for $2000 a month to every citizen. People including politicians must be economically illiterate. Why not just write a check for $1 Billion dollars to everyone since $2000 or $Billion is just virtual printing anyway. M2 Money supply has increased 13% in 2 months. And now you got me started 🙂

    Reply
  12. I meant the same conditions as in:
    1.. If we achieve one launch per week to keep our overhead low
    and
    2.. If we manage to achieve 100 launches per vehicle
    and
    3.. If we keep maintenance costs between launches to a couple of $ million at most
    and
    4.. If we have enough cargos to keep all of this going

    then the calculated cost per kg is $low-number

    It’s nothing unusual. Every single transport system, from train networks to pack mules needs to have similar conditions to get low costs. Though the exact numbers you need to achieve depends on your different starting numbers.

    Reply
  13. The alternative method of downforce is the fan car approach.

    Literally a big fan to suck air from under the car, to force it down onto the road.

    Originally used in racing in the Brabham BT46 (until it was banned), the same designer has finally brought out a road car McLaren T.50.

    Ensuring it is legally allowed onto the roads in your local area is left as an exercise for the buyer.

    Reply
  14. The point is that the shuttle originally promised very low prices per kg, by assuming huge numbers of flights per year and flights per orbiter, and very low maintenance requirements.
    Spacex is promising the same thing with the same conditions.
    Now spaceX may be much more justified that the shuttle program, they certainly seem to have achieved their early milestones at orders of magnitude lower costs.
    But it is a valid comparison, if only to discuss why one will succeed while the other failed.

    Reply
  15. NAILED IT

    Nice to have Musk reiterate everything I’ve been posting here for the last few months.

    1) This virus is not as deadly as they said it is
    2) Actual mortality rate is at the least 10 times if not 50 times lower than we were told
    3) Governments reactions around the world have been akin to breaking a walnut with a sledgehammer
    4) Lockdowns are constitutionally illegal
    5) A common sense approach of caring for the elderly and vulnerable and quarantining the sick should have been taken
    6) People don’t realize you can’t just go out and buy stuff. Someone needs to be making this stuff. You shut down economies, and no matter how much money you pump into it, if nobody is making anything then you can’t buy it
    7) Dubious tagging of deaths as COVID. Are people dying of COVID19 or with COVID19? Musk touches on unscrupulous actions by hospitals to tag deaths as COVID19 so they get money from the government

    Well done Musk for speaking out!

    Reply
  16. What an awful moniker for a kid. Even if he has another “normal” name. If the next one is a girl what about R$ D32 ?

    Reply
  17. I have confidence in their ability to reach reusability in the tens of cycles (far more than F9).

    But hundreds or thousands of launches, that’s pending to be proven. Never before a rocket has flow so many times, it’s an actual unknown.

    I’d be really happy if it works, though.

    Reply
  18. “F9 boosters are starting to show failures after 4-5 launches.”

    Which is fine because that exceeds projections. F9 boosters were never projected to do 100 launches the way SS is. So that’s not an untrue statement, but construing that failure rate as if it is a shortfall of expectations is not accurate.

    Reply
  19. That is kind of important, you don’t want hypersonic rocket plumes cutting the other cars on the road to pieces.

    Reply
  20. They also have to prove Starship and Raptor can be as reusable as they expect.

    F9 boosters are starting to show failures after 4-5 launches.

    Raptor and SS will have to do hundreds of launches for approaching (not achieving) the $10 per kg to LEO level E. Musk is touting.

    I know it’s a different design and different fuel, but it may happen that rockets simply can’t survive across that many reuses, for many other reasons than fuel and coking.

    Reply
  21. “With high flight rate, probably below $1.5M fully burdened cost for 150 tons to orbit or ~$10/kg.”

    I’ll cheer this up like crazy, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

    That’s the kind of optimistic projections for launch prices people did for the reusable Shuttle, back in the 70s.

    Reply
  22. “The Roadster will have unfair things.”

    What does this even mean? It will hack into other parked cars, to cause them to move to make better parking spots available?

    “Previously it as mentioned the Roadster will have tiny rockets.”

    Now, this I’ve suggested myself: Once self-driving cars are working, you really could equip a car with thrusters to allow it to execute extreme maneuvers in emergencies, requiring well in excess of available tire traction. 2G lane changes, for instance, or actually hopping over an obstacle Speed Racer style.

    Not the sort of thing you’d want a human driver to be in control of in regular traffic, but it could potentially allow a self-driving car to avoid collisions no ordinary car driven by a human could.

    SpaceX’s growing experience with rocket control software could be very useful to Tesla.

    Reply

Leave a Comment