If Tesla’s cars were as good in parking as that, one in six attempts to park a car would lead to a fender-bender or worse.
Yes, that isn’t a valid comparison, but it does show that we accept way higher failure rates for rockets than we do for cars (aside: that also is the reason I don’t see space tourism become popular soon. If, say, the 20th or 30th millionaire who books a flight dies, the market will dry up rapidly)
Seriously? Well then you just don't understand machine learning, robotics and the tyranny of the rocket equation. If you did, it would be easy to see that landing an orbital rocket is much harder than autonomous driving. The only problem is that nobody will pay 300M to get one fully self driving car after 13 years of research. And selfdriving needs tons of data which first need to be collected, which is what Tesla is doing at the highest rate than anyone in the industry by far.
Edit: one way to realize this is true is if you consider that the rocket already IS fully self driving. Everything after 1 minute mark before the liftoff is fully controlled by onboard computers, people are only there to push the big red autodestruct button if anything goes wrong.
Anyway, my point was something else. That something might seem impossible, and then after just 5 years it can be considered mundane. And I think that's what we will see with self driving too. Unless oil industry manages to manipulate public opinion in a way that stops Tesla before that.
If Tesla’s cars were as good in parking as that, one in six attempts to park a car would lead to a fender-bender or worse.
Yes, that isn’t a valid comparison, but it does show that we accept way higher failure rates for rockets than we do for cars (aside: that also is the reason I don’t see space tourism become popular soon. If, say, the 20th or 30th millionaire who books a flight dies, the market will dry up rapidly)