Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations

linux
Legacy Members-
Posts
1890 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by linux
-
Its not permanent of course just a few days to show presence, just a few days and market will panic because the economy is like 60% people working and spending.
-
They can't fire us all, we need universal commitment no spending money, no working, it needs to be done because that is the only recourse left.
-
I love how we are supposed to pretend that a neo nazi won't start WWIII, you see it every day on conservative forums how he wants to invade Canada, Mexico and Greenland. As if cultists wouldn't be easily swayed by a bombing of say Iran. Dear leader says jump and you say how high.
-
A lot of it is feeding red meat to the stupid media, I wish we could all slap them and tell them the distractions he does are a shit spray. What is happening in LA is real news however.
-
First: Because that hundreds of billions spreads out over launches, the rail is almost permanently reusable with the cost of maintenance being absolutely minimal, again the Starbabase,TX launch platform is damaged MORE per launch than this would per launch and nobody seems to take that into consideration. Higher cadence means many more launches than SpaceX even, Second: Most if not all of that money is spent on R&D, building parallel rail lines or different orbit rail lines won't be the bulk of the cost. Third: because of the above the cost per Kg launched will drop dramatically and the volume of mass launched will be unmatched, if there is any economic incentive up there you need both. PS smaller launches at a much higher cadence are actually better, once you decouple from needing a building sized structure TO GET to orbit, things become way cheaper.
-
Oh there are levels for sure, I am talking WWII level bombed out homes, towns, cities would do the trick.
-
At Gen I yes you need a lot less fuel, but remember the equation is exponential a linear reduction in fuel mass causes an almost quadratic reduction in total ship mass. Lets say at Gen III you would not need a booster rocket just a second stage one. At lets say Gen V you don't really need high thrust anymore, things like pure ion drives become viable, or thrusters. No need for methalox, or tanks or engines. At this point space becomes so much cheaper that you ship raw materials and manufacture them in space, you build the satellites in LEO, you build the spaceships in LEO, and if for some reason you need chemical rockets you ship the fuel from earth, that fuel is the fly the cargo not the thing that needs to burn to get there. Once you get away from the need for high thrust stages you can do almost anything in space, just with transfer orbits and slingshotting you can get almost anywhere in the solar system with enough patience and minimal fuel burn.
-
At this point I just don't get it, nothing will happen, the cult would excuse anything, they already excuse what is publically available, if there is video evidence they will call it fake and Fox News will never mention it. That is sadly why I am calling Musk a conspiracy loon, Trump does not care about him being on the files, because Trump runs a doomsday cult that will never break until his fuckups affect them directly.
-
Dude you are not thinking 4th dimensionally, the rocket the entire hunk of metal structure is just there to get the fuel to orbit, you are just a fly on its back. 95% of the cost launch IS fuel cost, just indirectly. The entire building is that large just to get the building filled with fueled into orbit, that is the AHA! moment, probably the level of enlightenment Musk never reached. He was just obsessed with the cost of fuel being so "little", again make this fuel 100% free and it is still wildly expensive, you would need for it to be massless and volumeless for the tyranny to go away. After that lets talk about the promises made about cheap space access. Even the most reused Falcon 9 the one that has already paid part of the costs with other launches is like $1600/Kg it is deeply misleading to just compare it without comparing past launches that were 4x more expensive, but lets just assume we have an ample supply of old rockets, $1600/KG is still wildly expensive, ignoring everything else that is $160,000, to get a 100Kg man to orbit naked let alone Mars on a ship. This is the part I call a con. The number needed to drop to $1-10/Kg for historical migrations.
-
There was a company in the US called spin launch that tried to do launch assist. but they only had a technology demonstrator, scaling became too much for VC, the building had to be much much larger and maybe the arm needed to be carbon nanotubes, and the lateral g forces needed really special rockets. But they would have never gotten that money needed unless a super power funded them and SpaceX sucking up all the energy in the room made them pivot to traditional rockets. In short they needed hundreds of billions, and could at best only raise billions.
-
I know I suck at the new site markup. The problem is not the fuel itself, it is the tyranny that you need to carry the fuel with you, SpaceX could be GIFTED Methalox and it would still be wildly expensive and a dead end. Did you know it would only takes a fuel tank of gasoline to take your body to orbit? Seriously accelerating a 100Kg body to 8000m/s is literally only 3.2 billion joules or 24 gallons of gasoline, and that is ignoring equatorial rotation. The problem is even if you ignore a shell for you, or life support, or oxygen, water blah blah, that fuel itself needs a metal enclosure, and that enclosure needs more fuel, and that fuel needs more fuel, and that new few needs a larger metal enclosure. Next thing you know the actual payload is only < 5% of the mass of the entire rocket. It is not sustainable, that is why space is so wildly expensive, if you can build a launch assist this can actuall scale linearly, even launching at the speed of sound is marginal, the goal is to get good at it so that it can scale linearly with respect to payload, next generation it is 2000km/h, then 20000km/h all the way where your launcher is so advanced it does not even need a second stage at all with it being shot at Mach 30, just ion thrusters for the vacuum stage. All that thrust is no longer needed just specific impulse, by this point you only have like a third stage in size ship. The days of building-sized rockets would be long gone and obsolete. Is the engineering insane? hell yeah! we are only like 1% there, just the transition from a vaccum tube rail to atmo at Mach 30 would cause an explosion of sorts (but way less damage than a blowtorch to the pad), but I trust space agencies to handle vacuum to atmo competently. (most likely gradually adding atmosphere to the end of the tunnel. The most important point is that it is not a technological dead end and the Chinese are seeing it that is why they are starting the baby steps there. And why SpaceX is ultimately a waste of time and money.
-
You need hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D to really revolutionize space, not even SpaceX can get that much money through VC or private launches. Most tragically the money they have collected have all gone into a moneypit dead end, a traditional rocket. At the end of the day you need assisted launch, period.
-
@Dahobbs Fine lets bring the discussion here What the chinese are doing is maglev not rail guns, the rail guns destroy the gun after a few launches while maglevs make 0 physical contact Using Gen 1 magnetic assisted launches not only are you accelerating the rocket over the speed of sound you are also starting ignition AWAY from the launchpad aka not destroying it every time you launch. The best part is that you can increment the distance and add more initial velocity, you could literally have a Gen 5 rail (getting to this point is just extending backwards) a fire a non fueled payload at Mach 30 over the coastline, that could probably be enough to get it to orbit even with the angled launch, why? because all of the energy apparatus stays on land it does not need to be carried by the rocket. Will it be insanely expensive? sure maybe 100s of billions and VC won't touch it because they want faster returns on investment, but that is the only NON dead end I see.
-
Of course venture capital is not cool with throwing away money, that is why it is a failure in the long run. Musk promised dreams of ultra cheap launches so much so that they conned space dreamers (like me, but I never fell for it), had he promised REAILITY aka just marginally cheaper launches than what the Soviets were doing in the 80s his cult would not be where it is today. China is building maglev launch systems, venture capital failed Spin Launch which has pivoted to rockets, to get the morsels to survive https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3303761/china-bid-challenge-giant-spacex-deploying-maglev-rocket-launch-pad-2028 Yeah if the species goes multiplanetary it will be Musk preventing it from happening more than thanks to him. Launch assisted should have been the only priority even before the Apollo project which in itself was a dead end. I already explained above.
-
Any rocket system is incredibly STUPID and should ONLY be used to build systems that do not rely on carrying fuel that you need to burn so that you carry more fuel that you need to burn. There is like literally like a few people capable of understanding this dilemma and venture capital sure as hell is not strategic enough for it, let alone orange morons and ketamine addicted con men.
-
It has taken over because it is backed by large amounts of venture capital, once it dries up and assuming the market remains open tender they will go back in line, and yes that includes starship's incremental nonsense, so much so for "revolution" Had you bothered to read my link That is it that is why spaceX managed to disloge Russia, it finally started being as cheap as the rockets the Soviets were launching in the 80s under communism and Russia in the 90s, that is it.
-
Going back to SpaceX as a company and the cancelling of the contracts, often overlooked is the economic ideology of fascism: corporatism, officially third way economics (but everyone and their grandma invented a third way economics at least once), the idea was that the commies did nationalizations and the capitalists did the invisible hand. Fascists were "smarter" though, they would command industry without taking it over like the commies, but would let the ideologically aligned oligarch profit and control the government. This is why Russia is currently fascist rich people making lots of money but they had to kiss the ring of dear leader, otherwise they are not only stripped of government contracts but the oligarchs are imprisoned, shot, etc. Guess Donny's prefered economic model?
-
Of course they can, its just shitty calculations nobody bothered to because nobody cared, and before people still harp but duh that was the frugal genius of Musk, he is still beholden to the fuel tyranny equation. Which still means extremely expensive launches. Musk is a con man https://faustusnotes.com/2022/11/23/how-much-do-spacex-rocket-launches-really-cost/ Conclusion The final conclusion of all of this is that SpaceX are lying about the price to launch stuff into space on their rockets, and the media are uncritically repeating their fabricated price without checking its validity, comparing it with other prices available on the SpaceX website, comparing it with the prices that would be implied by SpaceX’s government contracts, or looking at the evidence from actual SpaceX flight data. The true price of launching stuff into space on a SpaceX rocket is likely more like $6,000/kg, more than twice the number they are citing. It is also clear that reusability has not driven down the price of launches. Reusability incurs a payload penalty, since the rocket needs to be stronger and some fuel needs to be reserved for re-entry. Reusability is also not a radical new idea: the space shuttle’s booster rockets were reusable, and SpaceX’s sole advance on this 1980s technology has been to land them on a barge rather than beside one. This likely speeds up the time to return them to use, and slightly reduces the penalty incurred for robustness (since the rockets don’t need to resist the crash into the water) but it also significantly increases the amount of reserve fuel needed for re-entry. In fact United Launch Alliance (ULA), a SpaceX competitor, analysed reusability and found that it does not necessarily deliver much cost benefit for these reasons. There are formulae for the calculation of how many re-uses are needed for a recyclable rocket to be cheaper than an expendable one, available at the documents linked in this discussion board, and they suggest that in general it only reduces costs in the long-run by about 5%. So no, SpaceX has not revolutionized anything in this regard either. So in conclusion, SpaceX is not revolutionizing space travel, it has not driven prices down at all relative to the long-term trend, launches with SpaceX cost considerably more than their PR suggests, and SpaceX is essentially a low-quality internet service provider with a side-hustle in military contracting, being heavily propped up by murky venture capital. Elon Musk is not, and never will be, anything except a scammer, and in future decades people will look back on how he was viewed in this period with confusion, scorn and disbelief.
-
Again I have observed literally every form of trolling, as a rule of thumb I never put more effort than the troll. Once sentence answer deserve a sentence response or two at most.
-
I keep saying that Joe Rogan may be more of an asset than a threat, his endorsement might as well have been the biggest wet fart in history, a nothingburger that swayed no election.
-
Let's get something straight the idea that you posted methodologies and outcomes is laughable, I don't waste time with low effort trolling.
-
Any failure of NASA can all be laid bare at the feet of anti science republicans that want to cut all funding, the same is true in the sciences, basically all big research positions are more politicians than scientists (something a lot of critics like Sabine Hofstater constantly harp about) because funding is evaporating, and well they have to be begging 24/7 for money. The party that sabotages government and science then has a field day celebrating its failures and propping up shitty startups. That is why the empire is circling down the drain faster than the western roman empire, an eastern roman empire was the best case scenario but no we are speedrunning collapse. The chinese, and western europeans are poaching all of the best scientists now
- 688 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
-
NASA did everything better than SpaceX, like literally everything. I know you want to count numbers from 11 to infinity but this is just low effort trolling.
-
National Review needs a comedy team.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!