Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. It is an accurate description of the situation. Objectively, it is stupid to not be concerned. People in the exact same situation have had their visas cancelled and been deported. Chances are pretty good it'll happen to her as well.
  2. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    Again, what is the point of this? We need to launch things to orbit. It doesn't particularly matter how they get there. Let's say we have a 3,000 kg spacecraft with an ion drive that we need to get to orbit. If we can do it with a chemical rocket for $500k in fuel costs, why exactly do we need to spend hundreds of billions on electromagnetic launchers? What new capability is that enabling? Does it really matter how that spacecraft gets to orbit? If your argument is that we are going to be able to launch larger vehicles using electromagnetic launchers than we can with chemical rockets, well, 1) I'm not convinced that is currently technically feasible for us and 2) that doesn't mean it'll be cheaper for smaller payloads. In fact, for 2), I'm quite certain it will in fact be significantly more expensive than launching on a fully reusable rockets.
  3. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    Again, you're historical numbers are flat incorrect. You're lying to yourself about that. I completely understand that the rocket mainly exists to carry fuel. You're not understanding that your solution doesn't solve that problem. It lessens the fuel needed to reach orbit. But you still can't do anything once in orbit unless you have fuel/propellant.
  4. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    What is the point of building this just to launch things to orbit? It is still a "dead end" in your words because you need delta v in space to do any serious travel. That's the real tyranny of the equation. Your solution isn't a solution to any real problem. And, again, your cost figures are simply not accurate. It is significantly cheaper to get a payload to space with Falcon 9 than any other current or historical system. Starship and Super Heavy have the potential to change that because of how much mass they can get to orbit for just the price of the fuel. Again, fuel is cheap. It is like 1-5% of the current cost of a launch.
  5. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    Writing everything within my quote makes your post confusing. I'm still unsure why you think reducing fuel cost for launch needs to be the highest priority. It is a very small percentage of the cost of a launch. And Spacecraft still need fuel/propellant to maneuver in space. You can't get rid of the need for a rocket or propulsion system of some sort. What is the point of spending hundreds of billions to develop a system that will save a few hundred thousand on launch costs at the very most (and likely actually cost more per launch)
  6. I'm very skeptical of the launch costs you cite. But beyond that, you're just ignoring purchasing power parity that would be driving lower costs for Russia/Soviet Union. Further, marginally lower costs wouldn't have completely disrupted the launch market. As to China, they are also heavily invested in replicating SpaceX's success with reusable rockets. They have multiple projects going on simultaneously to do that, including some recent tests that were very similar to SpaceX's hopper. Electromagnetic launching would be interesting and something that has been discussed for decades. As the Navy's recent attempt at fielding rail guns has demonstrated, they are a lot more difficult and expensive than expected. There is basically a 0% chance that entity successfully introduced a launcher in 2028. I'm confident that the cost required to get a rocket to supersonic speeds via electromagnetic acceleration would greatly exceed fuel costs, which are a small fraction of a rocket launch costs. Fuel costs for a Falcon 9 launch are on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars vs a launch price (not cost) of around $70 million. Spending billions upon billions in an attempt to save a portion of those fuel costs isn't great math. And then you'll also have to deal with hoping the rocket actually fires after being accelerated as apparently the plan for that entity is to assist the rocket rather than outright send something to to orbit entirely with electromagnetic acceleration. Fair, fair.
  7. What on earth does this mean? You want to build a perpetual motion machine? Or a just a purely solar powered spacecraft?
  8. Your link is nonsense. Your reasoning is nonsense. I don't even know what point you think you're making with that chart. Yes, reusability drove prices down. Yes, lower prices allowed SpaceX to take over the launch market. That's the exact opposite of what you said in your prior post. You apparently believe that "venture capital" is cool with just throwing away money. That isn't how it works.
  9. I'm sorry. I hate Musk. But this post is absolute nonsense. SpaceX has single handedly taken over the launch industry because of its cost and cadence advantage with re-use. ULA barely does anything anymore. Russia dominated the launch space just 15 years ago and disappeared because of SpaceX.
  10. Yes they will. The Democrats are spineless.
  11. Your wish is granted.
  12. Then you need to re-read that post. Here is the quote: "We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum." The government was trying to deport without the family having the ability to speak to a lawyer or have a hearing before a judge. All the judge did was say, hold up, you can't deport immediately and asked for a status conference. Chicken believes that because the law may ultimately result in the family's deportation, that we can just skip the "waste of tax payer dollars" of having a hearing. You agreed with that. This is cut and dry. I'm glad that you don't actually believe that and that you misunderstood his post. What do you think my original argument was? Where did I ever say "the family shouldn't ever be deported"? I said the particular argument you were making was problematic and dangerous. And I said there were other non-problematic arguments that reach the same conclusion and suggested that you should use those. I haven't changed my position on that.
  13. You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit.
  14. I didn't change my argument. I was clear from the beginning, my issue was your reasoning, not the conclusion. Why is his argument correct? Citizen or non-citizen, both are entitled to a hearing by a judge as part of due process. That's all the judge's order does, ensures the process is followed. They may lose any argument they have, but they do get to make one. You should want that. Everyone should. I don't understand why you're confused by this. I don't understand why you want that process skipped.
  15. It isn't about a judge isn't disagreeing with the law. It is about a judge applying it. Due process is important. Either everyone has it or no one does. Why is this so confusing? @Rex Kramer why are you liking this nonsense? Surely you understand the importance of rule of law? I know you're better than this.
  16. Do what apply? You still need a hearing to adjudicate those things. Did you read anything Brisket posted?
  17. Guys that age that lift? Probably a decent percentage, but less than half. Guys that age generally? I'd guess less than 5%.
  18. Yes. There was a tweet from White House saying the family would be deported today. Under due process, they get a hearing. They get access to their lawyers. That hadn't happened. The judge's order just gives time for the Constitutionally required due process to play out. Crazy idea, I know.
  19. I don't think you understand what my argument is. You seem to think I'm saying they should stay. I'm not. At any rate, I don't think deporting them immediately is that good of an idea even if they ultimately should be deported. There is an investigation of a crime. It would make sense to keep the family in country where their involvement, if any, could be investigated. If they were involved, they should be prosecuted criminally here. It appears the judge and potentially the State Department now agree with me.
  20. Unrelated dispute from another thread I guess. Don't worry about it.
  21. Again, I ask you, why must you justify deportation based upon a legally problematic ground? So long as you're not invoking collective punishment or presumed guilt, I'm good. I have no idea why that is difficult for you or why on earth it would be important to make those the basis of for the reason of deportation. Shit like that quite literally led to the holocaust.
  22. No, I'm not. I'm very comfortable being on the other side of this issue from you. You can justify deportation a dozen different ways that aren't based on presuming guilt by association.
×
×
  • Create New...