
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17864 -
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
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
5 minutes ago, Hitch said:
The fact that Iran didn’t coordinate their drones and missiles to overwhelm the Iron Dome tells us a lot.
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. It appears they successfully hit multiple targets in Israel. That suggests the defenses were in fact overwhelmed.
-
25 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:
“If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to.”
-The Operative
I can only imagine that the Hamas fighters weren’t as as precisely located as the bedroom of an Iranian military leader. They’re in this or under this building is likely the best targeting information they had in a much more fluid situation.
Hamas’ habit of placing their infrastructure and bases under civilian sites and hospitals makes rooting them out problematic.
Thats not excusing the destruction of whole city blocks, but perhaps the reasoning behind their choice of munitions and targeting.
+rep for the quote.
I do note, that the operative worked for a tyrannical, authoritarian regime that experimented on its own citizens.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, bolverk said:
Ballistic missiles are hard to intercept even with very sophisticated defenses. Given this one appears to have hit pretty close to where defensive launches are occurring, it seems Iran has enough information and capability to precisely target military positions in Israel. These don't appear to be random terror strikes on the city.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:
"I came here to deal drugs and rape, but I just can't pass up this opportunity to pick lettuce" is certainly a take.
Wait, so he is saying that his policies:
(1) Are resulting in the deportation of "very good, long time workers"; and
(2) Not resulting in the deportation of "the criminals" who are now applying for those jobs.
That's... something.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:
Could a full load of folks and fuel even get off the ground with no flaps?
Apparently not.
-
Guys, my current diversified portfolio is only getting like 7% yearly returns. I don't think it is maximizing the value. My uncle that lives in a trailer says to scrap it and move everything into this hot new fund run by Mernie Badoff. What y'all think?
-
Quote
Yesterday, Kennedy pledged that none of the new ACIP members would be "ideological anti-vaxxers." However, the list of today's appointees includes Robert Malone, who falsely claims to have invented mRNA vaccines and has spent the past several years spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories about them.
Speaking at an anti-vaccine rally in 2022, Malone spread dangerous falsehoods about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: "These genetic vaccines can damage your children. They may damage their brains, their heart, their immune system and their ability to have children in the future. Many of these damages cannot be repaired."
Troubling list
Malone aligned with the anti-vaccine crowd during the pandemic and has become a mainstay in conspiratorial circles and an ally to Kennedy. He has claimed that vaccines cause a "form of AIDS," amid other nonsense. He has also meddled with responses to the measles outbreak that erupted in West Texas in January. In April, Malone was the first to publicize news that a second child had died from the highly infectious and serious infection, but he did so to falsely claim that measles wasn't the cause and spread other dangerous misinformation.
In a newsletter post earlier this week, Malone proclaimed: "Some people still believe that the term anti-vaxxer is a pejorative. I do not—I view it as high praise."
Malone is just one of the eight names released today. Another is Martin Kulldorff, one of the co-authors of the widely criticized Great Barrington Declaration, which called for letting COVID-19 spread largely unabated. Health experts called it "unethical."
Vicky Pebsworth is also on the list, as well as on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, one of the nation’s oldest anti-vaccine groups that promotes the false claim that vaccines cause autism.
Kennedy also appointed Retsef Levi, who has penned articles alleging dangers of COVID-19 vaccines, including a flawed 2022 article that was later corrected and an unpublished article co-authored with COVID-contrarian and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo.
The other four appointees are Joseph R. Hibbeln, a psychiatrist; Cody Meissner, a pediatrician; James Pagano, an emergency medicine physician; and Michael Ross, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology.
The appointments are likely to increase concern that federal vaccine recommendations will be corrupted and lead to Americans losing access to lifesaving vaccines.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
55 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:I wasn't cherry picking. They were in photos in two articles I read off Drudge yesterday. I was curious what Party for Socialism and Liberation had to do with all these printed signs at all the protests, then read their website. Photos like these: [photos removed for ease of reading]
You should probably look up the definition of cherry picking. That's exactly what this is. You found some signs of this organization participating in protests and jumped to the wild conclusion that "the protests in all these cities are organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation whose goal is to completely topple capitalism".
The protests aren't organized by that organization. The organization may take part in some of the protests (along with many other organizations and individuals) and it may also organize some of its own protests. Assigning all the protests and protesters to this one organization is a blatant fabrication and ignores the diverse people and groups that oppose the military occupation of the country (read: actual patriots).
-
10
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
28 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:I don't know why I was surprised to look up the group named on the bottom of the printed posters and find the protests in all these cities are organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation whose goal is to completely topple capitalism.
I heard all the violent ones were organized by the Proud Boys as a false flag.
See. I too can make shit up.
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Lat22 said:
You got that right.
Kindly run into traffic.
-
A lot people will have to die before anything changes unfortunately. The fattie's of the country are too hard-headed to ever concede they might be wrong. They enjoy when suffering is caused to others. It is just who they are.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:
This is totally fine, right?
@Anastasis cheers this as a science based decision.
-
2
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:
Telling someone else how they should feel, and then calling them names and making personal attacks when they don’t feel the same way as you think they should. I’ve heard this all before…
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.
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, rage-a-holic said:
My GF is here legally with a valid visa and doesn't participate in stupid political BS that could get her deported. She doesn't work here illegally or overstay her visa.
So no, not worried.
You're an idiot.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, linux said:
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.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, linux said:
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.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, linux said:
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.
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 hours ago, linux said:
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)
-
41 minutes ago, linux said:
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
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.
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.
33 minutes ago, elfenix said:can y'all take this to the spacex thread or the main elon thread? this thread is for elon and trump catfight
Fair, fair.
-
14 minutes ago, linux said:
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.
What on earth does this mean? You want to build a perpetual motion machine? Or a just a purely solar powered spacecraft?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, linux said:
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.
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.
-
12 hours ago, linux said:
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.
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.
-
1
-
-
-
Israel vs everyone war thread
in Daily Texan
Posted · Edited by Dahobbs
Not that I'm in favor of Iran having one, but plenty of other countries (including crazy ones like North Korea) do and we've muddled our way through. Nuclear weapons are largely unusable by state actors. My primary concern with nuclear proliferation is rogue elements getting hold of them.
I honestly don't know what you even mean. That's literally the definition of overwhelming it. If you mean the attack wasn't so massive that the entire city burned down, sure, it wasn't overwhelmed to that degree. But a saturation attack resulted in missiles getting past Israel's defenses, including to what appear to be some important military facilities.