
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17879 -
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
-
-
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
-
-
-
-
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:
The suspense is killing me. Get her ass with a well placed ball for the k
Your wish is granted.
-
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
I’m not the one responding emotionally. Nothing Chicken Sandwich posted even suggested ignoring due process.
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.
QuoteAnd you absolutely have changed your argument.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:
Whoever said I wanted that process skipped? You presume way too much.
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.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:
I’m still waiting for a response to your change in argument. His comment was correct. You have issue distinguishing between law for citizens and law for non-citizens.
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.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:
Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum.
They should run for office if they want to change the law.
The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country.
billable hours.
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.
-
3
-
-
Let's go horns!
-
2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:
“The family first arrived in the US from Kuwait in August 2022, but were only allowed to stay until February 2023, the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday.
Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, filed for asylum a month after arriving, and listed his wife and their five children as dependents in Denver, according to the department.“
Do these not apply?
2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.
3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant.
Do what apply? You still need a hearing to adjudicate those things. Did you read anything Brisket posted?
-
3 minutes ago, txduck87 said:
Yeah I get that. Was just wondering how many guys my age could do that.
My goals are maintaining strength, keep Vo2 max as high as possible, and staying as flexible as possible.
My bar is certainly higher than standing on one leg for 40 seconds…good grief.Guys that age that lift? Probably a decent percentage, but less than half. Guys that age generally? I'd guess less than 5%.
-
19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:
Surely the judge cited and provided evidence and documentation of what due process was being denied?
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.
-
9
-
-
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:
Because they are guests without any legal right to be here, and the immediate family principal is a terrorist. Your argument is laughable.
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.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:
Why's ole' rex negging you on this one? The team had a great year, but more than a handful of Tuesday losses, and many of their games were fucking nail-biters? Why wouldn't I have to drive through that?
Unrelated dispute from another thread I guess. Don't worry about it.
The Way Too Early 2028 Democratic Presidential Candidate Thread
in Cloak Room
Posted
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.