'broken' depends on which side of the wrench you're holding

Military. Industrial. Complex.

whoever added that clause got a sizeable bonus.

Their Trumpian replacement will double the subscription fee

your bone spurs are showing troll

soon enough they would find that no manufacturer that relied on service revenue would offer them to the military, and if they did, likely for substantially higher costs, to 'recover' that lost service revenue.

The military would sign the check tomorrow and twice on Sundays.

heard something recently that fits.

Twitter/FB/Insta/etc are Social MEDIA - they're entire point is to get you to consume stuff, not build relationships. Corporate algorithms aren't for you they are to use you.

Mastodon/Fediverse and possibly Bluesky (TBD) are Social 'Networks'. The point is the communication with others.

...update that registry setting...

Obviously most won't, but at least the option likely has to exist somewhere to configure it since corporate customers also won't allow such things to exist.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdo...

US Navy demonstrating 1.6kW delivered to source. Some bad reporting of "60% efficient". The 60% is that they planned to deliver 1kW, so 1.6kW is 60% greater than planned 1kW NOT efficiency.

The INPUT energy was 100kW. So 1.6% efficiency at just a km. Inverse square over 25,000 miles to geostationary is not a viable technology.

Part of the system has to plan on new tech we don't have yet being developed.

We will absolutely need green powered mechanized CO2 capture to pull out what we've emitted - that will be the feedstock for required liquid e-fuels.

exactly. The problems in Spain weren't the renewables, they were the grid not being updated to handle the significantly different inputs of renewables.

beaming power from orbit is an utter fantasy for actual usable amounts of power.

Inverse Square by Distance means you get low single digit percent of input at the ground....if that. Even if you can make it 50% efficient at ground...

So to be viable you need to to build a self supporting structure in space larger than anything we've ever built on the ground (multiple sq kms in size), at an altitude we've never worked at. Maintenance would be basically impossible requiring *much* stronger rockets to get there. You could instead build arrays of thousands of independent smaller vehicles, but then those all need their own station keeping propulsion systems.

Just launching that much *stuff* is more than we've ever launched and will have *significant* atmospheric pollution problems.

Vs spending a tiny fraction of that to build enough solar panels on the ground to provide just as much power.

It's a SciFi dream that sounds cool, but physics isn't in the business of granting wishes.

Sure Jan

Good Day

Fair but the point still stands. Socialize the risks, privatize the profits is the problem.

well that answers the question of are you the original owner of the 5 digit account or did you buy it. LOL

dude, just wow.

The energy requirements to keep a car aloft are wildly in excess of any available tech we have, beyond a very short trips.

Cars have to *stop*, slow down and other things a plane definitely can't do. Helos have *significantly* lower range for this very reason.

Can't claim plane capability when the very reason planes work is having very few vehicles and a huge infrastructure in ATC.

No we didn't. The amount of energy required to produce the lasers that hit the hydrogen pellet was 100x the output energy.