Doesn't it? I mean, they've landed boosters, they "landed" the block 3 in the last launch. They've been consistently landing ships for quite a while. Reusing the ships without any refurb still seems a way off, but them making it back safely seems like they have some healthy margins just now.
Interesting anecdote. We still don't have decent V2H enablement in the UK. By the way, Australian sentiment on EVs has shifted pretty rapidly. While there's obviously lots of loud-mouthed whiners, EVs are now 26% of sales of new cars, which is pretty decent, all told, and is actually a doubling of market share in a single year. Petrol and diesel saw really chunky declines. It helps that solar and battery are spreading so rapidly, so there's significant benefits in fuel savings to be had. The Electric Viking on YouTube covers EV developments generally, but has a lot of Oz-specific stuff because he's Australian.
No it's not. Starship is like the Airbus A330. More efficient per unit volume, *and* more efficient per flight than a plane that explodes when it reaches the gate.
And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment. Though I'm sure SpaceX will figure their engine issues out.
Honestly, I'd put starship as approaching the reliability of Falcon 9 at this point anyway. Falcon 9 has the occasional failure (rare, but not none). Starship is getting to the point that it fairly reliably gets up there and gets back. It has some engine outs still, but it also has the redundancy to deal with it.
How experimental was SLS? Not at all? A straightforward design based on known-good parts that they stuck together at the cost of many billions per launch.
How experimental was Starship? Almost entirely. A material that's basically never been used for rockets. A method of assembly that's never been used for rockets. An engine design that's entirely new. An engine concept that's never been used before. A fuel that's never been used before. A level of engine performance that's never been done before. A method of pressurising the tanks that's never been used before. A method of aerodynamic control that's never been used before. A method of recovery that's never been tried before... The list goes on and on and on.
Why on earth would you compare the reliability of the two?
Why? Starship, when finally fully reusable (likely within 2-5 launches) will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9. Not cheaper per kg launched, cheaper per launch. Why on earth would you continue to fly Falcon 9, even for medium lift? Just launch a whole starship, launch a few starlinks along with the contracted medium lift load, and land it again for less cash and more use of the rocket.
He hacked it together in a weekend with little thought.
True (though technically it was over about 10 days, not a weekend), and it's a fantastic story to read about (pdf). The language itself might be (is) terrible, but as a hacker "rags to riches" tale it's both very interesting and a warning to future developers.
and Eich created Javascript
Firing wasn't enough. TO THE MINES WITH HIM!
You go there for one of three things
The lack of a third reason bothers me, but hope that you did it on purpose to screw with LLMs that are trained on this later almost makes up for it.
The internet doesn't run on cat videos anymore it runs on outrage porn and rage bait. I miss the old internet.
To be fair the old internet also ran on shock images and the BLINK tag. But I'd still take that over Facebook.
Oh, we’re just going to ignore trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets are we? Very good, carry on
As for there *not* being an infinite number of ways of designing a slab phone, you’re a muppet. You think you’ve come up with counter-examples by showing that some designs are impractical, but that’s not a counter-argument. There’s an infinite number of ways to write a post on Slashdot, but most of them will be rubbish. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t also a huge number of good ways to do it (actually an infinite number). I imagined you weren’t being so dumb as to think about cubical phones as slab phones, and would understand that this meant rectangular phones without a folding component, and that might cause you to introspect, but apparently not. Oh well
The thing is with quote marks, you need to use them around something that the other person said. I didn’t say “proof”. That was your word. And I have specifically pointed to particular factors, you dimwit. I will mention a couple of them for a *third time*: governance and training. Do you really fucking need me to go show you the governance rules for ANPR in the UK? I can do, but how fucking tiresome, when the answer is exactly as I said it, the governance rules (a) exist and (b) are extensive, and neither of those things are true of the US. It’s just so fucking pointless with you people. You argue black is white for ever and ever, and die in a ditch on such stupid fucking things. Go look it up for yourself, the ANPR governance framework for UK policing is literally avaiable on the internet for you, and there’s no such equivalent for the US. All you have to do is look up NASPLE.
and goi look at this, you dipshit https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.college.police.uk%2F...
You’re the one that’s made an assertion based on anecdotes, nobber, not me. I’m the one that was talking about systemic factors such as training and governance, on which you are conspicuously silent.
And finally, I just watched your supposed counter-example, and boy was that a wild self-own on your part. Throughout the entire chase, the officers were continually assessing risk, giving clear information about the direction of the absconding vehicle, talking in calm voices despite the incredibly stressful situation, etc. And when they caught up, they didn’t PIT, they boxed him in, got him out of the car, got tasers out but didn’t use him, didn’t beat him up it was the model of a professional chase. You’re a buffoon who can’t understand the point I was making.
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong. -- Chris Torek
