IntenseDebate - sanityisreallyoverrated

8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Huma... · 0 replies · 0 points

> Not gonna happen. Not in our lifetimes.

It is doubtful, yes.

> Maybe several hundred years from now.

Way too long estimate, unless you assume technological progress wil halt for hundreds of years.

> subsidies

You have funny word for "payment for services".

> Take away all his subsidies and his enterprises will collapse.

Anyone's enterprise will collapse if people stop pay for whatever enterprise provide.

8 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Laun... · 0 replies · +1 points

> SpaceX most certainly could have proof-tested every strut and identified the problem ones.

Checking literally everything is not done by anyone (including ULA) and for good reason. You don't know what you are talking about.

> Or they could have overdesigned the strut, increasing its weight (and, therefore, its ability to carry the design load even when at the worst-on-worst of manufacturing variation and random launch load.

They DID overdesigned strut. No overdesigning will save you with sufficiently shitty manufacturing. You don't know what you are talking about.

> and it came out that they'd verified a newly-designed critical structural component by analysis alone

Strawman upon strawman. In SpaceX's case it was not new thing (same struts were in service on previous launches), nor verified by analysis alone. You don't know what you are talking about.

9 years ago @ Broodhollow - Cold Down There · 0 replies · +1 points

It is Zalgo style. Google "Zalgo text generator".

9 years ago @ Broodhollow - Happiness, Health and ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I like it. Beginning gave impression that protagonist tells tale about something that happened long ago. This takes edge out of suspension, as as this poor guy obviously survived whatever happened, even if his mind is a little unhinged.

But now we came to "now" part of story... until another twist.

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Reac... · 0 replies · 0 points

"How dare third-world country do things reserved for first-world countries."
This is how I read your words - and many other posters here (like E.P. Grondine).

Disguisting.

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Revi... · 0 replies · +4 points

"For example, he argues that solar systems like the Earth are not common, based on what’s been discovered in the last two decades."
He seems to pretend to not know about observational bias. We can detect planets that are easy to detect. As you can guess, planets that are easy to detect are very unlike Earth. Only now we are on verge of capabilities to detect planets similiar in any way to Earth.

Rest of his claims can be thrown out as based on this wrong assumption.

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Fixi... · 0 replies · +2 points

Looks like someone prepared apologist BS just in case Boeing would lose in CCtCap. Why it is still posted *after* annoucement? Probably to justify their very high prices in comparison with SpaceX (and simultaneously suggesting SpaceX can't do it for price they said they will do).

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: A ne... · 1 reply · +4 points

"The greatest costs are (...) fuel."
You could not be more wrong than that. Cost of fuel for current LVs are almost noise (few hundred thousand $ versus few tens or few hundred milions $ for entire launch).

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Comm... · 0 replies · 0 points

Not neccessary. Politician logic like "better to have 1$ in my district and 9$ going to russians than 10$ in another district" is enough.

10 years ago @ The Space Review: essa... - The Space Review: Achi... · 1 reply · +2 points

"this is not the Orion nuclear pulse/bomb concept, which is technically unfeasible, but just small, solid core reactor"
I read it as goalpost moving. In at least two places of original post sentences like " if the ban against using a nuclear rocket to reach LEO is overturned" strongly suggest using nuclear rocket from ground to LEO all way.

"that would begin operation above 150,000 feet"
One could wonder, how exactly you want to get rocket with said reactor to this place. Surely not that horrible and obsolete chemical proplusion?

If one gain so much by throwing away chemical proplusion, then surely all or almost all gains are lost, if you have to bring up there reactor (2nd/3rd stage, I guess) with chemical proplusion anyway.

"So it's not a bomb but a reactor that would emit its radiation into an area already bombarded with radiation from the sun and cosmos."
Something tells me that radiation originating from nuclear reactor is slightly different than cosmic radiation.

Conclusion: sorry, it does not add up. In your place, I would wait for fusion power (not any time soon, sadly).

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with sanityisreallyoverrated

People I'm following

sanityisreallyoverrated