Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17863
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. 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.
  2. +rep for the quote. I do note, that the operative worked for a tyrannical, authoritarian regime that experimented on its own citizens.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Apparently not.
  6. 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?
  7. https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/06/yep-rfk-jr-appoints-anti-vaccine-advocates-to-cdc-vaccine-panel/
  8. 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).
  9. I heard all the violent ones were organized by the Proud Boys as a false flag. See. I too can make shit up.
  10. 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.
  11. @Anastasis cheers this as a science based decision.
  12. 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.
  13. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    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.
  14. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    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.
  15. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    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.
  16. Dahobbs

    SpaceX

    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)
  17. 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. Fair, fair.
  18. What on earth does this mean? You want to build a perpetual motion machine? Or a just a purely solar powered spacecraft?
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Yes they will. The Democrats are spineless.
  22. Your wish is granted.
×
×
  • Create New...