From TFS: On top of the four Falcon Heavy launches planned for the U.S. Air Force this year, the Intelsat contract represents the true dawn of the commercial space age.
 
Only if you somehow handwave away the decades we've already had of private companies contracting with other private companies for launch services.

So are large numbers of small rockets preferable, efficiency wise, to a few large ones (think the five F-1s of the Saturn V first stage). Or they cheaper in aggregate? Or are they more reliable?

In general, smaller numbers of larger engines are the preferred choice. It's more reliable, and cheaper to design and manufacture. (All that extra plumbing and thrust structure runs up the cost and weight.)
 

Or did Space-X just not have the funds to develop a really big engine (In which case couldn't they have licensed the design for the F-1 or J-1 from NASA?).

No, they didn't have the funds or the time or the experience to develop a larger engine, so they made lemons out of lemonade.
 
The F-1 would have required extensive re-desgn to be manufactured with modern methods and materials, and is a very expensive and complex design. The J-2 is a LOX/LH2 engine, and on top of also requiring an expensive re-design and requalification program (same as the F-1), would have had considerably increased operational costs.

From what I've heard, there's no trade off between reliability and cost. The cheaper vehicles will probably be the more reliable ones as well, due to learning effects from increased launch frequency.

That's the theory. (Along with it's handmaiden, "simpler is safer than more complex".)
 
To date however, there's no evidence that either is true. The Russian Soyuz family of launchers (and the R7 family they're derived from) are cheap, relatively simple, and the oldest and most flown design in the world - but their reliability is hardly distinguishable from that of the Space Shuttle or any other booster.

Nobody claims the pirates are in the right.

No, but they do make endless excuses as to why it's wrong, but it's OK for them to pirate anyhow. So, the end result is the same as if they were claiming the pirates are in the right, because they won't admit the pirates are wrong. This has resulted in endless posts like the original and your reply where those whose legal rights are being trampled on are made out to be at fault.

*yawn*, just the kind of thoughtless and ignorant reply I expected. The law doesn't allow "the people" to obtain the fruit of other's labors for free and obstinately requires "the people" to respect other's rights - so the law must be wrong.

They are really starting to mess hard with the core structure of the internet. But of course, these pirates do not care. They get their thrills, and as usual someone else gets to sort out the mess later on.

There, fixed that for you.
 
Seriously, Slashdot forgets that it's the pirates that are legally in the wrong.

That's only one class of US subs.

Nit: That's not one class of subs, that's 25 subs out of two classes (Gato and Balao) built by a single shipyard.
 
At it's peak, the US Submarine Force in WII numbered over 250, including 77 Gato's and 128 Balao's.

You don't even understand the thing that you're bashing. Memorial Day is about honoring those who died in battle, not everyone in the military.

As much as it pains me to do so... I have to say that you're wrong and he's correct.
 
The historical reason for Memorial Day was to honor those who fell in service, but over the years it has expanded. Over the years it grew to encompass all service members who have died including veterans and retirees that passed quietly in their beds decades after their service. In particular, over the last decade is has further expanded in the public mind to include living servicembers and veterans as well.
 
(And, FWIW, I'm a vet too.)

The US Navy asked the Manitowoc Shipbuilding Company to build submarines, a task far beyond their existing capabilities, but assured them that the Electric Boat Company, with the only shipyard in the country capable of building submarines, would provide plans and whatever assistance they would need.

This isn't completely true... Electric Boat was the only private shipyard building submarines, but Mare Island Naval Shipyard and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard were building them too.
 

'It appears from the results obtained at Manitowoc that given a set of good plans, competent engineers and skilled workman can follow them and build what is called for even though it might be very much more sophisticated than anything they have built before,' writes Rear Admiral William T. Nelson.

Admiral Nelson considerably oversimplifies a complex situation. EB provided more than just plans... They also provided experienced engineers and trained workmen to bootstrap Manitowoc's efforts. In the early stages, they sent parts and components from EB to Manitowoc as well. Manitowoc also sent people to EB for training and experience. Engineers and experienced Naval Constructors came from BUSHIPS in Washington D.C and Portsmouth and Mare Island Naval Shipyards.
 
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rants about the military-industrial complex and anti-military sentiment.
/submarinehistorypedant.

You say that like they'll be building guns out of steel pipe and ball bearings. But the truth is, making guns in a new caliber and making ammunition to match is easy enough that some hobbyists do it in their garage.

That's making one, or at best a small handful of weapons that will babied on the range. It's cool and all... But it's not building weapons by the gross lot capable of withstanding field conditions, being maintained by the lowest common denominator, etc... That's a very different problem.
 

I Am Not A Military Expert

Yet, that doesn't stop you from pontificating at length.