I didn't say that.

More than once, too.

Telecom experts were saying there's no way you'd be able to bring down the cost of phased array antennas to a reasonable level. Nobody at SpaceX was certain of that either. Then it happened anyway.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

Enjoy some nice fodder from gizmodo about heavy lift rockets being scalable:

https://gizmodo.com/bad-news-f...

Many others as well, like stainless steel instead of carbon fiber, the booster catch, the sheer scale of starlink, supercooled fueling, space lasers, hot staging (without sacrificing the booster), and full-flow staged combustion (which many had tried and failed.) And those are just the ones I can tell you about. There have been failures too, for example the attempt at landing dragon with thrust instead of parachutes.

Then you're just trying to be contrarian.

Nobody said otherwise, however, I don't believe you understand the significance of starlink's orbital parameters with regard to safety. You think you do, but you don't.

Did you even pay attention to what I said? I asked how the GP believes there's fraud going on. Who is defrauding whom? Either you've come here just to be contrarian, or you've come to ask about your genital warts. I don't know which, but if there's a point to any of this, I've yet to hear it.

Who was on his "back" exactly?

And they start with an argument, predicated on a legal theory. I don't see anything resembling either of those. That's exactly what I was asking GP for.

And what's your point? There's uncertainty in business? You're just now figuring this out?

And the data says...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

False.

This is just something socialists say, and often, because they need naive followers to buy into their crap to obtain any measure of power, but it has no basis in reality. Unless you live in Canada, Europe (except Belgium), or Russia (which would make a lot of sense in your case) but you're using US pricing, which suggests US context.

Even after you adjust for housing, food, health care, taxes, and other mandatory expenses as suggested by rsilvertard, people are still bringing in more.

https://www.macrotrends.net/30...

The disconnect you're having is I operate based on empiricism, in other words, what can be observed and measured, where you're already known to manufacture and/or spread disinformation.

Bringing the cost down is also an engineering problem. NASA and the ESA both said reusable rockets weren't economical even though they already knew it was possible. The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here. I personally don't know whether this will work. If somebody -- anybody -- has an idea for how they can make it work, then unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it, nor do I see any good reason for that.

Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted, and is what I responded to. If you disagree, then who is defrauding whom? Perusing an idea that ultimately doesn't work isn't fraud, it's just business. Most ideas don't work, which is why so many businesses fail. That's why investing carries risk.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. You tried to make the consumption sound like a bigger deal than it really is.

Let's see your math then -- show us how much more carbon you save by keeping them on the ground. You're the one making the assertion on this, so put up or shut up. What you're doing here, by the way -- that's handwaving.

I already made it abundantly clear that it's not. Regardless, the concept has already been proven.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news-medi...

Perhaps to fuel a rocket. Gee, ya think?

Actually, normal human tongues are red. The reason yours is that brownish color is because you eat a lot of ass.

I just told you, dingleberry, it's being funded by Starlink.

I didn't give any whataboutism. Putting your numbers into broader perspective isn't whataboutism, it's used purely to indicate how meaningless your argument is just by the sheer scale of it. You literally complained about the entire aggregate carbon output for the entire lifetime of this project, which pales in comparison to just one day of global methane use.

Since you're splitting hairs over trivial amounts of carbon, why not off yourself? Less carbon is less carbon.

I did make it abundantly clear that it's not a thing yet. How much more clear do you need it?

Umm...ok? If you're so certain about that, go short SpaceX and Tesla.

Stop trying to sound intellectual, you're so bad at it. I didn't handwave anything -- I literally told you that I don't know why it didn't work, and in a previous post I already told you that I have no idea if this concept will work at all. Handwaving is doing exactly the opposite, which you'd know if you weren't dumb as a rock.

At some point, the only people who subscribe to cable (or satellite) will only be those who flat out aren't interested in having an internet connection along with it. Either way, cable is for old people.

Non-sequitor. GP was specifically talking about going beyond LEO with a two stage rocket and at a low cost. So you came in and put the cart before the horse.

Actually I take back a prior comment I stated about you -- I doubt you understand any engineering at all. If you had, you'd be capable of mentally compartmentalizing problems into their respective domains.

As for why it didn't work in this particular case, I have no idea. I imagine they did the math and determined that it would work, but it obviously didn't. That's why you gather telemetry and iterate on your design. As far as I know, this was their first attempt.

Somewhere in that void you call a head, you concluded that if at first you don't succeed, then it's obviously impossible. This is probably why you never made it anywhere in life, and rather than fixing yourself, you sit here and complain about those who did.

And when did either of these places take away a yacht?

By the way, do you know why Francois Hollande end up lobbying against his own tax hike that was a key part of his campaign platform and promise?

Regardless, if you think the grass is greener, feel free to move there. I tell everybody this -- it doesn't matter where you live -- if you're unhappy there, then why would you stay?

If you already are in your preferred place, then...what are you complaining about?

You guys keep saying that it will work with democracy, but we've already observed exactly how that pans out: After the masses start to realize that this isn't such a hot idea after all, they vote you out. What happens from there depends.

In the case of Croatia, you guys just overthrow democracy under the reasoning (as argued by Karl Marx) this is all inevitable anyways, and you may as well get the red tape out of the way of progress.

In the case of Hungary, the tankies roll in from across the border, and those who still live under democracy and benefit from it cheer them on because they haven't yet had to live under the system they so desire.

The fact is, collectivism, in all of its forms, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Collectivism is about surviving. Individualism is about thriving. A case can be made for the former in times of war or famine where the main objective of the day is to live another day. But outside of that, it's not living.

You'll find nothing of value in his head, nor anything to drink. Your brain is the only one made of brown matter.

Heat dissipates passively in the form of infrared energy, space or not, it happens regardless. See also the second law of thermodynamics. So yeah, it's free.

The problem you're dealing with is dissipating it faster than you're creating it. Infrared alone is slow, but there are non-passive ways of radiating heat beyond normal infrared.

And because you're obviously confused enough to have such a dumb take, I feel I need to clarify something: When I'm talking about space, I'm not talking about the inside of your skull.

Bleh not "only", but you get the idea

And you're the simpleton I had to school yesterday about why SpaceX isn't concerned about an exploded rocket. So let's add more perspective for you to chew on:

- The numbers you're putting out here are barely a rounding error compared to just one day of global usage. And, this might come as a surprise to you, but there's no plan to build this in a single day.
- SpaceX is currently developing the technology to synthesize methane only from atmospheric CO2 at an industrial scale, and it's not just for this either, it's for SpaceX's broader mission.

You clearly have zero understanding of where the money for this is coming from. Here's a little factoid for you: Elon doesn't have a trillion dollars sitting around. He doesn't even have a billion. The money for this is not coming from Elon, and it's not coming from investor money either. It's coming from Starlink.

I hope you got a fork, because you're about to eat crow:

https://press.uchicago.edu/Mis...

After that, you'll need a spoon to eat my ass.

Umm...ok...Look, I don't care if you want to go full fascist and decide all by yourself what people should and shouldn't do, just don't do it in my country. Not only for my sake, but for yours -- my country has a history of killing you guys.

In the long term, this is only going to be a matter of which uses less energy: The launch, or the terrestrial datacenter.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is going to work. I really have no idea. I've seen a few ideas float around that look like they could work. The one thing I do know for certain is that SpaceX routinely does shit that people say is impossible or will never work, and then it works anyway. The main thing I object to is little Stalins like you who think they deserve to tell other people a bunch of "thou shalt" or "thou shall not"s just because of your stupid ideas about how economies should work, which don't align with how they actually work.

That's different from this...how? Anyway, allow me to introduce you to the "laser":

https://press.uchicago.edu/Mis...

In case you didn't notice, GP was upset over the idea that somebody owns a yacht, which is fairly common and not just a driveby analogy. So while they're potentially thousands of miles away at sea, he's steaming about the fact that they exist, because he has his own ideas about how somebody else's money must be spent.

What he is after is not what a free society looks like. Though some of you are of the opinion that a free society can't have rich people in it, so I may be speaking to deaf ears on this, but trust me, there are many very good reasons why socialism not only doesn't work, but makes people much worse off. Some of you guys argue "well if only it was tried!" but it has been, dozens of times, and every single time, as in 100%, the outcome was the same: Institutional poverty for all but the politburo and their inner circle. Hence why so few of them survived after the fall of the USSR, including the ones that weren't even in the USSR.

So that Sandra Bullock movie you saw is fiction, by the way. Some of you guys are arguing that Starlink is pushing us there, only it's not, and in fact it can't. Below a certain altitude, smaller mass objects are easily countered by the atmosphere, which is where the real concern for Kessler Syndrome lies. The "kissing atmosphere" in that movie was stupid primarily because the atmosphere extends well beyond the altitude of the ISS, which also puts it well beyond where they were at in that movie. Entertaining sure, but that's all that it is. A lot of other problems with that movie as well, but you get the idea.

And guess what? Nobody is.

I don't know about you, but I've been watching the Ukraine war more than any other topic over the last few years. And to that extent, I've been watching what's going on with the Rusian economy. Sure, they're not free -- Gorbachev handed that to them on a silver platter, and in return they spat in his face. Russia does not want democracy. Russian culture is fundamentally incompatible with it. They longed for another Tsar, and they got one. Western values will never work there, nor should we try to force that on them. Russians are as Russians do. However, Russia for a long time didn't want to go back to socialism. Likely most of them still don't. But their government is pulling them into that direction. Private enterprise there is largely being taxed out of existence, and they're rapidly returning to pretend work for pretend pay. The private sector hasn't been nationalized completely there, but at this point, the private sector no longer has any autonomy from the government, making it just short of de-facto socialism. The only reason it's just short of it is that people are still allowed to go into business for themselves there, even though it's basically impossible without breaking the law by evading taxes.

In space, electrons are free.