Nazis were inspired by the USA.
Trump's grandfather was in with Nazis and his father and grandfather were in the KKK.
The comparison is completely apt.
Trumps grandfather died in 1918, but he owned a brothel in the Yukon making him a pimp. No NAZI party at that time, but his father was a NAZI and KKK.
The extreme left has demonstrated they refuse to accept election outcomes and simply ignore the results, even to this day.
So what left wing politicians on losing an election refused to accept it? I know of a number of RIGHT WING ones who refused to accept that they lost and concede (Trump, Kari Lake, Roy Moore for 3) but what Left Wing ones can you tell me?
They wanted to prove they're insecure, replicating the work of independent hackers and internal whistleblowers, so we can go back to a fully auditable system with paper trails like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY USES.
I recall the Arizona "fraudit" they claimed the machines did fraudulent counts of PAPER BALLOTS but the recount by people who had predetermined that it was miscounted for Biden found that their count instead of giving too many votes to Biden gave too few.
So what state are you living in where there are no paper ballots that can be hand counted if the machine count is questioned?
If you place a sign or other opaque object in front of it in a way that they must break it to remove it then you can charge them for vandalism.
Did you forget high school? The wimps went to college and the stupid assholes went into policing. Now you expect a bunch of wimps at a college to pull some shit? These are 'pen is mightier than the sword' types, knucklehead.
Jocks also go to college and are more prone to "pull some shit".
I don't think Prime Minister Netanyahu would have met with Elon Musk if he was a NAZI. Musk also has many Jewish friends who wouldn't be friends with him if he was a NAZI.
A little fact you might not know abouot NAZI's. They don't all have to have the goal of exterminating Jews. You can be a NAZI and think Jews are fine (or at least the ones who are the "right" colour). Jews can be that type of NAZI themselves who think genocide is fine against other groups they don't like.
Two very different methods. The SpaceX approach is more expensive
Actually the SpaceX approach is cheaper. Cost in 2026 dollars to develop the Apollo rocket $280 billion (up to $300 billion), Starship $15 billion to date. The LEM alone $28 billion.
Artemis so far over $93 billion. That in spite of the first stage being a modified shuttle external fuel tank. The main stage engines modified shuttle main engines (some actual flew on the shuttle). Modified shuttle solid rocket boosters on the main stage.
Artemis 1 launch - $4.1 billion, Artemis 2 launch - $4.1 billion.
Starship twice the thrust (at least). Targeting fully reusable (SLS disposable except the capsule being "component level" reusable). Starship launch cost (estimated) $100 million (not billion) expendable and $30 million reusable (estimated).
There is the possibility that Blue Origin simply underbid everyone else.
It's more simple. The government in general and NASA specifically have a policy of spreading the launches around to encourage competition. They will give the majority to the low bidder but they will pay higher bidders to launch a percentage just to be sure that the failure of one company doesn't lock them out of space. This is one of those contracts.
Blue Origin a company that can barely get a satellite into low Earth orbit gets the contract. The most charitable explanation is political influence in Washington. Going back to Tesla being excluded from that EV summit in Washington.
Sorry but Blue Origin has not yet deployed a satellite from New Glenn to LEO. They did send a pair to Mars however (ESCAPADE). Their one fully successful New Glenn flight to date.
How that links home will be interesting, though. Maybe a (or several?) Heliocentric Starlink Belt midway between Earth and Mars?
Not a chance. That would be a ellipse on the order of 500 million miles in circumferance. Figure out how far apart you can have them then calculate the number of satellites you need. Remember the satellites need to be larger and heavier as there is less sunlight out there and they need more solar panels. They also need more power to broadcast to Earth or Mars as at best they will be more than 30 million miles from both. So again more solar panels. Gets expensive fast especially since you'd need to refuel Starship in orbit to launch them on their way.
Lets be generous and assume 1 ring and that they can be as little as 100,000 miles apart you need 5000. Assume twice as massive as Starlink V3 and each Starship launches 25 (instead of 50 Starlink V3) you need 200 launches not counting fuelling ones. Assume 10 tanker launches per Starship you are up to 2200 launches to do so. That doesn't count the ones in orbit around Mars which need even bigger solar panels due to the greater distance.
"Most of the fans forgot about the rapid unplanned disassembly of the vaunted Falcon 9 on the launchpad 10 FUCKING YEARS AGO!" TFTFY
Falcon 9 failure rate under
BO is almost 26 years old and those 3 flights are their only orbital launch attempts.
SpaceX is only 24 years old and made their first orbital launch attempt about 3 and a half years later. Their first success was 6 years after founding.
If you think about their total accomplishments and remember the that BO had an extra 2 years and more money than SpaceX had in those early days you might see why space enthusiasts even if they despise Musk (as I do) still rate SpaceX more highly. They are the ones driving the industry forward. B.O.? They talk about it and use lawsuits to slow down SpaceX and in general be a dog in the manger.
Sorry, but none of their new glen launches was without problems, especially the last one, which obliterated their complete launchpad.
Inaccurate, the explosion that devastated their launch site was failed TEST not a launch failure.
Blue origin is kind of the exact opposite of SpaceX -- very top heavy, highly bureaucratic,
.
I lost all faith in them (Blue Origin) when they announced that to handle development issues with New Glenn they were hiring more executives.
?
Their New Glenn vehicle has launched payloads into orbit three times, that's more than just "barely making it to the Kármán line". One of the three was delivered to the wrong orbit due to an underperforming second stage engine. That's a definite failure for the customer, but still beyond the Kármán line.
Failures in early launches of new vehicles are not unexpected.
Flight 1 minimal payload not deployed (or planned to be deployed. Booster exploded in upper atmosphere. Limited success.
Flight 2 full success
Flight 3 cargo deployed in wrong orbit and deorbited, partial reuse of flight 2 booster (all engines replaced) Failure due to loss of payload
During an engine test in preparation for flight 4 the booster exploded wrecking the launch site.
So a 1 in 3 success rate and a destroyed launch site that won't launch again this year. My best guess is the middle of next year.
I have not yet begun to byte!
