Rapid Accelerated Disassembly?

Rapid Anomalous Disassembly?

Or did you mean R.U.D. (Rapid Unscheduled/Unplanned Disassembly)?

Starship burns methane, not RP1.

Between SuperHeavy and Starship, a fully-loaded stack needs 3500 tons of LOX and 1000 tons of CH4. So what do those cost?

Well, oxygen is easy to get from the atmosphere, so the cost of LOX is really just some equipment (which isn't terribly expensive to buy and maintain) plus electricity, and the cost ends up being dominated by the cost of electricity. It takes between 150 kWh and 800 kWh to separate and liquify a ton of oxygen, so if you're paying $0.10 per kWh, LOX costs $15-80 per ton. There are some other costs to handle and store it, so let's say $100/ton.

CH4 can be created many ways. The cheapest is probably to purify natural gas, which costs about $190 per ton (that site shows ~$5 per 1000 ft^3, and a ton is 38k ft^3). Add some costs for purification and cooling, so call it $250/ton.

3500 tons LOX * $100/ton + 1000 tons CH4 * 250/ton = $600k. Musk usually calls it $1M, which seems pretty reasonable, since they're probably not separating/purifiying it themselves and there transportation costs. 150 tons of payload to LEO with $1M worth of fuel means the fuel-only cost is $6.67/kg.

Nonsense. Our only experience with reusable orbital rockets is the space shuttle, which was an unsustainably-expensive and complex beast that was more refurbishable than reusable and had a payload one fifth of what Starship is designed for. It's all of the differences that aim to make Starship both reusable and cheap that make it hard. It's possible that it's just too ambitious, that we don't yet have the technology to make a cheap, fully-reusable (not refurbishable, reusable) orbital rocket with massive capacity. No one else has done it... no one else is even trying, that's how hard it is.

Failure is expected. If they managed to launch and land both Starship and SuperHeavy in less than a dozen test flights, that would be the surprise.

I'm surprised, and you should be too, if your view is evidence-based, because this is a new effect that was not predicted by any of the previous models, which already consider the melting permafrost, methane emissions and fossil fuel use.

Scene: Lunchtime at the Central Market, a trendy/tourist-trappy food-court/market area in downtown Los Angeles. Waiting in line to buy a gourmet sandwich from the sandwich vendor.

In front of the counter: lots of hungry customers. Behind the counter, three bemused-looking sandwich-makers standing idle, because the order-taker at the register is holding a cell-phone to one ear, conversing furiously with the tech support line of the company that provides their cashless ordering system, while at the same time waving off customers because he can't accept their cash and his order-taking tablet's server is down so he can't accept their credit cards either.

My takeaway is that cashless transactions are fine, right up until the moment they suddenly stop working for whatever reason, and at that point everyone involved will either fall back to cash as a work-around, or wish that they could.

The only person bringing SpaceX into this is you.

Why does there have to be any comparison at all? Why does there have to be a perceived competition between what Blue Origin are doing here and what SpaceX are doing over there?

There is something broken in western news media and social media, in that everything simply *must* be a race or a competition, and if one entity in the perceived competition is behind then they shouldn't even bother - it doesn't matter that none of the actual entities themselves see themselves as being in a competition or race, they dont matter, its an external thing being forced on them by observers.

The concept that an entity can be entirely about their own milestones, rather than judging their progress by measuring against another entity, is rapidly becoming an impossibility in many peoples minds.

You see it all the time, with SpaceX being used as the thing to measure against - someone hops a rocket, oh but they are a decade behind SpaceX so why are they even bothering. Someone launches a new rocket but its not reusable, doesn't matter than it meets all the internal requirements of the project and the project sponsors, its not reusable so they are so far behind SpaceX so why are they even bothering. Blue Origin launches a sub-orbital rocket, entirely meeting their own internal goals, but its not orbital so they are so behind SpaceX, so why are they even bothering...

Not everything has to be a competition.

My #1 use for ChatGPT is "show me an example of some C code that implements functionality (X)".

Then I can read that example, research the APIs it is calling (to make sure they actually exist and are appropriate for what I'm trying to accomplish), and use it to write my own function that does something similar. This is often much faster than my previous approach (googling, asking for advice on StackOverflow, trial and error).

If bottom-up coding is a fallacy, someone has forgotten to let evolution know that. Here we all are, bottom-up coded, for better or worse.

People who live far away from a hospital and don't have much gas in the tank?

Yes, it is exactly the convenient avenue of the day, and that's the problem. People who own a gun are eight times more likely to die of suicide than people who do not, simply because they have easy in-home access to the most effective tool for the job. People who live in "food deserts" have poorer diets than people who have convenient access to healthy food, because nobody wants to travel across town when they're hungry. People playing video games solve most of their in-game challenges through (virtual) violence, because violent actions are what the game designers have mapped to the most convenient and obvious game-controls, while non-violent solutions require a lot more thought and contrivance, if they even are possible at all.

Convenience matters, because people are more likely to do something when it's convenient than when isn't. So in this case, ChatGPT gives mentally marginal people convenient access to an encouraging, enabling, delusion-reinforcing "friend" 24/7 in their own home, for free, with insufficient guard rails, leading to the outcomes we see reported here.

It's incorrect to think that mentally ill people are doomed to madness no matter what, just as it's incorrect to think that people with weakened immune systems are doomed to die of infection. They have a higher risk, certainly, but whether they actually fall victim or not depends a lot on what's going on in their environment.

You've misunderstood Darwinism. Natural selection has nothing to do with who "deserves" anything; it's only about whose genes get propagated forward and whose do not. And it's not (necessarily) the stupidest among us who will likely die off, it's the least fit, for whatever definition of "fit" is pragmatically relevant for a genome's survival and reproduction under current circumstances. In today's world, stupidity might actually be a reproductive advantage.

Ah yes, this moral panic is totally different than all the other times people have been whipped into a frenzy by an almost bon existent problem.

We have real problems to solve. I'll leave the fake ones to people like you.

So basically this is a new version of "Listening to Judas Priest will make you commit suicide", the Satanic Panic and all the other utterly moronic moral panics that make people afraid of unlikely things.

Oh good, another moral panic. If people aren't terrified every waking moment of their lives, someone hasn't done their job.

So when Lindsey starts reading from her AmEx-approved script, callers are infuriated by what they perceive to be another machine.

If she's accurately executing the programmers' script, I'd say she is a machine. Somebody port Doom to her!