While I'm not offended by the word, constant use of the word "fuck" tells us about both the fuckutterer's personality and their inability to frame a cogent argument.

What really is fascinating in these China discussions is how instantly they get swamped with people trying to shift the discussion to how the US is worse, or general posts desperate to change the argument.

All that said, I need to get Amimojo's take on this.

Nonsense?

Just because it is designed, doesn't mean it is going to work.

I differentiate between the Falcons and the StarShip. Falcons are fine rockets. But Starship has a real "Spruce Goose" vibe.

This is not the late 1950's when we were just figuring out how to work these candles.

The early days of the Falcons, yes, they had issues. But they ironed them out. And just because they reduced the Falcon 9 to good practice, doesn't mean that Starship will be a good rocket because it's having severe birthing problems.

I also think that there is a big push on the workers, which adds to the problem. Spacex has been really lucky so far. But this latest on the ground boom should be a shot across the bow. Their launch fever syndrome might press that luck too far.

I know a lot of people who believe that Musk took Spacex without one cent of Government money, and did something never before, the private market Indeed, even back in the day before, private companies built and tested Rockets and other spacefaring accouterments.

We're really doing same old same old. The very same stage, with different actors.

That's the hot hand fallacy going on there. That the Falcon 9 rockets are fine machines does not in any way shape or form mean that the Starship is the same thing.

Those two "families" aero not even related. The falcons are regular rockets, carrying on with the basic principles that Germany developed during WW2.

Will it work eventually? possibly. Even the Spruce Goose flew once. Will it be practical? I'm seriously doubting it. Will it take us to Mars? Oh, does the move fast and fail early doctrine still in place? And in a reduced to practice field like Rockerty (we've been doing Liquid filled rockets for over a century now) we have enough accumulated knowledge that just getting to orbit shouldn't be accompanied by a string of failures like Starship has been having.

Flamesuit on, I know this one will piss off the faithful.

The Falcon 9 Rockets are fine machines.

But this cost effectiveness thing. How do we know what the actual cost of a Falcon 9 flight is? It is not what they charge NASA. It is the cost of the launch, the retrieval, the refurbishment. There is an army of support logistics involved, and we don't seem to be able to access that cost.

But we were told that we'd be landing Crew Dragons on Mars in 2016, that the Mighty Starship will be on a mars Mission in 2016, that the Starship would be a land, refuel and launch daily thing. It hasn't even been to orbit. But it does have successful multiple rapid disassembly modes.

And no comparing this to the late 1950's rocketry when we were doing some of our rockets for the first time isn't a legit argument. Yes, space is hard. Mistakes can be quickly fatal. Cheap? yet to be seen, but it is pretty hard to create that level of human rated rockets and capsules on the cheap.

Coming from you, I am very pleased you think that. Your hate feeds me.

Just make certain you aren't looking into a mirror. I don't often deal with people who cannot enter a discussion without dropping to profanity. But in previous conversations, you have proven that profanity, is the alpha and omega of your ability to have discussions. You do you, but it ain't a good look.

Victim.

I get my info from polls, you get yours from TV shows.

Now to be serious, if you actually read the thing, then went reeeee. There is a marked difference in happiness between the two groups.

Is it your thesis that conservative women are evil and stupid?

As far as bodily autonomy however, we must remember that in matters of reproduction, men have no say in the matter. However, they do have the child support obligations. It is his child as well. If he wants her to get an abortion, he has no say. If she wants to have one, he has no say. However, the fixation with knocking little willie off the wall is a bit of red herring here. The spectrum of women that I know are similar. The further left they are, the less happy they are.

Is it your. thesis that the further left a woman is, she is more right?

The problem as I see it is that there is a lot of pure vitriolic hate coming from women on the left that has nothing to do with their obsession with abortion.

When you reach the point when you declare that All men are rapists, and that it does not matter if they are not, because they still are. https://everydayfeminism.com/2...

https://www.thegazelle.org/iss....

I'm pretty convinced if you are led to believe that every single man own earth is a rapist, no you aren't going to be very happy. I assumed you are a man, therefore you are by their definition a rapist. The question my Good Mr Bunker, its how many women have you enjoyed without their consent?

Sorry, there is more to all this aside from abortion. There is feminist doctrine, there is putting liberal woman in a headspace where they at at best hate men, but are confused because of biological imperative. Coupled with males backing away - and leaving women alone - just like they told men. But you do you - and enjoy the echo chamber.

Your disbelief of that which doesn't fit your narrative is up to you.

Of course you did. You do love your echo chamber.

You do you homie, and never let the real truth interfere with your "personal truth". That's a far left thing too.

I told my wife if I catch Alzheimer's, I want put on a plane to Somewhere north of the arctic circle to live with the native population, some groups who put their old and terminal people outside at night to let nature do it's thing, and take me out via freezing to death.

Interesting, Wanna know who is unhappiest? Liberal women. https://ifstudies.org/in-the-n...

Interesting isn't it? Is this one of those polls about what 'Murricans are unhappy? Perhaps one needs to dig in deeper.

Rather than work through problems by toughing it out, as conservatives tend to do, modern liberal people tend to use mental problems and "trauma" as a flex. I've experienced a bit of that in person, with some people whine bragging about all the psych meds they are on. And a lot of other validation comes from social media.

Liberals, especially liberal women tend toward "catastrophizing" thinking. Tiny things are doom and gloomed into needing multiple anti-depressants and now atypical antipsychotics. And yet, the USA has not become a real life "The Handmaid's Tale".

Somewhere along the line, mental strength became toxic, and weakness became a virtue. If you think you have to be depressed, you will be, and given the strange concept of believing drugs are the answer, Pharma will supply you. The weakness principle as a flex is one of the reasons the Democrats were curb stomped I the last election.

The USA is performing a bit of a course correction. Some is good, some perhaps not so good.

Noted, you refuse to answer my question. Human nature won't put up with a vacuum, and if you get your dream realized, some country will step forward. Who do you want that country to be?

You kind of expose your pre-judgement of an entire nation. How progressive!

And you really do hate the USA, eh? You know how I know that? It isn't prejudice, it is your postings telling us the nature of your character. Not prejudice but evidence. Tell me - let's say the US meets the end you wish - Who do you want taking over the world?

Name the nation.

Oh damn, MD at 49 sounds pretty awful!

I'm pretty healthy in the major categories, possibly the results of playing Hockey for so many years. But the same sport that provided such intense cardiovascular workouts has another side effect. A lot of skeletal, joint and ligament damage. And I'm allergic to opioids.

But it isn't too bad yet. What is more, in today's world, mentioning the idea of self checkout has people mumbling about depression, and not understanding the practicality of the situation.

Some friends and I were talking about the Alzheimer's situation over the weekend. A friend who was a serious beacon of brilliance - I mean he was an actual rocket scientist on the Apollo program, caught Alzheimer's. They kept him alive for too many years. Similar to my MIL, they even had her on the so called Alzheimer's drugs. If they worked at all, they only extended the final stages.

I ended up believing that the whole "memory care" is just an invention to have the pharmaceutical companies and doctors and nursing homes use the demented as a cash flow mechanism, maintenance drugs FTW, and keep the husks breathing at least until their estates are gone. And I still do.

We allow more people to live longer, but there are certain age based limitations. I'm pretty skeptical we're going to ever see 500 year old humans.

And then there is the other side of the issue. Life extension happens on the deteriorating end of the spectrum. If I was promised an extra 50 years at 40 years old physiology, I'd say "Sign me up!" But it doesn't.

And then there is the issue of normalization. Let's say we extend the average lifespan to 250 years. It won't take that log for life to seem as short as it seems to us now.

YMMV indeed! Yeah, not everyone gets the same search result since the search engines make profiles of us.

I was waiting to post something similar, you are completely correct. If using an existing example, people should think of launching a Soyuz or Crew Dragon to the ISS.

Given where the dead sats are, their orbital plane, just reaching the sat, approaching and grabbing it, we have more or less the same needs as the original sat launch. Not to mention what to do with the thing after capturing it.

Launch sites are an issue too, especially for polar orbiting sats. https://payloadspace.com/the-i....