True, but Australia has a handful of cities separated by massive destroyed wastelands populated only by roving gangs, so each city can do its own thing in the north and south.

You know what a shed is? Same thing, except you keep a bike in it...

No - we don't limit science only to stuff that has already been replicated. You're requiring a higher standard for this paper than we do for any other simply because you disagree with it.

Not quite, no. The study has put out a paper that spells out what they did, that's their "proof of bona fides" as you put it. Now if you want to tear it down, you need to make a reasoned and rational argument about something in that paper, not just shout on the internet.

I can see this becoming the next Newgrounds if they do it right. Equivalent to the Flash games of the past, these could still be fun without needing to be groundbreaking. I'd hope to see more than just the awful slop games that you see on YouTube Playables, for example... But still, if you have a genuinely interesting idea, you'd do better investing some time in it.

Funny, when I get a push notification from them all I see is

CONSUME
OBEY
NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT
DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY

Is anyone else seeing this?

The rest are literal ghost records

The way out is through

A møøse once bit my sister...

This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: "Huge success"
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

OpenAI's Astra
We do what we must because we can.
For the good of all of us... except the ones who are dead.

Doesn't it? I mean, they've landed boosters, they "landed" the block 3 in the last launch. They've been consistently landing ships for quite a while. Reusing the ships without any refurb still seems a way off, but them making it back safely seems like they have some healthy margins just now.

No it's not. Starship is like the Airbus A330. More efficient per unit volume, *and* more efficient per flight than a plane that explodes when it reaches the gate.

And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment. Though I'm sure SpaceX will figure their engine issues out.

Honestly, I'd put starship as approaching the reliability of Falcon 9 at this point anyway. Falcon 9 has the occasional failure (rare, but not none). Starship is getting to the point that it fairly reliably gets up there and gets back. It has some engine outs still, but it also has the redundancy to deal with it.

How experimental was SLS? Not at all? A straightforward design based on known-good parts that they stuck together at the cost of many billions per launch.

How experimental was Starship? Almost entirely. A material that's basically never been used for rockets. A method of assembly that's never been used for rockets. An engine design that's entirely new. An engine concept that's never been used before. A fuel that's never been used before. A level of engine performance that's never been done before. A method of pressurising the tanks that's never been used before. A method of aerodynamic control that's never been used before. A method of recovery that's never been tried before... The list goes on and on and on.

Why on earth would you compare the reliability of the two?

Why? Starship, when finally fully reusable (likely within 2-5 launches) will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9. Not cheaper per kg launched, cheaper per launch. Why on earth would you continue to fly Falcon 9, even for medium lift? Just launch a whole starship, launch a few starlinks along with the contracted medium lift load, and land it again for less cash and more use of the rocket.