This flight, like every other before it, is intended to stress the vehicle re-entry well beyond the limits of what it will be subjected to in production (literally, for a future production model, as these are being mass produced on a large scale.)
The typical naysayers on slashdot really have no idea what's going on here. Not even the slightest. They saw what happened with oceangate, yet they still fail to understand the (quite vital) importance of destructive testing. It was entertaining the way e.g rsilvergun responded even to that, nitpicking at things completely unrelated to mission success, let alone the implosion event.
It makes complete sense why they release these though as it seems pretty important to the investigation. The audio isn't even a big deal, if any part of this event triggered PTSD I think the already released video would do a better job than the audio would. Compare:
https://youtu.be/vp1RnbNoKis?t...
Vs:
Just from this, it makes sense why the spectrograph is included at all, namely you can visually observe the sound patterns in the actual recording against known sounds already made by different alerting systems in the MD11, which helps understand how the safety systems responded to the incident, which is potentially useful for the existing MD11 fleet, or possibly even future aircraft designs. Site note: MD as in McDonnell Douglas, as in the same company that bought Boeing using Boeing's own money and turned it into the shit that it is today. The last one was made 26 years ago, close to the same time this law was made.
So not a great success but the next one probably will be.
Nominal success.
Dunno why this is downmodded. Plenty at SpaceX like them too, especially when they form a mini mushroom cloud for nice effect.
Europeans should be especially amused:
We value education more, guns less.
Is that why you guys believe French is indigenous anywhere in North or South America at all, let alone Canada?
We value cooperation more, greed less.
Is that why are your housing costs three times higher than southern California even though the land is less than a third as desirable? Or why you have overpriced but still dog shit slow internet access reminiscent of the USA circa 2005?
We're OK with single-payer healthcare instead of letting the rich at the top get richer bleeding us to death, and you're not going to convince us that's wrong because somebody else is getting healthcare 'for free'.
If somebody wants free health care here, all they have to do is apply for MediCal, which is kind of like Canadian health care, only better because it's a lot easier to find a doctor, and you can generally get surgical operations done within a much shorter time span, and you have access to top tier specialists when necessary. Same with AHCCCS in Arizona, and probably many other states with similar programs, those are just the two I know of.
But more importantly, nobody here will ever refer you to MAID simply because the care needed is difficult to get in your country due to budget or talent constraints.
Though I guess technically that isn't bleeding you to death since MAID doesn't involve any kind of bloodletting. Well played, wildling, you must be proud of your igloo.
There's a reason so many Americans have recently discovered their Canadian roots and want our passport, and it's not because things are going well in the US.
Those are people who like to collect passports. Yours is probably their fourth or fifth, somewhere after other countries with easy passports like Portugal, Malta, or Mozambique.
Perhaps using an exterior coolant loop, probably in tandem with a heat pump to concentrate heat away from the ICs. Or something like that. I don't know. What I do know is it would need a great deal of materials science and engineering to pull it off. In other words, doing something that nobody else has ever done before. Exactly the kind of thing that SpaceX does practically every day.
Actually it wasn't even just the twitter files, Facebook received similar demands, not even for just this story in particular, moreover the Biden admin was falsely claiming to the news media that this was Russian disinformation when it was not.
Regardless, this is a pointless whataboutism tangent. There doesn't appear to be anything at all about Elon or anybody else making any demands. What, exactly, do you believe is being held over the heads of the S&P analysts? You could have something for nasdaq in that nasdaq wanted SpaceX to list there, but there is not even any sort of claim by anybody, not even the media, that such a demand was made. Any demand like this made to S&P would go absolutely nowhere -- what do you believe they could possibly gain from it? What do you think was offered in exchange?
Not once. That's the honest truth The only thing I've ever posted about Hunter Biden was the way the media buried the laptop story, and the way the Biden admin pressured both the media and social media to do the same, which has been verified. I never gave one shit about Hunter Biden, nor have I said anything about him.
Not only is this an obvious case of whataboutism on your part, but I didn't even do it at all. So go fuck yourself.
That wouldn't change anything. NASA came to the the conclusion that the direction SpaceX went would never make any financial sense for them, no matter what the budget was. So did countless other space entities around the world, including other private sector companies. And for what NASA does, it still wouldn't make sense. NASA isn't interested in commercial spaceflight, it's interested in science. The days when it made its own rockets was just a means to that end.
For SpaceX, Elon essentially determined:
- Design the rockets for efficient, low cost, mass production to benefit from economies of scale
- Keep commercial launch costs low to "create" a commercial market, inducing demand (partial solution to a chicken and egg problem.) Falcon 9 was a de-facto loss leader (even though it isn't anymore.)
- Create a commercial space business to complement for former (starlink, helps chicken and egg problem)
- Lower launch costs further with reusable boosters
- (Here's where we're at) Lower launch costs even further with a fully reusable, highly scalable (very big, easy to mass produce) launch system
- Mars ÃSpaceX's mission)
Adding xai into it is a risk that could pay off, just like everything else here (building falcon 9 with reusability in mind before it was proven was also a big, loss leading risk.) It can very much improve building out the commercial space sector, and easily so, even if AI goes nowhere. How? Well, if the concept of space datacenters works. If it does, then SpaceX is at the forefront of that, and just like low cost rockets and starlink, the competition has yet another thing it badly needs to catch up on.
You're sitting here shouting "that won't work!" Yeah...you guys say that a lot. And never admit you did after it pays off. I don't know whether it will work, but people who bet against him usually lose. One thing you haven't noticed is that Elon tends to be really good at solving chicken and egg problems. This isn't even the first, or even the second time. The chicken was the electric car, the egg was the supercharger network (and he wanted to prove that they'll outperform ICE at a time when the public perception was that they couldn't.)
By the way, we're right in the middle of seeing another "that won't ever work" turn out to be false again. BMW was one of the most outspoken against computer vision instead of lidar. But guess what they just did? And they're not the only one.
Hate him for his politics or other random bs he says all you want, but hating him for giving the masses what they never knew they (very badly) wanted and succeeding at it just tells me that you're the bigger asshole.
I've seen some people who claim to know what they are talking about say that the thermal emissivity scales by the fourth power, so the hotter you let your satellite run, it scales considerably.
I'm not a physicist, but that would make sense -- the hotter you are, not only do you emit more light, you also emit a broader spectrum. If that wasn't the case, I think the sun could be infinitely hot and would only emit infrared. Or to put it another way, the more thermal energy you have in a system, the more it wants to dissipate. Ties into the second law of thermodynamics.
NASA made their own determination that reusable rocketry would never be feasible. The ESA reached the same conclusion, going so far as to publicly mock SpaceX, calling it "a dream". So did rocketlab. So did Boeing. So did Blue Origin. So did countless others. Even after the first booster landed, many still doubted the economics would work. And then it did. Blue Origin landed a booster, but now they're scratching their heads over how SpaceX made the economics work, mainly because they forgot to plan how they'd build at scale BEFORE they landed it, where SpaceX did the opposite.
You're effectively sitting here trying to argue that everybody else can do the same thing, including NASA, only they're being held back because reasons, yet many others besides them haven't even figured it out. Besides, NASA did blow up rockets. A lot. What happened is they lost, at an engineering level, an appetite for risk. You can blame the huge expense of the shuttle, in addition to the two disasters, for that, along with a hefty dose of complacently.
This isn't even the first time we've seen this happen, by the way. During the 30s, the army air force was designing and building its own aircraft while the private sector was building much cheaper and downright better aircraft for civilian use. When WWII broke out, that had to stop entirely due to the economic reality, not because of red tape like you want to believe is the case with NASA.
That is the reality, whether you believe it or not doesn't matter.
In 2025 Space made $4B in revenue, and LOST $0.6B
There's a (...hmm...big?) reason for that.
The problem is Nvidia is priced as if this is going to continue indefinitely.
Unfortunately, Musk and friends took that into account. They demanded,
I haven't seen any such demand. All I've seen from nasdaq was effectively an incentive to list on their exchange, paying their exchange fees, in order to get listed on their index. In other words, it appears to have been simply made available rather than asked for or even offered, let alone demanded. The S&P appears to be making a similar change to its index, without any apparent quid-pro-quo. In other words, they just feel it's the right move. What are their reasons? I have no idea. What I can say is that their business model relies on essentially selling financial advice to large institutional investors, and their index fund is designed to reflect the state of the domestic stock market.
If they did take a quid-pro-quo, it would severely undermine the trust that institutional investors place in them. If you disagree, then it should be easy for you to prove that such a demand was made. Otherwise, this is nothing more than yet another conspiracy theory from you.
"What I've done, of course, is total garbage." -- R. Willard, Pure Math 430a
