tralfagar.bsky.social
Build the mixed-use cube🏗️
Power it with spicy rocks⚛️
Be excellent to each other🧦
Taco trucks 🌮
Explore space🚀
Pay for it all by taxing dirt🔰
589 posts
48 followers
199 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Yes. Stereotype is picking up litter but can also be making PSAs or something of that nature.
comment in response to
post
They've appropriated $3 billion. SpaceX has received none or a very small amount. I can't recall if engine reuse was a milestone; I think in orbit fuel xfer will be the he first. In either case, the contracts are fixed (not cost plus)
comment in response to
post
Oh no, community service!
comment in response to
post
The other guy was saying to stop giving SpaceX money. The only rocket they're getting money for today is Falcon, which is problematic to move away from.
comment in response to
post
Lack of vote*
comment in response to
post
No, we did not. Starship is primarily privately funded. There may have been a few million at the start of the program but at the same time, it's at $5 billion so far.
comment in response to
post
Can't wait to see what excuses the left comes up with to enable Republicans again...
comment in response to
post
Were 2024 polls not showing both candidates within the margin of error?
comment in response to
post
Which Falcon launches were failures that you think are mis-attributed? I think once again you are confusing Falcon with Starship. Starship is engineering prototypes. Falcon is a commercial vehicle that routinely launches without issue.
comment in response to
post
That is hardly a near-decatbonizef grid. It routinely ramps up carbon fuel sources to >50% of electricity production.
comment in response to
post
We need to move away from the property tax system. In the words of mayor Duggan of Detroit, it has two fundamental features:
1) Blight is rewarded
2) Building is punished
These companies are just minimizing their depreciating asset (the building) while maximizing the appreciating asset (the lot)
comment in response to
post
What are you talking about? Falcon 9 has flown almost 500 times with IIRC 3 failures to deliver payload. This is a higher rate than STS (2 failures over 135 flights)
Though I think STS-27 should be included due to sheer dumb luck not getting everyone killed.
arstechnica.com/science/2022...
comment in response to
post
This branch is about the launch services the gov't is spending money on, namely Falcon. You're right it we are not talking about Starship
comment in response to
post
Where did you see that? The Starship program cost is in single digit billion IIRC.
There is a milestone-based contract for Artemis that is roughly $3b. Are you thinking of that? That money has not been given because SpaceX has yet to meet the milestones.
comment in response to
post
The great thing is it's their money they're setting on fire. I'm just here for the fireworks
comment in response to
post
Falcon is empirically safer than STS *and* Apollo. This isn't opinion; it's literally math.
comment in response to
post
The only money SpaceX is currently getting from the gov't is for Falcon launches. Talking about cutting funding to SpaceX is directly relevant to Falcon.
comment in response to
post
Yes, that's company-wide and throws everything into the same bucket (contracts and subsidies). That number is not what was given for Starship. For example SpaceX received about $4b last year alone only for Falcon launch contracts.
comment in response to
post
I mean it literally is. They're in triple digits of successful sequential launches. It's empirically safer than space shuttle, Apollo, any other launcher.
comment in response to
post
No, it'll just be people who don't need a 30 yr mortgage for a $1m home that buy them. The land is still fundamentally valuable because of proximity to high paying jobs and can be rented.
comment in response to
post
Where are you seeing that this was taxpayer money? AFAIK the only public money going into Starship:
1) Was very early in development and long since gone, or
2) Is fixed price and tied to milestones
comment in response to
post
But SpaceX has:
1) the only domestic human-rated spacecraft (alternative is paying 3x to Russia for Soyuz)
2) The most dependable spacecraft
2) By far the cheapest medium/heavy lift vehicles
comment in response to
post
Not to mention all the bureaucratic hurdles just to make it administratively legal to do so, which would require a decade and $50k.
comment in response to
post
Me and 3 friends want to live in courtyard cottages on a property. In order to do so, we would need to buy 2 plots (even though it would fit in one), bulldoze half the property, and pave >1500 sqft just for parking.
How is that equitable or justified?
comment in response to
post
But...but both sides bad!
comment in response to
post
...you do know that SpaceX is literally THE most reliable launch provider and is a fraction of the cost of the alternatives, right? Starship is a side project still early in the dev cycle.
comment in response to
post
Correcting misinformation isn't being a Muskbro. I don't even like Musk, but at least my views are based on reality.
comment in response to
post
You can't prove a negative. You need to prove that of the $5b or so spent on the program, "billions" came from public coffers. And just for reference, Apollo program cost >$250b in today's dollars. Starship is working with 2% of that budget so far.
payloadspace.com/rocket-devel...
comment in response to
post
Finally someone is thinking about Boeing & Russia. If you think about it, they're the ones who really deserve our money. Starliner might be a deathtrap and Russia is correctly invading their neighbors, but they have the proven track record we need!
comment in response to
post
"our dollars"? I didn't realize you were a SpaceX investor...because that's the only way your post makes sense. SpaceX is pretty much self-funding the Starship program. The specific ship almost assuredly had no public money in it
comment in response to
post
$22b is for *all* SpaceX contracts, not Starship. These are contracts to launch astronauts & cargo & satellites, not R&D.
Starship has technically received a small amount of govt money several years ago so I can't say it's completely self-funded, but it's almost all theirs or investor money.
comment in response to
post
So...pay Russia to bring people up/down from the ISS? Because that's the alternative. Technically Boeing has Starliner, but it's 0-4 with test launches and would have lost at least 1 crew.
comment in response to
post
How do you explain Falcon, then?
comment in response to
post
How many hours of energy storage is included in wind/solar?
comment in response to
post
You mean corporations? That's a symptom, not the root cause. It shouldn't be profitable for individuals to own property. Corps are just following incentives we have created.
comment in response to
post
Yeah completely agree. Cameras in Congress just enabled theatrics.
comment in response to
post
Why didn't Trump win any EC votes in CA? Because that's not how it works. Votes are allocated according to popular votes in each state, not district. Gerrymandering is a completely different thing. It's ok that you don't understand that electoral college.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Un...
comment in response to
post
When determining margin of victory/loss, you don't look at the EC total. You look at the popular votes of the states and what the margins were there.
comment in response to
post
We can go through this step by step. The Electoral College determines the winner. What determines who EC votes are allocated? Answer: The popular vote of a given state.
Per my post above, sufficient EC votes were coinflips that happened to go Trump's way and determined the winner.
comment in response to
post
Looks pretty close to me. All of these elections were essentially coin flips and decided the election.
GA: -2%
PA: -1.7%
MI: -1.4%
WI: <-1%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Un...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Un...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Un...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Un...
comment in response to
post
Republicans hold the presidency & both houses of Congress. What's your plan to get them on board?
comment in response to
post
Elections have consequences. The left preferred Trump win rather than compromise on a moderate.
comment in response to
post
Are you talking about Chevron investing in nuclear *research*? I can't find any actual projects they are involved in (e.g. Vogtle, Summer, Hinckley, that unpronounceable one in Europe...). However, Chevron has been directly involved in renewables energy programs that do generate electricity.
comment in response to
post
Personally, I think there is a lot for fossil fuel companies to like about renewables. For example here is the energy generation of the Netherlands. They need fossil fuels reliably every day because of renewables' intermittency.
comment in response to
post
Is that why it seems to be missing from BP's website, but they have a whole section gushing about renewables? If I'm wrong, please direct me to the section where they are doing the same for nuclear power.
www.bp.com/en_us/united...
comment in response to
post
How dare people try to be educated and think through their actions...
comment in response to
post
It's *always* OK to leave *any* option blank if you don't know who the people are. From dog catcher to president. If you don't know, for the love of all that is holy don't inject noise and be the winning vote for someone you dislike.
comment in response to
post
Why not? 2024 was a very close election; IIRC 1-in-100 Trump voters choosing Harris in the swing states would have gotten her elected. It wasn't as close as 2016 or 2020, but no other election was. And keep in mind she took over for a wildly unpopular candidate after the first debate.
comment in response to
post
Hence why they are historically the hobbies of the rich
comment in response to
post
Yeah but did you hear Kamala's laugh? /s