FeepingCreature
No bio...
User ID: 311
FeepingCreature
9d ago
I have a question - if Falcon Heavy is so much cheaper than Falcon 9, why are they relying so much on the latter for Starlink?
I could be very wrong about this, but as I understand it, Falcon Heavy is designed for high-mass launches. F9 launches are usually volume limited; being able to put more Starlink sats in orbit won't help you if you physically cannot fit more of them in the fairing.
FeepingCreature
10d ago
Space mining may become advantageous if we have significant material demands in orbit.
FeepingCreature
10d ago
The thing is, if it's not the case, we have to consider that SpaceX is putting down more launches than the rest of the market put together as some sort of stunt or fraud, which starts to edge into conspiracy theory. Either Musk is a machiavellian genius running a massive misinformation campaign using billion dollars of hardware, or F9 launches are profitable and more launches are more profitable, which would explain why SpaceX literally started a separate company to justify being able to make more launches.
If you reuse your rocket, that last bit will be necessary to bring your rocket back.
The trick is that you split the rocket in two halves, and then you end up on the good side of the rocket equation because you mostly only need to brake your engines and your landing fuel, and also you can use a lot of air friction. Now, I refuse to watch an hour long video with that title, lol, but any video that doesn't at least account for these two factors is bullshitting you. (How about link the actual spreadsheet instead of the video, and I'll try to fix it?)
The Shuttle wasn't exactly due to NASA incompetence, because by the time the final plans were drawn up the damage was already done. However, the Shuttle was an still an unusually bad example of a reusable rocket.
Also the fuel costs are basically a nonfactor. SpaceX have an issue in that their F9 rockets are overbuilt and undersized, to the point where they've literally started making their engines worse as a cost-cutting measure by saving on material. Landing is an unusually good value proposition for them, because they already have isp overhang. The rocket equation is simply not a relevant limiting factor for their market.
FeepingCreature
10d ago
Sure but if a rocket is worth launching and throwing away, then it stands to reason that getting it back in one piece will be financially positive for you unless you are spending a LOT on refurbishing. The case is very intuitive imo.
The thing is, from the outside view (also partially as an Elon stan) I remember all these arguments about landing rockets - from Arianespace, half a decade ago. It always had an undertone of desperation - "well, it isn't proven that landing rockets is even possible", then "well, it isn't proven that landing rockets is even financially beneficial" - with the unstated "of course, if it is, we're just dead, so let's not think about that."
Somebody who's currently taking your lunch money has no need to document their balance sheet. The default assumption, IMO, is that reuseability is very profitable, and so is Starlink. I did some math on it a few years ago, and there's basically no half-way on that service; it's either ruinously cash negative or deliriously cash positive. Given that SpaceX is happily running a hardware-rich experimental launch program right now, I suspect the latter.
(I have no opinion on Tesla.)
FeepingCreature
21d ago
I mean, to put the greatest possible stress on this policy... returning escaped German Jews to Nazi Germany: moral? I mean, sure you have to say that "actually, the Holocaust is morally wrong --" but then you get into hot water along the lines of - well, is killing pirates morally wrong? If yes, what's the difference? If no, why not do it yourself? I guess one would have to say that killing criminals is wrong, but it's the sort of wrong that states may disagree about, as opposed to genociding innocents?
FeepingCreature
21d ago
I think a place is different than a purpose because it's a lot harder to disagree about a place. I mean, what is a mall? What if you're sitting in a tram wearing a funny hat and a cop says that the tram is actually a mall so you have to pay a fee? And what if a judge agrees? This scenario is not worrying because in this world sanity has clearly broken down. But replace the mall with "intent to conceal" and it starts looking a lot more plausible.
FeepingCreature
21d ago
I mean, it's funny but it makes no sense; if you swap genders, you still don't actually benefit. And once I realize that, I remember that people just don't raise children for "the benefit." I mean, I guess your progeny can look after you in your old age, but a daughter can do that just as well as a son. I guess the joke is entirely the subtext that women are only valuable sexually.
FeepingCreature
22d ago
Yeah and as an additional factor, moral obligations and state actions are fundamentally different in kind because moral obligations are individual whereas state actions are collective. You have a moral obligation to save the drowning child even if you are surrounded on all sides by callous assholes; standing in a group of bystanders does not morally relieve you of failure to render aid. Conversely, if your society has decided on a tax rate that is erroneously, ruinously low, you do not have a moral or legal obligation to pay regardless, because in that situation we acknowledge that uneven enforcement is even more corrosive than wrong policy.
FeepingCreature
22d ago
The point is: report, don't engage. The rules explicitly do not support defensive/retributive rules violations.
If twelve people agree that X and Y murdered Z and W, but they cannot by any means come to agree on whether X murdered Z and Y murdered W or converse, should they convict?
(Claude Opus says no, GPT-4 says yes.)
More options
Context Copy link