No, I'm thinking any fixed wing aircraft. Aerodynamic advantages of being able to control flow of air with a set of small engines instead of having to have aerodynamically harmful control surfaces is present on any fixed wing.
It's not just the fact that fuel economy is atrocious when it comes to flying. Release of CO2 exhaust occurs high up in atmosphere, making it much more potent in terms of greenhouse effect relevance.
Then there's the whole "much more efficient engines" aspect of it. You could turn the entire wing trailing edge into a bunch of small engines, something effectively impossible with ICE.
Packaging production is much MORE complicated, and essentially the only way to advance battery technology with chemistry part having all the low hanging fruit long picked.
Still doesn't make your argument valid. Battery is the element that actually stores power. Having packaging that makes these elements much more efficient and long lasting still doesn't make packaging into a "battery".
How are any of these species more beneficial to us as species than elimination of things like world hunger, which we have all but achieved in time that beat most optimistic UN projections?
See, if you view biodiversity as just "dogmaically good", your argument makes sense. But the moment you do the realistic assessment of "benefits vs harm", it falls apart in a spectacular fashion. Which is exactly why we have the progress we do now.
And then, you stop reading speculation what "could" happen and read on what is factually happening. Such as effective elimination of world hunger, because of agricultural advances wiping out life forms that were detrimental to it.
When Catholics tell you that they're feeding you flesh of Christ and letting you drink blood of Christ at mass, do you take them literally also?
"Chemicals" in parlance of the religious movement that is modern Green movement means "not ideologically pure". It has as much to do with observable objects we know as chemicals as food given at Catholic mass has to do with physical body of Christ. It's a metaphorical representation.
Outside your insane imagination, the entire reason why we're wiping out species is because we're making Earth more livable for humans. Everything from wiping out disease-bearing insects (see: war on malaria) to destroying alpha predators that have any meaningful chance of competing with us for top slot (see: history of wolves' interaction with humans) to wiping out life forms that interfere with our food production (see: agricultural development) is about making our lives better, and making the planet able to sustain more humans.
Medieval nature worship you're espousing is anti-humanist on its merits. It imagines humans as an evil factor within "pure" nature, pure being used here in the exact same connotation that spiritual purity is used in Christianity. It has nothing to do with observable reality, and is a purely religious concept.
"Chemicals" is code word for "not pure" for modern city folk with religious bent toward green movement. "No chemicals" means "pure", which carries the exact same emotional charge as spiritual purity does for religious people. As such, it has nothing to do with physical reality. It's purely a spiritual construct.
The math was done on enthusiast forums when the idea was first shown as a prototype years ago, providing a starting point in terms of size of the booster vs payload it will carry. I can't easily site such forums at a moment's notice due to relative obscurity of relevant information combined with time passed. It had to do with actual rocket scientists and people studying to become such going over payload vs size of the rocket, likely weight of additional systems needed to land and so on.
You'll have to google it yourself, or take my word for it.
The headline makes perfect sense if you understand the underlying mechanics of what's happening. It doesn't to a casual observer with no deeper knowledge of the subject beyond the mainstream. Third launch of the same first stage is where they're all but guaranteed to get into net positive compared to having a more economical disposable first stage.
Actual booster itself is proven for single launch purposes. It's just much less efficient for the purpose than single launch disposable ones.
That's because it's the critical part of the equation. There's no real point in landing and reusing the booster once. Additional weight and failure points created by hardware and fuel needed for landing cycle are exceedingly costly. Break even cost is likely between two and three launches.
So if they can get same booster to launch three times, they're almost certainly in net positive compared to single launch boosters. This is the real test for the platform.
Let's hope they succeed, because if they manage to prove that technology is workable on this level, access to space will become meaningfully cheaper.
Considering her pedigree, pretending that one is done to promote the other rather than a symbiotic relationship between the two where both promote each other is silly. She also isn't the kind of opposition West wants in any way. She's a part of Russian old elite who at the very base level don't like West for what it did to Russia in the 1990s, so if she got into the federal levels of political power in Russia, foreign policy toward West would be unlikely to change. So she's the kind of opposition West doesn't like to promote, other ones being the communist party, the social democratic party party people and LDPR who's most anti-Western of them all. Basically all the big opposition parties in Russia. None of them are pro-West in any meaningful sense, and none really disagree with current government on keystones foreign policy in significant ways that would benefit the West.
Which is why Western propaganda promotes people like Navalny, that struggle to hold any meaningful support while holding views that are generally significantly damaging to Russia itself in some way that West approves of. And his support is usually mostly among idealistic and naive youth. Who grow out of that phase at 30 at the latest. This is completely consistent with West's interests in weakening Russia, and is simply a geopolitical game the way it was played since the Cold War. Nothing new, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
And is completely in line with Russia's recent efforts to promote left and right extremes across many major Western countries, which is a mirror image of these actions.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm thinking any fixed wing aircraft. Aerodynamic advantages of being able to control flow of air with a set of small engines instead of having to have aerodynamically harmful control surfaces is present on any fixed wing.
And we're done. Not only are you so magnificently retarded as to claim that batteries aren't batteries, you also decides to assume I'm american.
Good luck with that level of opinionated ignorance.
It's not just the fact that fuel economy is atrocious when it comes to flying. Release of CO2 exhaust occurs high up in atmosphere, making it much more potent in terms of greenhouse effect relevance.
Then there's the whole "much more efficient engines" aspect of it. You could turn the entire wing trailing edge into a bunch of small engines, something effectively impossible with ICE.
And then one remembers the multiple dihydrogen monoxide jokes done on people and understands that your argument is a desperate deflection.
And religious part of green movement really does believe that "chemicals are bad". Which is why the marketing had picked this up and ran with it.
This discussion belongs so far in the realm of theology, I don't feel I have sufficient expertise to continue it.
So single cell battery is not a battery. Got it. I guess we can stop talking now.
Packaging production is much MORE complicated, and essentially the only way to advance battery technology with chemistry part having all the low hanging fruit long picked.
Still doesn't make your argument valid. Battery is the element that actually stores power. Having packaging that makes these elements much more efficient and long lasting still doesn't make packaging into a "battery".
How are any of these species more beneficial to us as species than elimination of things like world hunger, which we have all but achieved in time that beat most optimistic UN projections?
See, if you view biodiversity as just "dogmaically good", your argument makes sense. But the moment you do the realistic assessment of "benefits vs harm", it falls apart in a spectacular fashion. Which is exactly why we have the progress we do now.
Seriously, did I fuck you and didn't call the next day?
Sounds like I made a correct choice.
Same reason why only some beverages are used as representation of "blood of Christ" at Catholic mass. Dogma.
And then, you stop reading speculation what "could" happen and read on what is factually happening. Such as effective elimination of world hunger, because of agricultural advances wiping out life forms that were detrimental to it.
That wouldn't fit any better. The wax being generated artificially is still artificial.
When Catholics tell you that they're feeding you flesh of Christ and letting you drink blood of Christ at mass, do you take them literally also?
"Chemicals" in parlance of the religious movement that is modern Green movement means "not ideologically pure". It has as much to do with observable objects we know as chemicals as food given at Catholic mass has to do with physical body of Christ. It's a metaphorical representation.
That lie just won't stop getting repeated no matter how many times it's debunked.
Outside your insane imagination, the entire reason why we're wiping out species is because we're making Earth more livable for humans. Everything from wiping out disease-bearing insects (see: war on malaria) to destroying alpha predators that have any meaningful chance of competing with us for top slot (see: history of wolves' interaction with humans) to wiping out life forms that interfere with our food production (see: agricultural development) is about making our lives better, and making the planet able to sustain more humans.
Medieval nature worship you're espousing is anti-humanist on its merits. It imagines humans as an evil factor within "pure" nature, pure being used here in the exact same connotation that spiritual purity is used in Christianity. It has nothing to do with observable reality, and is a purely religious concept.
Tesla doesn't make batteries. Panasonic does. Battery is the element that generates power. Tesla doesn't make those, it buys them.
What Tesla makes is battery packaging. Literally "battery pack". Essentially the instrumentation and hardware needed to manage battery usage.
"Chemicals" is code word for "not pure" for modern city folk with religious bent toward green movement. "No chemicals" means "pure", which carries the exact same emotional charge as spiritual purity does for religious people. As such, it has nothing to do with physical reality. It's purely a spiritual construct.
Indeed. Basically same thing that makes some fruit like apples have incredible shelf life compared to most of the fresh produce.
With you personally? Probably not. With company employing you? Almost certainly.
The math was done on enthusiast forums when the idea was first shown as a prototype years ago, providing a starting point in terms of size of the booster vs payload it will carry. I can't easily site such forums at a moment's notice due to relative obscurity of relevant information combined with time passed. It had to do with actual rocket scientists and people studying to become such going over payload vs size of the rocket, likely weight of additional systems needed to land and so on.
You'll have to google it yourself, or take my word for it.
The headline makes perfect sense if you understand the underlying mechanics of what's happening. It doesn't to a casual observer with no deeper knowledge of the subject beyond the mainstream. Third launch of the same first stage is where they're all but guaranteed to get into net positive compared to having a more economical disposable first stage.
Actual booster itself is proven for single launch purposes. It's just much less efficient for the purpose than single launch disposable ones.
That's because it's the critical part of the equation. There's no real point in landing and reusing the booster once. Additional weight and failure points created by hardware and fuel needed for landing cycle are exceedingly costly. Break even cost is likely between two and three launches.
So if they can get same booster to launch three times, they're almost certainly in net positive compared to single launch boosters. This is the real test for the platform.
Let's hope they succeed, because if they manage to prove that technology is workable on this level, access to space will become meaningfully cheaper.
Considering her pedigree, pretending that one is done to promote the other rather than a symbiotic relationship between the two where both promote each other is silly. She also isn't the kind of opposition West wants in any way. She's a part of Russian old elite who at the very base level don't like West for what it did to Russia in the 1990s, so if she got into the federal levels of political power in Russia, foreign policy toward West would be unlikely to change. So she's the kind of opposition West doesn't like to promote, other ones being the communist party, the social democratic party party people and LDPR who's most anti-Western of them all. Basically all the big opposition parties in Russia. None of them are pro-West in any meaningful sense, and none really disagree with current government on keystones foreign policy in significant ways that would benefit the West.
Which is why Western propaganda promotes people like Navalny, that struggle to hold any meaningful support while holding views that are generally significantly damaging to Russia itself in some way that West approves of. And his support is usually mostly among idealistic and naive youth. Who grow out of that phase at 30 at the latest. This is completely consistent with West's interests in weakening Russia, and is simply a geopolitical game the way it was played since the Cold War. Nothing new, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.
And is completely in line with Russia's recent efforts to promote left and right extremes across many major Western countries, which is a mirror image of these actions.
You're utterly ignorant of history outside the talking points you copy pasted. Noted.