Oh yeah because those of us that need to perform tests of network gear WANT to go back to dragging around workstations so that we can have multiple reliable Ethernet ports.
USB-C NICs should be able to perform reliable Gbit pcap replays and receptions but the experience of those who have attempted it show that it cannot at present unless you spend a lot of time to find out which ports on which PC's work and which don't. And to answer the clueless, it's not just an issue only when you use Macs.
Sigh, clueless AC overgeneralizes and mistakenly blames Apple for USB-C's issues and is modded insightful by clueless mods.
I've seen flaky usb-C ethernet dongles, HDMI over USB-C that "should" but doesn't work and hub issues with non-apple gear as well.
YOU might not need multiple reliable NIC's to perform tests of network gear. I and others do and though USB-C claims to be a universal port, it isn't and reliably being able to send/receive pcap files at Gbit speeds is dependent on which PCs and ports you use.
Space-X was mocked for attempting to recover F9 first stages without spending decades studying it to death the Nasa way. Now that F9 1st stage recovery is routine that aggressive schedule has been proven. Musk has already stated that F5 block 5 (arrival before 2018) will be the end of the upgrades to F9. The engineers that more than doubled F9 performance and achieved routine 1st stage recovery will now be turning all their efforts to BFR. Given that Raptor and BFR sized COPV development is much further along than most judged possible, BFR first flight will come sooner than you think.
Here's a novel idea: Try doing some research on your own. You'll appear to be much more intelligent than you do when you ask basic questions that would have taken little effort to discover.
FH has always been on a back burner for Space-X because it's need had been mostly rendered moot by their continual improvements in F9 whereas Elon indicates that BFR, being fully reusable and thus much less costly to operate will be _replacing_ both F9 & FH. That's a huge difference in priorities that you appear to have overlooked.
Idiot AC doesn't understand the difference between a local only spell checker and Cortana which is listening to every Skype call and sending it to Microsoft. Or has Microsoft changed the spell checker to be evil too?
Naah, Nasa _pretends_ to want to send men to Mars but their primary function (as defined by Senate funding) has become keeping the pork pipeline of continual studies on "how to get to mars" open.
0123456 was addressing the latent criticism of BFR: "lets see FH fly before moving on to BFR" and it's implied FH is a useful stepping stone to BFR. It's not. As 0123456 very correctly noted, most of FH's raison d'etre has been rendered moot by upgrades to F9 and solving the risks inherent in flying 3 cores in intimate proximity will not help in the next progression on the road to full reusability: Second stage re-use.
In case Musk's slides were to complicated for you to follow, let me lay it out clearly for you: BFR, being 100% re-usable will be cheaper to launch than FH.
I foed only rarely and for the exceptionally hairy trolls.
Friending isn’t something I only do for people I agree with, just those I want to see. There are a number of people I don’t agree with and sometimes débate among my friends.
Ha, I added it very shortly after becoming a/.er in a subject where some militant peaceniks were contesting the utility of armed forces. We all should just get along, just eliminate national armed forces (ours first of course) & it'll all work out doncha see.
Never say any point to changing it though it has drawn out the occasional idjit who assumes it means too much.
Too bad the number of friends/foes is capped. I find the system to be very useful to upvote comments from people I have found insightful that haven’t been upmodded but can’t add any more because I’ve reached the limits.
If one could, it'd be better to invest in the company that will be undercutting all the competition yet still making money in 5 years rather than than investing in those future money losers ULA, Ariane Espace, ATK, etc.
Good of you to show you know so little about Space-X yet still feel qualified to denigrate it.
Given Musk's well known success at transforming his plans into reality and your complete lack of same, Alba and Lawrence will be flying suborbital in a few years and you'll still be alone.
The Comet program didn't have a problem when the first one went down.
It wasn't until multiple failures that were taking years to understand that they had major problems -- and even these groundings and purchase cancellations didn't stop all jet air travel, it just caused de Haviland to loose ground against it's competitors.
Space-X has also had it's share of failures, but even it's most elusive problem, the pad explosion leading to the loss of ATMOS 6 was understood within a month to be caused by a helium loading procedure change avoided on future launches by returning to previous lauding protocol for existing stages and completely understood and avoided for all new build launchers by modifying COPV construction within six months.
News propagation isn't the only thing that has gotten faster...
You don't wait for certainty of failure to postpone a launch, you postpone it as soon as the possibility becomes worrisome. The flight engineers were the experts and knew that they had had o-ring problems in the past. Management was very rightly condemned for ignoring the recommendation of the experts and killing everyone on Challenger.
Steam trains in the 1830s when pronouncements like the one I gave were the epitome of modern technology. They were far from safe with derailments and boiler explosions fairly common.
And yet technology overcame these handicaps. What exactly make you an expert eh mr high and mighty? Is it that you're a better student of history than I am? No, clearly not or you'd have recognized that the complaint against stem locomotives was entirely on point and not exaggerated.
Does it boil down to you being a cranky fart too quick to confuse your own ignorance of a subject with that of someone you have never met? Could be...
The entire crew of 4590 were friends of a close friend (Concorde cabin crew was a small and tight-knit group) you twit.
Concorde came perishingly close to catastrophy from blown tires on takeoff puncturing fuel tanks previously but the danger had been blown off by the BEA (French FAA). They never forced armoring the fuel tanks until after 4590 and even then it was shown by further studies to be insufficient.
It wasn't one crash but the knowledge (and inability to ignore it with the spotlight that was shining on the program) that Concorde needed more than a band-aid to fly safely to continue flying.
But one wouldn't expect an idiotic AC like you to understand anything that complicated.
Really? So When Boeing decided to drop it's first and only major SST project in 1971 without even finishing any prototypes, it was because intelligent people were saying "The supersonics are comingas surely as tomorrow"...
So then it suffices for _you_ to label something a fallacy for it to _be_ one? In your mind maybe but not in this world. The Einstein fallacy is only applicable when the statements made are false.
Now answer the questions: Do you doubt that airplanes were considered deathtraps 100 years ago? Do you assert that the general opinion on rockets cannot change now that they are passing from expendable to reusable?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah because those of us that need to perform tests of network gear WANT to go back to dragging around workstations so that we can have multiple reliable Ethernet ports.
USB-C NICs should be able to perform reliable Gbit pcap replays and receptions but the experience of those who have attempted it show that it cannot at present unless you spend a lot of time to find out which ports on which PC's work and which don't. And to answer the clueless, it's not just an issue only when you use Macs.
Sigh, clueless AC overgeneralizes and mistakenly blames Apple for USB-C's issues and is modded insightful by clueless mods.
I've seen flaky usb-C ethernet dongles, HDMI over USB-C that "should" but doesn't work and hub issues with non-apple gear as well.
YOU might not need multiple reliable NIC's to perform tests of network gear. I and others do and though USB-C claims to be a universal port, it isn't and reliably being able to send/receive pcap files at Gbit speeds is dependent on which PCs and ports you use.
Space-X was mocked for attempting to recover F9 first stages without spending decades studying it to death the Nasa way. Now that F9 1st stage recovery is routine that aggressive schedule has been proven. Musk has already stated that F5 block 5 (arrival before 2018) will be the end of the upgrades to F9. The engineers that more than doubled F9 performance and achieved routine 1st stage recovery will now be turning all their efforts to BFR. Given that Raptor and BFR sized COPV development is much further along than most judged possible, BFR first flight will come sooner than you think.
Here's a novel idea: Try doing some research on your own. You'll appear to be much more intelligent than you do when you ask basic questions that would have taken little effort to discover.
FH has always been on a back burner for Space-X because it's need had been mostly rendered moot by their continual improvements in F9 whereas Elon indicates that BFR, being fully reusable and thus much less costly to operate will be _replacing_ both F9 & FH. That's a huge difference in priorities that you appear to have overlooked.
Idiot AC doesn't understand the difference between a local only spell checker and Cortana which is listening to every Skype call and sending it to Microsoft. Or has Microsoft changed the spell checker to be evil too?
Naah, Nasa _pretends_ to want to send men to Mars but their primary function (as defined by Senate funding) has become keeping the pork pipeline of continual studies on "how to get to mars" open.
Same to you, AC.
0123456 was addressing the latent criticism of BFR: "lets see FH fly before moving on to BFR" and it's implied FH is a useful stepping stone to BFR. It's not. As 0123456 very correctly noted, most of FH's raison d'etre has been rendered moot by upgrades to F9 and solving the risks inherent in flying 3 cores in intimate proximity will not help in the next progression on the road to full reusability: Second stage re-use.
In case Musk's slides were to complicated for you to follow, let me lay it out clearly for you: BFR, being 100% re-usable will be cheaper to launch than FH.
As usual, those who are unable to refute the facts, stoop to attacking the messenger.
I foed only rarely and for the exceptionally hairy trolls.
Friending isn’t something I only do for people I agree with, just those I want to see. There are a number of people I don’t agree with and sometimes débate among my friends.
Ha, I added it very shortly after becoming a /.er in a subject where some militant peaceniks were contesting the utility of armed forces. We all should just get along, just eliminate national armed forces (ours first of course) & it'll all work out doncha see.
Never say any point to changing it though it has drawn out the occasional idjit who assumes it means too much.
Too bad the number of friends/foes is capped. I find the system to be very useful to upvote comments from people I have found insightful that haven’t been upmodded but can’t add any more because I’ve reached the limits.
Can't, because https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/2...
If one could, it'd be better to invest in the company that will be undercutting all the competition yet still making money in 5 years rather than than investing in those future money losers ULA, Ariane Espace, ATK, etc.
Good of you to show you know so little about Space-X yet still feel qualified to denigrate it.
Given Musk's well known success at transforming his plans into reality and your complete lack of same, Alba and Lawrence will be flying suborbital in a few years and you'll still be alone.
The Comet program didn't have a problem when the first one went down.
It wasn't until multiple failures that were taking years to understand that they had major problems -- and even these groundings and purchase cancellations didn't stop all jet air travel, it just caused de Haviland to loose ground against it's competitors.
Space-X has also had it's share of failures, but even it's most elusive problem, the pad explosion leading to the loss of ATMOS 6 was understood within a month to be caused by a helium loading procedure change avoided on future launches by returning to previous lauding protocol for existing stages and completely understood and avoided for all new build launchers by modifying COPV construction within six months.
News propagation isn't the only thing that has gotten faster...
I don't consider claims by, ahem, CNN journalists to be sufficient proof that the sun rises in the esat.
Luckily, Space-X isn't planning on stopping at 1% per flight reliability but making BFR at least as safe as airliners are today.
You'll note that most people don't have a problem with that.
You don't wait for certainty of failure to postpone a launch, you postpone it as soon as the possibility becomes worrisome. The flight engineers were the experts and knew that they had had o-ring problems in the past. Management was very rightly condemned for ignoring the recommendation of the experts and killing everyone on Challenger.
I'm sure that if you make him aware of it and are able to produce the needed quantities and purity of CH4 that he will gladly purchase it from you.
Do come back and let us know how that went when you're able to do so.
If he flies into/out of the USA he doesn't have a choice.
TFA is about a man who had never built a rocket a few years ago too.
You're right, you shouldn't have responded.
Steam trains in the 1830s when pronouncements like the one I gave were the epitome of modern technology. They were far from safe with derailments and boiler explosions fairly common.
And yet technology overcame these handicaps. What exactly make you an expert eh mr high and mighty? Is it that you're a better student of history than I am? No, clearly not or you'd have recognized that the complaint against stem locomotives was entirely on point and not exaggerated.
Does it boil down to you being a cranky fart too quick to confuse your own ignorance of a subject with that of someone you have never met? Could be...
The entire crew of 4590 were friends of a close friend (Concorde cabin crew was a small and tight-knit group) you twit.
Concorde came perishingly close to catastrophy from blown tires on takeoff puncturing fuel tanks previously but the danger had been blown off by the BEA (French FAA). They never forced armoring the fuel tanks until after 4590 and even then it was shown by further studies to be insufficient.
It wasn't one crash but the knowledge (and inability to ignore it with the spotlight that was shining on the program) that Concorde needed more than a band-aid to fly safely to continue flying.
But one wouldn't expect an idiotic AC like you to understand anything that complicated.
Really? So When Boeing decided to drop it's first and only major SST project in 1971 without even finishing any prototypes, it was because intelligent people were saying "The supersonics are comingas surely as tomorrow"...
Or maybe it was just idiots like you.
Finally, an intelligent answer!
Do note however that you used F9 (Kerosene) & not BFR (Methane) & that though BFR is bigger it has a much better mass fraction than F9.
Not sure we even have enough numbers to do even a good BOE & that Space-X may change things yet again as the idea & implementation mature.
So then it suffices for _you_ to label something a fallacy for it to _be_ one? In your mind maybe but not in this world. The Einstein fallacy is only applicable when the statements made are false.
Now answer the questions:
Do you doubt that airplanes were considered deathtraps 100 years ago? Do you assert that the general opinion on rockets cannot change now that they are passing from expendable to reusable?