Is it your opinion that Space-X has a a 10% failure (Loss of payload) mode? That even with reusable rockets that they will will always have a 10% failure mode?
The first is already provably incorrect giving little confidence in your opinion on the second.
Reread the first like of my reply, it's important.
It's only your unsupported claim that it's a fallacy.
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?
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? Do you have anything intelligent to say on the matter or are you just here to snipe?
How is it any worse than pushing a airliner sized column of air out the way from takeoff to landing? Or is your little head too pretty to think about that?
You're forgetting that there was always a major (technical) choke point: How do you cheaply land and then relaunch. The Space plane proposals in particular died here. Skylon claims that with a few more billions of £ of development money they will be able to but still haven't left the lab.
Elon has proven that he can consistently land his boosters on a barge. He thinks he can improve that to landing back on the launchpad supports and is betting the BFR development on it.
Today's $57 million F9 launch is still not recovering the second stage nor the fairing, just the 1st stage that has a predicted life of at few dozen launches at best.
At the end of the year they will start using a debugged F9 that they hope will be good for a few hundred launches.
The BFR will be 100% reusable, both the 1st and the 2nd stages and they hope to have the same lifespan (tens of thousands of launches with re-engining when necessary) just as airliners do today.
Yes, they have a REALLY REALLY long way to go. At present they are just about the only ones with a plan to get there and a track record of actually making progress.
Using _today's_ solar power infrastructure it would massively increase the cost of producing his CM4+02 from H20+CO2. How can you be certain that this will also be the case in the future?
Sucks to be you... In my flights around Europe, the Middle East & South America security is rarely more than 10 minutes. Waiting for baggage generally takes more time except for the security theater in the USA.
Yeah, because pushing an airliner sized column of air out of the way from takeoff to landing with kerosene powered jet engines is soooo much better than boosting over the atmosphere, coasting, performing a retro-burn, braking passively and performing a landing burn. You _know_ this do you? Post your calculations so we can laugh a little more...
Airliners push a column of air out of the way all the way from take-off to landing. Boosting over the atmosphere then using it to slow back down and performing a landing burn will likely pollute the environment much less. If Elon starts producing his Methane from solar power as he mentioned it'll actually be carbon neutral.
So you are certain that pushing a column 747 sized of air out of the way all the way from taking off in NYC all the way to landing in Singapore is less wasteful than boosting over the atmosphere then using the atmosphere to slow back down and perform a landing burn? I suspect not.
Musk, on the other hand _has_ performed those calculations and determined that costs should be comparable.
One could hope that they saturate the materials they are using to build this city with perchlorates just as everything is on Mars to correctly model how that impacts the buildings and soil but we're bound to be disappointed. IIRC the previous "lets model a Mars colony with a bunch of domes" was seriously perturbed by unexplainable oxygen losses that they later chalked up to the cement in the buildings continuing to cure.
You think that there is a difference between how banks in the EU treat creditors (credit card companies, the bank's ATMs, ATMs from other banks, etc) even though you now know that E.U. legislators considered client protection as a whole and not just between credit-card companies and banks.
Now I suspect that there are some federally applied constraints on credit-card companies in the states that gives clients guarantees that aren't necessarily applicable to bank debit cards, but do I get any inkling that from you? Nah, you just intuit that the U.S. deficiency in debit-card customer protection is universal ang go onward from there to "you live in a lousy country".
Naive ain't the word for it. Thoughtful? Nope more the opposite. Parochial seems to apply as do obstinate, chauvinistic and and close-minded.
You think that money in your bank account is ‘‘in your pocket’’ and will be treated differently by the bank when spent using a credit card than using a debit card. Bankers throughout the EU laugh when reading your claim that fraud treatment is different for the two even though you now admit/understand that isn’t the case.
So, try and explain how I’m naive for telling you that for EU banks that there isn’t any difference. Think it through this time, please.
Sorry, as you mentioned merchant agreements I see that I was insufficiently precise: the fees I mentioned for people in the E.U. are not merchant-card but for the card holder-bank so that a pre arranged revolving credit will be attached to the card and one can reimburse in installments. If I arrange for one and set my maximum installment at 500€, using my credit card for 1000€ one month will trigger the loan for 500€. If for the following 11 months I have 500€ of new expenses on the card the loan stays unpayed for a year, accruing interest.
With a debit card, I need only make sure every month that I have sufficient funds to cover that months expenses.
I know that the system here in Europe is different than the one you are accustomed to but please pay attention and _read_ what I write as I am not & have not been referring to the U.S but to the E.U.: - The protections for debit cards and credit cards are identical here. - In both cases the bank has control of the money in your account and will pay it out to a creditor in the exact same fashion. - Fraud procedures and protections are identical. - Both debit and credit cards have withdrawal ceilings which have nothing to do with whether they are debit/credit but with how much you pay for the card (Normal/ Gold/Platinum/etc).
With a debit card I must have sufficient funds at he times the card is imputed to the account or I pay overage fees. With a credit card if I do not have sufficient funds at imputation time, a pre-arranged loan is initiated that covers the overage and initiates reimbursement at predefined levels. In addition to paying the bank extra for the privilege of having this ready capitol available to me, I pay interest on the loan.
As there is no functional difference in the E.U. between the fraud protection the bank offers me and unless I am unable to provide for my expenses there is no sane fiscal or legal reason to use credit cards here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'd only have said it once but there were lots of people making the same incorrect assumption (that air travel is somehow free of pollution).
Yeah but that's _always_ true.
Is it your opinion that Space-X has a a 10% failure (Loss of payload) mode? That even with reusable rockets that they will will always have a 10% failure mode?
The first is already provably incorrect giving little confidence in your opinion on the second.
Reread the first like of my reply, it's important.
It's only your unsupported claim that it's a fallacy.
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?
You did note that he _isn't_ doing hyperloop himself? Do ya think there _might_ be reasons for it not related to the technical feasibility?
Hyperloop _is_ technically possible. The problem is the NIH & NIMBY from everyone that needs to be in on it every fracking inch of the way.
How would that be smart? Ah I see, you define "smart" to mean that people do what you want them to, not what would actually be better for them.
But why even say it when you have little/no certitude that it is the case? That unfounded assertion is the only reason I replied.
It's not a fallacy when it's true.
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? Do you have anything intelligent to say on the matter or are you just here to snipe?
Precisely.
I got more laughs anyway when he couldn't figure out why I called him out on pretending to know more than he does.
What was the Samual Clemens aphorism? A wise fool knows that is better to be thought a fool and stay quiet than it is to speak and remove all doubt.
How is it any worse than pushing a airliner sized column of air out the way from takeoff to landing? Or is your little head too pretty to think about that?
You're forgetting that there was always a major (technical) choke point: How do you cheaply land and then relaunch. The Space plane proposals in particular died here. Skylon claims that with a few more billions of £ of development money they will be able to but still haven't left the lab.
Elon has proven that he can consistently land his boosters on a barge. He thinks he can improve that to landing back on the launchpad supports and is betting the BFR development on it.
Today's $57 million F9 launch is still not recovering the second stage nor the fairing, just the 1st stage that has a predicted life of at few dozen launches at best.
At the end of the year they will start using a debugged F9 that they hope will be good for a few hundred launches.
The BFR will be 100% reusable, both the 1st and the 2nd stages and they hope to have the same lifespan (tens of thousands of launches with re-engining when necessary) just as airliners do today.
Yes, they have a REALLY REALLY long way to go. At present they are just about the only ones with a plan to get there and a track record of actually making progress.
Using _today's_ solar power infrastructure it would massively increase the cost of producing his CM4+02 from H20+CO2. How can you be certain that this will also be the case in the future?
Sucks to be you... In my flights around Europe, the Middle East & South America security is rarely more than 10 minutes. Waiting for baggage generally takes more time except for the security theater in the USA.
Elon hopes to produce his methane & O2 from Water, CO2 & Solar power -- the same way he plans on doing it on Mars.
Yeah, because pushing an airliner sized column of air out of the way from takeoff to landing with kerosene powered jet engines is soooo much better than boosting over the atmosphere, coasting, performing a retro-burn, braking passively and performing a landing burn. You _know_ this do you? Post your calculations so we can laugh a little more...
You mean like they said 100 years ago about heavier than air travel? Yeah because it's certain that THAT never happened, did it...
Elon plans on leaving the burocrats behind when he gets to mars.
Airliners push a column of air out of the way all the way from take-off to landing. Boosting over the atmosphere then using it to slow back down and performing a landing burn will likely pollute the environment much less. If Elon starts producing his Methane from solar power as he mentioned it'll actually be carbon neutral.
The same exact thing was said about steam trains when they started going faster than the animal drawn conveyances of the day.
My god man! At speeds over 75MPH all the air will be sucked out of the cabins and everyone will suffocate!
Thanks for being _that guy_...
So you are certain that pushing a column 747 sized of air out of the way all the way from taking off in NYC all the way to landing in Singapore is less wasteful than boosting over the atmosphere then using the atmosphere to slow back down and perform a landing burn? I suspect not.
Musk, on the other hand _has_ performed those calculations and determined that costs should be comparable.
One could hope that they saturate the materials they are using to build this city with perchlorates just as everything is on Mars to correctly model how that impacts the buildings and soil but we're bound to be disappointed. IIRC the previous "lets model a Mars colony with a bunch of domes" was seriously perturbed by unexplainable oxygen losses that they later chalked up to the cement in the buildings continuing to cure.
You think that there is a difference between how banks in the EU treat creditors (credit card companies, the bank's ATMs, ATMs from other banks, etc) even though you now know that E.U. legislators considered client protection as a whole and not just between credit-card companies and banks.
Now I suspect that there are some federally applied constraints on credit-card companies in the states that gives clients guarantees that aren't necessarily applicable to bank debit cards, but do I get any inkling that from you? Nah, you just intuit that the U.S. deficiency in debit-card customer protection is universal ang go onward from there to "you live in a lousy country".
Naive ain't the word for it. Thoughtful? Nope more the opposite. Parochial seems to apply as do obstinate, chauvinistic and and close-minded.
You think that money in your bank account is ‘‘in your pocket’’ and will be treated differently by the bank when spent using a credit card than using a debit card. Bankers throughout the EU laugh when reading your claim that fraud treatment is different for the two even though you now admit/understand that isn’t the case.
So, try and explain how I’m naive for telling you that for EU banks that there isn’t any difference. Think it through this time, please.
Sorry, as you mentioned merchant agreements I see that I was insufficiently precise: the fees I mentioned for people in the E.U. are not merchant-card but for the card holder-bank so that a pre arranged revolving credit will be attached to the card and one can reimburse in installments. If I arrange for one and set my maximum installment at 500€, using my credit card for 1000€ one month will trigger the loan for 500€. If for the following 11 months I have 500€ of new expenses on the card the loan stays unpayed for a year, accruing interest.
With a debit card, I need only make sure every month that I have sufficient funds to cover that months expenses.
I know that the system here in Europe is different than the one you are accustomed to but please pay attention and _read_ what I write as I am not & have not been referring to the U.S but to the E.U.:
- The protections for debit cards and credit cards are identical here.
- In both cases the bank has control of the money in your account and will pay it out to a creditor in the exact same fashion.
- Fraud procedures and protections are identical.
- Both debit and credit cards have withdrawal ceilings which have nothing to do with whether they are debit/credit but with how much you pay for the card (Normal/ Gold/Platinum/etc).
With a debit card I must have sufficient funds at he times the card is imputed to the account or I pay overage fees.
With a credit card if I do not have sufficient funds at imputation time, a pre-arranged loan is initiated that covers the overage and initiates reimbursement at predefined levels. In addition to paying the bank extra for the privilege of having this ready capitol available to me, I pay interest on the loan.
As there is no functional difference in the E.U. between the fraud protection the bank offers me and unless I am unable to provide for my expenses there is no sane fiscal or legal reason to use credit cards here.