Crowdsourcing also depends on the crowd for the most part being non-malicious and honest. Just imagine 'pranking' the system and the potential outcomes.
Happily, filtering data to remove the outliers is a long solved problem. This makes pranking the system much more difficult.
The Apollo program included the Little Joe II and Saturn 1, 1B, and V rockets in addition to one CSM stack and a Lunar Lander, by Apollo budgets we should be at least into the Saturn flights
Not really no. CSM flights didn't start until late '66.
SLS is likely going to end up north of $1b a launch to put about the same payload as Falcon Heavy for $90M a launch?
Not really, no. SLS payload to LEO, 70,000 to 130,000 kg. Falcon Heavy payload to LEO, 63,000 kg. Not to mention that SLS can handle larger diameter payloads.
I'm sorry, SpaceX is trying to open space, while NASA is primarily trying to help open taxpayer pockets.
Not debating that one bit. Just trying to correct your vast ignorance - you're so stupid you can't even get things trivially found via the web (comparative payloads for example) correct.
How much did Microsoft spend in-house developing Bing? Was it more or less than $45bn? How much of the drop in value of Yahoo! was from Microsoft entering the market as a competitor.
Yahoo!'s value hasn't been in it's search engine since shortly before the turn of the century. Yahoo's value was as a platform - a huge gaming site, a massive email community, a huge business and stock community, the largest photo sharing/social site, etc... etc... The huge drop in Yahoo!'s valuation had very little to do with Microsoft and more to do with other competitors (notably Facebook) slowly chipping away those value centers while Yahoo! flopped and twitched and let it's business be taken away from it practically without a fight. Activist investors concentrating on short term rises in profit rather than long term management of the business didn't help any.
From TFA: But the National Aeronautics and Space Administration doesnâ(TM)t envision getting astronauts to Mars until at least a decade later, a timeline NASA is finding increasingly hard to defend in the face of criticism that it is too slow.
That criticism largely comes from the legions of ill-educated members of the Cult of Elon. Not that being ill-educated is all that notable in the space fandom community, it's practically a defining characteristic. Another defining characteristic is their credulity and inability to distinguish the gap between plans and power points and actual flying hardware.
Much of the rest of the criticism comes from lazy journalists - bashing NASA or worshipping Musk is great for clicks. A two-fer is manna from heaven.
And there's the folks who don't grasp that NASA isn't an independent organization - it's part of the Executive branch of the US Government. It's only going to go to Mars if it becomes Government policy and Congress and the Administration are behind the concept and fund it.
And on top of all that is Musk's (in)famous overpromising and under or late delivering. He's an optimist, but not always realistic.
While I have no doubt that Musk and SpaceX will eventually get to Mars... There's simply too many technologies and too many mission techniques to master for a mission to be likely in the timeframe he proposes. Yes, they're already building the BFR - but while the booster is the most visible and sexy piece of the system, it's only one piece. (And one that hasn't flown yet.) Notably absent from Musk's discussions, beyond vague hand waving of intent, is any mention of progress on the flight hardware. It'll no doubt be built on a modified Dragon, but that's just the hull, again one part of the overall system.
[Dons flame-retardant suit in preparation for the arrival of legions of cultists.]
Facts like the fact that Musk never said he had approval from New York City - that he actually said, "verbal govt approval". Which he did - the government he was speaking of was the federal government
The federal government lacks the authority to make such a commitment. And if you actually read the article you linked, and even the text you quoted, no commitment is to be found. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Facts like, for example, that Model 3's production schedule had been moved forward to July (was originally supposed to start at the end of this year), with Musk stating at the time that the reason for the July deadline was because he knew some suppliers would inevitably fail to meet their deadline and he had to have a way to hold their feet to the fire with real penalties for failing to deliver. Of course, they actually did make the July deadline.
Since they weren't talking about the July deadline... this is relevant, how? He promised delivery of 'x' in September, he failed to fulfill that promise. But hey, let's leave that part out.
The Wall Street Journal will gripe about the fact that there are missing features in the (over-the-air-upgraded) software stack and that there's some manual labour / part changes in manufacture because automated assembly line isn't yet complete. Really, WSJ? Gee we all thought that the line was fully ready to produce tens of thousands of vehicles per month, but the schedule was only to produce a couple hundred for giggles.
Um, no. The plan was to produce 1500 vehicles. He failed to do so. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Or, to put it another way, you're 0 for 3 when it comes to facts.
Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.
Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333
Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.
Who cares if your 1 mWh battery pack, which has been in use for 20 years, now only stores 500 kWh?
Pretty much anyone who operates a battery facility will care - because practically none will ever be built with 100%+ space margins. Space and square footage cost money to build, and money to maintain.
Well, no. Vanguard-I may still be in orbit, but it's nonfunctional and has been for nearly fifty years. It's operating lifetime was a bare six years.
It's still in orbit not because it was built well, but because it's high enough that atmospheric drag hasn't brought it down (yet). It's low enough that it's orbit will completely decay and it will re-enter in two hundred years or so.
Standing security guard on an operation involving [can neither confirm nor deny] during an inspection. One of the inspectors was standing outside the security area next to some pipes that ran along the bulkhead. He put his hand on them and slowly started inching it along them towards the plane defined by the ropes that marked the security area. When his hand was just short of breaking the plane, I took my nightstick out and laid the tip on the pipe just touching his fingertips. He took his hand back, made a note and stepped back. There was a positive comment in the final report "during inspection of the [can neither confirm nor deny] operations the security guards were notably alert and forehanded* in the conduct of their duties".
Then there was time a bomb threat was called away* and I found an "officer" wandering around unescorted. (During security situations we were supposed to pair up.) My partner and I had to forcibly and bodily haul him to the wardroom. (We didn't actually have to take our nightsticks to him, but it was close.) Turned out he was an officer who had just reported aboard and his escort had abandoned him. Got chewed out by the COB for manhandling an officer. Got congratulated by the XO for alert and proper handling of the situation. The escort who bailed went to mast and lost a stripe and half his pay for thirty days. The officer hated me until he learned the truth of how such situations were supposed to be handled. (That is, exactly as I handled it.) When he later became my division officer, he'd frequently bypass the chief (who was an idiot anyhow) and seek out my advice.
Also got chewed out by the COB for taking charge at the scene of a another security drill... He'd wanted to see how the guy sitting next to me would react. I just told him piss off, I was there and trained specifically to handle that situation and the guy next to me wasn't. If he wanted to see how guys with less specific training would react he shouldn't have done what he did in front of a guy who was. Not my fault he wasn't paying attention.
* Navy speak for what we now call "being proactive".
** It was a drill, but we didn't know that and anyhow regulations required us to treat all drills as real unless informed otherwise.
Unfortunately that articles leaves out the changes to US tax policy that lead to the current conditions. It also leaves out the influence of the protectionist Jones Act, which considerably increases the cost of living on the island.
That would explain why the numbers are low, but it doesn't explain why they claimed they'd be high.
Tesla's been doing this long enough that they should be able to predict these things, and yet they miss their targets almost every single time. How long before it goes from "they're new and trying to do a lot" to "they're lying about their capabilities", because at this point it's pretty hard for me to see the difference.
That's easy to explain - Musk always overpromises and delivers late. But he's practically bulletproof and never held to account for this behavior, at least by his cultists and PR machine. (He's had problems financing the Model 3 though, the financial world is starting to catch on.)
I haven't heard of a site of any significance being slashdotted in well over a decade. Part of that is the 'net in general being much more robust than it was back around the turn of the century when slashdotting was common. Part of is that, well... to be frank, Slashdot is all but irrelevant anymore.
They may be horrible places to build in terms of natural disasters, but they are very advantageous places to build in terms of economics. Economics affects our lives every day. Natural disasters affects our lives once every few decades.
Mexico City is built on an ancient lake bed. That makes the ground very flat, which again is economically advantageous when building infrastructure (you can construct it cheaper). That lake bed is also what makes earthquakes there so bad.
The flaw in your argument is this: When Mexico City was founded, other than a small artificial island, it was all hills around a lake. The lake was drained to build the city, rather than building the city on a former lake. Forced labor made it cheap to drain the lake, but today it's very expensive to maintain the infrastructure to keep it drained and to prevent seasonal flooding. The Valley of Mexico is a giant bowl with no natural drainage - if they ever stop maintaining those drains, it'll promptly turn back into a lake.
In the same way, there was no particular economic reason to build Mexico City (it's far inland in an era when trade was based on the coast among other things) - but one overwhelming political reason. It was built on the site of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the most powerful of the conquered nations.
It's probably technically illegal in the US for example, though trading stamps, customer reward points, etc. have resulted in that law not being generally enforced.
It's actually legal. The US Government doesn't care how you conduct your business so long as you can convert it (on paper) to dollar-equivalents and then calculate your taxes based on that and pay them in US Dollars.
When US Air 427 hit the ground at just 300 MPH, its kinetic energy was enough to shred all the metal into pieces smaller than a sheet of paper.
Never mind the fact that the very article you link to has pictures of multiple pieces of significant size.
United 93 hit the ground at 563 MPH, and its kinetic energy fragmented the plane into such small pieces that conspiracy theorists (who can't seem to grasp the notion that solid metal will fragment when presented with no other means of shedding kinetic energy) have gone nuts with theories that no plane actually crashed there.
Never mind the fact that the very article you link to has pictures of pieces of significant size.
Why should we believe you when pictorial evidence indicates that you're making claims that are factually incorrect?
I'm also very happy because I knew private spaceflight was possible when I was younger
Contrary to the Gospel of the Cult Of Elon - Musk did not invent private spaceflight.
Private spaceflight got it's start when the booster builders started selling launches to the owners of privately owned satellites - back in the 1970's. You're only happy because you're a moron who is ignorant of fact and history and have bought into NewSpace's revisionist version.
Can they not move mission control to Florida as a backup?
A 'hot spare' MCC (Mission Control Center) would be extraordinarily expensive to build and maintain for what's actually a fairly rare event. Even a 'cold spare' would be very expensive.
I thought Moscow was already setup to handle the ISS in case something happened to Houston.
I don't believe MCC-M (Mission Control Center - Moscow) can handle any but the most basic functions of the USOS (United States Operating Segment). I know that MCC-M doesn't have full 24/7 comms with the ISS as it relies on Russian communications networks. Lastly, MCC-M isn't staffed to fully support the USOS, all the experts are at MCC-H (Mission Control Center - Houston).
They were probably ready to do so if something did happen to MCC-H... But basically, falling back on MCC-M is a 'Hail Mary' play - something only done in extreme circumstances when no other viable option remains.
Slashdot Mirror
Happily, filtering data to remove the outliers is a long solved problem. This makes pranking the system much more difficult.
Not really no. CSM flights didn't start until late '66.
Not really, no. SLS payload to LEO, 70,000 to 130,000 kg. Falcon Heavy payload to LEO, 63,000 kg. Not to mention that SLS can handle larger diameter payloads.
Not debating that one bit. Just trying to correct your vast ignorance - you're so stupid you can't even get things trivially found via the web (comparative payloads for example) correct.
In other words... Pretty much the same as in the Apollo program itself.
True, but not all that relevant - Dragon is the only lander platform they have.
Yahoo!'s value hasn't been in it's search engine since shortly before the turn of the century. Yahoo's value was as a platform - a huge gaming site, a massive email community, a huge business and stock community, the largest photo sharing/social site, etc... etc... The huge drop in Yahoo!'s valuation had very little to do with Microsoft and more to do with other competitors (notably Facebook) slowly chipping away those value centers while Yahoo! flopped and twitched and let it's business be taken away from it practically without a fight. Activist investors concentrating on short term rises in profit rather than long term management of the business didn't help any.
From TFA: But the National Aeronautics and Space Administration doesnâ(TM)t envision getting astronauts to Mars until at least a decade later, a timeline NASA is finding increasingly hard to defend in the face of criticism that it is too slow.
That criticism largely comes from the legions of ill-educated members of the Cult of Elon. Not that being ill-educated is all that notable in the space fandom community, it's practically a defining characteristic. Another defining characteristic is their credulity and inability to distinguish the gap between plans and power points and actual flying hardware.
Much of the rest of the criticism comes from lazy journalists - bashing NASA or worshipping Musk is great for clicks. A two-fer is manna from heaven.
And there's the folks who don't grasp that NASA isn't an independent organization - it's part of the Executive branch of the US Government. It's only going to go to Mars if it becomes Government policy and Congress and the Administration are behind the concept and fund it.
And on top of all that is Musk's (in)famous overpromising and under or late delivering. He's an optimist, but not always realistic.
While I have no doubt that Musk and SpaceX will eventually get to Mars... There's simply too many technologies and too many mission techniques to master for a mission to be likely in the timeframe he proposes. Yes, they're already building the BFR - but while the booster is the most visible and sexy piece of the system, it's only one piece. (And one that hasn't flown yet.) Notably absent from Musk's discussions, beyond vague hand waving of intent, is any mention of progress on the flight hardware. It'll no doubt be built on a modified Dragon, but that's just the hull, again one part of the overall system.
[Dons flame-retardant suit in preparation for the arrival of legions of cultists.]
The federal government lacks the authority to make such a commitment. And if you actually read the article you linked, and even the text you quoted, no commitment is to be found. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Since they weren't talking about the July deadline... this is relevant, how? He promised delivery of 'x' in September, he failed to fulfill that promise. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Um, no. The plan was to produce 1500 vehicles. He failed to do so. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Or, to put it another way, you're 0 for 3 when it comes to facts.
Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333
Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.
Pretty much anyone who operates a battery facility will care - because practically none will ever be built with 100%+ space margins. Space and square footage cost money to build, and money to maintain.
Well, no. Vanguard-I may still be in orbit, but it's nonfunctional and has been for nearly fifty years. It's operating lifetime was a bare six years.
It's still in orbit not because it was built well, but because it's high enough that atmospheric drag hasn't brought it down (yet). It's low enough that it's orbit will completely decay and it will re-enter in two hundred years or so.
Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder.
Technology isn't a field - it's a buzzword.
Standing security guard on an operation involving [can neither confirm nor deny] during an inspection. One of the inspectors was standing outside the security area next to some pipes that ran along the bulkhead. He put his hand on them and slowly started inching it along them towards the plane defined by the ropes that marked the security area. When his hand was just short of breaking the plane, I took my nightstick out and laid the tip on the pipe just touching his fingertips. He took his hand back, made a note and stepped back. There was a positive comment in the final report "during inspection of the [can neither confirm nor deny] operations the security guards were notably alert and forehanded* in the conduct of their duties".
Then there was time a bomb threat was called away* and I found an "officer" wandering around unescorted. (During security situations we were supposed to pair up.) My partner and I had to forcibly and bodily haul him to the wardroom. (We didn't actually have to take our nightsticks to him, but it was close.) Turned out he was an officer who had just reported aboard and his escort had abandoned him. Got chewed out by the COB for manhandling an officer. Got congratulated by the XO for alert and proper handling of the situation. The escort who bailed went to mast and lost a stripe and half his pay for thirty days. The officer hated me until he learned the truth of how such situations were supposed to be handled. (That is, exactly as I handled it.) When he later became my division officer, he'd frequently bypass the chief (who was an idiot anyhow) and seek out my advice.
Also got chewed out by the COB for taking charge at the scene of a another security drill... He'd wanted to see how the guy sitting next to me would react. I just told him piss off, I was there and trained specifically to handle that situation and the guy next to me wasn't. If he wanted to see how guys with less specific training would react he shouldn't have done what he did in front of a guy who was. Not my fault he wasn't paying attention.
* Navy speak for what we now call "being proactive".
** It was a drill, but we didn't know that and anyhow regulations required us to treat all drills as real unless informed otherwise.
Unfortunately that articles leaves out the changes to US tax policy that lead to the current conditions. It also leaves out the influence of the protectionist Jones Act, which considerably increases the cost of living on the island.
That's easy to explain - Musk always overpromises and delivers late. But he's practically bulletproof and never held to account for this behavior, at least by his cultists and PR machine. (He's had problems financing the Model 3 though, the financial world is starting to catch on.)
I haven't heard of a site of any significance being slashdotted in well over a decade. Part of that is the 'net in general being much more robust than it was back around the turn of the century when slashdotting was common. Part of is that, well... to be frank, Slashdot is all but irrelevant anymore.
The flaw in your argument is this: When Mexico City was founded, other than a small artificial island, it was all hills around a lake. The lake was drained to build the city, rather than building the city on a former lake. Forced labor made it cheap to drain the lake, but today it's very expensive to maintain the infrastructure to keep it drained and to prevent seasonal flooding. The Valley of Mexico is a giant bowl with no natural drainage - if they ever stop maintaining those drains, it'll promptly turn back into a lake.
In the same way, there was no particular economic reason to build Mexico City (it's far inland in an era when trade was based on the coast among other things) - but one overwhelming political reason. It was built on the site of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the most powerful of the conquered nations.
It's actually legal. The US Government doesn't care how you conduct your business so long as you can convert it (on paper) to dollar-equivalents and then calculate your taxes based on that and pay them in US Dollars.
Never mind the fact that the very article you link to has pictures of multiple pieces of significant size.
Never mind the fact that the very article you link to has pictures of pieces of significant size.
Why should we believe you when pictorial evidence indicates that you're making claims that are factually incorrect?
And they did so because Gamergate had demonstrated that Slashdot was warmly welcoming of right wing and/or self entitled trolls.
o.0
No, I'm comparing apples to apples and working from the facts rather than "fake news". But then, I'm not a clueless idiot.
Contrary to the Gospel of the Cult Of Elon - Musk did not invent private spaceflight.
Private spaceflight got it's start when the booster builders started selling launches to the owners of privately owned satellites - back in the 1970's. You're only happy because you're a moron who is ignorant of fact and history and have bought into NewSpace's revisionist version.
A 'hot spare' MCC (Mission Control Center) would be extraordinarily expensive to build and maintain for what's actually a fairly rare event. Even a 'cold spare' would be very expensive.
AIUI...
I don't believe MCC-M (Mission Control Center - Moscow) can handle any but the most basic functions of the USOS (United States Operating Segment). I know that MCC-M doesn't have full 24/7 comms with the ISS as it relies on Russian communications networks. Lastly, MCC-M isn't staffed to fully support the USOS, all the experts are at MCC-H (Mission Control Center - Houston).
They were probably ready to do so if something did happen to MCC-H... But basically, falling back on MCC-M is a 'Hail Mary' play - something only done in extreme circumstances when no other viable option remains.
Do you have a cite that isn't from a right wing nut job site?
11.3 million is most of the subsidies? Hardly, the US pays out in the billions per annum - 11.3 million isn't even a rounding error.
They aren't? The way the term "engineer" is mis-used nowadays, it's hard to tell.